Around The Sphere Blogging Roundup October 29, 2007
October 29th, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Our link-fest offering readers links to blog posts from websites of many different viewpoints. Linked posts do NOT necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.
INVESTIGATIVE ORIGINAL BLOG REPORTING ON JAMES DOBSON comes via TMV co-blogger Shaun Mullen on his own excellent site, Kiko’s House. This post is a MUST READ because a) of the content b) it is the epitome of how weblogs can allow an individual to do actual serious reporting and not have to give it to an editor (or publisher). It’s the kind of report you’d see in a magazine.
The piece’s title is “Why Is Gay Hating James Dobson Still Licensed As a Therapist in Colorado?” Here are three brief excerpts. The provocative lead:
The Reverend James Dobson, full to overflowing with the ego-tripping insouciance of a man of the cloth who is doing God’s bidding, is used to getting his way. And being downright un-Christian when it comes to gays.
And a sample of some of the info:
Despite being totally out of step with his own profession regarding homosexuality, Dobson remains a licensed marriage and family therapist in Colorado.
Two former members of that state’s Board of Marriage and Family Therapists, speaking anonymously, said that Dobson’s dual role is improper and demeans the profession, but the board’s hands are tied because of a waiver in state law.
“He can’t have it both ways,” said one of the former board members of Dobson’s dual role as a gay-bashing preacher who claims he can cure homosexuality and a licensed therapist. “Is he dealing with someone as a therapist or as a minister? There has to be a distinction.”
[Further down]…The former board members said that the board has received several grievances against Dobson over the years.
Read it in its entirety. It is sure to spark debate due to its content And it’s also an example of how blogging can use original reporting to make blog posts more than extended op-ed pieces.
EVANGELICALS AND THE 2008: So what’s going on? CLICK HERE.
FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER ISN’T BIG B.O. in the sense of “box office,” that is. A new documentary about the former President has proven as popular with moviegoers as his presidency was with voters. Here are the details.
THE CONTROVERSIAL DAVID HOROWITZ WAS HECKLED OFF THE STAGE AT EMORY UNIVERSITY but the college’s Muslim community opposed interfering with him and defended his right to free speech.
It’s Salon’s Glenn Greenwald Against General Petraeus’ Spokesman in a very fiery email exchange with a lot of weblogs jumping in. Here’s the intro:
I received this morning an unsolicited email from Col. Steven A. Boylan, the Public Affairs Officer and personal spokesman for Gen. David G. Petraeus (see UPDATE III below). The subject line of the email — which I am publishing in full, unedited form here — is “The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs,” which is the title of the post I wrote earlier this week regarding the politicization of the Army in Iraq, as evidenced by its constant coordination with, and leaking to, the likes of Matt Drudge, The Weekly Standard, and the most extremist right-wing blogs — in the TNR/Beauchamp case and also more generally.
I had a prior e-mail exchange with Col. Boylan several months ago when I requested an interview with Gen. Petraeus after he had granted an exclusive interview to far-right partisan Hugh Hewitt (author of the 2006 prescient tract: Painting the Map Red: The Fight to Create a Permanent Republican Majority). In terms of whether the U.S. Army under Petraeus and Boylan is, in fact, becoming a political actor, I’ll let multiple passages from Boylan’s email to me this morning speak for itself:
Read the whole post and make up your own mind on this issue.
The issue of posting what were meant as private emails is a prickly one. It’s considered a no-no in most cases, even though some blogs run notes about anything emailed being subject to being published. About two years ago, TMV was under fire from a blog and I wrote a very angry response and included some emails from a blogger. A top blogger happened to see it a minute after it went on the site and he immediately called me and asked: “Do you REALLY want to do that? That does not sound like you.” He explained that posting emails — especially when you’re angry — is not wise. I realized it was wrong ethically and I was in fact using my site to personally vent anger rather than presenting readers with info or commentary.
In this case, Greenwald argues that running the emails is OK since since he is dealing with a news source (or an associate of one) and due to some other issues (outlined in his post). If the email wasn’t stipulated as private, coming from a news source, the case could be made as he makes that it is publishable. Greenwald also raises several other bigger issues such as whether officialdom selectively leaks and cooperates with Internet sites that it feels will just take its stuff and run it without facing challenging questioning — or just leak to people on its political side (which is can of worms since the military is not supposed to be partisan). YOU DECIDE…
AND TO HELP YOU HERE ARE A FEW OTHER MUST-READ PERSPECTIVES here, here, here, here and here and of course the always-comprehensive memeorandum has a ton.
SOME PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THEIR POLITICAL PARTY...the Libertarian Party.
HAS THE GOP RACE BOILED DOWN NOW TO McCAIN OR GIULIANI? Some think so.
THESE DAYS IF CALIFORNIANS DON’T LOSE THEIR HOMES IN FIRES THEY CAN LOSE THEM IN FORECLOSURES as the state is becoming “Foreclosure City.”
POPULAR ELECTION OF JUDGES: Is it a good idea or is there a better way?
This entry was posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007 at 12:10 am and is filed under Around The Sphere, Blogging. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
October 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Shaun’s article about Dobson was excellent on many levels. It’s important to understand Dobsin’s particular role in American life and politics, but it made me realize that his sphere of influence is but one example of how our society functions
It’s almost as if people had no trust in their own judgment and are driven to follow an abstract idea or a leader with unquestioning devotion. The Ron Paul craze, like the myth of the infallibilty of Reagan or the myth of Bill Clinton’s limitless intelligence is either rejected or swallowd whole hog.
We are all waiting for the second coming in one form or another, because we all think that some one person or some one idea can bring about the perfection of heaven on earth.
Dobson uses that longing for a fairy tale ending. He points out the enemies, like homosexuals, that stand in the way of paradise. He’s not alone in using the technique, and Dobson’s follower’s are not alone in failing to notice that their hero has warts.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:45 am
I have to ask regarding the Greenwald story.
How exactly was Jules’ non-response a must read perspective?
Was it his total avoidance of the issue at hand while screaming “Sock Puppet!” at the top of his lungs?
October 29th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Tom Tancredo (R) won’t be seeking re-election.
October 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I’ve read Shaun Mullen’s post on James Dobson, and was less-than impressed. Here’s why:
1. It uses unnecessarily incendiary language. The post title uses the term “gay hating James Dobson.” Yes, Dobson is opposed to the practice of homosexuality. However, he represents the historic consensus (as opposed to the revisionist view) of Christianity, namely, that God loves everyone too much to abandon them to practices that ultimately are destructive both individually and societally. This includes many practices — drunkenness, theft, abuse of all types, and sins both heterosexual and homosexual. If it seems like Christian leaders “harp” on the gay issue too much, it should be viewed at least in-part as a response to the activism that has been shown by those who are pushing the envelope judicially and legislatively in various states, attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage. If this traditionalist view shared by millions of Americans is “hate,” then the word itself has become meaningless. To throw it out there, particularly in the title of the post, is nothing more than a smokescreen designed to obfuscate the issue. Shaun knows how to do better than that, as other posts on TMV have proven.
2. Mullen’s article inaccurately uses the term “reverend” and “minister.” — There was a time in our nation’s history when these were terms of respect, and in some parts of the world - African and Asia, notably - great deference is still given to church officials. Apparently Mullen thinks that “Reverend” is a negative title, because he employs it (and “minister”) repeatedly. This is curious, since Dr. Dobson has never been ordained by any church group, and has never claimed to be. This is no small point, as any ordained minister can tell you. Ordination is a rigourous process in many denominations, requiring several years of full-time service, and often - such as in the United Methodist Church, for instance - a Master’s Degree from an accredited seminary. Mentoring programs are frequent, and many ministers go through clinical pastoral education at hospitals. The ministry is one of the helping professions. Mullen’s response to this concern, posted by me anonymously on his blog, was (in so many words) that it doesn’t really matter whether he’s an ordained minister, he’s a minister. But is it fair to set up this straw man? Dobson doesn’t claim the title, so why should it be pinned on him? The title he does use - and legitimately has for three decades - is Dr. Dobson, a reference to his Ph.D. But where does the title “Doctor” appear anywhere in Shaun’s post? In the context of the blog post, it would seem that by inventing the title “Reverened” for Dr. Dobson, he just wants to make it guilt by association, since he mentions the Revs. Robertson and Falwell. If this is “reporting” as Joe Gandleman wants to dignify it as being, then at very least it’s sloppy reporting. What’s more, it’s a discredit to those who are ordained ministers. Also, it causes me to question the accuracy of other points in the post. Get the title right. On many issues, I don’t care for Senator Clinton, but I use her title correctly. Shaun can do the same for those with whom he disagrees, right?
3. Mullen understates Dobson’s credentials. The very reason he became a trusted voice on family issues is because of his credentials, namely, a Ph.D. in clinical psychology and fourteen years of practice on the faculty of the USC medical school. His dissertation was in the area of child development. Maybe - just maybe - this might mean he could have something to say on an issue, i.e. homosexuality, that some have categorized as a developmental disorder? Now, if you want to criticize him, do so on his own turf. Quote some Ph.D.’s who give specific details of how (perhaps) Dobson has not kept up with the literature, etc., if (indeed) that is a valid criticism. I’ve read a good number of his books on child development, such as Dare to Discipline and The Strong-Willed Child. Though popularly written, they do cite studies that were popular at the time. If Dobson’s professional colleagues want to attack so-called “reparative therapy” (that teaches that sexual orientation can be changed), then do so on the basis of longitudinal and clinical studies. If those studies are out there - and I haven’t researched to see if they are - then at least Mullen can allude to them, and provide a link. No such links are contained in his post, just a few quotes from psychologists who don’t like Dobson’s ideas. How about a quote or two on the other side of the issue? Just throwing in a “he didn’t return our calls” comment hardly seems thorough. Was there anyone else on his side of the issue that he tried to speak to?
The strongest part of Shaun’s article is his acknowledgment that Dobson has become a force to be reckoned with inside the GOP. In my opinion - as I told Shaun on a thread over on his blog - Dobson has become overreaching in his politicking and too rigid. There are candidates out there - Mike Huckabee, notably - who line up almost exactly with what Dobson teaches, yet Dobson is silent. he refuses to endore him. Why not? Huckabee even denies evolution (which I don’t, BTW), just like Dobson does, yet again, Dobson has offered no endorsement. Perhaps Huckabee is his “own man” and won’t let Dobson pull his strings like a puppet? Who knows? This is just conjecture. No there’s a story waiting to be told. Go after that one, Shaun. It would make for a better post than a lot of the recycled bile that comes through in your latest one.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Please read our comments policy. You can disagree on issues but please refrain from personal comments about writers. Everyone here gives their best take on issues. Please re-read the policy below and use that as a guideline on comments as most do.
October 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
One additional thought. If you took the comment about above Shaun Mullen’s post and cut out all the personal stuff, you’d have a much stronger counter argument. More people would read it and discuss it. My humble advice is to simply start anew: there can be lambasting without personal blasting.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:36 am
Joe -
Your recommendation was that good journalism was being done by a blogger. On three counts, I called into question that conclusion. I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack on you or Mr. Mullen.
For sake of brevity, my argument may be summarized as follows:
1. Get details correct. Dr. Dobson is a Ph.D. psychologist, not an ordained minister. This is a common mistake made by journalists when writing about Dobson. A newspaper publishes a correction, and Mr. Mullen did acknowledge in the thread on his blog that he had made this error. Still, the correction gets tucked away in the thread, and the article still reads erroneously. I’m not sure what protocol is for a blog, but perhaps the use of the common “update” line at the end of the post, including the correction, would be well-advised?
2. Avoid incendiary language. In several places, this appears in Mr. Mullen’s post, including the use of the the unflattering term “hydra” to describe Focus on the Family. What’s wrong with the neutral “multi-faceted”? It carries the same meaning, without the pejorative connotation. And the use of the term “hate” has a tendency to cut off all rational discussion. Including it in the headline is unfortunate. As for my post, I retract the term “recycled bile,” which is also incendiary.
3. Provide experts on both sides of an issue. Mr. Mullen’s post fails this basic tenet of journalism. Maybe I’ve missed something in my reading of his post? Please correct me if I’m wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time!
More than any other issue, this one seems to bring out strong feelings. What Dobson and others are promoting is not hate, but recovery. It would seem that such a message is not longer welcome in the marketplace of ideas. For that, we are all poorer.
October 30th, 2007 at 9:41 am
The principle that journalists need permission to publish e-mails sent to them seems shaky to me. Where does that concept come from? Why would people assume that it’s a general rule of the blogosphere? It seems more like one of those issues on which people will take a range of positions, and perhaps someday a consensus will emerge. I think a fair principle would be, however, that any public figure sending e-mail to bloggers should assume that the bloggers may well report on the exchange — including quoting exactly — unless the e-mail begins with the note “Off the record.”