On July 6th 2012, the Chronicle Telegram posted a photo from photographer Bruce Bishop with regards to Obama's most recent trip to northeast Ohio. If you haven't seen the photo here it is:
As I am writing this the facebook post had gotten up to 828 total comments from followers of the page. This was an astounding number of responses to what is clearly a very controversial photo. The comments ranged from outrage to a complete positive response. The comments were toward the gentlemen in the photo as well as towards the photographer and the Chronicle itself. Many folks claimed it was "disrespectful" of the office in which Obama occupies and that it was in poor taste. Some have also claimed it was irresponsible and/or inappropriate for the Chronicle to post such a photo on it's facebook page. While I can understand what some folks are saying regarding these arguments, I will demonstrate why they are not valid in reality and do not "mesh" with the "Bill of Rights."
First and foremost, this is an exercise in "freedom of speech" and expression. This, above all, must be protected. What one deems as "reasonable" freedom of speech, another may deem as "outrageous." This is why no-matter-what an individual is doing or saying in protest, as long as it's not harming others it must be protected to ultimately protect all our rights as citizens. It must also be pointed out that the gentlemen in the photo is neither a "fan" of the Democrat or Republican party and is not exhibiting a political bias either way. While I don't know the man's personal motivation for such an act, it may very well be a symbolic act toward the politics and questionable behavior that is happening in Washington today. For me, personally as a constitutionalist and supporter of the Bill of Rights, I can understand and relate to the frustration with the "dog and pony" show that is rolled-out to the American people everyday from the government to the media outlets across America. This is most certainly how many folks feel today about Washington and the people who occupy these positions such as the president. This is also the reason why, coupled with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I support the Chronicle's decision to post this on their page.
Today, the media is typically consumed with showing either a conservative bias or a liberal bias in these issues. In this case, they like to show the pro-Obama folks and the anti-Obama folks. They like to give you visuals of supporters and non-supporters, but do so in a "prism" of left vs. right. They like to show you everything based on politics that is spoon-fed to the masses with regards to issues, morals, and ways to run government. All too often is left out the totally disgruntled folks who have a position of "no confidence" in the system itself. They feel betrayed by a government that is monopolized by two political parties that have more in common with wall street, big corporations, big foundations, big agendas, and policy-making groups than with the common person. Many see the government as engaging in unconstitutional, immoral, or even criminal behavior. Many of those folks can provide very valid points for these claims as well. It's these folks that are typically deemed "outcasts" with regards to politics as the public is typically conditioned to ignore this possibility. It's refreshing to see folks like these get their exposure. This exposure, however, came with a major backlash from many people.
The motivation for this backlash typically comes from two groups. The first is the folks that are vested either in Obama (pro or con) or the political parties and the politics that go with it. The other group is the people that hold a certain level of "nationalism" and see the office as "sacred ground" to not be offended and held in some solemn level of respect. The first group has a political bias that more often-than-not will be relative to what they see as appropriate and typically comes into play. Their levels of "censorship" tend to change depending on if their "guy" is the target of the controversy. The second group, while I do understand their motivation, do not understand the position for which they are deeming "sacred." The president, like the folks in congress are "public servants" and are elected to hold positions to represent "we the people." They are not our bosses, our parents, our elders, and certainly not our kings and queens. They are elected to do the "bidding" of the American people and represent our interests. Harsh criticism of our public officials is a healthy exercise in maintaining this relationship and a reminder to them of who works for who. I personally believe that today's disconnect between the common folks and these folks in Washington has prompted this type of "disrespect." Many folks feel the "disrespect" was started in Washington and not at Washington. It must also be pointed out that folks criticisms of this photo is also protected and must also be allowed to "stand" even when some of them are also engaging in what some would see as inappropriate commentary.
The folks that are "wrong" on this issue are the ones that call for "censorship" of this photo or demand that it be taken down. They do this based on their biased interpretation of what they see as "crossing the line" of free speech. They label it as "offensive" or "inappropriate" to be viewed in a media source. The problem with the reasoning is that others may find other stories or photos inappropriate based on their personal beliefs or threshold of tolerance. Should everyone that makes this personal "call" be given what they want? Obviously if we really value freedom of speech and freedom of the press, we can't do this based on what one deems appropriate.
If folks insist that it's inappropriate for a media outlet like the Chronicle to post a photo of this nature, they need to look no further than a week or so ago when hundreds of media outlets and publications showed this photo from a gay pride reception at the White House:
While some would also find this equally offensive, others would let their personal bias make a different judgement. For this reason, the folks in both these photos as well as the photographers and media outlets have "protected rights" to show this and regardless of any one's opinion of appropriateness, it's actually very American to do so.
foggy lighthouse art
black swamp art
swamp water art
wetland marsh art
terminal tower prints
cleveland prints
pictured rocks prints
hocking hills prints
hocking hills photos
red tulip canvas prints
As I am writing this the facebook post had gotten up to 828 total comments from followers of the page. This was an astounding number of responses to what is clearly a very controversial photo. The comments ranged from outrage to a complete positive response. The comments were toward the gentlemen in the photo as well as towards the photographer and the Chronicle itself. Many folks claimed it was "disrespectful" of the office in which Obama occupies and that it was in poor taste. Some have also claimed it was irresponsible and/or inappropriate for the Chronicle to post such a photo on it's facebook page. While I can understand what some folks are saying regarding these arguments, I will demonstrate why they are not valid in reality and do not "mesh" with the "Bill of Rights."
First and foremost, this is an exercise in "freedom of speech" and expression. This, above all, must be protected. What one deems as "reasonable" freedom of speech, another may deem as "outrageous." This is why no-matter-what an individual is doing or saying in protest, as long as it's not harming others it must be protected to ultimately protect all our rights as citizens. It must also be pointed out that the gentlemen in the photo is neither a "fan" of the Democrat or Republican party and is not exhibiting a political bias either way. While I don't know the man's personal motivation for such an act, it may very well be a symbolic act toward the politics and questionable behavior that is happening in Washington today. For me, personally as a constitutionalist and supporter of the Bill of Rights, I can understand and relate to the frustration with the "dog and pony" show that is rolled-out to the American people everyday from the government to the media outlets across America. This is most certainly how many folks feel today about Washington and the people who occupy these positions such as the president. This is also the reason why, coupled with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I support the Chronicle's decision to post this on their page.
Today, the media is typically consumed with showing either a conservative bias or a liberal bias in these issues. In this case, they like to show the pro-Obama folks and the anti-Obama folks. They like to give you visuals of supporters and non-supporters, but do so in a "prism" of left vs. right. They like to show you everything based on politics that is spoon-fed to the masses with regards to issues, morals, and ways to run government. All too often is left out the totally disgruntled folks who have a position of "no confidence" in the system itself. They feel betrayed by a government that is monopolized by two political parties that have more in common with wall street, big corporations, big foundations, big agendas, and policy-making groups than with the common person. Many see the government as engaging in unconstitutional, immoral, or even criminal behavior. Many of those folks can provide very valid points for these claims as well. It's these folks that are typically deemed "outcasts" with regards to politics as the public is typically conditioned to ignore this possibility. It's refreshing to see folks like these get their exposure. This exposure, however, came with a major backlash from many people.
The motivation for this backlash typically comes from two groups. The first is the folks that are vested either in Obama (pro or con) or the political parties and the politics that go with it. The other group is the people that hold a certain level of "nationalism" and see the office as "sacred ground" to not be offended and held in some solemn level of respect. The first group has a political bias that more often-than-not will be relative to what they see as appropriate and typically comes into play. Their levels of "censorship" tend to change depending on if their "guy" is the target of the controversy. The second group, while I do understand their motivation, do not understand the position for which they are deeming "sacred." The president, like the folks in congress are "public servants" and are elected to hold positions to represent "we the people." They are not our bosses, our parents, our elders, and certainly not our kings and queens. They are elected to do the "bidding" of the American people and represent our interests. Harsh criticism of our public officials is a healthy exercise in maintaining this relationship and a reminder to them of who works for who. I personally believe that today's disconnect between the common folks and these folks in Washington has prompted this type of "disrespect." Many folks feel the "disrespect" was started in Washington and not at Washington. It must also be pointed out that folks criticisms of this photo is also protected and must also be allowed to "stand" even when some of them are also engaging in what some would see as inappropriate commentary.
The folks that are "wrong" on this issue are the ones that call for "censorship" of this photo or demand that it be taken down. They do this based on their biased interpretation of what they see as "crossing the line" of free speech. They label it as "offensive" or "inappropriate" to be viewed in a media source. The problem with the reasoning is that others may find other stories or photos inappropriate based on their personal beliefs or threshold of tolerance. Should everyone that makes this personal "call" be given what they want? Obviously if we really value freedom of speech and freedom of the press, we can't do this based on what one deems appropriate.
If folks insist that it's inappropriate for a media outlet like the Chronicle to post a photo of this nature, they need to look no further than a week or so ago when hundreds of media outlets and publications showed this photo from a gay pride reception at the White House:
While some would also find this equally offensive, others would let their personal bias make a different judgement. For this reason, the folks in both these photos as well as the photographers and media outlets have "protected rights" to show this and regardless of any one's opinion of appropriateness, it's actually very American to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment