drcnet echo chamber
al giordano responds
al giordano comments on the recent
drcnet entry both in an email to me and in the narcosphere, my fave drug reform
forum, and he does so in pure al stylee, breaking it down so i don't have to! as
always i am working the rodney king angle and hoping that we can get some
clarity out of the whole thing. i know that stirring up mud makes for difficult
visuals, but sometimes it does help to do some dredging, if only to add a bit of
depth to the situation. that written, here's
al...
Hi Charles,
I read with interest your entry this week on The Sky Is a Landfill (¡Viva
Jeff Buckley!) and I sure do appreciate the way and the spirit with which
you shed light on important ethical questions that would otherwise remain
in the dark. You've got style.
I wanted to first let your readers know that I've posted a link and some
comments over on The Narcosphere in response to the emails you've
published:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/3/17/05225/6919#1
Subsequently, I remembered an important point that appeared on your blog
last month, that just by reminding of it we can shed more light.
It appears here:
http://homepage.mac.com/chasbaudelaire/iblog/B1541229392/C926747784/E1299390464/index.html
On February 22nd, Mr. Borden of DRCNet wrote to you:
"I've known and have been dealing with Al Giordano for a long time... I
consider him dangerous... no, I don't consider it possible that he is
attempting to engage us in a conversation about journalistic ethics...
There is no good that can come from any dialogue we could have with him...
I just want to forget he exists..."
Now, three weeks later he says:
"Al Giordano publicly attacks us for it, does not write us about it, and
the first we hear about his complaint is from you. Do you think this is
the way things should be done in a movement where we are all trying to
change the same policies and laws -- or ever, for that matter?"
As I pointed out over on The Narcosphere today, you broke this story
Charles: this is the first time it has appeared on the Internet, and Mr.
Borden is clearly shooting from a paranoid hip in fantasizing that I
"publicly attacked him for it." As you know, I did not.
But the interesting point here is he seems to want it both ways.
On one day he says "I just want to forget he exists" and that he doesn't
"consider it possible" to "engage" in a "conversation about journalistic
ethics" with me.
On another day, he complains, now, because he doesn't hear from me.
(Particularly funny because last year he claimed he had blocked all my
email accounts from reaching his mailbox. If so, how could he know whether
I wrote him or not?) And he gets all snippy with you demanding that you
ask me questions about an "attack" that never happened anywhere except in
his fantasy life.
I think you handled that like a pro, kindly asking him for specifics.
His changing position is a good example of what is called "situational
ethics" in which one's ethics change according to circumstances, and
always in a self-serving way. When he thinks it benefits him to stonewall,
he says dialogue isn't possible. But when the stone wall breaks, and he's
standing naked under the sunlight in the mess he made for himself, he
protests about the lack of dialogue, a dialogue that he, and he alone,
shut down.
There is nothing so self-defeating as situational ethics. Because he's
standing there insisting that he has ethics, but in just three weeks has
changed his definition of what those ethics are. That's what makes him so
ineffective makes mincemeat of his claims to be allied with me or anyone.
He's completely useless in my or anybody's foxhole because he continually
undercuts his own believability with his ever-shifting claims. Either he
wants to hear from us or he doesn't. He can shut down a discussion and
then credibly complain that there is no discussion. See my point?
Anyway, thanks for standing up for the gruntworkers, the journalists, and
translators who do all the heavy lifting... this has been another great
chapter in the importance of the "self-correcting blogosphere."
best,
Al Giordano
Hi Charles,
I read with interest your entry this week on The Sky Is a Landfill (¡Viva
Jeff Buckley!) and I sure do appreciate the way and the spirit with which
you shed light on important ethical questions that would otherwise remain
in the dark. You've got style.
I wanted to first let your readers know that I've posted a link and some
comments over on The Narcosphere in response to the emails you've
published:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/story/2004/3/17/05225/6919#1
Subsequently, I remembered an important point that appeared on your blog
last month, that just by reminding of it we can shed more light.
It appears here:
http://homepage.mac.com/chasbaudelaire/iblog/B1541229392/C926747784/E1299390464/index.html
On February 22nd, Mr. Borden of DRCNet wrote to you:
"I've known and have been dealing with Al Giordano for a long time... I
consider him dangerous... no, I don't consider it possible that he is
attempting to engage us in a conversation about journalistic ethics...
There is no good that can come from any dialogue we could have with him...
I just want to forget he exists..."
Now, three weeks later he says:
"Al Giordano publicly attacks us for it, does not write us about it, and
the first we hear about his complaint is from you. Do you think this is
the way things should be done in a movement where we are all trying to
change the same policies and laws -- or ever, for that matter?"
As I pointed out over on The Narcosphere today, you broke this story
Charles: this is the first time it has appeared on the Internet, and Mr.
Borden is clearly shooting from a paranoid hip in fantasizing that I
"publicly attacked him for it." As you know, I did not.
But the interesting point here is he seems to want it both ways.
On one day he says "I just want to forget he exists" and that he doesn't
"consider it possible" to "engage" in a "conversation about journalistic
ethics" with me.
On another day, he complains, now, because he doesn't hear from me.
(Particularly funny because last year he claimed he had blocked all my
email accounts from reaching his mailbox. If so, how could he know whether
I wrote him or not?) And he gets all snippy with you demanding that you
ask me questions about an "attack" that never happened anywhere except in
his fantasy life.
I think you handled that like a pro, kindly asking him for specifics.
His changing position is a good example of what is called "situational
ethics" in which one's ethics change according to circumstances, and
always in a self-serving way. When he thinks it benefits him to stonewall,
he says dialogue isn't possible. But when the stone wall breaks, and he's
standing naked under the sunlight in the mess he made for himself, he
protests about the lack of dialogue, a dialogue that he, and he alone,
shut down.
There is nothing so self-defeating as situational ethics. Because he's
standing there insisting that he has ethics, but in just three weeks has
changed his definition of what those ethics are. That's what makes him so
ineffective makes mincemeat of his claims to be allied with me or anyone.
He's completely useless in my or anybody's foxhole because he continually
undercuts his own believability with his ever-shifting claims. Either he
wants to hear from us or he doesn't. He can shut down a discussion and
then credibly complain that there is no discussion. See my point?
Anyway, thanks for standing up for the gruntworkers, the journalists, and
translators who do all the heavy lifting... this has been another great
chapter in the importance of the "self-correcting blogosphere."
best,
Al Giordano
Posted: Wed - March 17, 2004 at 01:02 PM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
hungry?
fave sites
webring
Comments powered by
Counters
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 13, 2005 01:25 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 13, 2005 01:25 PM