I think I'd raised my hand and try to ask him a question as I walking out of there.

I agree, If I would have left I would have tried to ask a question first.

 

He misrepresented what the speech was about, he was invited to give the speech on the topic of anti bullying so he should have let it as that. My question is, where were the people in charge of this event? Who was in charge of the microphone? Was he allowed to continue? If so, Why?

 

You don't get people to understand your cause by what he did, you don't go trashing their believes or whatever Holy book they read, you get to them through their hearts. The only way I would see this as being okay is if after he ranted that he said something like "See? Now you know how it feels like to be bullied! Come on back in, it was just a demonstration".

 

I don't like him lumping all Christians together, Yes, many use the Bible as an excuse to do terrible things to others, but it doesn't mean all people are that way.

 

But, I also agree with Clyde, some of these teens need to pick another profession, what are they going to do when they are interviewing people and they do not like the responses? Will they walk away and not do the job they were sent to do? Sure hate to see them when their articles get criticized, everything in the news gets criticized these days, Some of these kids won't make it in this profession, they need to move on.

I agree, If I would have left I would have tried to ask a question first.

 

He misrepresented what the speech was about, he was invited to give the speech on the topic of anti bullying so he should have let it as that. My question is, where were the people in charge of this event? Who was in charge of the microphone? Was he allowed to continue? If so, Why?

 

You don't get people to understand your cause by what he did, you don't go trashing their believes or whatever Holy book they read, you get to them through their hearts. The only way I would see this as being okay is if after he ranted that he said something like "See? Now you know how it feels like to be bullied! Come on back in, it was just a demonstration".

 

I don't like him lumping all Christians together, Yes, many use the Bible as an excuse to do terrible things to others, but it doesn't mean all people are that way.

 

But, I also agree with Clyde, some of these teens need to pick another profession, what are they going to do when they are interviewing people and they do not like the responses? Will they walk away and not do the job they were sent to do? Sure hate to see them when their articles get criticized, everything in the news gets criticized these days, Some of these kids won't make it in this profession, they need to move on.

 

I feel safe in saying none of them could handle me as an editor, if they can't handle criticism that hits close to home.

 

Over all of this, I'm wondering what the titled occasion for this conference was, and why a "journalist" such as Savage was brought in. Unless the goal was to do a "don't be like this guy" sort of thing.

 

To those who are whining about "free and open debate" and the speaker "insulting their beliefs," I would ask this: When have you ever been to a speaker-type situation where it was a free-for-all open forum? Never? Thought so. You can't bring a semi-famous person in for a speech then tell him/her it's going to be an open dialogue, as they'll say no, immediately, knowing that such an environment would quickly devolve into something wholly unmanageable, not terribly unlike a combination of Hannity and Springer.

 

For you easily-offended conservatives who can't have their religion or any other deeply-held core belief challenged, George Will wouldn't do a free-for-all open forum either, I promise, as I've sat in on a speech with him and it was, oh, exactly the same way, with the speaker doing his harangue followed by a short Q&A at the end. Were this a panel-type discussion, it would be very different. But it sounds like Savage was a keynote-type, and those types usually are paid for. You don't pay somebody an appearance fee only to allow the yayhoos in the crowd to drown him/her out in some free-for-all open forum.

For you easily-offended conservatives who can't have their religion or any other deeply-held core belief challenged

 

So labeling specific teenagers as "pansy assed" when you're a primary spokesperson against bullying is now classified as having beliefs challenged?

So labeling specific teenagers as "pansy assed" when you're a primary spokesperson against bullying is now classified as having beliefs challenged?

 

From the objections I read earlier, they were more to the point of it being unacceptable to have their views challenged, not necessarily being insulted.

I feel safe in saying none of them could handle me as an editor, if they can't handle criticism that hits close to home.

 

Over all of this, I'm wondering what the titled occasion for this conference was, and why a "journalist" such as Savage was brought in. Unless the goal was to do a "don't be like this guy" sort of thing.

 

To those who are whining about "free and open debate" and the speaker "insulting their beliefs," I would ask this: When have you ever been to a speaker-type situation where it was a free-for-all open forum? Never? Thought so. You can't bring a semi-famous person in for a speech then tell him/her it's going to be an open dialogue, as they'll say no, immediately, knowing that such an environment would quickly devolve into something wholly unmanageable, not terribly unlike a combination of Hannity and Springer.

 

For you easily-offended conservatives who can't have their religion or any other deeply-held core belief challenged, George Will wouldn't do a free-for-all open forum either, I promise, as I've sat in on a speech with him and it was, oh, exactly the same way, with the speaker doing his harangue followed by a short Q&A at the end. Were this a panel-type discussion, it would be very different. But it sounds like Savage was a keynote-type, and those types usually are paid for. You don't pay somebody an appearance fee only to allow the yayhoos in the crowd to drown him/her out in some free-for-all open forum.

 

Jim, you make my point. There are people with deeply held religious beliefs who I believe were truly insulted by his words. Since they had no means to openly challenge the speaker, I am ok with them having the courage to stand up and leave, thus making the only statement they could.

 

As to whether or not they should become journalists, I sure think they would fit in with today's so called national journalists. How often can we watch a report or interview and know the reporter's true feelings? How often can we read something in print and know the author's biases? True journalists are a dying breed on both the national and local level.

Jim, you make my point. There are people with deeply held religious beliefs who I believe were truly insulted by his words. Since they had no means to openly challenge the speaker, I am ok with them having the courage to stand up and leave, thus making the only statement they could.

 

But they did. They could have taken it up with him in the Q&A rather than just huffing and puffing about hearing something they don't like. Again, I say, if these are aspiring journalists, they need to reassess their career goals.

 

As to whether or not they should become journalists, I sure think they would fit in with today's so called national journalists. How often can we watch a report or interview and know the reporter's true feelings? How often can we read something in print and know the author's biases? True journalists are a dying breed on both the national and local level.

 

For one thing, the journalist's preconceived biases -- if they are doing their job properly -- should be immaterial. Obviously, that's not always the case. But it's not a problem as much as you right-wing true believers think, either. It's, as usual, somewhere in the middle.

But they did. They could have taken it up with him in the Q&A rather than just huffing and puffing about hearing something they don't like. Again, I say, if these are aspiring journalists, they need to reassess their career goals.

 

 

 

For one thing, the journalist's preconceived biases -- if they are doing their job properly -- should be immaterial. Obviously, that's not always the case. But it's not a problem as much as you right-wing true believers think, either. It's, as usual, somewhere in the middle.

 

I have no doubt that 75% of the time I could tell you a journalists bias by reading or listening to him or her. It is right in their article or report that often.

 

 

Jim, it's interesting that you would go right with the insults instead of attempting to sustain a coherent debate. Too bad. Thanks for playing.

From the objections I read earlier, they were more to the point of it being unacceptable to have their views challenged, not necessarily being insulted.

 

For me, it was more about the name-calling courtesy the anti-bullying guy.

 

I'm not opposed to having my views challenged at all. It helps me to sharpen myself & evaluate why I believe what I believe. Personally, I don't think Mr. Savage gave an honest critique of Christianity and/or the Bible. Knowing what I now know about him, I wouldn't give him the privilege of my attention to begin with. If you're going to challenge what I believe, that's fine, but bring something other than profanity & insults.

:sssh:Sounds like a little anger directed towards us (easily offended conservatives) Laugh my butt off, easy for some to say when ( you easily offended liberals) have the majority of the National Media spewing your left wing agenda's!

*yawn*

But they did. They could have taken it up with him in the Q&A rather than just huffing and puffing about hearing something they don't like. Again, I say, if these are aspiring journalists, they need to reassess their career goals.

 

 

 

For one thing, the journalist's preconceived biases -- if they are doing their job properly -- should be immaterial. Obviously, that's not always the case. But it's not a problem as much as you right-wing true believers think, either. It's, as usual, somewhere in the middle.

 

I have no doubt that 75% of the time I could tell you a journalists bias by reading or listening to him or her. It is right in their article or report that often.

 

 

Jim, it's interesting that you would go right with the insults instead of attempting to sustain a coherent debate. Too bad. Thanks for playing.

 

If you took what I said as insults, then you're just as fragile as the thin-skinned sorts who walked out. And that you read into my post, which I went ahead and carried forward here, that there were insults there, it sort of proves my point that right-wingers are looking way too deeply into the day-to-day news to find things to be offended over. Thanks for playing.

:sssh:Sounds like a little anger directed towards us (easily offended conservatives) Laugh my butt off, easy for some to say when ( you easily offended liberals) have the majority of the National Media spewing your left wing agenda's!

 

Since that seems to be directed toward me, I'll bite: There's a reason I gave up my Democratic Party registration and switched to Independent. Throw your barbs elsewhere, where they may actually stick.

For me, it was more about the name-calling courtesy the anti-bullying guy.

 

I'm not opposed to having my views challenged at all. It helps me to sharpen myself & evaluate why I believe what I believe. Personally, I don't think Mr. Savage gave an honest critique of Christianity and/or the Bible. Knowing what I now know about him, I wouldn't give him the privilege of my attention to begin with. If you're going to challenge what I believe, that's fine, but bring something other than profanity & insults.

 

See, I don't get the whole "I'm offended over name-calling" thing. Really? Honestly? Are you people that fragile? Jesus. Maybe if you'd grown up with a name that was a euphemism for penis you'd be able to handle it better, I guess. Name-calling is very low on my scale of things to be outraged over.

I'm of the opinion that the people attending this speech should've been the last people on this earth, based on job title, to get up and leave. You can't always walk away from someone saying something you don't believe in. Grow up.

I'm of the opinion that the people attending this speech should've been the last people on this earth, based on job title, to get up and leave. You can't always walk away from someone saying something you don't believe in. Grow up.

 

That's why they're losers and I'm glad they got out when they did. Go into PR if you want to rally behind a cause. Just don't call yourselves journalists.