In Defense Of Paul Shirley
By now, Paul Shirley’s blog post about Haiti has become infamous in our little corner of the globe. He crossed many lines of decency in his “blame the victim” rant, but he at least attempted to justify his stance, and he did offer a broader grasp of the devastation.
Still, he did dump on some people who have had enough dumped on them already. Above all else, his timing was perfectly awful.
I’m something of a gadfly over at the Mo’Kelly blog. It seems that I am frequently not of the same opinion as Morris, who is more than gracious in affording me the space, opportunity but more important, the invitation to express myself however I may choose.
He frequently disagrees with me - after all, I disagreed with him first, and all’s fair - but we quite often have enormously fulfilling exchanges, where we are both, I believe, made better by having had the experience. And it is not uncommon for such exchanges to take place with others who drop by. It’s an intellectually challenging place and I enjoy it immensely.
Morris jumped out in front on this story. It turns out that Shirley, a former low level NBA basketball player, also did a guest stint on the ESPN blog. Once ESPN found out about Shirley’s blog post at FlipCollective, they summarily “fired” him from that spot. Told him that his presence was no longer wanted. Morris was highly in favor of that outcome and dedicated two separate posts to it, the second of which also appeared on HuffingtonPost.com. If Morris saw any irony in that stance, he did not say so.
FlipCollective still welcomes Paul Shirley. He published a “reaction” post the other day. So, based on current evidence, Shirley has not been punished for saying what he said. Not at the place where he said it.
He just doesn’t get to call ESPN “home” anymore. Fair? Sure. It’s their place, they can deactivate your entry pass whenever they want to.
What concerns me, more than a little, is that what Morris refers to as “personal conduct” was in fact the act of a blogger blogging. Just as I am doing now, sitting down at my keyboard to be as honest as I can, that’s what Paul Shirley did. He sat down at his keyboard and attempted to be honest.
He didn’t slander anybody, didn’t threaten anybody, didn’t seem to have any animosity toward anybody. He simply believed that this nation was very poorly led, and that there ought to be some sort of method by which, this time, the assistance they will surely receive can be applied to a better future. In other words, “tough love.”
Real tough. Barbaric, cruel and ill-timed. All of that, yes. But also a point worth pondering. The standard of living in Haiti is below miserable. Natural disasters will always whack them in the ass. If we don’t, as a species, find a way to improve that, just as sure as you’re born, there will be more and more humanitarian disasters in Haiti.
Now perhaps ESPN just decided that hey, if you’re against aid to Haiti you must be a scoundrel and we don’t need no scoundrels working ’round here. Or maybe they didn’t think it through. Whatever their motivation, what is clear is that they have the power. They have the power to kick a guest blogger off of their site for views he expressed somewhere else.
So “personal opinion” is now “personal conduct.”
Meaning, be careful what you say. It could cost you everything.
And so far, Morris doesn’t get that, and I don’t think too many other people do, either. See, Morris is all confused about the fact that “This is not a First Amendment issue!” which is correct. Shirley’s rights aren’t being violated, and he is not only still free to speak, but he kept the gig where he wrote the original piece. He hasn’t been maligned nor constrained in any appreciable way.
No, this isn’t about Paul Shirley, who is a lot more famous today than he was a week ago. This is about ESPN, which is owned by Disney, which also owns ABC and a host of other properties. This is about the fact that more and more humans communicate through the web, which means they use somebody’s service to do it. It might be Google, it might be AOL, it might be Facebook or Twitter.
And what we saw with this episode is a glimpse of the future, a future where “corporate interests” overrule “free speech”. A future in which you can and will be silenced if your opinions aren’t good for business. A world in which speech can never be eliminated but it can be tightly controlled.
I suppose it was there all along, this threat. And I suppose that I’ve been aware for some time now that the best way to get through life is to keep your head down. Why cause a fuss, why call attention to yourself, why become the latest example that the system will never let you threaten it?
We live in a police state, not at all unlike China. We’re given just enough freedom so that we have reasonable quality of life, which makes us happier workers. But if we even consider interfering with the free flow of commerce, if we seem to be the slightest threat to economic vitality on a small or large scale, then bells will go off, red lights will flash, and a car with dark mirrors will screech up along-side, with masked men inside waiting to whisk us away.
And for a few days people will ask, “Where did he go?”, until the word comes back that he went too far and now he’s gone, after which others will stop asking questions and make sure to keep their own heads down from now on.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:46 am
Walt, there you go starting stuff again!
Think of it this way. We both know the nature of my "day job." I could be fired today if I go "too far" in a blog or column. Neither would appear with my boss' name attached or notated in my byline. But nevertheless, if I cause him undue negative press due to my connection to him, I can be fired instantaneously and it would have zero to do with "free speech" or limitation of my inventory of ideas. It would be because I would be a press liability to his organization and could adversely affect advertisers, sponsors and the overall perception of his brand.
February 1st, 2010 at 1:19 am
Morris,
I don't expect you to change your mind. But I would expect you to have a big problem with your boss if he fired you on the spot for something you wrote on your blog, unless you were clearly representing something criminal and sinister and dangerous.
But for merely expressing fatigue over the countless waste of donations to Haiti? That's a pretty valid issue, if you ask me. Shirley did a fantastic job of making it as inflammatory as he could, but the sentiment itself does in fact need airing and discussing.
We'll both move on. There's always something else to tear apart. Just don't tell me anything was solved here.
February 2nd, 2010 at 6:02 am
I wouldn't have a "problem" because I understand the nature of the "business." I walk that tightrope daily. I don't have to represent something sinister or criminal for it to be problematic for the guy I work for and negatively impact his bottomline.
I'm not saying it is "fair." But I am saying it is well within his rights. The second reality is that Shirley didn't "only" express fatigue "over the countless waste of donations to Haiti. That's another disfigurement of the truth.
The truth is, humanitarian aid is not to be confused with a rebuilding effort. Sending money to the red cross doesn't impact how roads and buildings will be rebuilt. You Walt, should know better.
If it is not a "good enough reason" to help in the medical effort to save lives or we should use the yardstick of previous history to deem whether a country is "worthy" of aid…heaven help if the U.S. suffers another disaster, terrorism or otherwise.
The report card of Afghanistan and Iraq aren't very flattering in the least. Since according to Shirley we're on the aid "merit-system."
February 2nd, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Morris,
We long since agreed that Shirley's position on this is intellectually untenable, but he has a right to giver voice to that sentiment so we can discuss it.
Prior restraint of speech should be done extremely rarely and extremely selectively.
And maybe you wouldn't have a problem if your boss booted you for what you blog about elsewhere, but I sure would.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
In my opinion, this incident brings us a bit closer to the horrible reality of ‘thought control’.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I'm sorry, you are still holding a very self-righteous stance on this issue regarding Paul Shirley's column, and his right to express his thoughts on the Haiti situation. Matter of fact his writing was perfect timing, and many people agree. Truth such as he expressed is perfect in timing, when should truth be written, after the fact, when people will forget the disaster and go on with life?
It is something that needed to written now, for I myself, have been thinking the same thing.
What has taken place against Paul Shirley is of no surprise to me, has anyone ever read Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged". Well we are living in a time that she wrote would happen over 50 years ago.
Hmmmm, coincidence? I think not, anyone who thinks out side of the 'collective' mind thought will always be called evil, why?
You state that Paul's position is intellectually untenable? According to whom? Your estimation? Well you both are not using any intellect in this conversation, your using the same 'collective' thought process that has gotten this world into this mess. Everything he was stating has 'rational' thought behind it without being irrationally emotional.
Oh, you agree he has the right to write, who needs you to tell anyone we have not or the right to do anything? Your both being self-righteous in your stance, no matter how you look at it.
As for him losing his job, you can say it's all about the "love of money" over any reality of truth and the right to express that truth. ESPN is all part of the junk media propaganda, along with CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC. They are all bought, and represent very little truth, what ever they are told to except, they will do it, they are all professional whore's who have sold their souls for the "love of money" and position. So do not think yourselves to be more than you are, you are both deceitful in your estimation of any truth.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
I suppose Fox isn't a part of the junk media, Cal?
February 4th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Paul deserved to be canned by ESPN and I'll assume he'll have trouble doing anything other than working for a living. It's called karma and he's got the bad side for probably the next decade to deal with - poor dude.
His scathing comments toward a people when innocent victims of a natural disaster were still being pulled from the rubble alive were reckless.
I have a suggestion. ESPN hire him back for $2/day and send him to Haiti for a two-year work detail. I'd pay to watch that.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:08 am
He's a well-read guy (or so I thought), I've read several of his past blogs and they were always well-written and entertaining. I remember when he first started blogging about four or five years ago, he gave plenty of fascinating insight into the unusual world of NBA basketball, as well as the relative struggle of playing and living overseas. He really was quite a good read.
However…
He went completely off the deep end here. Frankly, I have no idea why he felt he had to be so inflammatory… It's almost like he willed himself to piss people off, instead of keeping a level head and sticking with the smart, tough questions that (I thought) he was more than capable of asking. For instance, did he really have to "blame the victim" (his words) in order to get his point across? This wasn't the Paul Shirley I thought I knew; it was almost like I was reading someone else's blog.
ESPN most likely fired him for being politically incorrect. Personally, I would have fired him for turning into a crappy blogger.
February 24th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Scott,
Thanks for dropping by.
I don't disagree with most of what you wrote. He was over the top. Much too insensitive.
But we just have such low tolerance anymore as a society for a screwup, it's like we demand somebody's head on a platter as a default response.
That's what I object too, and the freezing effect it will inevitably have on speech.