Talk:L. Brent Bozell III
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- You know, author Mick Foley has written a whole section of his second book, Foley is Good: ISBN: 0007126549) dedicated to Bozell. In the chapter, there's many biographical references, including his father's invlovement with McCarthyism as a writer for McCarthy himself]]. If anyone is willing to expand on the article based on this information, they're welcome to do so.
While you're obsessing about McCarthyism and while we're at it (expanding this article), maybe we could give some space to quotes of Bozell's — such as this one:
'The New York Times headline noted Pinochet was a "Dictator Who Ruled by Terror in Chile." The Times began by describing him as "the brutal dictator who repressed and reshaped Chile for nearly two decades and became a notorious symbol of human rights abuse and corruption." He was "never brought to trial." Both the Post and the Times used post-Pinochet government estimates that more than 3,000 people were executed or disappeared during the Pinochet dictatorship.
'But the same liberal press that despises right-wing autocrats cannot bring that same vigorous denunciation to bear when a communist dictator dies. When Chinese dictator Deng Xiaoping died in 1997, the Post mentioned the "bloody crackdown" in Tiananmen Square in 1989, but the words "dictator" or "dark legacy" did not appear in the headline, which simply recited the fact of death: "China's Deng Xiaoping, Dead at 92." The Post reporter did not attempt to enumerate the thousands or millions killed on Deng's watch, or wonder why he was never put on trial.
'The Post presented Deng as a great liberalizer, to a point. "Deng had guided the country out of the chaos of the Cultural Revolution, flung open China's doors to the outside world and loosened the grip of central economic planning," while, ahem, "insisting that the Communist Party's monopoly on power go unchallenged."
'Some communist leaders couldn't even be accused of liberalizing tendencies. When Korean despot Kim Il Sung died in 1994, The New York Times couldn't call him a dictator in their headlines, let along mention ruling by terror. The second story on the death was headlined, "Kim Il Sung, Enigmatic 'Great Leader' of North Korea for 5 Decades, Dies at 82." (…)
'So let's review. A right-wing ruler responsible for the deaths of 3,000 -- but also responsible for an economic miracle of free enterprise, and who allowed the democratic process which forced him from power: "dictator." But communist despots who controlled their citizens with iron fists until the day they died, preventing all manner of political, economic and religious freedoms, and who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions: "leaders."
'The more things change, the more they stay the same. While conservatives still seek to defend both democracy and American interests, liberals are still fawning over communist and terrorist thugs.' (Dying dictators and double standards)
Come to think about it: This is exactly the same as obsessing about McCarthyism (at a time when the Kremlin's leader was Stalin, when the system Russia embodied had taken over governments from central Europe to China, and when the supposedly harmeless victims of McCarthysim were doing nothing but saying that the aforementioned Stalin's Soviet Union was not only harmless but the big hope for mankind (sic) — as they added with a smirk or a scowl that weren't clueless Americans like Joseph McCarthy stupid to think otherwise). Asteriks 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] No political arguments, please
Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for political debates--their workshops for discussing how to improve articles. Let's stick to that and avoid distracting tangents. Nareek 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree. I removed the bogus "Criticisms" section. It was clearly biased, and for such a short entry, it was totally unnecessary and gratuitous. D323P 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It would be good to have a section of Criticism, but it ought to be criticism of Bozell and not of one of his projects. Nareek 04:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Requested move
Brent Bozell → L. Brent Bozell III — He is usually credited/referred to in the media and his own books under this name. Also to avoid confusion between him and his father L. Brent Bozell Jr.. —Andrewlp1991 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
[edit] Discussion
- Any additional comments:
[edit] Sentence under "Career" section
Among the numerous campaigns Bozell has led with the PTC have included bringing back the "Family Viewing Hour"[4], filing complaints with the FCC over indecentPUSSY programs, and boycotting corporations that advertise on television programs deemed offensive. Is that vandalism, or is there an actual program called indecentPUSSY? Sounds like a cool show...72.78.8.51 (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed personal opinion from article
I removed the following, which was added by an anonymous IP user:
The PTC never had the power or membership claimed by Bozell and raised most of their meager income through complaints brought before the FCC and promoted to their membership as fighting for media balance or against the evil of certain words and language reaching the ears of his fellow intolerant, Christian citizens. One of his biggest fund raising targets appears to have been railing against the Howard Stern broadcast well before the show was syndicated; a strong effort to use a Federal agency to control free speech in violation of The Constitution. As a promoter of Theocracy he should be considered an enemy of Democracy.
That type of opinion statement does not belong in an encyclopedia article. If this assessment (or part of it) has been published in a reliable source, it could be reflected in the article, with appropriate citations. --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] problems with writing style causing POV problems
The writing has a habit of implicitly taking his side on issues:
| “ | During his tenure as PTC president, Bozell led many campaigns following the PTC's mission to restore decency to the entertainment industry. Among the numerous campaigns Bozell has led with the PTC have included campaigning to bring back the "Family Viewing Hour",[4] filing complaints with the FCC over indecent programs, and boycotting corporations that advertise on television programs that the organization believes to be offensive. | ” |
"decency", "indecent programs" and so on all need to be clarified as being in his judgement (which I have done). The article is by no means awful - it includes appropriate sourced criticism (though what the section entitled "Criticism" is trying to get across, I honestly don't know.) The lead is awkward, and should include some summary of the criticism in the rest of the article. Actually, I'm going to remove the tag - the problems aren't bad enough for a full-article tag without giving a little time for fixing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
