Much of the debate regarding Ed Schultz's apologize i smissing a key element.

One argument against the apologize is that an apologize is meant to reconcile to another party, and the party in this case is impossible to reconcile with.

I think that as a member of a community of professionals, Ed Schultz might want to eliminate any unnecessary drama that a personal insult might cause within that community, and I don't doubt the sincerity of his apology.

But I think that the people here and elsewhere who follow politics are urging him not to apologize because they are confusing the strategies that people employ in direct conflict, where the parties seek to injure each other, with the strategies that people employ in gaining support and consensus.

If television news and opinion programs were engaged in direct conflict with each other, then yes, it would be beneficial to the host of one program to insult and injure the reputation of other hosts, and an apology might be construed as an abdication of one's power to insult and injure.

But who is playing that game? (I think some people are, which I'll shortly explain.)

I would think that a greater - if not sole - object of an opinionated television host is to seek support for their opinions and consensus for their own ideas, and the strategies that they employ should be evaluated against that goal, rather than the goal of insulting and injuring. In a direct conflict, some actors might get their feelings hurt, other actors might get to thump their chests, but in a battle for support and consensus, one side takes political power while the other loses it. I would rather fight in the latter form of conflict.

Now back to the question of who is trying to engage in direct conflict - I believe that the right wing does actually do this. I believe that, as many people have been complaining about, they do this a lot more than we do. That is because they have chosen to employ and develop this strategy, most likely because they see it as one that will allow them to win more supporters. I think that part of the reason they see an advantage in doing this is that they do not lose as much of their support when they employ bigoted and discriminatory rhetoric, whereas if we were to do so, we would potentially lose all of ours, as well as lose a major reason for existing as a political entity to begin with. Another part of the reason that they do this is that they would like to distract from their real agenda with an entertaining fight.

Seeing as they've employed this strategy for their own reasons, which inure to their own benefit, why would we ever want to allow our opponents to fight according to their own plan, and why would we ever want to assume the role that they have chosen for us in that plan, seeing as they have predicted the possible counterstrategies that we might employ, and determined them still not to be a threat? They would like for us to engage in a battle on the terms they have chosen. Fighting according to your opponents plan allows you to be predictable, and they can better estimate the effectiveness of their planned moves if they know yours in advance.

:eyes:

He said something that intelligent people shouldn't have to say to make a point. He was called on it, and
offered a genuine apology.

End of story.

Ed Schultz benefits from being seen as an intelligent person, because when he is seen that way, he gains support and consensus for his point of view.

bizarre

and the apologies that follow is really stupid and distracts from decent points that might be made.

Those actions are idiotic.

Peace,
Tex Shelters

Are you saying:

A. Making the insult is so stupid that the apology just looks stupid too?

or

B. Making the insult is stupid, but once someone has made it, apologizing is stupid?

or

C. Making the insult is stupid because it distracts people, who will also be distracted by the apology?

or

D. Something else entirely?

I think the statement, the apology and the need to apologize is all stupid. Not that Schultz is stupid, mind you.

I am just tired of hearing liberals us ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the issues at hand without the insults. I expect better of him.

On a positive note, Thom Hartman has really stopped the potty mouth attacks and his show is much better for it.

Peace,
Tex Shelters