Dennis Jett, the moderator of the lecture, sets us straight on what really happened. Turns out the YouTube video did not show enough of the incident. Turns out that a lot of yakkers on the left (lookin' at you, Randi) can do a right-nice conclusion-hop.
What was not on the YouTube videos was the fact that the student disrupted the speech twice. After Kerry had responded to numerous questions, I announced that one final one would be taken from the microphone on my right. The student then grabbed the microphone on the left and loudly demanded that he be allowed to ask a question. When a female police officer intervened and tried to escort him out, he broke away and continued shouting. At that point, Kerry said he would take the student's question, but would respond first to the questioner who was supposed to have been last. As he finished answering that question the famous videos began.I can hear some lefties now: "Harrumph! Obviously, Jett's part of the conspiracy!" Anything to avoid admitting when one is just plain wrong. I wonder if certain bloggers who did the conclusion-hop will draw any attention to Jett's statement?
Because the student had already been disruptive once, there were police officers and officials of ACCENT, the student organization that brings speakers to campus, standing next to him. When he launched into a diatribe and used a vulgar expression, the mic was cut off and he was carried off to the applause of many in the audience, all the while resisting the police.
The reaction of some on the political right who saw video was that the student was silenced because he had asked the senator an embarrassing question. Some on the left suggested his freedom of speech was suppressed. Neither version could be further from the truth.
On television, any number of talking heads offered similar thoughts or ones that were even more farfetched. But the electronic news media require only that those on the air speak with conviction. Any real insights or even information are entirely optional and usually rare. The pundits in print were often equally uninformed and off the mark. Few were willing to wait until a thorough investigation laid out the facts and, when it did, it was barely news. A relative handful of articles came out on the 300 page report and even fewer on Meyer's apology.
In an age of instantaneous communication, there seems to be a widespread expectation of equally rapid judgment. No one was lynched, but the virtual mob, fed by the media and a post-your-own-videos website, drew all the conclusions they needed for a verdict. And what the truth eventually turned out to be hardly got reported.
Oscar Wilde once said: "Quotation can be slander/if you gerrymander." In the You Tube age, perhaps we should change that: "Film can tell lies/If you excise."
3 comments:
OK, you win this one joseph, "The Andrew Meyer" is a loudmouth (and probably an a--hole too) who disrupted Kerry's Q&A and folks on the left made excuses as to why he got manhandled.
However I still think for what it is worth that the campus police could have used other restraints besides the tasering.
Unfortunately Jett's article was just published recently.
Apparently the loudmouth wrote letters of apology to everyone at UofF for his conduct.
another question to ask is: if some rightwing character such as Romney or Guiliani were speaking, how differently would Meyer's disruption be treated? The GOP event handlers wouldn't have let him attend the event in the first place.
What did Mr. Jett know and when did he know it? He claims credibly to be a witness in the catbird seat -- discussion moderator and all that. Is this CSM article the first time Mr. Jett has clarified the incident? Didn't he know on September 18th (if not sooner) that everyone was being deceived or self-deceived?
What's the journalistic value of his belated clarification?
I'm really pissed off because Naomi Wolf used the tasering incident as another example of our rights being abridged, and now she has to take it back or something, or apologize for her rush to judgment.
Joe, please try to find out why Mr. Jett's unique and valuable explanation wasn't reported as early as September 18th; or, if he told anyone who would listen, why it took this long to be widely known.
Why did we only have a Rashomanesque series of reports until this week?
Yeah, it's a stupid question because an official investigation was pending and also a case was being litigated. Anyway, YouTube is great for seeing someone like Eva 'la Yerbabuena' if you can't get to Spain often.
Jett's comments echo what was already available on the public record in the police report (for those who bothered to read it, as I did, the day I was able to get it just after the incident). It also jibes with the comments from Kerry's people, which I also bothered to get.
Nothing new, and doesn't change my position.
Two points about which I'd disagree with Jett's characterizations, btw.
1) "What was not on the YouTube videos was the fact that the student disrupted the speech twice."
That is incorrect. The first time he "disrupted" was after he'd stood in line, politely, as instructed, after Kerry's two hour speech, only to hear that he wouldn't be able to ask his question. At that point, as any decent reporter might have done, he tried to yell out his question to get it answered. The cops then began to escort him out, and he used less than polite language, after which Kerry said "No, that's okay, let him stay, I'll take his question"
When he then asked his question, he was NOT "disrupting" a second time as Jett characterizes it.
2) "The reaction of some on the political right who saw video was that the student was silenced because he had asked the senator an embarrassing question. Some on the left suggested his freedom of speech was suppressed. Neither version could be further from the truth."
For the record, neither of those two was my reaction. So if I am one of the named "certain bloggers who did the conclusion-hop", I'm sure you'll correct the record.
As to pointing out Jett's statement, as mentioned, there is nothing new there above and beyond the police report, which I had already pointed my readers to within 24 hours after the incident.
Had critics actually read it, these comments from Jett wouldn't be much of a surprise.
Post a Comment