L.A. Times Will Run Correction on Editorial That Defamed Dobson
L.A. Times Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold writes me to say that the paper will be issuing a correction of its editorial which falsely claimed that James Dobson had called SpongeBob SquarePants gay.
Kudos to the paper for doing this. Too bad they are rejecting my equally valid complaint regarding the “imminent threat” canard.
It will be interesting to see how they word this. I can confidently predict that the correction will not say that the paper predicated an entire sarcastic editorial on the remarks falsely attributed to Dobson.
UPDATE: Title edited to make the lawyers happy.
There was no “Dobson slander,” only a Dobson libel.
Xrlq (ffb240) — 2/8/2005 @ 6:57 pmOkay, fine, I’ll change it.
I bet there was plenty of Dobson slander, but we can’t prove that any more than the paper can prove its sl-, er, libelous remarks.
Patterico (756436) — 2/8/2005 @ 9:15 pmOoh. Actual malice. Good thing truth is a defense, cuz I’d say the revised statements make Dobson look even more ridiculous.
actus (e8ffe9) — 2/9/2005 @ 5:15 amDepending on your point of view, that’s certainly possible. But they wouldn’t have been able to write their editorial that way. They would have had to mock him for opposing tolerance.
Patterico (756436) — 2/9/2005 @ 6:14 am‘They would have had to mock him for opposing tolerance.’
Exactly. Dobson can’t tolerate tolerance.
actus (ebc508) — 2/9/2005 @ 8:22 amEither that, or Acthole can’t tolerate dissent. The whole issue was about disclosure, not the pros and cons of “tolerance” as such.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 2/9/2005 @ 11:43 am‘The whole issue was about disclosure, not the pros and cons of “tolerance” as such.’
Disclosure? Dobson didn’t like that kids might be taught tolerance. Of course, if the kids weren’t even being taught tolerance, then I don’t know what Dobson’s problem is.
I suppose if ‘disclosure’ was the problem, Dobson would be satisfied if kids were more explicitly told to not hate gay people?
but go ahead and say ‘acthole’ again. its cute!
actus (ebc508) — 2/9/2005 @ 12:03 pmOf course they were being taught “tolerance,” but that alone wouldn’t have gotten Dobson’s dander up. What did was that they snuck it into the school curricula of prepubescent kids without their parents’ knowledge or consent. That’s one hell of a way to teach tolerance. “Your children vill learn tolerance! Ve haff vays of making them tolerant.”
I’ll save the next use of “acthole” for the next occasion on which it is warranted. It seems to happen often enough.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 2/9/2005 @ 1:21 pm‘What did was that they snuck it into the school curricula of prepubescent kids without their parents’ knowledge or consent. That’s one hell of a way to teach tolerance. “Your children vill learn tolerance! Ve haff vays of making them tolerant.”’
Something tells me that the ‘vays’ of making people tolerant that your germanness is trying to get at are much more than showing kids a cartoon.
I don’t see whats so surprising about showing kids a video about tolerance. Does Dobson want prior consent for everything in a school?
“Ve haff vays of making you understand the treaty of tripoli?”
actus (ebc508) — 2/9/2005 @ 1:53 pm“Dobson can’t tolerate tolerance.”
No, Mr. Dobson objects to indoctrination.
Actus should focus on curbing his own intolerance toward those who differ with him on social mores … or maybe Actus just hates Dobson because Dobson’s one of those ‘God freaks,’ even worse, an influential ‘God freak.’
clark smith (4de06f) — 2/10/2005 @ 1:31 am‘Actus should focus on curbing his own intolerance toward those who differ with him on social mores … or maybe Actus just hates Dobson because Dobson’s one of those ‘God freaks,’ even worse, an influential ‘God freak.’’
I am a little freaked out by the radical clerics, yes. But mostly because they see ‘indoctrination’ that has to be resisted in teaching kids general tolerance. That gets in the way of their message of intolerance. Because tolerance and intolerance aren’t compatible: Another reason why we shouldn’t bend over backwards for the rather powerful fits of the radical clerics.
actus (e8ffe9) — 2/10/2005 @ 5:23 amWhere’s the defamation? Gay v. pro-gay, what’s the diff?
Balasubramani (3a3f93) — 2/10/2005 @ 5:57 pmOne can criticize Dobson for opposing tolerance of homosexuality, and indeed I am personally in favor of such tolerance. However, it’s far easier to discount him as a lunatic by simply saying: “He said SpongeBob is gay.”
Patterico (756436) — 2/10/2005 @ 6:01 pmI would think almost the opposite. Dobson saying that the show is pro-gay or that it’s somehow amenable to exploitation by pro-gay groups is sort of like saying that if you play a Black Sabbath album backwards you hear devil-worshipping music. It’s almost more wacky.
Balasubramani (3a3f93) — 2/10/2005 @ 6:25 pmNo it’s not. The organization behind the video explicitly says that it is promoting an agenda of tolerance, including tolerance of “sexual identity.”
Again — and I’ll bet I have to say this every time I mention the topic — I am not against tolerance of homosexuality. But Dobson is correct to claim that the group behind the video is advocating tolerance of homosexuality.
Patterico (756436) — 2/10/2005 @ 8:31 pmDid they actually talk about the tolerance pledge on the show?
Balasubramani (3a3f93) — 2/11/2005 @ 9:20 amlink to the correction?
[It’s in the post. https://patterico.com/2005/02/10/2647/la-times-issues-spongebob-correction/. — Patterico]
TCO (f4e72d) — 12/31/2005 @ 8:05 pm