Patterico's Pontifications

6/29/2008

Too Bad This Perspective Wasn’t Fully Shared in the Original Story . . .

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary,Kozinski — Patterico @ 11:37 am

An op-ed in this morning’s L.A. Times is titled Why Dirty Is Funny and begins like this:

When a federal appeals court judge who is presiding over an obscenity trial is himself revealed to have a “porn stash” on a personal website, as happened a couple of weeks ago, some might get indignant. Others might titter. But what if it turns out that the judge in question, Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit court, is a connoisseur not so much of hard-core porn as of raunchy humor? That the stash was more about laughs than about titillation? Well, in that case, it’s a completely different story.

Indeed.

13 Comments

  1. Damage control by rumor mongers.

    Comment by cboldt (3d73dd) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:08 pm

  2. Oh, I get it. Porn is only bad if you masturbate while watching it!

    Seriously, I don’t care a bit about whether people watch porn or not, but I can’t understand why this blog repeatedly discounts porn that’s funny as something less egregious than porn that’s not funny.

    Comment by Kevin (834f0d) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:40 pm

  3. porn that’s funny as something less egregious than porn that’s not funny

    The intention – provoking yux v. provoking a sexual response.

    Seems pretty simple to me. Or do you masturbate to old Jack Benny tapes?

    Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:46 pm

  4. The editors didn’t get it until some blog explained it to them.

    Comment by Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/29/2008 @ 12:59 pm

  5. Looks like Kevin in #2 still does not get it.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 1:02 pm

  6. “Or do you masturbate to old Jack Benny tapes?”

    That kind of depends upon what he’s wearing, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Kevin (834f0d) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:42 pm

  7. I can’t think of a single time when the National Enquirer so blatantly mislead and thereby unjustly damaged the reputation of public figure, in the matter that the Los Angeles Times did to Judge Kozinski. Now, I rarely read that publication, but if the Enquirer had misled in the grotesque manner of the LA Times, I think I’d eventually hear about it second-hand.

    If someone can think of a single instance fitting the bill, I’d be interested to hear it. Until then, the claim stands that the LA Times does not approach the standards of fairness of the National Enquirer.

    Comment by Brian (cfed45) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:45 pm

  8. I can’t think of a single time when the National Enquirer so blatantly mislead and thereby unjustly damaged the reputation of public figure

    Carol Burnett</a is the only one I can think of…

    (Ms. Burnett turned the money won in the successful lawsuit over to some colleges for a scholarship, IIRC.)

    Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 2:56 pm

  9. Yeah, the National Enquirer falsely said that Carol Burnett was a drunk.

    But you, my friend, miss the point.

    Which is only this: For 11 wonderful, shining minutes, my claim stood proudly, untarnished and unrefuted.

    Or something like that.

    Comment by Brian (cfed45) — 6/29/2008 @ 3:52 pm

  10. Fair enough :-)

    Comment by Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:02 pm

  11. Brian, a better record than any jharp holds. ;-)

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:13 pm

  12. That the stash was more about laughs than about titillation? Well, in that case, it’s a completely different story.

    This is all true. It’s a different story that does not sell as many newspapers, nor do as much (or any) damage to the reputation of a distinguished jurist.

    People at least expect the Enquirer to publish rumours and blatant falsehoods. The LAT does not hold itself out as a gossip tabloid; certainly, that is not the reputation of every major media outlet, almost all of whom covered the story.

    Comment by bridget (e8e4c8) — 6/29/2008 @ 4:58 pm

  13. Kevin, the fact is that this humor stuff, this stuff I have seen and dismissed as the kind of thing normal 13 year old boys chuckle at, was described as extremely brutal and horrible porn, beastiality, scat porn, etc etc.

    The fact that it is generally humorous and none of it particularly unhealthy is a devastating indictment on the LA Times’s timing and dishonest doctoring of facts, and other papers, those who took them at their word, and Cyrus Sanai’s constant distortion after distortion. There is absolutely no way the LA Times or Cyrus did not realize just how dishonest they were being.

    Comment by MMM (4cdfb7) — 6/30/2008 @ 1:06 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2207 secs.