Patterico's Pontifications

All I can say is… wow. Being a private university, can such a private entity essentially ask someone to leave for any reason, as long as that reason does not involve discrimination prohibited by law? Really interesting, I’m staying tuned.

Jessica (031c9a) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:32 pm

Under that theory, I suppose they could ask him to leave if he refuses to don a Hitler mustache and goose-step through the campus. But WHY would they ask him to leave? This is my question.

As I said, the legalities don’t interest me and I won’t speak about them. But I do feel comfortable questioning whether a journalism school should ask a journalist to leave for peacefully performing journalism.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:37 pm

Give me a break, Patterico. One-iversities are no place for the free exchange of ideas. Get with the pogrom.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:43 pm

If they are not servicing Teh Narrative, they are not performing an act of journalism. The only journalism in this story was Couric’s even-handed unbiased impartial questioning of a hilljack snowbilly unfit to sit anywhere near the levers of power and had to be stopped and destroyed for the sake of the Union. Or something like that.

JD (34eca7) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:45 pm

That was my first thought: USC can ask anyone it wants to leave to leave without it being a Constitutional issue. (Which Ziegler should well know.) The complaint at the end about the cuffs biting into his wrist is absolutely ridiculous: had he not kept trying to fall down while they were escorting him, the cuffs wouldn’t have hurt him.

Then there’s the fact that he sounds drunk, refuses to comply with the campus police, then argues with them at length. And when I say he sounds drunk, I mean if you look at his lips, they move like he’s knocked more than a few back. (FTR: I do this all the time. Read lips, that is.) Of course, I could be wrong, but the campus police could’ve made a similar mistake.

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:48 pm

But I do feel comfortable questioning whether a journalism school should ask a journalist to leave for peacefully performing journalism.

If it was an event that required an invitation, it might also have been one that required press credentials. If so, does he have any to flash?

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:50 pm

I’ve just e-mailed a query, with this blog post linked, to Bert Krages, an Oregon attorney who specializes in issues around photography and the law (I have one of his books on the subject).

I’ll let you know if I get a response, and will seek his permission to post it here. He’s at http://www.krages.com.

This interests me from two vantage points: one, I’m an advanced hobby photog making a transition into freelance work (not the day job); two, the day job is as a full-time media relations director, having been in the field for nearly 25 years. Regardless of the legal issues, this move by the “j-school” is about as stupid as it gets. Of course, given the decline/death of journalism–well documented by Patterico–I doubt that anyone attending this award ceremony gave a hoot about Mr. Ziegler, as he wasn’t a member of their club.

Roger B (fd8c20) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:51 pm

#3 (John Hitchcock)…. ROFLMAO. Good one.

Roger B (fd8c20) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:52 pm

As Katie Couric has not denounced this obsenity, I can only assume she fully endorses this abuse of power.

Perfect Sense (0922fa) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:53 pm

Sigh, SEK. Please be truthful. When you wrote this:

“…The complaint at the end about the cuffs biting into his wrist is absolutely ridiculous: had he not kept trying to fall down while they were escorting him, the cuffs wouldn’t have hurt him….”

DIdn’t you feel just a little bit ashamed? Did the words catch in your throat?

I can’t guarantee this, but I am fairly certain you would have not approved of such actions by campus police taken toward individuals “speaking truth to power” that agrees with your own world view on your campus.

Seriously, do the “D for R” test.

You seem like an honest man. But implying that “Ziegler had it coming” or was “possibly” drunk is beneath you.

Unless, of course, you have been drinking.

But I could be wrong, to quote you.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:54 pm

That was my first thought: USC can ask anyone it wants to leave to leave without it being a Constitutional issue. (Which Ziegler should well know.)

The legalities aren’t what interest me.

The complaint at the end about the cuffs biting into his wrist is absolutely ridiculous: had he not kept trying to fall down while they were escorting him, the cuffs wouldn’t have hurt him.

I don’t know how you could know that. Nor does it appear to me that he is trying to fall down. It looks like he doesn’t want to leave.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:55 pm

USC is a private institution, how does it have “campus police” ? Aren’t they just armed door rattlers?

SPQR (26be8b) — 4/16/2009 @ 6:58 pm

If it was an event that required an invitation, it might also have been one that required press credentials. If so, does he have any to flash?

Let’s assume he doesn’t. That means he doesn’t get to attend.

But why does it mean that USC’s journalism school would attempt to prevent him from performing journalism on the sidewalk outside??

I know you don’t like this man, SEK, but surely you understand this simple distinction?

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:06 pm

He was conspiring to commit an act of journalism.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:09 pm

Patterico, it is always different when it is a person you don’t like, with politics with which you do not agree.

Just like the silence from the MSM on wiretaps right now.

Two legs baaaaad. Four legs goooooood.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:11 pm

The smart move, of course, is to let folks like Ziegler talk. Then smile, and say that his message proves that the organizers are open to different ideas and free expression.

Because they are, right?

The folks at FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) taught me that: the solution to speech with which you do not agree is not restricting free speech. It is more free speech.

And here I thought that dissent was patriotic….

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:13 pm

Then there’s the fact that he sounds drunk, refuses to comply with the campus police, then argues with them at length. And when I say he sounds drunk, I mean if you look at his lips, they move like he’s knocked more than a few back. (FTR: I do this all the time. Read lips, that is.) Of course, I could be wrong, but the campus police could’ve made a similar mistake.

You not only could be wrong but you are wrong. Not once did they ask if he’s been drinking and how much. They would have smelled alcohol on him had he been drinking, and could have arrested him right then and there for drunk and disorderly.

kbdabear (2697a0) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:13 pm

You not only could be wrong but you are wrong. Not once did they ask if he’s been drinking and how much.

I agree with this analysis. SEK’s perceptions are affected by past history, I think.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:14 pm

It appears there is a disagreement as to what constitutes legitimate purposes.

My impression with regard to the falling down and cuffs complaint, was that he was shocked that this was occurring and couldn’t stop laughing over the absurdity and oh so obvious irony. Of course the laughing and smirking doesn’t help him appear professional… not that I’m sure what a professional look is when one is being cuffed …

This is going to be very interesting to see play out.

Dana (d08a3a) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:15 pm

I like how he narrates the wrist action.

It would have been even better if he said “They are deliberately hurting my wrist so I will stop speaking. This is an implied threat that they will break my wrist if I don’t shut up.”

That’s what I would do.

Daryl Herbert (b65640) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:19 pm

My impression with regard to the falling down and cuffs complaint, was that he was shocked that this was occurring and couldn’t stop laughing over the absurdity and oh so obvious irony.

I agree.

And it’s hard to appear “professional” when the cops are trying to drag you off and you feel you did nothing wrong.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:19 pm

He’ll be a different man when he gets back from his re-education camp.

hdre (6631eb) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:23 pm

I hope he takes them for $100 million.

HeavenSent (637168) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:25 pm

Welcome to Obamistan boys an girls.!

HeavenSent (637168) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:28 pm

First, USC has fallen a long way since the second of my kids graduated. I’ve been on the faculty since 1972. You can guess how many fund raising letters I get.
Second, Marc Cooper, head of the Annenberg Com School digital media dept has already been quoted on Rush Limbaugh so we know how he stands.

Marc Cooper Director of Annenberg Digital News at the USC Annenberg School for Communication:

The ditto-head audience relies on Limbaugh the same way that a drunk uses a lamp post or the way a fundamentalist zealot relies on Scripture: not for illumination but rather for something to lean on.

“Call Limbaugh’s rants offensive, racist, extremist or just plain intellectually insulting, if it makes you feel better. I think it’s more useful to understand him instead as a form of religious experience, one of the more dogmatic strain. He’s a completely reliable inspiration and reinforcement for those who are embittered and battered and who confuse their natural allies for their enemies.

Sound like somebody who’s interested in free speech ?

Mike K (2cf494) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:29 pm

And it’s hard to appear “professional” when the cops are trying to drag you off and you feel you did nothing wrong.

Yes, and to expand on that thought, it happened so unexpectedly and suddenly that I can easily see where there would an utter sense of disbelief: This really can’t be happening! With that, I suspect Ziegler was also trying to gauge precisely how serious the officers were and just how much he could push back.

Dana (d08a3a) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:31 pm

See UPDATE x3 above. I just spoke with Ziegler about this as he was waiting to go on Greta.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:31 pm

He just said on Greta that he was “shocked and amused” but now is “angered and saddened” — just like he told me minutes ago.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:39 pm

If it was an event that required an invitation, it might also have been one that required press credentials. If so, does he have any to flash?

Freedom of the press does not mean freedom of journalists.

Anyway, we are just seeing the effects of the absolute power given to universities in this country. Absolutely disgusting display, USC. Of course, I doubt there will be any consequences to your suppressive actions.

Roy Mustang (9deca0) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:42 pm

Patterico @ 7:39 pm

Sounds like a normal reaction of someone caught off guard and facing the most unexpected.

Dana (d08a3a) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:46 pm

SEK probably thinks they should have Tom Tancredo’d him the way they do conservative at most campuses these days.

Am I right, SEK?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:46 pm

I understand not wanting to discuss legalities, but isn’t is critical to the discussion? If USC had the right to ask him to leave, and he refused, then the treatment of him may be distasteful, but not illegal. If USC did not have the right to ask him to leave (i.e. trespassing), then Ziegler was correct to resist the officers.

Greta just told Ziegler to get a lawyer; therefore I suspect USC is in the legal wrong, which makes it quite a problem for USC. Too bad the MSM won’t cover it.

Jessica (031c9a) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:54 pm

Ziegler can call himself a journalist, sure, but is he government accredited?

I thought not.

ras (20bd5b) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:58 pm

I understand not wanting to discuss legalities, but isn’t is critical to the discussion?

You guys can talk about it all you like. I’m not going to.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 7:59 pm

Just talked with Ziegler again and posted UPDATE x4. I’m going to his site to watch the longer video.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:00 pm

Sounds like a normal reaction of someone caught off guard and facing the most unexpected.

As a fellow stubborn person, I can see myself reacting the same way.

He explains it a little better in UPDATE x4.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:01 pm

.
He had a great time with those brownshirts, at least they didn’t beat him. They also seemed to have no problem with someone filming them. Stalin would have hope.
.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
don’t question journalists

who’ve been given awards
for shoddy journalism

.
absurd thought –
God of the Universe says
don’t protest tax increases

or support states’ rights
YOU RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST
.

USpace (d45ea7) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:13 pm

USC is a state university, it is not private property. I relish the lawsuit that should be imminent

Ted (d02b66) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:16 pm

Somewhat ironic in that USC — as is true of most universities — is full of limousine liberals who tend to feel skittish about spending too much time in the surrounding neighborhood (psst, lots of crime — real and imagined — and, uh, populated predominantly by those who the guy now in the White House most closely identifies with, both politically and racially)!

I bet if Ziegler looked like a rowdy gangbanger strolling through USC, the PC neurosis and paralysis that infect portions of our society would have deemed that such a person be treated a wee bit better by campus security.

Mark (411533) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:21 pm

I can’t guarantee this, but I am fairly certain you would have not approved of such actions by campus police taken toward individuals “speaking truth to power” that agrees with your own world view on your campus.

I object to fraternities blasting Kanye outside the library during Rush Week. I object to charities hawking brownies outside my class while I’m teaching. I object to the Muslim Student Union — and remember, I’m at UCI — and Hillel competing to who can disrupt the other’s event more grandly. Moreover, I don’t think anyone’s denying anyone else anything when the people doing the denying are private employees of a private institution. Were you up in arms when Michael Moore wasn’t allowed to interrupt a GM shareholders meeting and heckle Roger Smith? Moore thought he was speaking on behalf of the union employees who were being hurt by Smith’s decisions.

Don’t let the irony of the situation — and Ziegler’s counting on you to do that — blind you to the basic facts here. He arrived uninvited to a private function being held by a private institution with no press credentials and proceeded to make a scene. When he was asked to leave, he made a bigger scene, then posted a video of it on the internet with the misleading title “Ziegler Arrest.” Was he arrested? Seems to me like an accurate title would be “Ziegler Detained For Questioning And Released.” (Again, I couldn’t make out 100 percent of what was said when the camera was aimed at everyone’s feet — and I didn’t hear a bit of what was said during the 15 minutes he edited out — but I don’t think he was arrested. Of course, saying he was makes it more dramatic, &c.)

Unless, of course, you have been drinking.

Stay classy, Eric. And I mean that unsarcastically: you’re usually quite classy, so try and stay that way.

Nor does it appear to me that he is trying to fall down. It looks like he doesn’t want to leave.

He doesn’t want to leave. They’ve asked him to. So he engages in a little passive resistance and tries to sit down.

But why does it mean that USC’s journalism school would attempt to prevent him from performing journalism on the sidewalk outside?

First, we don’t know what happened to cause the security guard to come over there in the first place. Given Ziegler’s history of pulling stunts to get attention, I’d like to see what happened before he was asked to leave. I wouldn’t put it past him to have been screaming obscene filth in order to provoke the guards, then pretending he did nothing the minute the guards approached him. He has the tape. Let him produce it and prove me wrong. If I’m wrong — you know this — I’ll sing it to the world.

You not only could be wrong but you are wrong. Not once did they ask if he’s been drinking and how much.

First, the video was edited. It said it was edited. Not everything that was said made it in the video. It even begins in media res, so we don’t even know what happened before the video began. To reiterate: Patrick’s right to say that in my experience, Ziegler’s an opportunistic liar, so his ethos is shot to hell. But that doesn’t mean he’s lying here — just that I’m not going to believe the word of a man as desperate for attention as Ziegler obviously is. He can prove me wrong, if he cares to. But until I see evidence that he’s something more than a person who uses someone’s suicide as a way to grab a slice of spotlight, I’m not going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:21 pm

Also, I think I would be laughing myself at the lunacy of it and the irony of it, as he mentioned. You take this episode, then couple it with the DHS report of this week, and believe me, it is going to get very scary for anyone who doesn’t have Obama Kool-Aid IVs.

Ted (d02b66) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:21 pm

If I’m wrong — you know this — I’ll sing it to the world.

See the update. The unedited video is at his web site. Let’s all go watch it. I’ll wait for you to sing.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:25 pm

John Ziegler has no right to poison impressionable young minds with his treasonous slander of The Precious.

Impressionable young minds must be shielded from his thoughtcrime, or they won’t become reliable journalists.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:28 pm

The unedited video is at his web site.

Where? I only see the link to the Breitbart interview.

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:31 pm

Still waiting for SEK to sing ….

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:36 pm

Why is a journalism school asking a journalist to leave a journalism school, for performing journalism??
Why? Because, as stated: John went to USC to witness and ask questions about Katie Couric getting the Walter Cronkite journalism award for her interview of Sarah Palin. He intended to also give away copies of his film…

DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:41 pm

“USC is a state university, it is not private property.”

That is incorrect. It is a private university on private property.

We are proud Trojan parents, but whatever USC’s legal rights may be to decide who is allowed on their property, I’m rather glad today that our daughter’s not in the journalism school!

Best wishes,
Laura

Laura (ea26eb) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:42 pm

Oh, the horror, ASPCA. Members of the media never ever ever go places uninvited, do they? He was going to ask questions? Outrage.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:44 pm

SEK,

There is a video from before the cops contact him.

I believe he said there is a 20-minute unedited video and I can’t find that.

But I have already seen enough to reject your fantasy: “I wouldn’t put it past him to have been screaming obscene filth in order to provoke the guards, then pretending he did nothing the minute the guards approached him.”

As with your fantasy that he had been drinking, the obvious problem is that the cops said absolutely nothing to substantiate your supposition, and they would have if your supposition were true.

You continue to insist on making up crap that reality just doesn’t bear out.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:44 pm

Ziegler can call himself a journalist, sure, but is he government accredited?

I thought not.

Comment by ras

Which government is accrediting journalists ? The last one I heard of was ended in 1945. I don’t think he was trying to attend the White House press room where there is a legitimate issue.

Ted, USC is private I’m sorry to say. That means they keep asking me for money.

Mike K (2cf494) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:45 pm

That is incorrect. It is a private university on private property.

We are proud Trojan parents, but whatever USC’s legal rights may be to decide who is allowed on their property, I’m rather glad today that our daughter’s not in the journalism school!

Great comment.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:45 pm

We tend to call those asspulls, Patterico.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:46 pm

Still waiting for SEK to sing …

The video’s not on his site, and the one at Breitbart shows fairly clearly that he was making a scene. He follows the security guard who wouldn’t let him in because he didn’t have an invitation, then whines about how there would’ve been room for him in there so they should’ve let him in; then they show a clip of a building and/or event manager talking to him; then he starts being a wise ass, yelling about how people can get by him, so why can’t he stay; then they try to accommodate him so he can hawk his wares at an event to which he wasn’t invited, and he refuses to go over there because it’s too far away.

I’m sorry, but from the clips played in that interview, it’s clear he’s an attention-seeking jackass. Again, I ask you, would you defend Michael Moore? Not only wouldn’t I, I didn’t. And when I was criticized for lighting into Moore for not showing us the whole story, I wrote:

It’s not that Moore met Roger Smith while filming the movie—the film was in preproduction at the time—it is that he never offers his ambushing of Smith at the GM shareholders meeting because doing so would provide Smith with an understandable reason for refusing to meet with him.

Sounds to me like I’m consistently favoring the rights of private organizations to refuse self-important blowhards the opportunity to score rhetorical points at their expense, but your mileage may vary.

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:47 pm

Do those goalposts ever get heavy?

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:51 pm

As with your fantasy that he had been drinking, the obvious problem is that the cops said absolutely nothing to substantiate your supposition, and they would have if your supposition were true.

After watching the video, I officially punt that from the realm of possibility. It’s off the table. But given that he said he was deliberately provoking them, that he was trying to cause a scene on camera, succeeded, and is now hawking his story everywhere he can, I do wonder how to your mind he’s different from Moore. I’m more than willing to condemn Moore when he manufactures outrage by being a jackass even though I agree with him because he’s being a jackass — it just strikes me that Ziegler’s cut from the same cloth.

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:52 pm

To reiterate: Patrick’s right to say that in my experience, Ziegler’s an opportunistic liar, so his ethos is shot to hell.

That’s not what I said. Please be careful to attribute your positions to yourself.

The video’s not on his site, and the one at Breitbart shows fairly clearly that he was making a scene. He follows the security guard who wouldn’t let him in because he didn’t have an invitation, then whines about how there would’ve been room for him in there so they should’ve let him in; then they show a clip of a building and/or event manager talking to him; then he starts being a wise ass, yelling about how people can get by him, so why can’t he stay; then they try to accommodate him so he can hawk his wares at an event to which he wasn’t invited, and he refuses to go over there because it’s too far away.

It was palpably a stunt: he intended to seek entrance and expected to be denied, which would provide some irony. Then he planned to ask people questions as they approached, and give away (not “hawk”) his film with a Sarah Palin interview he considered to be more responsible.

He wasn’t in a boardroom. He was on a sidewalk.

Palpably, he would normally be OK to be there — except that they didn’t like the content of what he was saying.

Pathetic for a “journalism” school.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:54 pm

I didn’t realize this post was about Michael Moore. Was he at the award ceremony as well?

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:55 pm

Do those goalposts ever get heavy?

How have I shifted the goalposts? I noted, initially, that he looked and sounded drunk to me. I was wrong. I don’t think “admitting I was wrong” translates as “shifting the goalposts.” Especially when said admission comes after considering more evidence and evaluating it on its face, as opposed to allowing my preconceived views of Ziegler muddy the picture. I’m asking honestly: how does what Ziegler did here differ from Moore’s modus operandi?

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:56 pm

Now that all of the prior asspulls have been shown to be just that, we have now moved the goalposts, and changed the target.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 8:56 pm

I’m asking honestly: how does what Ziegler did here differ from Moore’s modus operandi?

Your analogies suck. Comparing this to him marching into a boardroom is ridiculous. He’s on the freaking sidewalk. This is more like being in a mall common area. If you obstruct people’s path, security can ask you to leave. In fact, as I said above, they can probably ask you to leave for any reason.

But if the mall is the “Journalism Mall” it would be odd to ask someone to leave for asking questions.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:03 pm

I split the baby between SEK and Patterico, with maybe a little more to SEK. USC held an event to convey a message it wished to send. John Ziegler tried to poach on the event to send his own message. USC thought that that would dilute or even demean its message. In the end, USC likely preserved the dignity of the event but, given that it is a journalism school, Ziegler did manage to make a point of sorts even if it was not the one he originally intended.

nk (56f8d1) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:03 pm

That’s not what I said. Please be careful to attribute your positions to yourself.

I only attributed my experience to myself there. But I’ll try to be a little more clear in the future.

Palpably, he would normally be OK to be there — except that they didn’t like the content of what he was saying. Pathetic for a “journalism” school.

He set out to annoy people, succeeded, and was removed from the premises. He admits they even tried to accommodate him at first, that they offered to set up a table for him to distribute his DVDs, this despite not having a permit — and yes, all those tables on campuses require permits — but he wanted to be right in the middle of things, otherwise his stunt wouldn’t work, so he refused. The campus police calmly tried to escort him off the premises, he resisted.

The fact of the matter is, there’s no evidence that any of the journalists in the building knew another journalist — credentials or no — was trying to get in. I’m not sure who he talked to, but given the uniform I’d say he was building management, not journalism faculty. It was a symbolic stunt, and it’s getting exactly the play he wanted it to. Which is fine. Everyone needs a little irony now and again.

I didn’t realize this post was about Michael Moore. Was he at the award ceremony as well?

I’m not trying to make it about Moore. I’m trying to see whether people will acknowledge that gadflies are treated like gadflies because they demand to be treated like gadflies and pitch fits when they aren’t. This isn’t about ideology — it’s about gadflies.

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:06 pm

If having a 2% stake in a bank means it is ‘publicly owned’and the government can do what they want with it then how is a scool that probably receives oodles of tax money in educational subsidies ‘private property’?

Jessica (649f97) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:12 pm

Your analogies suck.

Nuh uh!

Comparing this to him marching into a boardroom is ridiculous.

I could be misremembering, but Moore was booted from the lobby of the GM building, then from the sidewalk in front of it. He never made it any closer to the boardroom than Ziegler did to the event . . . because in both cases, security did its job.

But if the mall is the “Journalism Mall” it would be odd to ask someone to leave for asking questions.

I grant the irony. It was a well-planned, finely-executed publicity stunt. But that’s all it was. Ziegler’s no doubt spending the evening 1) figuring out how to milk this stunt out and 2) what his next one will be.

I split the baby between SEK and Patterico, with maybe a little more to SEK.

nk gave me more of the baby? I better take my toys and go home before he changes his mind . . .

SEK (072055) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:16 pm

What is the lesson here? Never question the MSM, and Michael Moore is a grease-laden pig.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:18 pm

“…I’m not trying to make it about Moore….”

Sigh.

And Dr. Kaufman? We all get that you hate Ziegler, and we even know why. But look to your language, which drips with venom while you continue to claim some dispassionate ethical high ground.

The part that gave me a headache was this:

1. You write a nasty personal gibe about Ziegler’s drinking (yes, when you were forced to confront it, you first “punted” and now state that you were wrong).
2. I comment about your own possible drinking problem, to prove a point about your approach to this issue.
3. You tell me to stay classy.

Again, we get it that you don’t like Ziegler, and that there is nothing he could ever do or say that you would not view with derision and anger.

Just don’t claim that other people are being one sided and not fair minded.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:24 pm

It was a well-planned, finely-executed publicity stunt. But that’s all it was.

Having watched the full video, I agree with this — except to the extent that you suggest that the handcuffing was planned by Ziegler. He denies that and I believe him.

I think his argument for being admitted was exceedingly poor, and I think he knew he’d be denied entry, and that was the publicity stunt. If that was all it was, it would be typical Michael Moore stuff.

His argument for being allowed to ask people questions was pretty good, given the nature of the place where he was. I would like you to acknowledge that.

If Moore was booted from the lobby of a building, and then from a sidewalk, then your analogy is closer . . . but the problem is still that universities and journalism schools in particular should be about the free exchange of ideas. Instead we end up with a cop saying: turn off your camera and shut up or you’re going to jail.

“They seem to understand because they’re keeping their mouths shut.”

This is not what journalism should be about.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:29 pm

nk gave me more of the baby? I better take my toys and go home before he changes his mind . . .

I think you’re right about the degree of deference due someone who is there other than as an objective and disinterested reporter, but I also appreciate the irony Patterico pointed out.

nk (56f8d1) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:29 pm

The last cop who talked to him — the very last one — was the first one who did a good job explaining what was going on. Namely: you obey our orders or leave or be arrested. We can do that; that’s all there is to it.

The guy who kept trying to justify it by saying he wasn’t legitimate was a moron, and the guy who kept telling him to shut up and turn off his camera looked like a bully on a power trip.

The very last cop did a good job.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:32 pm

Patterico;

“…This is not what journalism should be about….”

Um. You might ask a laundry list of current “journalists” about this topic. You will find that, for many, that is precisely what journalism has become.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:34 pm

Patterico, have you seen “Indoctrinate U” by Evan Coyne Maloney? He gets himself thrown out of all kinds of “free speech” areas on campuses.

http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/

It’s cringeworthy, but interesting.

A stunt? Perhaps. But it proves some interesting points.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:37 pm

“Why is a journalism school asking a journalist to leave a journalism school, for performing journalism??”
Is JZ a journalist?
Was he performing journalism?
A J school can ask anybody anything, can’t they?
I’m not saying the guy should have been roughed up, just that there’s debatable premises in P’s question there.

gp (930280) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:39 pm

I’m giving SEK more of the baby too, and I haven’t even been drinking. I like to try to stir things up in the household every once in a while. Free speech and all, you know.

Mrs. Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:48 pm

I’m pissed off they probably edited out the ginormous “Katie Couric Is A Useless Moronic Twat” banner that Ziegler had a few guys holding up off to one side near the coolers where they were keeping the cold beers.

You can’t win ’em all.

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:49 pm

I love the “look over there” performance by SEK, and the ever-changing target. Drunk? When shown to be ridiculous, the target switches to prolly yelling off camera, to attention seeker, to Michael Moore. How hard would it be to simply admit that the irony of a journalist being arrested for being a jackass journalist (redundant) at a jounalism school award ceremony for a jackass journalist is richer the a double german chocolate cake with a chocolate granache.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:50 pm

Irony:

Questionning Ziegler’s credentials to cover an award program for Couric.

The bar is set very low.

Alta Bob (419ad8) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:50 pm

Whose sympathy is John Z. trying to arouse?

The right already knows that the MSM is a rotting corpse. Further demonstration, which I don’t think this clip provides in any case, isn’t really needed.

The Left, whose conscience John may have been trying to shock, is the sort of person who advocates for speech codes and periodically attempts to define conservativism as a mental illness. If any thing, John gave them more evidence for their thesis.

The moderate middle probably isn’t going to buy the act. After Michale Moore, “Don’t Tase Me, Bro,” and No-ID at UCLA Guy, John’s performance was fairly tame stuff.

Fritz (73dcc5) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:51 pm

While I don’t agree with what is obviously “why” he was being told to leave, he was being told to leave. Politely at first and more firmly when he did not comply. It is a “private” university, I.E. private property. Even if he thinks the officers are wrong for doing it he still has to comply. He can file a complaint or law suit later but doesn’t have the right to resist. He obviously resists them by locking his arms and trying to pull free when they are handcuffing him. They showed restraint by only pulling his arms back again and cuffing him. Personally I think they need more training in better prisoner control techniques. He almost got away. By the way, I like John and used to listen to his show every night.

Bart998 (e9a2e5) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:52 pm

Mrs. P.

I don’t want to talk dirty to you here, but I refer you to my comment #theonebefore70.

With that in mind, do you still disagree with me?

See, I happen to think universities and journalism have a special responsibility to permit an exchange of ideas.

Instead, we have Tancredo run offstage at UNC Chapel-Hill, and goons cuffing Ziegler for asking people questions with a camera and microphone.

If he had been asking friendly questions — isn’t it great that Katie is getting this award? — they wouldn’t have considered him a protestor and tried to stick him behind some barricades.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:52 pm

Mrs. P – Way to stir things up!

daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:52 pm

SEK,

JD is correct that you’ve been doing a fair number of asspulls, causing you to backtrack quite a bit (if not move the goalposts).

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:54 pm

The moderate middle probably isn’t going to buy the act. After Michale Moore, “Don’t Tase Me, Bro,” and No-ID at UCLA Guy, John’s performance was fairly tame stuff.

I disagree. Reasonable people can see what happened. Just as they saw what happened when one of CNN’s reporter’s mask fell off (Susan Roesgen).

There are still a lot of Dan Rathers still in the media today. They need to suffer the same fate as Mr. Rather.

Roy Mustang (9deca0) — 4/16/2009 @ 9:56 pm

Dr. Kaufman hates Ziegler over the Wallace tragedy. And it sure didn’t make Ziegler look good.

But there is a maxim I heard from Orson Scott Card years ago, that the measure of a right is its use by people we find reprehensible and vile. Because rights are independent of the quality of the person.

Martin Niemöller was right, even if none of my students know his name. “History is bunk,” as Aldous Huxley’s Mustapha Mond intoned in “Brave New World.”

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:00 pm

Susan Roesgen is a credit to objective twoof-telling journalism.

JD (1910a1) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:00 pm

P,

I can’t believe that I never thought about using your blog to communicate with you even when we’re in the house together. What better way to get your attention?! We can use it as an intercom system. Don’t forget to take the trash out tonight.

Mrs. Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:04 pm

Was the CNN buffoon performing journalism in Chicago?

I get that JZ had an agenda but how it that different than MSNBC, CNBC, et al

Also, please note the CEO of GE and NBC called in his CNBC staff to “question” them if they got “Anti-Obama.” Is this journalism too? It is all over the NYC Media scene that big bad Immelt want to shut down the “Anti-Obama” stuff at CNBC.

No mention of MSNBC’s slanderlism and teabagging. That is OK.

The Left in this country have not the decency of ever admitting their gigundus hypocrisy in everything they do.

From Al Gore’s 28K sq/ft mansion to Hollywood private jets dropping in for the $160MM coronation, to Comisar Obama’s 90 degree Oval Office needs, to not paying taxes and issuing reports labeling 40% of the country extremists —- all while telling us to lower our thermostats, buy smaller cars, inflate our tires, pay more patriotic taxes, don’t call terrorists Islamic and import $100 per pound wagyu beef for parties.

Really, GFY SEK, et al and I hope you’ll drop dead choking on your hyprocrisy

HeavenSent (637168) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:07 pm

Re the irony. (Maybe it’s not what Patterico intended but the artist’s intent, the limitations of his medium, and his audience’s perceptions, are three entirely different things.)

A long, long time ago, in a place far away, a newspaper published a bunch of lies about a prosecutor. He sued them for libel. The newspaper argued successfully about “a market-place of ideas”. I think it was this case.

nk (56f8d1) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:10 pm

HeavenSent: That last line was uncalled for.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:10 pm

In 2004, this USC Daily Trojan article discussed the Student Senate’s scheduling of two upcoming political speakers at campus events: Michael Moore (whose fee was $50K) and Gen. Wesley Clark. Some students complained about a lack of balance because the Senate did not schedule any conservative speakers. In response, the Senate director of speakers invited those who disagreed with the speakers to protest the events.

It appears that sentiment is no longer embraced at USC.

Anon (10cc96) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:27 pm

“It appears that sentiment is no longer embraced at USC.”

As USC parents we have been quite pleased with the “fair and balanced” attitude our daughter has found on campus, especially compared to some of the universities attended by her friends. Her professors have been surprisingly evenhanded. Ann Coulter was treated very well on campus and had a great experience and said she’d come back. They are very respectful of the military on campus (ROTC on campus, etc.). And so on. A couple of the Cinema School professors are so amazingly “fair and balanced” and un-P.C. I have a sneaking suspicion they’re conservatives (I’ve heard them lecture).

Overall, the campus still leans left, as most non-Christian universities unfortunately do — but it’s a much better atmosphere, including being a religion-friendly campus, than you are likely to find at any other large university in this state.

That said, there’s no denying that the Annenberg school — which is a separate school on the campus, just as the Cinema School is separate — is liberal. And I think they made some *very* silly decisions both in giving an award to Couric and in trying to suppress Ziegler. But I’d caution critics to approach the university as a whole with the same “fair and balanced” attitude you’d like to see from their journalism school, and not tar the entire university over this unfortunate incident.

Best wishes,
Laura

Laura (ea26eb) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:37 pm

I didn’t tar USC, Laura. Like most universities today, it did that all by itself.

Anon (10cc96) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:47 pm

Laura, good points. Surely how a university treats Ann Coulter, of all people, on campus is a good litmus test…

p.s. I like this Mrs. Patterico…hope she frequents the joint more often, even if only to increase domestic communication!

Dana (d08a3a) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:48 pm

Cute comment, but I think “Anon” missed, or chose to ignore, my point, which is that I believe it’s inappropriate to make a blanket statement about the attitude and atmosphere of the entire university based on one incident — which I more than agree was handled badly, starting with giving Couric the award in the first place.

You can either be open-minded and look at both the good and the bad and all the facts, as we’d like journalists to do, or you can just knock USC. Your choice.

And with that, that’s my two cents based on firsthand experience.

Best wishes,
Laura

Laura (ea26eb) — 4/16/2009 @ 10:53 pm

I find irony in that both USC and ND are asserting private property rights to quell legitimate dissent regarding central liberties.

ND won’t allow public demonstrations against BHO’s commencement appearance, and USC wouldn’t allow inquiry into a journalism award.

Pathetic. A pox on both campuses.

Ed from SFV (f274d1) — 4/16/2009 @ 11:02 pm

except to the extent that you suggest that the handcuffing was planned by Ziegler. He denies that and I believe him.

I didn’t mean to suggest that he planned to get handcuffed — but he was determined to cause a scene, and any prudent gadfly knows that being escorted off the premises in handcuffs is a possible outcome to causing a scene. So no, I don’t believe he thought he’d be handcuffed . . . but the bug/feature with provoking strangers is that you can’t be sure whether they’ll react appropriately/inappropriately/with violence. His “aw-shucks” routine is just that — a performance aimed to score points with a sympathetic audience. Personally — and this is why I went after Moore when Sicko was released — I don’t think such stunts help with the conversation. Now, if I’d cheered Moore and condemned Ziegler, I’d be a rank hypocrite. But I think the fact that I condemned Moore for the same lame act of political theater three years ago would demonstrate that I’m not trolling here.

(I realize, however, that I’m raining on some people’s parade. Well-executed irony gratifies the gut, and maybe I should just shut my mouth and let people enjoy the moment.)

I love the “look over there” performance by SEK, and the ever-changing target. Drunk?

JD, do you really think I’m commenting in bad faith here? I said that, to me, he seemed drunk, and that I could believe the cops would think him drunk. When presented with evidence to the contrary, I admitted my mistake. Now I want you to be honest: what could I have possibly done there that would’ve prevented you from calling me out?

If I stuck to my guns and insisted he was drunk despite evidence to the contrary, you would’ve (rightly) attacked me on evidentiary grounds.

But when I admitted that I’d been wrong — mistaken — incorrect — in error — fucking stupid — your response was that I’d shifted the goalposts.

So if you’ve got one intellectually honest bone in your body, I’d like you to tell me: given that if I insisted I was right, you’d mock me; and that if I admitted I was wrong, you’d mock me; what exactly is it I could do to demonstrate that I’m arguing in good faith?

The answer, I suppose, is absolutely nothing. You’re using cheap rhetoric to avoid addressing issues. (By definition, any rhetorical position that allows you to condemn someone else no matter what they say is cheap, or do you want me to ask you when you stopped beating your wife?)

JD is correct that you’ve been doing a fair number of asspulls, causing you to backtrack quite a bit (if not move the goalposts).

I don’t know what an “asspull” is, but honestly, I’m a little offended you think I did anything other than say evaluate what I saw. I did so conditionally, indicating that I could very well be wrong, and noted that even if I am, the cops may’ve misinterpreted the situation similarly . . . which, of course, points to errors made by all parties. In the future, I’d appreciate it if you didn’t accuse me of “making crap up” when I try to interpret the dynamics of a situation in which we’re only getting a heavily-edited version of the story. When you only know half the story, of course you have to connect the dots. The litmus test is whether you stick to your guns when your dots don’t align, and I think I did a decent job of backing away from a position once I took a gander at a few more of those dots. (Although, that’s in and of itself evidence of duplicity according to JD. Then again, so would the exact opposite reaction.)

Case in point. If my initials were J.G., I’d use this statement:

I hope you’ll drop dead choking on your hyprocrisy

As the basis of a broad-spectrum attack against all conservatives. It would point to the inherent illogic of the conservative position. Be indicative of the violent fantasies all conservatives secretly hold . . . and I’d double-down on that misspelling, because it’d prove all you rage-filled, gun-toting, violent-wishing rubes for the idiots you are. Then I’d quote the liberal equivalent of Jonah Goldberg’s ahistorical and idiotic book, “prove” that this violent tendency is the foundation on which the House of Contemporary Conservatism is built and be done with it.

Since my initials ain’t J.G. — and since people here slapped that commenter down — I don’t think that proves anything except that most people are assholes, regardless of ideology.

SEK (4f263c) — 4/17/2009 @ 12:16 am

This is the kind of stunt that made Michael Moore rich & famous.

Richard Blaine (1b407e) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:02 am

Why didn’t John show him a press pass? I thought journalists (if they are coving a story show a press pass). I think John is a gadfly like Michel Moore.

Jana King (d50da0) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:34 am

You can only be the accepted kind of journalist and must have credentials !!!!!

JD (0391f9) — 4/17/2009 @ 5:07 am

I am sure if there was a conservative speaker inside the campus police would have allowed thousands to protest outside.

Dennis D (ae900a) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:18 am

Musings, none of which are meant to justify the roughing-up of JZ, nor to defend the bonafides of Couric:

What’s a journalist?

1) A person, who has a primary goal such that he
2) Objectively records an event or story,
3) Does not deliberately become part of the event or story,
4) Intends to deliver the journal as objective truth to an audience.

If it doesn’t have to be a person, then you could call a fixed webcam a journalist.

If he has the accoutrements of a journalist, like a notebook or video camera, but his primary purpose is performance art or disruption, then he is primarily not a journalist.

If his recording of the event is not objective, then he is less a journalist than a general writer or propagandist. (Which is why I think that Mark Twain was, most of the time, not a journalist.)

If he deliberately becomes part of the story, then he is more of a provocateur than a journalist.

If he doesn’t deliver to an audience, then he is a diarist or a witness, not quite a journalist.

A person can be a journalist without specialized education, and without the approval of the state or the guild.

My subjective impression of JZ is that he is a faux-journalism comedian, like Jon Stewart and those who work on his show.

gp (72be5d) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:34 am

gp, by your definition, nobody in the mainstream media is a journalist. Nobody.

John Hitchcock (fb941d) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:45 am

Gee- do you think Ziegler can find video documentation of other events staged at USC where non-invited individuals happened to be present and yet were never handcuffed and dragged off? As such evidence would support Ziegler’s contention, I would have to say John has them (USC) by the short hairs.

wizardman (ec1865) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:52 am

@99 JH: No argument from me there!

gp (72be5d) — 4/17/2009 @ 7:02 am

For Sek, at comment #5:

the “drunk” appearance indicates that Mr. Zeigler’s body was adrenaline-rushing. This is common in combat situations, along with fright and the fight or flight reflex. Viewing his initial comments in the unedited version (recommend it, as you can see his reactions in context prior to being accosted by the two armed campus guards) and you will see normal speech patterns and motor coordination.

These reactions are human and normal. I’d say that Mr. Zeigler acquitted himself very well; he kept enough of his wits about him to not let the anger and outrage control his reactions. I think having the cameraman there helped him with this.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

J G

Jacksonian Grouch (acfa37) — 4/17/2009 @ 7:29 am

Patterico, have you seen “Indoctrinate U” by Evan Coyne Maloney?

I was just thinking of mentioning that little – noticed doc, Eric – thanks for bringing it up. What the filmmaker expreriences when he attempts to question anyone on the public grounds of the campuses he visits is truly mind – boggling. He’s further intimidated with threats of arrest and jail time after he’s scheduled interviews with University administrators who suddenly don’t like the context of his questioning. Truly shameful – your tax dollars at work.

Dmac (1ddf7e) — 4/17/2009 @ 7:40 am

It’s an interesting documentary, Dmac. Maloney was doing guerilla journalism, in his way. But that doesn’t mean that what he uncovered isn’t important.

And when my friends on the Left see the documentary, they accuse the students in the film as “whining” and such. But the tune would certainly change if we did a “D for R” substitution.

Campuses are a weird place, absolutely. Freedom of expression? Fine, so long as it is approved expression. Kind of like the MSM.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:16 am

When I went to Illinois State, you could say or do just about anything on the quad without being hassled. Even if you weren’t a student. There was a preacher there just about every day. It will be very hard to explain why they ejected Mr. Ziegler from this quasi-public space.

It’s odd, really. Universities are doing less and less of their legitimate responsibilities (e.g., teaching students right and wrong, being responsible in loco parentis, teaching real subjects like history etc.) and more of this whole thought police thing with speech codes and what-not.

carlitos (56cf62) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:26 am

carlitos, you should read the FIRE website (www.thefire.org). The stories there are outrageous. You can check out horror stories from various campus, even a state by state guide.

As a parent, it is disturbing to see how tuition money is used….

I like the “Indoctrinate U” documentary a great deal…especially the student stories. Some of the professors are just massive tools of political correctness, and do not see the hypocrisy of their own words. Sigh.

The answer to speech you don’t like is MORE speech. It sounds like you had that experience at Illinois State. That is a good thing.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:35 am

What’s a journalist?

1) A person, who has a primary goal such that he
2) Objectively records an event or story,
3) Does not deliberately become part of the event or story,
4) Intends to deliver the journal as objective truth to an audience.

So, that CNN reporter is not a journalist ?

OK. We agree.

Tammy Bruce was scheduled to speak at a USC class in Women’s Studies a couple years ago. At the last minute she was told not to come because of protests. Details here.

And the book is at its very best when she deals with her own personal experiences, as when she stood up to the rest of the gay community and defended Dr. Laura Schlessinger against charges of anti-homosexual bigotry. During that dust-up there’s one extended passage where Ms Bruce is first invited to appear on a panel discussion about Dr. Laura at USC, as the token “conservative”, then disinvited when the other panelists object to appearing with her, and finally she’s called and asked to not even attend the discussion.

At least she wasn’t handcuffed.

Mike K (2cf494) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:47 am

I wish there were more exploration of this private/not-private property question. I think it makes a major difference. How do we resolve that?

Here in Ann Arbor the University is scattered all over the city. There’s little distinction between University property and public property. But the U has their own police who enforce State of Michigan, not City of A2, codes. Are they under the authority of the State Police? I don’t know. But they run the campus as a state property, which sounds like public property to me. Following that rule, they can enforce traffic codes on any street bordering a Univ. property, which is a LOT.

If the same arrangement pertains in California, then this is more than just public property. It is PUBLIC property, like a state park or a government building. Surely that is a particularly important zone in which to defend 1st Amendment rights.

Finally, my heart is warmed by the little glimpse of domestic tranquility between P and Mrs. P. It’s nice to think our heroes have a refuge at home.

Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:51 am

Once again, Dr. K., it is about feelings, not facts. The Left feels that they are goodhearted and kind people, therefore what they do could not possibly have ill effects.

Ms. Bruce must be an awful person, so not having her there is okay.

Again, the problem is when those rules are used by people with whom you don’t agree.

Just like the (fill in the blank) people who say that we all have to “give the President a chance.” I don’t remember that from the Left during the first few months of 2001.

But then, that is different.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:53 am

Gesundheit, I was just visiting the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Home of Iggy Pop. It was a little snowy, but the students were very polite and nice.

Domestic tranquility is indeed nice. I was amused to see Mrs. P. tell Mr. P. to take out the trash via his blog. Me, I get IMed on the subject.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 8:56 am

I’m all for giving the president a chance. The man should have a chance to call an attorney. If he can’t afford one, one should be appointed for him. (Sorry. Don’t want to restart the whole impeachment thing we’ve seen for the last 4 years. But I couldn’t resist. The signs are still all over A2.)

Eric, next time you come to Ann Arbor I’d enjoy taking you to lunch. Between MI and CA it would be a cross-cultural experience for me.

Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:04 am

Me, I get IMed on the subject.
Comment by Eric Blair — 4/17/2009 @ 8:56 am

I use text messages to the kids. Sometimes when we’re in the same room. The subtext is that if I have to say it aloud, the siblings will tease them about neglecting their chores, so I’m cutting them a break by texting (besides, the little tone that a text message arrived never fails to grab their attention!). The “nuclear option” would be posting it to their Facebook page so all their friends can see it. Kind of like Mrs. P did. 😉

Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:04 am

You are very kind, Gesundheit. I was “learning pedagogy” from a colleague of mine at the U. Next time I am out, I will give a holler. My friend and his wife took me to this restaurant on the railroad track—“The Gandy Dancer”? It was nice.

When I moved to Washington from California a few years ago, I went to a local grocery store. The checker and the customer in front of me were trash talking those nasty Californians. I didn’t say anything, but was delighted to show the lady my California Drivers License when I paid by check. She was very apologetic. I just asked her at what point could I call myself a Washingtonian?

I too think that everyone deserves a chance. What I dislike is intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy. When someone who went hammer and tongs on GW Bush during the first months of his administration starts getting all June Cleaver about giving the current President “a chance,” with the implication that doing otherwise is unpatriotic, I do get exercised.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:14 am

Stashiu3, I like the ‘nuclear option.’ 🙂 I am going to hold that in reserve for my teen!

carlitos (56cf62) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:19 am

Eric – the Gandy Dancer is a prime place. I could afford it for lunch – but the dinner menu would be out of my range. But A2 has an abundance of nice restaurants. My office is 7 blocks from the quad on the main campus, if that’s where you’re pedagogical enhancement is happening.

Stash – you’re lucky your kids are still capable of embarrassment. Mine are good – but they’d think it was hilarious if I gave them chores on their Facebook – and so would all their friends!

Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:47 am

Thanks, Gesundheit. I wasn’t paying, but I still didn’t “steak and lobster” my friend! It was a nice place.

The real “nuclear option” with kids is posting their baby photos. If you need a refresher on the powers of embarrassment to get teens in harness, rewatch the sublime movie “Uncle Buck.”

Brrrrr.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:51 am

Hmmm… that sounded cheap, didn’t it? Let’s just say that your UM friend really likes you a lot. I’m just looking forward to meeting you. So I’ll be at The Blue Tractor on Washington, and I’ll carry a tea bag and a copy of “My Grandfather’s Son” as a recognition signal.

Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:51 am

Not even baby photos would do it. My youngest son is flying home today from Panama where he was visiting his brother. They used the occasion to take some pics to use as his senior pictures. The latest one I got was of my skinny (115 lbs.) son with his shirt off in an Embera indian village, flexing his “muscles” to show off his new native tattoo. (Painted on with berry juice – lasts a month.) You think some bearskin rug photos would bother them? Not a chance.

Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:57 am

Hey, Gesundheit, I didn’t mean anything with my comment. It looked like an expensive restaurant, so I didn’t pile on the charges. We have all been there!

When my friend’s wife asked some detail about a sauce, the waiter brought her a sample to try. As I said, a nice place. But we were supposed to wave to the trains as they passed!

On the way out, a kid was picking out his lobster for dinner, and the lobster in the tank did not seem pleased with his selection!

Again, I’ll holler if I get back to Ann Arbor soon.

As for embarrassment, my father is a retired firefighter. So I grew up knowing about “nuclear embarrassment” options. If your son is unmoved by the baby pictures posted to FaceBook, you can always get a matching tattoo, and demand to show it to his friends.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:22 am

So John Ziegler becomes the conservative of the “Don’t Tase Me, Bro” Kid…

Fitting.

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:30 am

So John Ziegler becomes the conservative equivalent of the “Don’t Tase Me, Bro” Kid…

Leviticus (3c2c59) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:31 am

Comment by Gesundheit — 4/17/2009 @ 8:51 am

Just to reiterate:
The University of Southern California is a private, independent institution not affiliated, or attached, to the University of California system, or the California State University system.

AD (8d39bd) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:03 am

AD, the University of Southern California ? Never heard of it. Could you be referring to the University of Spoiled Children?

SPQR (72771e) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:11 am

Yeh, that one too!

AD (8d39bd) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:13 am

I’m sorry to say this – but that does color the incident differently for me. If someone tried to pull a similar stunt at the private, religious college that I’m affiliated with, I would be happy if the security people kept him from harassing people attending our event.

Of course, setting aside the 1st amendment thing then, there is still the irony of the J-school stopping “journalism.” But what if some nutcase “theologian” came to our campus to “engage in theological discourse” outside a convocation we held? Accosting people on the sidewalk? I suspect the school would ask him to leave – he wasn’t invited – and he’s on private property – etc. Some might see an irony in that too, because we’d be stopping “free theological inquiry.” But is it really?

I hate to conclude that. It would be more fun just to make fun of Katie Couric.

Gesundheit (47b0b8) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:26 am

One of the weird things about “private” institutions is what happens when they accept a dime of Federal or State money. Things are not so clear cut, as a result.

I was furious when, for example the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire decided a few years ago that their dormitory RAs could not attend Bible meetings (in my mind, I wondered if there would be the same response to Muslim Student Association meetings, but that’s me). Government gets involved, and one size does not fit all.

It’s like the old Sufi story: once you let the nose of a camel into your tent, you get the other end, too.

I love the idea of private institutions being private. But it is not as cut and dry as it might appear—because of Federal and State monies.

Unless you are talking about Hillsdale College in Michigan, which refuses to take such aid, for precisely that set of reasons. Perhaps, Gesundheit, you are a graduate of Hillsdale or another such institution that is genuinely private.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:43 am

And I think that just calling Katie Couric “perky” says it all. She hates it.

But every time people talk about very complicated things to her, I swear she cocks her head like a Golden Retriever hearing someone whistle.

And I’m not being sexist. I know lots of very intelligent women. Katie Couric is just not one of them, no matter what she says to herself when she looks into her Magic Mirror every morning.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:45 am

Magic Mirror indeed. A few years ago, one of the tabloids (probably page 6 in the NY Post) ran a photo of her walking in lower Manhattan. She was wearing tight low-rise jeans, and her thong was showing. Very classy serious newsperson there.

carlitos (9ca4a9) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:54 am

Laura,

I wasn’t trying to be cute, I was trying to make a point but it appears you didn’t get it. It’s an old lawyer’s trick to generalize when the particulars don’t help your case, and vice versa. So when I say USC is not living up to its collegial values by allowing questions and dissent, your focus on other aspects of USC is an attempt to distract us from the particulars by focusing on the general.

I know there are many positive qualities about USC (chief among them that it produced Mike K) but that doesn’t excuse this incident. Yet it seems that, because you don’t want anyone to criticize your beloved USC, you imply that those good qualities should overshadow USC’s response here. They shouldn’t and they don’t.

BTW, I also have a college student and his university’s journalism school also leans liberal, probably even more so than USC’s Annenberg School. However, unlike you, I don’t think the university needs me to protect it from criticism, whether it involves J-School decisions or anything else.

Anon (10cc96) — 4/17/2009 @ 12:55 pm

Anon, with all due respect: I went to UCLA, myself, as an undergraduate. And Rule #1 in SoCal was never, ever diss USC to a student or alum.

They are fierce.

At least, don’t diss ’em to their face!

Right, Dr. K.?

Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/17/2009 @ 2:33 pm

Just run ’em off the road when they have a USC license plate frame … 😉

SPQR (72771e) — 4/17/2009 @ 2:35 pm

USC has a great semi-pro football team that the NCAA let’s slide on violations. So, they have that going for them.

JD (40dc71) — 4/17/2009 @ 2:43 pm

SPQR, JD…like Voltaire, I neither agree nor disagree with your statements, but I defend to my death your right to make them!

Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:21 pm

One of the things that I’m amused about over this is that it’s okay for a private entity (such as a university) to handcuff and remove an individual who’s employing a camera and a microphone on its property, but it’s not okay for a private entity (such as a bar or restaurant) to allow someone to smoke a cigarette on its property.

Steverino (69d941) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:34 pm

Steverino, this cannot be first time that you realized that Big Brother/Big Sister knows what is best for you. Better than you do.

Statists are always hankering to make rules for other people to follow. Not that they always follow their own rules, like Geitner.

But that is different. They are the important people.

Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:46 pm

A colleague of mine went to USC, and has the license frame holder. Despite that he’s a very good reporter. So please don’t run him off the road! It would increase my work load immeasurably.

🙂

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (799ef2) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:47 pm

Oh, I know, Eric. But in this case, it’s those who side with the statists that are applauding the university asserting its private property rights.

Maybe the statists should just pass a law making it illegal to conduct conservative journalism indoors, or within 20′ of a door or window.

Steverino (69d941) — 4/17/2009 @ 3:51 pm

Oh, I don’t think this has a darn thing to do with “private property rights.” It has everything to do with partisanship and bias.

Let’s try an experiment.

USC decides to give an award to journalist who has written a influential series of articles denouncing partial birth abortions. So when a pro-choice person, writing a book, does precisely what Ziegler did, and is treated exactly the same way—what do you think that the media and blogospheric response would be?

We all know the answer.

Eric Blair (c8876d) — 4/17/2009 @ 4:06 pm

#129: “Yet it seems that, because you don’t want anyone to criticize your beloved USC, you imply that those good qualities should overshadow USC’s response here. They shouldn’t and they don’t.”

Please reread my posts. I criticized USC myself, multiple times! USC deserves criticism for this incident.

“…you imply that those good qualities should overshadow USC’s response here. They shouldn’t and they don’t.”

I don’t say the good qualities overshadow it — and was quite explicit in my own criticism of what happened, to the extent I said I’m relieved my child isn’t enrolled in the journalism school — I simply cautioned that knocking the entire school and suggesting USC as a whole no longer embraces dissent is not the entire picture.

“It’s an old lawyer’s trick to generalize when the particulars don’t help your case”

You suggest I am arguing the general case because I don’t care for the specifics. I believe I am acknowledging the specific matter under discussion here, but cautioning against basing a general impression on one case.

One of the problems with the mainstream media is that they cherry-pick and slant facts to make their desired points (i.e,. anyone see that CNN reporter at the tea party?!). I am simply pointing out that there is a wider factual context in which to view the unfortunate incident at Annenberg and that your suggestion that dissent is “no longer” welcomed at USC as a whole may not be well-founded.

Best wishes,
Laura

Laura (ea26eb) — 4/17/2009 @ 4:16 pm

USC decides to give an award to journalist who has written a influential series of articles denouncing partial birth abortions.

You might as well say, “Let’s wait till Hell freezes over.”

Steverino (69d941) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:18 pm

That is a great point that steverino brought up abou how they are using private property as a defense when the same people routinely mandate and dictate what individuals can do on their own property, or in their own business.

JD (46cf2b) — 4/17/2009 @ 6:42 pm

Do real journalists usually bring copies of their DVDs to flog when they’re doing journalism?

Marty in Boise (a76463) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:26 pm

I don’t know, Marty in Boise. Why don’t you name a few of those “real” journalists of yours?

I don’t suppose you mean people like Gwen Ifill, do you? She not only moderated one of the Presidential debates, but had a book about Obama coming out right after Election Day. No real issue, right?

Naw. That’s so different.

Eric Blair (67731f) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:31 pm

But when I admitted that I’d been wrong — mistaken — incorrect — in error — fucking stupid — your response was that I’d shifted the goalposts.

I believe you have the order reversed.

JD accused you of shifting the goalposts, and THEN you admitted you were wrong.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:45 pm

I don’t know what an “asspull” is, but honestly, I’m a little offended you think I did anything other than say evaluate what I saw.

It is an assertion that you pulled out of your ass.

Like your speculation that Ziegler was drunk.

Or your speculation that he might have been screaming obscene filth to provoke the guards.

Both of which failed for the same reason: you would have heard the cops make some reference to them.

Here’s the order:

1. You said Ziegler seemed like he had been drinking.

2. A commenter made the point that the cops would have referred to the drinking if he had been drinking.

3. You said maybe Ziegler was screaming obscenities to provoke the guards, and if you saw the unedited tape and were proved wrong, you’d scream it to the world.

4. JD accused you of moving the goalposts.

5. You — for the very first time — admitted you were wrong about the drinking, and acted as though JD should not have accused you of moving the goalposts, since you were admitting you were wrong (although you hadn’t made this admission when he made the “moving the goalposts” accusation). Although the “screaming obscenities” accusation failed for the exact same reason — that the cops said nothing about it, which they would have if it had happened — you did not retract that baseless speculation.

6. A tape that clearly contains all relevant context was made available.

7. Rather than singing that you were wrong about the screaming obscenities remark — either because a) the cops made no reference to it, or b) it does not occur in the nearly 20-minute tape, you get offended that I said you were making crap up. You still have yet to retract the screaming obscenities fantasy that you made up in the face of evidence to the contrary.

At least that’s how I see it. I don’t mean to offend you, but I think you’ve been mighty quick to attribute actions to this man that reality doesn’t support, and mighty slow to retract said accusations when they’re shown wrong.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/17/2009 @ 9:59 pm

I had the impression that SEK admitted he was probably wrong after he saw the unedited video. I didn’t think it had anything to do with JD accusing him of moving the goalposts. I could be wrong, and I don’t have time right now to look at the exact order, but that was my impression at the time.

Mrs. Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:43 pm

That’s your impression because he wanted it to be your impression. But go back and look, and I think you’ll find it’s not so. Control-F makes it easier.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:55 pm

But first give Lauren her medicine.

Patterico (cc3b34) — 4/17/2009 @ 10:56 pm

Mrs. Patterico, you gonna take that kinda sass from him?

Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 4/17/2009 @ 11:21 pm

I didn’t see these comments until now, and only just saw the whole video today, as I never re-read the original post and so didn’t see the update, so let me say: first, you’re correct that I fumbled the order up there. Second, LALALALALALALALALALALA!

I’m not sure how sing on keyboard, but that’ll have to do. Ziegler didn’t scream obscenities, but he did misrepresent the encounter in a fairly substantial way, as I noted on the other thread.

SEK (072055) — 4/18/2009 @ 2:53 pm

The University of Southern California is not a “private university” It receives some of its funds from the taxpayers.

George Orwell’s “Big Brother” tactics have come to fruition! Since when can’t you ask questions of willing participants on a publicly owned side-walk at a publicly run university?

I hope John Ziegler sues their pants off!

sovereignMary (fc7873) — 4/21/2009 @ 5:13 pm

4/16/2009

John Ziegler Handcuffed by USC Police After Trying to Ask Questions About Katie Couric Award

153 Responses to “John Ziegler Handcuffed by USC Police After Trying to Ask Questions About Katie Couric Award”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out