The Middletown Press reported on a story about mayoral candidate Dan Drew's involvement in a Howard Stern-like "gross out humor" program while he was a college student at UConn.
Here is the link to the 2002 Fox News O'Reilly Factor program in which Dan Drew was interviewed defending the right to free speech.
This information is being presented judgement-free. Readers should make their own decision about whether or not what happens in college should stay in college.
13 comments:
This article is judgment-free the same way O'Reilly is no spin. Attersee's statements about what Dan Drew did are misleading at best and lies at worst. Watch the clip provided and learn what really happened. There is no story about Dan Drew's involvement in the program because Drew did not have any involvement in the program. He was on the O'Reilly factor because he was involved in the student newspaper and wrote an editorial which supported the program's first amendment rights. Watch the clip and see for yourself what really happened.
This information is judgment free, readers should make their own decisions about whether the mayor should be held accountable for his supporters' repeated deceitful tactics.
Free speech is only for liberals.
And the Republican Eye strikes again.
Drew doesn't defend the humor, he defends the producers right to make an unpopular video.
Now where's the coverage of McMahonGate?
Drew was defending the right of free speech, for the student comedy show. He did it eloquently and calmly, smartly resisting all of O'Reilly's attempts to provoke.
Drew avoided a direct answer to the question of whether institutional support (student activity fees) should fund this particular type of free speech.
But to suggest that he was defending the 'humor' or any other content of the show is absurd.
Saying that Dan Drew was involved in this tasteless program is a lot like saying that Mayor Guiliano was involved in the Kleen Energy disaster. Neither of them had any responsibility for what happened, they just commented publicly on the events.
The facts are very different from the picture that Attersee attempts to create. Mr. Drew was the editor in chief of the UConn newspaper. A professor criticized the newspaper for running an ad for the show, and Mr. Drew wrote an editorial defending the paper's decision to run the ad. He had nothing to do with the content of the show, did not support the content of the show or condone it. He simply defended a decision not to censor an ad for the show because people found the show offensive. Here is a link to the editorial he wrote: http://www.dailycampus.com/2.7438/editor-in-chief-responds-to-recent-criticism-1.1073589 so you can read the actual editorial and decide for yourself.
I support the Eye's willingness to allow candidates and campaigns to put out their claims, but it is unfortunate that the Eye would post Attersee's comments without a clear disclosure that this is not reporting, not a "judgement free" statement, but rather campaign piece and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Read the editorial Mr. Drew wrote, listen to the interview for yourself.
Mr. Drew's involvement in this situation and the positions he took bear no resemblence to the claims made by Attersee and the Mayor's campaign.
I won't pretend that I am being judgment-free. I do condemn these ridiculous distortions of fact and those that continue to spread them.
I'd say Drew's involvement in the issue was opportunistic. He wanted to be on national television talk show so he chose to associate himself with a highly controversial program that no one else wanted to be on.
It was a show that was highly degrading to women. If the targeted class of people in that show were African American or Jewish or any other group of people other than women it would not have been considered "funny" to anyone.
I would give Drew a higher level of credibility if today he were an civil rights attorney or a journalist but he is a candidate for public office. His past is fair game for voters to know about and consider. It's up to the individual whether or not it should be an issue today.
You are all right! He was not defending the humor he defends the right for free speech and I have made that correction in the article and apologize for the mistake. It was late at night and I did not write the article properly! I really did not intend to spin it that way, I just wanted the links posted. Both the Press and the Patch had posted an article about it and the readers of the Eye should know about it too. That was my intention in posting the links. I'm sorry about the error though and made that correction and I do apologize for the mistake!
"Do you like hot girl on girl action? Well, so do Joe and Pete, Hosts of 'I Did Your Mother!'" This the ad that was approved and run in The Daily Campus, UCONN's student newspaper, that sparked the controversy. Asking the paper to use more discretion in ads run in the paper is not a violation of anyone's 1st amendment right - media sources do it all the time - editorial boards have criteria and standards (or at least they should). I doubt Middletown Press or Hartford Courant would run such an ad because it reflects on the publication. The decision to run the ad falls on editor, Dan Drew, and he chose to incorrectly apply 1st amendment as shield for his lack of judgement.
The question is he defended the use of public money for a non educational offensive program. Why is it spin to say that?? Only Dem speech is free speech apparently. We are forgetting Dan Drew's team published names of those who signed Bourne's petition- he is not without mud on his face also- but Guess people forgot about that-
Do you see the things the Democrats are doing in Middletown? Walking out of meetings that the citizens of Middletown pay them to hold positions in? The fact that they ran to the registrar of voters when they waited to long to train moderators? To throw into question the integrity of Republican moderators and poll workers because of their choice of political affiliation and religious choices? Or the fact that Mr. Drew said that he didnt care about seniors and their votes...LOL.... ya that's exactly the qualities I look for in a Mayor! Free speech was not for Sal Carricolia or Ed McKeon who got the plugged pulled on him. Free speech is only for Dem's in Middletown apparently-
http://www.dailycampus.com/2.7438/letter-to-the-editor-sexist-ad-creates-hostile-environment-at-uconn-1.1073605#.Tp2RaJs7nRl
"I'm writing to protest a recent advertisement in The Daily Campus promoting the UCTV show "I Did Your Mother!" The ad included the eye-catching line "Do you like Hot girl on girl action?"-- inviting readers to share the tastes of hosts Joe and Pete — and the silhouette of a naked woman.
It is not hard to see that this advertisement is blatantly
misogynistic and objectifies women in multiple ways. In it, lesbians become a sexual commodity offered up for the pleasure of straight men. Mothers come in for their share of disrespect. They too are available for sexual consumption and are simply a tool that enable men to dis other men. The inclusion of a generic visual image insures that all women are objectified by the ad, whether or not they happen to be lesbians or mothers. It is a (straight) man's world and women are the target but not the target audience.
The temptation is to let this slide. After all, it is just anther tasteless ad in a student paper, right? But I do not believe that we can let this ad go unchallenged because it is symptomatic of a larger problem. This ad contributes to the creation and maintenance of a campus climate that is often hostile to women, whether lesbian, bisexual, straight, white, African-American, Latino, Asian-American, Native American, rich, poor, middle-class, young, old, or middle-aged, as they go about the daily business of studying, living, and working at UConn.
I am not suggesting that we censor ads in The Daily Campus. Instead, I am suggesting that we create the kind of community in which ads like this would not run in the student newspaper because ads like this would not work. I am suggesting that we create the kind of community in which misogyny, heterosexism and homophobia are not effective marketing tools. The Daily Campus can show a sense of social responsibility and participate in creating positive change at UConn or it can continue to be part of the problem.
Sincerely,
Anne D' Alleva, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Women's Studies/Art & Art History"
HE dodged the question at the root of the matter
David Sauer- Drew did not write the editorial you linked too! Someone else's name is the author-
Let's not forget the Drew/Democrat campaign also slung mud - pulling the plug on various speakers at public sessions and publishing names in the press of people who signed Bourne's petition- do not forget-
Post a Comment