The particular article ought in my opinion to be treated with absolute contempt. It is too vile to touch.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You can cite me for contempt, Your Honor. I don't care.
It is the role of good journalism to take on powerful abusers, and when powerful abusers are taken on, there's always a bad reaction. So we see that controversy, and we believe that is a good thing to engage in.
What I think is highly inappropriate is what's going on across the Internet, a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that's quite outrageous.
I think anyone who has an opinion, and voices it, will offend someone.
I'm tired of malicious articles slandering me.
Any newspaper, from the first line to the last, is nothing but a web of horrors, I cannot understand how an innocent hand can touch a newspaper without convulsing in disgust.
It is very, very easy not to be offended by a book. You just have to shut it.
What I'm very upset about is the attempt to dictate to museums what they show, and the statements made by politicians in Washington that have curtailed the freedom of the National Endowment for the Arts. The attention to those issues is deflected by the spin of my supposedly having trivialized the Holocaust.
When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel - it's vulgar.
However vile the abuse they receive, media people must remember this is part of the price of getting a public voice. Stay grateful. Don't kick down, kick up. Criticise power rather than proles.