Scott Glover Defends His Description of Judge Kozinski's Files:
In this very interesting radio program on the LA Times' story about Judge Kozinski's fileserver, there's an interesting moment in which the LA Times reporter who broke the story, Scott Glover, defends his description of the video of a man running away from a donkey as a "video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal." I apologize for blogging about the topic, as I gather most VC readers have had enough of this story, but Glover's defense strikes me as so completely absurd that I wanted to comment.
In the radio segment, Glover argues that his description of the video does not in any way suggest that the video contained or suggested a sexual interest in animals. (Which it didn't, to be clear; I just watched it for the first time, and it's clear the man is trying his best to avoid such contact). Here's what Glover says, at around the 10:20 mark:
Thanks to Patterico for the link; he is also on the radio program together with blogfather Eugene.
In the radio segment, Glover argues that his description of the video does not in any way suggest that the video contained or suggested a sexual interest in animals. (Which it didn't, to be clear; I just watched it for the first time, and it's clear the man is trying his best to avoid such contact). Here's what Glover says, at around the 10:20 mark:
Let's talk about the image of the farm animal, which I believe I described as a "video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal."That strikes me as a remarkably lame explanation. When used to describe a group acting together, the word "cavort" means "to have lively or boisterous fun; [to] romp." True, there are many uses of the term that have no sexual connotation. But a man running away in fear to avoid being sexually assaulted by a donkey is not cavorting: he is not enjoying himself. And it's hard to imagine nonsexual ways that a half dressed man could enjoy himself with a sexually aroused farm animal. It seems to me that the sexual connotation is obvious, and that Glover's defense is absurd.
This has caused quite a buzz, and I'm not sure why. If you look up "cavorting" in the dictionary, it talked about "to prance" or "to romp about." There's not a sexual connotation there. . .
If I thought [the video] was an attempt at bestiality, I certainly would have described it as such if there was evidence to support that. I was just describing what is there, there was no attempt to make it seem like something else.
Thanks to Patterico for the link; he is also on the radio program together with blogfather Eugene.
I guess if someone fights back during an assault or a rape, we can say they were just cavorting. "She cavorted with an aroused unidentified man." Yeah, OK.
Glover is one reason guys like me watch with glee while newspapers like the Los Angeles Times lose revenue and readers.
However, I do not think that Scott Glover's interpretation of what he said (which probably reflects what he actually meant) is so unreasonable as to be "absurd." I think the English language is both difficult and ambiguous and I accept Glover's explanation even while I think that your interpretation of the likely effect of his words is objectively better.
Newspapers do have a bit of a tradition of deliberately ambiguous headlines that at first appear to mean one thing, and then turn out to mean something different when you read the story. But here, the misleading impression isn't corrected by the end of the story.
But, if you look up "fag" in the dictionary you will see it talks about a young student at a British school doing menial chores. There is no derogatory homosexual or homophobic connotation there.
Also, I thought it was telling when Glover used the word "denotation" instead of "connotation" when referring to the definition of cavort.
The only thing this quote tells me is that he doesn't know the definitions of "prance" or "romp about" either.
Ask The Onion
Gee, I wonder why The Onion described the situation like this: "A Los Angeles pornography trial was suspended when it came to light that the judge had bestiality-tinged photos on his personal website."
However, what is truly unforgivable was the way Glover continued to defend himself on Monday, the day the Which Way LA episode was taped. I am willing to accept that perhaps Glover was ignorant of the video's status as a very old viral Internet video when he wrote the article. By Monday, however, the video had been broadcast on a national network — the Friday, June 13th episode of the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show. This is a national television network, one regulated by the FCC, with an army of standards and practices lawyers. They played the video. ABC even allowed it to be played on a non-news, and Kimmel discussed how the video had ALSO appeared on The Man Show years earlier.
If anyone is interested, the brief discussion and video clip are at the 6:00 mark:
Jimmy Kimmel Live! 6/13
I'm sorry, but an Internet meme suitable for broadcast on a non-news show on over-the-air broadcast television should not have warranted a mention in the Los Angeles Times. Regardless of bad taste, there was no reason the video warranted such a description in the newspaper.
People at nudist resorts just walk around and do most of the normal things other people do, but for some reason, the reporter always has to describe them as "prancing" in the nude.
California recognizes the false light tort. From wikipedia:
1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons).[1]
Being depicted as a pornmeister into bestiality because of a YouTube video satisfies elements 3 and 4. Only the element of actual malice needs to be established.
Oh, this should be fun to watch.