Cross-posting is fine with a link, but you really need to include enough of the article here at RedState that people get the gist and would follow the link for further details or to see what else you’ve written. That’s not the case here.

RedState is not meant as a gateway for directing people to content elsewhere.

Its not clear to me why what a private individual says is worth this much attention. If the point being made is that this guy appears to be sympathetic to America’s enemies, then yes that’s a problem but then we already know the enemy is among us. However pretending that one man’s lack of compassion for another individual is stop-the-presses newsworthy is stretching it. Is he an unfeeling jerk? Apparently. Is that newsworthy? No.

When we lose the ability to freely exchange opinions on anything and everything, we lose one of our most precious rights. Mass hysteria over what one person said or did has unfortunately become a standard of our culture.

Lara Logan’s ordeal is a tragedy for her and her loved ones, but she went into a war zone knowing the risks. Was it a cowardly and evil attack by a group of men? Yes. Are women attacked like this everyday around the world? Yes. Should we all be able to discuss the subtleties of this particular crime? Yes. Should we keep this event is perspective in light of daily atrocities against humans of all types including innocent little children? Yes.

Of course Rosen’s idiotic comments very much were a “free exchange of ideas” and by pretending otherwise, you and your cohorts are trying to close down anyone who dares stray from your version of reality. Free speech is free speech, its not “speech that a majority agree with”, or “speech that is nice”, or “speech that doesn’t offend anyone”.

Your heated reply to my mild post is a text-book example of one of the many things wrong with our political discourse. By accusing me of being worse than Rosen (I assume that if someone defends my right to say what I think, that would make them still worse?) you are attempting to shut down my willingness to respond. You don’t like what I said so you just attack like a mad dog and hope I shut up. You want to silence me.

I didn’t “attempt to MINIMIZE” anything EXCEPT the news value of what one anti-American jerk said. If your hothead can’t comprehend that, well that’s just too bad for you. You apparently can’t grasp that I’m not defending WHAT he said but his right to say it ,and given that right, the utter lack of news value in his statements.

Contrary to the implication of your final paragraph, reporters are not Mother Teresa selflessly feeding and sheltering the infirm. All the reporters in Egypt are there because it is their job. The “news” is how they make their living but they don’t have to go there, and their employers don’t have to send them there. Do we really need dozens of reporters to breathlessly tell us that there’s a loud angry crowd milling around Cairo?

Here’s an idea: All the media (and here I mean US based news organs) get together and fund ONE team to go in and record what is happening. One team with a large security element. We don’t need 25 different camera angles of the same square filled with Egyptians. We don’t need 25 different Anderson Coopers excitedly reporting that there’s a whole lot of upset protesters.

You can choose to worship at the alter of the modern day “press” but I’ll not join you.

Rosen announced his resignation this morning, NYU Center for Law and Security accepted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/259872/nyu-accepts-rosens-resignation