I love comments. Whether on this site, on YouTube, on other blogs, in the newspaper, or on the radio, reading (or hearing) what other people think about what somebody else thought is good entertainment. Well, not all of them. The ones that say, Oh, I totally agree with you! are nice, but just.... nice. (However, feel free to tell me you agree with me. I don't mind the validation.) No, the ones I really enjoy are the ones that detail their disagreement. If they get angry and say they hate me, all the better. When they show off their high-level third grade English while calling me ignorant, it makes me smile. Laughter is good for me.

Occasionally I'll see (or hear!) a dissenting comment that actually makes sense. Now, I have a habit of being argumentative when people with the reasoning skills of a hamster note their disagreement with my opinions. However, when I am rightly corrected, I admit it and reformulate my opinions. Some people, even ones who call themselves professional journalist, feel no such compulsion to accept constructive, and reasonable, criticism.

Global Climate Change
For example, a few weeks ago, on Living on Earth, a National Public Radio program, a listener pointed out that using the term global warming instead of global climate change, as the program often does, leads to confusion and leaves the whole concept open to derision. The listener explained, quite rightly, that using global warming does not fully connote the scientific concept that is global climate change. In fact, some people use this phrase to cast doubt on the science altogether, by pointing to winters of record snows and low temperatures. If global warming is true, why is it colder here than it's ever been? they ask. While science does bear out the fact that the average temperature of the Earth has risen over the past decades, it is also true that there are years that are still mild. Also, using the phrase global climate change, the listener points out, seems more accurate since certain parts of the globe might actually see temperature decreases due to climate change. I tend to agree.

Usually the listener comments are read and allowed to stand for themselves, even when they offer very strong criticism of the program's reporter. Often, the reporter themselves read the comments. For some reason, though, the program's host and producer, Steve Curwood, decided to respond, and not with a Thank you for your advice. Instead, he retorted that he would not use global climate change instead of global warming, and that doing so would be "irresponsible journalism." He somehow believes that using global climate change is an "exercise in denial," since the phrase doesn't make it clear if the changes are good or bad and that it underplays "the perils of climate change." He goes further to say that it doesn't give emphasis to the human activities that have contributed to the warming.

How ridiculously knee-jerk. He attacks the term global climate change but fails to defend global warming. In fact, the criticisms he has of the phrase he calls irresponsible are just as valid for the phrase he has embraced! Does global warming make it clear that the warming will have negative consequences? Does global warming make it clear that humans are in any way responsible for it? No. Mr. Curwood even uses the phrase he decries in explaining why it is no good, saying that using global climate change does not explain the "perils of climate change."

Mr. Curwood, you are an idiot.

Pant Suit
This next bit I also heard on NPR, on All Things Considered. This criticism is not unique, however, and has lately been all the roar among the supporters of Hillary Clinton. Some people just cannot lose gracefully.

The media is so sexist! they proclaim.

Bullshit.

Their evidence? The media's apparent fascination with the color of Hillary Clinton's clothing.

In the original All Things Considered story, the reporter says that Hillary Clinton strode "purposefully toward the Capitol in a resplendent turquoise pantsuit." The listener wrote in to say that this mentioning of her attire is an example of the sexism in the media-- insinuating that the media holds some fault for Clinton's primary loss.

Give me a break.

I assure you, if Senator Barack Obama had walked into the Senate in a blue pantsuit, it would have not only been mentioned, but would have been the whole story. But he's a man, of course he wouldn't wear a pantsuit! you say. How sexist of you!

No, when the Senate, nearly all men, is a constant affair of drab black and dark blue, of course her turquoise stands out! In a reversal, surround a male peacock with peahens. Which one will you notice first?

Also, does no Clinton supporter remember all of the times the reporters would mention and speculate on which color tie John Kerry would wear and which Bush would wear when they appeared together for debates? Can we blame Kerry's loss on the off-hand mention that he wore a blue tie and Bush wore a red one on a particular day? No. So why is it sexism to point out that Clinton's damned pantsuit was turquoise?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I abhor Hillary Clinton, and supported Edwards in the primaries.