April 12, 2006

Political Hit Jobs and Willing Reporters

Don't you love it when a political writer for a newspaper becomes the pawn (willing or unwilling) of a particular political party to smear the reputation of someone?

Enter John Spragens of the Nashville Scene.

Someone feeds Spragens a story about Bill Hobbs drawing a Mohammed cartoon that said, "Mohammed Blows." Spragens offers no context and paints Hobbs as a bigot against all Muslims. Could Spragens offer no context? I believe that when Hobbs did this cartoon that an Iranian newspaper (an Iranian government approved paper, of course) was sponsoring a cartoon contest of their own seeking cartoons that would glorify the holocaust. It was also at the same time that Muslims in the middle east were rioting and killing people over a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper.

So...in context, is what Bill Hobbs did that bad? Or, is Spragens just the willing pawn in a political hit job?

I'll take what's behind door number two, Bob.

What Spragens did was willingly fall in line to the will of the Tennessee Democrat party and set out to pull a political hit-job on Hobbs. However, if you think this was just about Bill Hobbs, then you are wrong. It's about hurting gubernatorial candidate Jim Bryson by smearing his leading supporter in the blogosphere. It's that simple. I'm just surprised that Spragens was such a willing pawn. It's as if someone like Bob Tuke handed him what to write and he just printed it as is.

Was it a slow news week? If Spragens doesn't have anything to write about, I can offer a few stories he can research that might actually be beneficial to his readership. Or maybe Trent Seibert would let Spragens follow him around on capital hill for a day or so. There's a lot of good stories up there.

I'm just sayin.

More: A minor update here. I forgot to mention Spragens' new, upcoming job...so did he.

Also, in the comments, Allan Tooley noted:

I'd like to say upon reading Spragens' article that I see him as more of a player than a pawn. The tone comes off as pretty sneering and gotcha-like to me. But it's all subjective.

Perhaps so. Did anyone also realize that Kopp has been a paid operative of Governor Bredesen at one time?

More II: Roger Abramson provides some unique insight into this situation.

More III: Bill Hobbs is no longer working at Belmont University. Statement here.

More IV: A Chill in the Air

More V: A Detailed Case Study of Press Abuse More here and here.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

It was an appalling cartoon drawn by me in an appalling moment of personal weakness during a particularly trying and stressful time in my personal/family life that few people know the details of and which I won't share here.

I stupidly posted the digitally-drawn cartoon on a website late one night as a retort to the Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest, but after sleeping on the idea, never publicized the site to anyone nor shared the cartoon with anyone.

I apologize for it, period.

That said, my critics, are trying to use the cartoon to smear not just me, who deserves and can handle criticism for drawing the cartoon, but also to smear Jim Bryson and my employer, neither of whom had a thing to do with it.

But truth matters not to many a member of the digital jihadi of the Left. (And, sadly, it doesn't matter to a few on the Right, either, though not in this case.)

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 13, 2006 03:55 AM

What makes you think someone "fed" this story to Spragens? It was published on two local blogs (one widely read) for all to see. I'm not saying they didn't, but no one needed to have "fed" the story to Spragens. It was right out there for the taking.

I don't know, but thinking this is some planned smear against Bryson seems to be slightly stretching it. Bill Hobbs touts himself as Nashville's online journalism guru and is actively trying to make a living by doing some sort of blog advising. If you are going to shine the spotlight so directly on yourself, and welcome the acclaim that comes with it, you should expect to be held accountable in the press. Especially the very same press often maligned by Mr. Hobbs.

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 07:14 AM

"I don't know, but thinking this is some planned smear against Bryson seems to be slightly stretching it."

Come on now. This wouldn't have been a story at all if it weren't for the Bryson blog. In fact, this isn't even worthy of a story...especially considering the context. Why the hell else would it be printed?

Even if it had nothing to do with him starting a Bryson blog, it's STILL not worthy of this type of witch-hunt and smear campaign.

I just hope that everyone is happy when he looses his job...which is what is what might happen. They are taking this very seriously at his place of work.

Good job.

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2006 08:46 AM

Of course it was a smear job. Mike Kopp, the dirtiest operator in Tennessee politics, found a cartoon I drew that I never publicized nor showed to anyone and put it on display for the world, to smear me and Jim Bryson, though the cartoon had no link to Bryson at all, a fact Kopp lied about repeatedly in his smear job.

That said, I stupidly drew a cartoon in appallingly bad taste, and stupidly put it on a website (a website I did not share with anyone at all ever, and which was only accidentally linked to a public profile page about me), which is where Kopp found it.

The result: Kopp scored a cheap point by publisizing a cartoon that I declined to share, and then the Scene did the same.

John Spragens made one attempt to contact me, leaving me a voice mail shortly before turning the story in. He got numerous facts wrong.

Still, I stupidly provided the king of Tennessee gutter politics and an ally of his at the leftwing weekly a grenade to toss back at me.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 13, 2006 09:15 AM

I just find it hard to believe anyone was out for Hobbs' job/Bryson's campaign. I think you are overestimating the influence of the Bryson for Governor blog.

But, I could be totally wrong. Maybe this was a witch-hunt by John Spragens all done for political purposes. It just doesn't seem Spragens' style. He has no history of that.

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 09:20 AM

Not Spragens. Kopp. Read his original post.
You're completely naive if you think Kopp wasn't out to hurt Bryson. Completely naive. Kopp lives to hurt Republicans, in any way possible.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 13, 2006 09:32 AM

BTW, the Bryson for Gov blog is independent, uncoordinated with the campaign or the senator, and merely is the ramblings of about 15 people who think Bryson would be a good governor. I set it up so people who like Bryson could blog in a central location.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 13, 2006 09:33 AM

Spragens was just the pawn.

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2006 09:34 AM

"I don't know, but thinking this is some planned smear against Bryson seems to be slightly stretching it."

Brittney - Kopp wrote in his post that his intention was to smear Jim Bryson.

From Tennessee Political Pulse:

"This prompts me to want to ask candidate "man of faith" Jim Bryson if he condones this kind of distasteful insensitivity to people of other faiths; and it also prompts me to want to contact Bob Fisher, the president of Belmont University, to inquire if he too believes this kind of expression is in line with the University's mission to promote and uphold Christian values.
If Jim Bryson wants to continue to use Hobbs and his blog followers to spread his message, so be it. But if he does, he better be prepared to deal with the political consequences."

That sure reads like a threat to me.

Posted by: JB at April 13, 2006 10:02 AM

Couple of questions.

First, since Bill drew the cartoon and didn't give clear license to it, is it a copyright violation for the Scene to reprint it? Just a geeky question, but one that should be asked, I think.

What if you take a picture? If someone deems the photo "newsworthy" do they have a right to reprint it without permission in their paper? No. I would think this is similar.

Second,

I really really really don't want Bill to lose his day job. (I don't know that I know what it is, but I still don't want him to lose it.) The man has a family to feed.

That being said, I've never thought that Bill was a stupid person. I've also gathered that he is very keyed into the blogosphere. I was surprised to find out about the cartoon, because it didn't seem like something he would do. (His explanation that it was done in a moment of stress sounds right. An irrational response to extreme stress would be the best explanation of why a clear-thinking person would do such a thing.) If ANYONE would know how gravely this act could be used against him, I would think it would be Bill. So, Blake, saying that I just hope that everyone is happy when he looses his job...which is what is what might happen makes it sound like you blame the rest of us. Which isn't fair. Blame Bill. Blame Kopp. Blame the Scene.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at April 13, 2006 10:04 AM

We were talking about different things. I think Kopp's post was politically motivated and it was an effort to put a ding in Bryson's armor. But I don't think Spreag

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 10:06 AM

(Whoops!)

But I don't think Spragens was on any sort of witch-hunt.

Posted by: at April 13, 2006 10:06 AM

Thanks, Kat. It's been a true learning experience. A life-rethinking one at that.

I did a stupid thing. Kopp did a smear job. Spragens did his job, sloppily.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 13, 2006 10:17 AM

A pawn doesn't have to be on a witch hunt themselves...they just have to play the part. He played it perfectly.

As for the blame...it's been quite obvious that there is a blood-thirsty mob of people who chomp at the bit and take every chance to pile on Bill. This blood-lust has grown to a fever-pitch over this inconsequential cartoon, and Kopp (along with the Scene) has taken advantage of this mob to pull a political hit job. It's worked. Bill may loose his credibility and with it his job.

The blood-thirsty mass may not be to blame (directly), but the dancing-in-the-street attitude over this Scene article makes me ask the question...are they going to be happy if he looses his job??

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2006 10:18 AM

One question: Why do you think that "there is a blood-thirsty mob of people who chomp at the bit and take every chance to pile on Bill"? I'm not questioning whether the mob exists, just why you think this mob is out for Bill Hobbs.

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 10:22 AM

Katherine,

It's pretty clearly fair use. The cartoon is an integral part of the story. If the story were about something else and the Scene had used the illustration without Hobbs's permission, there'd be a copyright issue, but in this case, there isn't.

Posted by: Aunt B. at April 13, 2006 10:30 AM

Ask those that rejoice the question of "why?" Not me.

----

If Spragens did pick up the story from the web without anyone contacting him, then this "mob" is to blame.

And if he did pick it up from the web, then he did the smear job all by himself...whether it was his past MO or not.

Was it a way of going after Bryson? Why did Spragens mention the name of Bryson thrice? Why did he ask if Bryson would distance himself? That's a classic example of an old political tactic. Smear person A then provide a guilt-by-association to person B by asking person B to distance themselves.

Either Spragens willinging undertook the smearing campaign or he was a pawn. Either way, he's done a good job for the Tennessee Democratic Party.

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2006 10:53 AM

"it's been quite obvious that there is a blood-thirsty mob of people who chomp at the bit and take every chance to pile on Bill."

From what I've seen there are several different people involved in degrees of "piling on Bill", all of whom are motivated by different reasons.

Brittney--Bill is openly critical of the way she handles her work at NiT. She is upset by this understandably. Plus, she and Bill have diametrically opposed political philosophies.

Kevin Newman--Obviously as Brittney's partner he's going to rise to her defence whenever he feels it necessary. Plus, he and Bill have diametrically opposed political philosophies.

A.C. Kleinheider--I think he views Bill as the biggest target in the NeoCon Nashville Blogosphere. A.C. is the kind of guy who considers himself a King de-throner, from what I can tell. Also, as a "paleoconservative" he is in the mode of trying to question authority. When the Nashville blogosphere started off, Bill was the closest thing it had to an authority figure. So AC's off and running.

Chris Wage, Amanda (?), Aunt B.--These people are liberals who happen to disagree with Bill on most issues. When Bill stopped maintaining his own blog he became a more regular presence in the comments sections of other blogs, which means that he more regularly comes into contact with these people. What looks like "piling on" is a combination of disagreement and expanded exposure.

Me--I may look like I'm part of the mob. I quite often join in with others in disagreement of Hobbs' tactics, if not his politics. I'm by no means bloodthirsty. More often than not I agree with Bill's take on any given issue. I just repeatedly find myself puzzled by, as I mentioned, his TACTICS in addressing the circumstances. Frankly, I'm not surprised to see him address personal stressors, because a lot of what he's been writing for the last six months or so doesn't sound like "Bill Hobbs", but rather like "Bill Hobbs Under Duress."

I might also add that since he doesn't maintain a blog of his own any longer, that keeps people from having a central place to go to dialogue with him. So any Bill Hobbs dialogue takes place in the comments sections of other people's blogs. Which makes the "piling on" seem even more widespread than perhaps it truly is.

-----

Granted, these are just my skewed observations of what goes on around these parts. I'm no doubt missing key facts here and there.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at April 13, 2006 11:00 AM

Another good discussion on the topic can be found over here:
http://www.news2wkrn.com/vv/2006/04/one_kudo_for_bho.html

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 11:41 AM

I take issue with the word "smear", here. That word implies vilification via falsehood, and that's not the case here. Spragens just pointed out the cartoon, and Bill alone owns responsibility for any negative reaction as a result of it, and to his credit, he seems to have accepted that responsibility.

What I find surprising is that JS found it worthy to even mention at all. Must have been a slow news day.

As for "piling on", I won't be shedding any tears. Bill has made a target of himself by being one of the most persistently, perpetually nasty bloggers I've run across.

Posted by: Chris Wage at April 13, 2006 11:52 AM

Could the action of pointing out the cartoon without providing any context at all then linking that person to a political candidate and mentioning their workplace not "smear?"

It wasn't worth mentioning other than to smear.

Posted by: at April 13, 2006 11:55 AM

Kopp smeared, Spragens reported sloppily. Kopp lied in his piece, in several different ways. Spragens made some errors. Spragens was either player or a pawn. I'm leaning toward pawn.

But still my fault for leaving Kopp the ammo.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 13, 2006 01:00 PM

Just curious, Bill. Did you attempt to call Spragens back after he left you a phone message?

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 01:03 PM

One of the most pernicious aspects of all of this was the Scene author's insistence on making an issue of where the cartoonist worked. I have seen this happen in other places, and some people have lost jobs due to their blogging hobby. Is this the wave of the future: whenever a prominent blogger makes an error in judgment (which Bill acknowledges) or blogs on anything remotely controversial (which others have done and paid a price), others will start going after their livelihood.

That is an ugly and disconcerting thought.

Posted by: HJ at April 13, 2006 02:42 PM

Exactly, HJ. There was no need to mention the place of work. That is why they (his work place) are taking this issue seriously.

And for you other bloggers out there, watch out...Spragens has set a dangerous precedent. It's easy to sit around and gawk when it isn't you.

If this had happened to a liberal blogger...or a blogger I disliked, I would be saying the same thing. It affects us all.

Posted by: Blake at April 13, 2006 02:47 PM

"One of the most pernicious aspects of all of this was the Scene author's insistence on making an issue of where the cartoonist worked."

I still don't understand why Spragens did that. Next thing you know it'll be acceptable to say "Joe Smith, who lives at 9999 Example Street--clearly a very conservative neighborhood--" and then get people to egg the fellow's house.

The other thing that really bugs after re-reading the Spragens piece is his snide comment about Bryson being a "faith-based institution". That was catty, and dirty politics to boot.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at April 13, 2006 02:49 PM

some people have lost jobs due to their blogging hobby

I'd argue that point. I don't know of anyone who was ever fired merely for maintaining a blog. However, I know of lots of people who were fired for the content they published online.

Posted by: brittney at April 13, 2006 03:18 PM

Whether you want to say that someone lost their job because they had a blog or because they posted controversial content, the point remains the same: it is very chilling for those who engage controversial issues or push the envelope in expressing themselves.

Posted by: HJ at April 13, 2006 03:30 PM

Bill, it's never good to say that you are a victim of "smearing" then go on a smear campaign of your own.

Let the smear stop here.

Posted by: Barbieux at April 13, 2006 05:14 PM

Freudian racism by Spragens:

"It seems bearded Muslim terrorists are the new big-nosed, money-grubbing Jews. The more things change…."

ohhh really?? "big-nosed, money-grubbing Jews. How did you come of that opinion?

Spragens finishes with:

"Here’s the best analogy five minutes of thought will yield: a stick figure rendering of Jesus sipping lemonade on the front porch while whipping an anguished bunch of black servants. “Jesus Slays,” the caption would read."

Sounds like Spragens has his own issues to deal with if his 'imagination' can conjure up those subversive statements up.

Posted by: Real Nashvillian at April 13, 2006 06:08 PM

Spragens is clearly an anti-Semite and a racist. I plan on contacting the Nashville Scene and requesting that he be fired.

Posted by: at April 13, 2006 07:25 PM

Yes, because the stereotype of the "big-nosed, money-grubbing Jew" is a completely original one, which JS must have summoned from the recesses of his diseased mine, since it has no sociohistorical context at all, right?

The interesting thing about the world of blogs is that I can never tell if people are being serious or not.

Posted by: Chris Wage at April 13, 2006 08:20 PM

Wow, I dont know Bill personally but will keep him in my prayers. It is a shame that in our society if you are not politically correct then you are a racist or insensitive. I can turn on Comedy Central any day of the week and hear the "N" word, comedians making fun of religion, etc. It's FUNNY!!! Granted, Bill apologized and realized what he did was wrong, we have all done it, said it, thougth it, laughed at a co-workers joke, or watched it on Comedy Central. I believe Jesus said, "If you havent sinned then be the first to throw your accusations."

Being an Artist, I would love to see the cartoon. Bill, kudos to you for owning your mistake. I have deep respect for any man or woman who shows personal responsibility. I am sorry it had such unjust, yet severe consequences.

For the record, I do support RACIAL profiling. It was Muslim Extreemist who murdered over 3,000 innocent Americans (several were hyphened Americans) on Sept. 11th, 2001. Have we forgotten that day?

I do not support political correctness. I guess I can join Bill Hobbs in the minds of liberals as a racist biggot. If you are offended by my lack of political correctness, well, be offended, it just might grow you a spine.

Posted by: Creative Liberty at April 13, 2006 08:57 PM

Bill, don't be so hard on yourself. Your concern is for the candidate more than for yourself, I know. I still don't get what the big deal is. Much ado about nothing. I guess that's because I watched so much Saturday Night Live as a young person. All is fair in love, war, and satire.

Each of us individually can find something offensive in many commonly accepted things. One example: As the sister of a murder victim, whenever I see an ad for murder mystery theater "entertainment," I think, "These people live untouched lives and don't know what the hell is going on." Or when a librarian tells me about "a good murder mystery," I think but don't say, "How blissfully ignorant you are, and I don't care to read about murder, thank you. I could write a book about it myself."

But murder as entertainment is part of our culture, and we have to find ways to laugh to keep from crying much of the time. I would never try to suppress that expression. I am suspicious of sacred cows we have to tiptoe around. Makes me nervous.

I am not religious, so I don't have a dog in the fight about lampooning of religious prophets. But they are public figures after all and fair game as symbols for satire.

Posted by: Donna Locke at April 13, 2006 10:02 PM

It's all in the "Bill" of Rights:

If it's Bill Maher, it's funny.
If it's Bill Hobbs, it's wrong.

I like both the above. How politically incorrect of me.

Posted by: Sharon at April 14, 2006 03:18 AM

I'm enjoying this discussion.

Brittney, no, I didn't call Spragens back for a very simple reason: I didn't get his voice mail message until Wednesday, when the story was already printed and on its way to the Scene's newspaper racks.

If Spragens really was eager to talk to me and write a more accurate and fair story he wouldn't have waited until the last minute and only made one call.

He might have, for example, emailed me. My email address is on my blog. And he has emailed me before.

Odd that he couldn't be bothered to email me this time.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at April 14, 2006 07:37 AM

As a not-terribly-political non-Nashvillian (that doesn't sound right. Nashvillite?) who has no agenda either way for Bill Hobbs, I'd like to say upon reading Spragens' article that I see him as more of a player than a pawn. The tone comes off as pretty sneering and gotcha-like to me. But it's all subjective.

The thing that really got me was the last bit, where in an apparent counterpoint to Hobbs' charge that the media are cowards, Spragens bravely publishes a controversial cartoon that has gotten about half a percent of the attention the Danish ones did. Good on you, Scene; way to show your backbone!

Posted by: Allan Tooley at April 14, 2006 08:07 AM

"I am not religious, so I don't have a dog in the fight about lampooning of religious prophets"

That's the 3rd thing that annoys me about Spragens' article and the conflation of Mohammed with Jesus.

To Muslims Mohammed is a prophet.

To Christians Jesus is GOD.

Huge difference there.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at April 14, 2006 09:34 AM

So, does this set a whole new precidence on what some can and can't write about?

And to think, all this time, I thought that the blog world was the ONE place where we could all say the things that the MSM (or whatever you want to call it) wouldn't dare say?

Are we trying to set ourselves up to be like them ? Are we trying to hold ourselves to the same standards that apply there? If so, I have completely misunderstood what the whole blogsphere has been about in the first place.

The PC crowd will be the death of this country. If you have to be scared (yes, SCARED) to publish something on your own blog, for fear of getting FIRED from your JOB because an adversary takes offense, it just makes me sad beyond belief.

First Bob Krumm gets blasted (and has to apologize) for the "Gorilla" comment, now Bill is being attacked by trite stick figure cartoon.

I guess that's the final nail in the coffin of free speech. Blogs, IMO, were our last refuge.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

Posted by: dsmith at April 14, 2006 10:28 AM

I've read all these comments on various sites about the Sprgans-Hobbs story. That, plus some other recent issues have left me convinced that Nashville's alternative mediasphere has reached a plateau.

NIT, PITW, and the Scene's online political following are about as big as they're going to get because potential new readers are turned off by catty fights between the same few players.

There is an opportunity in Tennessee for another quasi-media player to fill a void of intelligent political/social news commentary. Who will step up to the plate?

Posted by: anon at April 14, 2006 11:00 AM

This is a textbook example of why it is best to operate anonymously in this medium. Going after people's jobs is nothing new here as any casual observer of our local community of navelgazers should be aware. Especially some of these participants who have already engaged in outing people's IP addresses, and consequently their places of employment, for disagreeing with them on very petty issues.

The idea that something could happen to Hobbs employment should be absurd. In a world where places like Yale and Harvard are fighting over having Taliban spokepeople attending their universities or UC Santa Cruz heckling and kicking military recruiters off campus, or other universities that have hired 60s unrepentant terrorists like Bernadine Dohrn or a Bill Ayers - it's a fricking cartoon on a personal site.

IMO, Hobbs should not have to apologize for anything. And should not have apologized at all. What he was doing on his own time on his own personal site is an example of free speech that almost everyone of us engages. Once they smell blood in the water it's "on".

This should be a cautionary tale to Bob Krumm or any of the rest of the local politicos who dare to express their opinions openly. These leftists who sites you comment on are out to destroy you, your families and your livelihoods. Best to recognize it than to be naive about it.

Posted by: smantix at April 14, 2006 11:50 AM

"Especially some of these participants who have already engaged in outing people's IP addresses, and consequently their places of employment, for disagreeing with them on very petty issues....These leftists who sites you comment on are out to destroy you, "

To be fairer than I feel at the moment, a noted "leftist" (Aunt B. of Tiny Cat Pants) was also the victim of a forced-outing.

"This should be a cautionary tale to Bob Krumm or any of the rest of the local politicos who dare to express their opinions openly. "

I chose to be open for precisely this reason. (Not that I'm a "politico") Since I can't hide behind anonymity I'm a lot more cautious. I fully understand why both conservatives and liberals would wish to remain anonymous and support your choice to do so. But for me being up front about who I am keeps me all kinds of honest and generally a great deal more prudent about what I say. Generally.

Posted by: Katherine Coble at April 14, 2006 11:57 AM

Point of clarification: I didn't have to apologize. I chose to apologize when I realized that the dismissive way in which I referred to that group was the same way that they refer to others whose opinions they disagree with. Since I don't like when they do it, I concluded that it was unfair of me to do the same in return.

Posted by: Bob K at April 14, 2006 12:09 PM

Understood KC. I put something up about this the night it first started because it coincided with that first South Park on the Mohammed cartoons. But when I picked up the Scene yesterday, admittedly since one of my birds died I don't have to pick it up but every two weeks now, and saw Spragens hit piece (and that's really what it was) you could tell right away that the Scene Editorial staff was tacitly issuing a fatwa against Hobbs.

They wanted to smear the candidate he supported and they wanted to smear him personally. It's what they do now. They can try to be glib about it but considering how they were so gung-ho First Amendment when one of their salespeople got arrested for promoting prostitution, they're certainly willing to throw the first amendment to the wolves if it's somebody they disagree with politically.

Posted by: smantix at April 14, 2006 12:12 PM

Bill, you will always be welcome, as a commenter or contributor, on my blog.

Posted by: Chuck Simmins at April 14, 2006 12:20 PM

I quit reading The Nashville Scene years ago - there wasn't enough good/valuable information (music info & restaurant reviews) to balance the spewing left-leaning articles & opinions. I occasionally read Bill's blog - mostly in the past concerning local & Tennessee issues. So I am more familiar with Bill's work than Spragens. I have found Bill's work to be fair, intelligectually honest and straight-forward.

But just yesterday, someone at the office picked up a Scene and I was glancing at it during lunch when I came across the headline for the article. I had a feeling that it was going to be about Bill even though I had no knowledge of his original post or that he had blogged about the Mohammed Cartoon controversy. My impression on reading the article was that it was clearly a smear piece - written by someone who clearly didn't understand or choose to ignore the real issues behind the Mohammed Cartoon controversy. The reference to Bryson tacky - the reference to his employment at Belmont tacky!!!! I also believe that there is probably a sense of hypocrisy because given the tone and intent of the Scene, I'm sure somewhere in their archives is an unflattering depiction of God, Jesus or the Mother Mary.

I feel sorry that Bill has been embroiled in this matter - I suppose dirty politics trumps free speech.

Posted by: G. Stein at April 14, 2006 12:40 PM

Correct G. Stein. Just a few years ago they had a piece published prior to Easter celebrating visiting professor at the Vanderbilt School of Atheism and Secular Humanism, Gerd Lüdemann's contention that Jesus Christ's Resurrection is an outright fraud. Not exactly a controversial or new assertion - just intentionally timed and spun for maximum insult to Christians.

Now that's no stick figure drawing of Mohammed mind you - just an attack on watershed event that justifies Christianity's existence.

"The body of Jesus rotted in the tomb, if it was not eaten before then by vultures and jackals."

That was the 72 font quote on the front cover and I believe that's how it was delicately phrased.
(Sorry Blake)
http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/eng/002005009.htm

You know, because we're very sensitive to offending people's religious sensibilities.

Does Jim Cooper hate Jesus as much as his new hires?

Posted by: smantix at April 14, 2006 01:16 PM

Hmm, think it would be fair to post Spragens personal information (phone, address, etc.), since turnabout is fair play?

Well, I wouldn't. But, uh, a simple google search will bring about all the information you need.

Why doesn't Spragens just stick to dildo stories? Such a better fit.

Spragens and the Dildo Click Here>/a>

Posted by: dsmith at April 14, 2006 01:54 PM

Well, that didn't work either.

Here's the link.

http://tinyurl.com/lytvu

Posted by: dsmith at April 14, 2006 02:10 PM

They've tried to shove Bill into a wall on the information highway, but he's a crowd favorite and will be back on the track. Politics is a dirty game, and no one knows that better than the politicians themselves.

Posted by: Donna Locke at April 14, 2006 03:07 PM

Remember this in the voting booth in November!

Posted by: foreign devil at April 14, 2006 05:53 PM

You've got my support Bill!

Posted by: TexasRainmaker at April 14, 2006 10:11 PM

Hobb's "I never publicized the cartoon" defense is invalid and absurd.

If you don't want something to be disseminated you don't put it on your blog. Given that, why WOULD you put something on your blog?

If that cartoon was just for Hobbs, why bother posting it to a blog in the first place? Why not just print it out and carry a copy with him in his pocket?

Posted by: The Liberal Avenger at April 14, 2006 11:58 PM

Hey Sharon, Remember Bill Maher had his show cancelled and he didn't insult anyone. He just stated that our enemy cannot be considered cowards. I saw many conservatives happy that he was gone. So much for conservative support for free speech it didn't like.

Now, Hobbs was taken to task by another blogger, but who fired him? I mean the bloggers pointed out certain valid issues, but was that enough to fire Hobbs? I don't think so. But who's decision was that?

Personally as a Liberal, Hobbs shouldn't have been fired. I think his post was not as professional as it should have been from someone with such a reputation. but freedom of speech means the freedom to look foolish once in a while.

Posted by: Alvin Pettit at April 15, 2006 07:03 AM

But where is the cartoon so one can judge for one's self?

Posted by: Abu Nudnik at April 15, 2006 09:46 AM

"I chose to apologize when I realized that the dismissive way in which I referred to that group was the same way that they refer to others whose opinions they disagree with. Since I don't like when they do it, I concluded that it was unfair of me to do the same in return."

Nice try, Bob. You're already sounding like an elected official. I'm actually not in the habit of practicing the schoolyard tactic of calling other bloggers names. Why don't you try something different and make a specific charge?

Posted by: egalia at April 15, 2006 01:46 PM

And of course, the Nashville Scene would have printed this story had Hobbs been a liberal blogger who drew something he shouldn't have.

Riiiiiight.

Keep your head up, Bill. Take comfort in the Pew poll that shows only one in five Americans believes all or most of what they see in the news anymore.

In five years, the liberal MSM won't be able to execute these poison-pen hit jobs anymore. Because nobody will believe them. Too late to help you, but good for America.

Posted by: The Hound at April 15, 2006 03:29 PM

Why all the fuss about a stupid cartoon. If the drawing was never intended to offend the faith of people who follow Islam, then so what!!!

The political correctness that has been creeping in is helping the Islamofacists reach their goal of establishing the world wide caliphate.

The behaviour of the Democrats is appalling, especially when dirty tricks have been used to smear their opposition.

I have not seem the particular cartoon. If it is anything like the Danish cartoons then it is not worthy of people making a fuss. Anyone would think that Mohammed the camel driver and murderer of a countless number of people was a deity. Get real and wake up to what these people are about.

Posted by: Maggie at April 15, 2006 07:52 PM

Good Easter Morning, everybody.

I don't think that obscure blogs by either Spragens or Mike Kopp are what got Bill Hobbs fired.

My suspicion is that a much bigger bigwig lobbied Belmont College, umm University, to get Mr. Hobbs fired.

People ought to start asking Phil Bredesen if he approves of Kopp's and Spragen's campaign to get Bill Hobbs. Kopp has done media work for Bredesen.

Congressman Cooper should be asked the same question, although I doubt that he was the hit man. This Belmont career murder near Music Row sounds more like Bredesen's "I didn't know Highway Patrol promotions were political" tune.

Posted by: David Davenport at April 16, 2006 08:49 AM

Oh, Egalia. I only had to look at your most recent post to find an example of how you dismissively refer to others: "Dee Dubya Run". http://tinyurl.com/rlyop

Posted by: Bob K at April 17, 2006 08:53 AM