The Carnegie Center for Art and History’s primary fundraiser next Friday (September 7) is a wine, cheese, beer and auction extravaganza that just might be the most noteworthy annual example of cultural appreciation witnessed in New Albany.
Accordingly, last week the museum and its yearly event became a handy target for the disaffected lunatic fringe, with breathtakingly inaccurate gossip and gullibly conspiratorial disinformation gleefully being peddled by a local blogger to a chorus of approbation on the part of generally anonymous and presumably embittered sycophants.
Ritz, Whiz and Ripple: Envious troglodytes point random disinformation generator at the Carnegie Center, demand full investigation of wine and cheese.
In turn, regular readers know that I swiftly and decisively took public issue with the fiscally conservative random rumor generator’s irresponsible innuendos.
But should I have done so?
If so, did I do it in the “best” or “right” way?
In short, is it worth pondering the extent to which we as responsible, thinking elements in the blogosphere – and, more importantly, in the community outside the electronic media – bear an obligation to answer malicious and embarrassing examples of the New Albany Syndrome such as those being perpetuated over the weekend?
NAC readers probably already know where I stand on the topic.
I believe that one of the chief aims on the part of those suffering from delusional dysfunction – remember, we’re speaking here of people willfully confusing an impeccably law-abiding museum’s perennial fundraiser with an entirely imaginary covert partisan political slush fund – quite simply is to grind down the energy of the capable, and to erode shared sensibilities and common decency by means of attrition and obfuscation.
In short, creating disinformation is far easier than battling it, and while I acknowledge the difficulties, I remain convinced that it is our responsibility to answer the fibbers and rebut their odious foolishness whenever and wherever it occurs.
At the same time, friends whom I trust see it a bit differently, and here are the comments offered by two of them.
----
#1
Looking at this "sturm und drang" from up on the escarpment, I can't help but be reminded of the old saw: "Never argue with a pig; it'll just frustrate you and irritate the pig."
I am fond of all your spirit but concerned too much good energy is being wasted in argumentation with people who refuse to acknowledge a shared, just, and common good but only want to argue.
There's a feedback loop here that is a control freak's delight, especially for one grounded in contrariness (because it feels so good, because it's an easy way to feel powerful).
How many data points are needed? These people are not open to rational debate, they agree to nothing, they will never be allies. Yes, it is sick and built upon hundreds of subtle misinterpretations that feed only their game.
I suggest you let them use their energies to only torment themselves and not waste yours.
----
#2
… I do believe it's better to mostly ignore the cyber-snipers and slanderers here. Attention is what they seek, so attention is what I won't give. I think their worst fear is irrelevance.
----
What do you think? The board is open for discussion.
And, I hope to be seeing many of you next week, when I’ll be pouring Progressive samples at the Carnegie Center's fundraiser.
Appreciate the wake-up call, Con-Dem. I might have missed it.
Surprise, surprise. I am somewhat in the middle.
ReplyDeleteTo totally ignore, allows falsehoods, rumors, and innuendo to go forward without the scrutiny that many, uniformed or semi informed people, need to make rational judgements.
The other side of this is, how long to continue to debate or refute. I have been very guilty of beating a dead horse to death.
The line between these two positions is not clear. I would have to "error" on the side of too much debate. The consequence of no debate is continued ignorance.
The latest from Yvonne reads:
ReplyDeleteDon't you wish the invitation read that it is a "wine and cheese tasting fundraising event for the Museum"? No, a "fundraising event for public consumption" -- thus why we are chatting.
In the end, there remains no evidence whatsoever -- none -- in support of her "chatting" save the misreading of promotional materials by a person who lacks a sense of irony.
In fact, after a week of methodically stripping away her various concerns, none of which have had the slightest validity to the matter at hand, we've come back to semantics as the root cause of disaffection.
How long to continue to debate or refute?
As long as it takes, IAH. It's been more than six decades since the death camps were liberated, and we still must debate and refute those who insist the Holocaust didn't occur.
Obviously, our piddling local concerns rank nowhere near genocide in the overall scheme of things, but the methodology of the fabricators is the same, here or there.
As Barney Fife said, "nip it. Nip it in the bud."
Blogs are really nothing more than public postings of personal opinions. But a lie told often enough eventually will be accepted as a truth, not a fact, but a truth.
ReplyDeleteTo let misrepresentations, and untruths go unchallenged only invites the infection of disinformation to spread. If nothing else a rebuttle against such reckless rantings, when allowed to be viewed by others, will at least give pause for thought in some readers, and in such if what you write directs even one person to seek out the totality of circumstance, the efforts are worth it.
Are there certain factions in the logal blog sphere who feed off of the contraversy they can often create, sure there are. It puts the lime light directly on them in the center of the stage they create.
One can never say, in advance, when enough is enough.
ReplyDeleteShould it continue? I say yes.
At FOS, comments are not even allowed (even though he/she claims to the voice of the people). As Conserv. Dem., she deletes selected comments, and then follows up with a response to them.
Here, we get the whole story, plus unedited responses from the populace.
Wonder what the status of the proposed injunction against the fundraiser is?
ReplyDeleteHow can anything make a good start downtown in the face of such criticism? I mean didn't conners place catch hell for the sign on the sidewalk from certain parties? (you know the bi-fold signs that are in front of every mom and pop place on every main street across America)
ReplyDeleteWhat will it take to get people to understand to bring back downtown, these types of things are going have to occur.
But yet when someone tries something neat, this is what it is met with........and injunction?!! how pathetic is that?
Agreed, an injunction is certainly "pathetic," but my guess would be that it's all smoke and mirrors. There'd have to be something illegal about the fundraiser, and don't you think that after close to a decade of holding them, that illegalities would have been noticed before now?
ReplyDeleteWhich is another thing: Years have passed and the fundraiser has proceeded, and yet this year -- because someone worded something strangely -- suddenly it's about a covert, secret political diversion.
What about the other years? Are we to witness yet another full investigation?
Back to the point: By discussing this, are we empowering the myth creators?
What we have here is a culture that would rather fight than think. Some have now discovered you can go into cyberspace and pick a fight. I don’t hang out in bars where people sit around getting drunk for a reason. It’s pathological, call it mental illness. Look at the cultural sickness this sort of drunken meanness has bred in NA. We have to raise the standards of not only civil discourse, but political participation here. Let’s not waste too much time following cursing drunks as they stagger through town spewing nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI received a note a while ago from someone who says that in this specific case, it's very much a case of the crank blogger wanting to be given attention, and the that the best way around it is to ignore her.
ReplyDeleteOkay, guys. I ... will ... try ... to ... ignore ... dysfunction ... I ... will ... try ... to ... ignore ... dysfunction ...
Aargh. That's tough.
At least with the town drunks, you know what's causing the problem.
ReplyDeleteAnyone know a neurosurgeon?
Roger:
ReplyDeleteI think the best way to handle something spoken, or written words of which you disapprove is basically the Jon Stewart method, ie., call attention to the incomprehensible words then juxtaposition them with your view which is more rational, more civilized and less filled with vituperative hurling. The public, if they are reachable, will get it.
One way feels good, the other way does good.
There is great value in educating your readers so when they hear rumors like these they won't have to waste a lot of time and energy reacting to the rumors.
ReplyDeleteI don't claim to be an expert but I do know the basic history of the Carnegie Center for Art & History.
When the current library building went into service in the late 1960's a group of volunteers had the vision to use the vacated Carnegie library building as a art and history museum. I believe the key volunteers for the project were Judge Cody's mother, Bebe Cody, and her sisters, Jane Anderson and Stuart Wrege. At that time it was called the Floyd County Museum.
The building is owned and maintained by the library. The library funds utilities, salaries, and upkeep of the building. A non-profit organization, Carnegie Center for Art & History, Inc., exists for the purpose of rasing funds to pay for pretty much everything else--exhibits, programs, outreach activities, equipment, and other needs that are not covered by the library.
Partnerships between public facilities (especially in the areas of arts, history, and recreation)are very common. The Friends of the Culbertson Mansion is another one locally.
Usually these organizations look for a large number of small donors who become "members" although the membership is technically a donation (and the IRS agrees) as the benefits of membership are intagible.
The Carnegie's non-profit partner exists for the purpose of fundrasing. A Taste of Art & History is their major fundraiser each year. It has been going on for 11 years. If I remember correctly, Dick Stem, a local business man and supporter of the Carnegie organized the first of these wine tasting events (I don't think the first one was called A Taste of Art & History).
As far as the infamous invitation, I just happen to have one. Mine came in an envelope that clearly indicated who it was from. I knew before I opened it that it was going to be an invitation for the Carnegie fundraiser. It is designed to look like an Art Deco style wine label. Inside the invitation, in keeping with the theme of a wine bottle label, it does say "A fundraising event intended for public consumption."
In the context of the invitation as a whole it is pretty obvious that it refers, not to what the fundraising is for, but to who is invited to the event.
On the back of the invitation it very clearly says Carnegie Center for Art & History. In defense of the chairpersons of this event, I am sure that they never thought that anyone would be confused as to what the non-profit organization with the sole purpose of rasing funds for the Carnegie Center for Art & History would be rasing funds for.
By the way, it is legal to serve alcohol in public buildings and the organizers of this event are smart, well-informed people who have made sure that all the permits, licenses, etc. are in place.
Address the rumors but don't waste too much time and energy on them.
NA Girl,
ReplyDelete"It is designed to look like an Art Deco style wine label."
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is now perfectly clear what the "public consumption" is referring to. Not that I had any doubt about the intent of the invitation but I was confused by the wording, not having seen the actual invitation.
Did I say thank you?
Within the next 20 years the last Survivor will be gone and then, only then, will a posture of history be necessary.
ReplyDeleteYou know I stand with you on this point (a struggle to fathom the laternative)
Alas, maybe if you afforded more detail in your posts to your breakfast menu we might muster the resolve to win these struggles.
I've often found pigs to be less irritable and far more reasonable. They're also good for bacon.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I'm still bummed Yvonne censored my suggestion to her that she file an injunction forbidding double entendres as a potentially more helpful means of alleviating her concerns.
Otherwise, unintended humor is often the best kind. That's why I so enjoyed watching Steve Price clap in wild appreciation of Eric Miller last night.
Roger,
ReplyDeleteIt's gratifying to see all the posts on this topic and the variety of emphases--they reflect why we value about this site.
It is a place for a community of the caring, thoughtful and principled who are not afraid to join in a forum where good faith and mutual respect are the only requirements for participation.
And that was the big difference I was calling out for you to remember in my comment on the Kersey-go-round earlier this week. It's not healthy, especially for those confronting great odds, to be addicted to or distracted by argument for the sake of argument.
When it comes to information and disinformation one has to, as early comments noted, stand up for the truth. But that call often depends on the setting, relevance and consequencses of the discussion.
If it involves official actions (judicial or common governance) then, yes, getting on the record for the truth (an amicus brief), is in order.
If we are in commonly accepted fora of public discussion, like comment periods at meetings or OP/ED pages in the press, we also feel obligated that truth be told and facts gotten right.
The blogosphere is both a joyful opportunity to speak out but still ill-defined as to its consequence.
Some take it to heart more than others. Those others recognize, at its worst, it's not much better than half-drunk talk in a smokey bar and, as Bluegill notes, pigs often are better mannered than much of what we find in cyberspace.
We shouldn't abandon our passion for the truth but neither should we be diverted by people who just want to gnaw.
The Carnegie Center's marketing folk tried to make creative use of the idiom regarding whether something was or was not "fit for public consumption" to tout a fundraiser for a valuable and cherished local asset.
That some trolls in the blogosphere tried to make it an issue worthy of governmental investigation or judicial intervention is absurd to anyone willing to merely scratch the issue's surface.
Even Yvonne suggested 'if only it had been worded differently', she wouldn't have had a gripe about the mailing.
In sum, dear blog forum host, save yourself from petty annoyance. We need you, and this place, for more important battles.