How Brandi Swindell in China Exposes Our Problem with Messengers and Messages

Sometimes, I use this blog to elaborate on e-mail exchanges I have with viewers.  One wrote me yesterday incensed at our coverage of Brandi Swindell's protest and subsequent detainment by police in China.  I think it is reflective of a problem we have in America, which is we sometimes discount messages because of our personal feelings about the messenger.

First, here's the e-mail exchange (without identifying the viewer).

Her e-mail:  Why on earth are you giving air time to Brandi Swindel and her illegal activities in China?  She obviously hasn't gotten the message that China does not approve of her antics.  To publicize the fact that Brandi not only did not get the message but she and her cohorts are going to continue doing what they want is irresponsible on your part.  She is an embarrassment to the United States and I hope you are as willing to publicize the fact she is being kicked out when that happens.

My response: Thank you for your note, and giving me the opportunity to respond. The ‘illegal’ thing Ms. Swindell did in China was unfurl a banner and protest against Communist Chinese policies, including religious persecution, and she was detained for speaking out.  Exactly what about this do you object to?  If you agree with China’s policies, that is your right, but I don’t believe that is the viewpoint of the majority of Idahoans or Americans, who consider freedom of religion and speech ‘inalienable rights’ that should transcend national boundaries.

I understand Ms. Swindell is controversial figure, and I have personally criticized some of her viewpoints in my blog on our website in the past.  Nonetheless, the arrest of a Boisean in Beijing for advocating human rights is certainly newsworthy.  Not covering it would be reflective of some sort of bias and that would be irresponsible.

Her reply to my response: You seem unclear on laws of the other countries.  What she did was illegal.  She entered a foreign country with a U.S. passort with the intent to break the law. What part of that do you not understand?

My response:  I’m not unclear on the laws of other countries, just as I am not unclear on the past laws of this country that got Rosa Parks arrested when she illegally refused to sit in the back of the bus.  The two are analogous.  Just because a nation has laws doesn’t make them right. 

Ms. Swindell, like Rosa Parks, is making news because she practicing civil disobedience, a practice that is firmly rooted in American history with everything from the Boston Tea Party to the Civil Rights Movement.  In both those cases, Americans broke laws and in time were heralded for having the courage to protest in the name of freedom and equality.

Many like Ms. Swindell believe the Chinese should have the opportunity to hear voices that are divergent from the heavily censored message they get from their government, and whether you agree or disagree, her open civil disobedience in a land notorious for human rights abuses is newsworthy.

I don't for a moment believe this viewer does not support human rights or religious freedom, either here or in China.  I just think she dislikes Brandi Swindell, and therefore feels anything Swindell does must in some way be wrong.

People do the same thing politically.  Democrats who despise President Bush wince when you point out the U.S. hasn't had a terrorist attack since 9-11, as if he has been incapable of accomplishing anything good during his two terms in office.  Some Republicans shut down when Al Gore lays out the case that the earth is undergoing man-made climate change despite overwhelming non-political evidence it is true.  Our feelings for the messenger make us ignore the message.

We really can't afford to do that anymore, especially when it comes to the critical decision of choosing our next President.  I suspect Barack Obama got to where he is today in part because he has some good ideas.  I suspect John McCain got to where he is today because he has some good ideas.  Their messages should define how we feel about these messengers, not the other way around.

Yet I fear too many Americans aren't going to listen to them.  They'll reject Obama's or McCain's arguments outright ... not because the arguments don't have merit ... but because they don't for some reason like the man who is giving them ... just like the woman who finds herself defending Communist Chinese laws because of her personal feelings for Brandi Swindell.

But that's what can happen when you reflexively reject the message based on the messenger.  That's why I'm doing my best to listen to both with an open mind so I can make the best possible decisions on election day.

Comments

[Kevin Richert, editorial page editor, the Idaho Statesman]

Outstanding post, Scott. I've linked from my blog.

[Kevin Richert, editorial page editor, the Idaho Statesman]

Outstanding post, Scott. I've linked to it from my blog.

[Barney]

I'm sorry, but comparing Brandi to Rosa Parks just won't fly... Ms. Swindell has never been "in the trenches" with people like Rosa Parks who had to live in those situations. It would be more honest for her to go to China and get established with the local communities and do her work from there, without the protection of being a US citizen. Rosa Parks didn't have any protection just conviction that what was happening to her was not right. Her actions helped bring about huge changes. Rosa chose the appropriate venue - Brandi did not.

[Joan E. Harman]

Dear Mr. Pickens,

I find that rather remarkable. Both e-mailed comments and what you decided to post on your blog. And I suppose the Anthrax attacks weren't terrorist attacks? How about a few dozen chemical plants burning down across the country within a month of "60 Minutes" describing the vulnerability to terrorism, of chemical plants? In other years, when it was suggested that big rigs hauling toxic waste could in fact become a terrorist weapon, just how many "truck accidents" were to occur where the trucks in question, overturning, bursting into flame, carried toxic waste? You sure that terrorism did not continue in this country post 9/11? Now explain one good thing that GW did that did not create a gvt run amok?

[Ron]

Great post Mr. Pickens. And what a great response from Joan Harman! I hope she has a bunker in her back yard or someone to protect her from the terrorists she seems so sure are all around her. By the way Joan, the anthrax attacks were apparently the work of an American sicko named Bruce, with a thing for the girls of Kappa Kappa Gamma - whats the terrorist connection there?

[The REAL John Doe]

I was offended by the great full screen graphic. Does Brandi really warrant a glamour shot and animation for cryin' out loud!