Maybe it's a good idea that Fischer and Swindell get the media attention that they do because it allows the general public to see their true colors.
For instance, Fischer's opinion piece where he proclaimed that the bible justifies human caused extinction of species, or when he called the Dalai Lama "naive and ingnorant" or when he proposed that the Idaho legislature should adopt "Moral Laws" that would make adultery, unmarried sex, gay sex etc. punishable by law. Sure, his opinions tend to infuriate me, but it's probably good that the general public knows where this so called "religous leader" stands.

I think one issue with Fischer and Swindell is that these people do harm by wasting tax dollars and promoting intolerance and bigotry in our communities. So when they are given a platform by the media, people start to assume that they are reputable sources or spokespeople for Conservatives and/or Republicans in Idaho -- they are not.

My issue isn't with the Statesman's Other Voices feature, I think that it is the best place to put them. What I, and many others have a problem with is that these two (mainly Fischer) are sought for comment in news stories. Bryan speaks for a very small minority of extremely far right Conservatives, not mainstream Conservatives or the majority of Republicans in Idaho.

I say when it comes to editorial features let Graham/Fischer/Swindell have their space, I think it only helps Democrats when people see just how out of touch these people are with our communities. SEE: vote on 10 Commandments, Graham's primary run for the legislature, Brandi's whoopin' when she ran for Boise Commissioner, the fact that Bryan's Idaho Values Alliance barely scrapes by, Clayton Cramer's significant primary loss. If I were a member of the Republican Party in Idaho I'd be pretty pissed each time one of these people open their mouths in front of a camera or bang out some nonsense on their keyboards -- because they certainly aren't helping mainstream Republicans out.

I don't support banning Fischer or Graham from the editorial pages, and any lefty who says they should be banned is just as bad as those screaming from the far right. Let people see where they stand and they'll run as far away as possible. The point is that they are not credible sources for news, just as there are some sources on the left that aren't credible. Keep them for editorial sake, just tell the news crew that Bryan should not be a source for immigration/prison sentences/education/books in the library/climate change, etc...etc quotes.

the unequivocal notion

This Ten Commandments story gets so much play because,as you wrote,"it only helps democrats".The left glories in publicising extremists on the right & thus promoting a sterotype not unlike Obama's "typical white person" statement. There has been discussion recently on the Online Statesman blogs about the Statesman showing so many pictures of Obama & so few of Mccain. CNN(of all sources) reported news magazines display pitcures of Obama TWICE as much as Mccain. The report stated TV coverage of Obama so overwhelms that of Mccain that it's "not even close".This unbalance in our media & pop kulture is dangerous & mocks Jefferson's statement that he preffered newspapers(free press)over government.Given the former's potential effect on the latter in today's America, Jefferson might not like either very much,if he was alive today.

FYI: http://www.pridedepot.com/modules/wordpress/?p=737804

Jody May-Chang
Editor, PrideDEPOT.com

is that Fischer and Swindell spew their hateful extremist views and the media gives them voice as speaking for people of faith.

Hello? They don't speak for people of faith. Fisher is openly hostile toward Islam, Budhism, and any other non-Christian belief system. People of faith are diverse in their beliefs and the vast majority don't believe in misogyny, racism, homophobia, the combining of church and state, the evils of sex, the "God given" right to own property and guns, the persecution of the Christian faith, the patriarchial family structure and the narrow definition of family that these two promote. They simply do not represent Christians. If the media wants to quote them, at least be accurate. Call them political conservatives, not faith leaders.

If you want to know how communities of faith feel, ask them. I'm sure there are pastors and others that accurately represent the views of their faith communities.

Ignore these people, they speak for themselves.

We get it that he newspaper biz is tanking and that they've reverted to printing provocative pieces in an effort to incite controversy. But you do so at risking your own irrelevance to the important and necessary matters that you dismiss as too mundane and that your bean counters have determined as expendable. In short you're making yourself no longer useful as a resource which is remarkably short sighted. You sacrifice content for controversy, information for entertainment, reason for emotion. In short, if you looked on your readers as children, you'd be guilty of spoiling them by giving them what they want instead of what they need to be informed citizens. You risk democracy as a result.

Fischer hoists himself up as some sort of moral spokesman for "family values" and Christianity, yet we NEVER hear anything from this man about helping the poor, hungry, sick or the disenfranchised. You know, the kind of grassroots activism that Christ himself did!

You state newspapers are tanking & they resort to controversy as an antidote. Why are newspapers tanking? The internet? Cable? A generally lower level of reading ability?Or bias? A combination ? The titilating nature of the controversial news stories you note was probably always a factor in determining what to publish,perhaps more now but may not come close to matching what occurred during ,say,the Jackson or Lincoln periods. I get the impression the controversy chosen by papers today does in fact have a liberal bias,perhaps because of the move to the left of journalism schools ,education generally & pop kulture.I agree that whatever the cause,it is dangerous for democracy. And the title of this thread,"should we quote conservatives",says a tonne in my estimation.

Newspapers are incredibly tame compared to pre-1940 editions. Have any of you ever heard of yellow journalism. It's not a new term. Pulitzer (yeah the guy the prize is named after) is credited for earning the term first (basically if it bleeds it leads and we will worry about the facts later) and Hearst, who, along with Pulitzer, sold the US on the War in Cuba, was an apt pupil.

Go back to revolutionary days and it was the same. For all it's chest-thumping about integrity, mass media has been printing it's fair share of trash for centuries. As we have seen in the last few years even the most established and respected media outlets have been tarnished by false reporting.

Never forget, first and foremost, mass media is about revenue. They are a profit driven businesses. The only exceptions to this throughout history have been ideological papers that want to foster either a single point of view or alternative to the majority, and they can all be a little obscure on the facts. Unfortunately, the Enquirer and the Times aren't nearly as separated by content as they would have you believe. Don't get me started about bloggers, which are even a lower lot than the standard press in their lack of accountability.

Of course, the bottom of the barrel are anonymous posters on internet message boards. :)

So there was a "political science study" that showed the more education,the more liberal one will become(ever seen a academic study of affirmative action & productivity? Not likely in PC paridise academe). Think that mite be accounted for by the KIND of education??? Like the move LEFT to PC by American education since the 60s'? It's possible to argue that a liberal who's education came at the hands of contemporary educators is NOT educated at all,but indocrinated. You know how bad PC has gotten? 3 years ago USA Today had a full page article stating the CIA was NOT allowed to consider the question of whether or not Islam was,in itself,a threat to democracies. Never saw another word about it. As for big business owning media, mite be a similar interest between owners & the left just as there is in illegal immigration. "Should we quote conservatives or should we ignore them"?Interesting title for this Statesman thread,dunt ya think?

if you feel your 'ideology' is 'devalued' by my posts,suk it up,bud. & your post is a STELLER example of jumpin to unwarrented conclusions . oh well.

diversity,diversity & more diversity

The media should seek different voices on every side of the aisle, not just Local Right-Wing ignorant Gloryhounds over and over. I don't mind hering from those two as long as once or twice a year, and other people are quoted at other times. Yeah they run that horrible organization - Alliance for the Addled...but that organization is just Fischer! All by himself in front of a computer. But there are other people out there with similar views to SwinFish who could be quoted, go find them.

Same things withlocal political profs and so called experts, first it was wetherby and now is Jasper someone. Shut up, Pack journalism, everyone swarms to the same 'experts'. Ask a different person every time, and if there isn't another one then don't quote anybody.

I lost the connection here about halfway down.

I don't agree with liberalism for what I take to be rational reasons.If disagreement is the "devaluing" you mention,then I guess I do devalue your ideas--for reasons.I try to argue with reason & some semblance of occaisonal fact. Almost ALWAYS on this site I get nasty,angry responses from liberals.Lots of insults & nasty name calling("bovine excrement"is my favorite).It keeps me coming back---it's HILARIOUS. I am thinking you are not a nasty name caller but are a sincere & a civil soul,so I apoligize for the harshness of my responses to you. Nice to meet,you,rivercity.Have a nice day.

Much print and bandwidth are given over to folks of a religious bent, often times without a questioning response, out of respect for their beliefs. Writing in a column about religion gives one license to make the most absurd statements without so much as a "say what"? to be heard. Take Glenda Christianson's charming folk-piece on the mysterious and great OZ, I mean the LDS temple, where according to Glenda, (no, I'm not going there) the living saints communicate with dead folks and if it's OK, they act in their behalf. Amazingly, not one dead person has objected to being baptized as a Mormon. Dead people act and think as a unified block, never wavering from their group-think (I guess that explains it). My point is, this talking to dead people to get them to join your church is so obviously insane, but gets a legit forum in spite of its absurdity. I think that is odd.

"Fischer and Graham appear frequently in Other Voices, a roundup of blogs appearing on our Opinion pages. We're looking for thought-provoking, topical views — and we want it to reflect a range of perspectives. Alan more or less has it right. As I've said before, there aren't many conservative bloggers in Idaho."

And yet I think you have quoted my blog about once in the last couple of years. Why? In some respects, I am not quite as conservative as Fischer and Graham. So why do I so sesldom get quoted compared to Fischer and Graham? Of course, if I did, the whole "conservatives are out to create a Talibanesque government" idea would somewhat evaporate.

ignore them.