Dr Laura

Dr. Laura "compelling advocate for children"

Karl — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:56:00 -0600

On Powell's Books, Caitlin Flanagan reviews Dr. Laura Schlessinger's latest title, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. Though far from an apologia (first line: "She's a fishwife and a bit of a kook, a woman given to comically dramatic changes of heart and habit...".) the review does give her points for her strict belief that divorced parents should continue to live close together and participate in the raising of their children.

Video killed the radio star

Blake — Mon, 02 Apr 2001 12:31:21 -0500

Someone writes \"Dr. Laura\" TV show got canceled

Salon has a Story \"
If you ever saw the show, this shouldn\'t be a suprise. She was boring and offensive at the same time.

Dr. Laura Offers Apology

Blake — Mon, 16 Oct 2000 08:13:34 -0500

The Buffalo News was one of many sites with this.It seems Dr. Laura Schlessinger has offered up an Apology. \"On the Day of Atonement, Jews are commanded to seek forgiveness from people we have hurt,\" the radio and TV talk show host, who is Jewish, said in a newspaper ad. \"I deeply regret the hurt this situation has caused the gay and lesbian community.\" Though David Hinckley Says too little, too late. \"Laura Schlessinger once again blames others for the impact of her rhetoric, refusing to take responsibility for her precisely chosen, scientifically inaccurate descriptions of gay and lesbian lives.\"

A \'nay\' ballot for Dr. Laura on Television

Blake — Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:24:40 -0500

MSN Entertainment was one of the places with this Story. The Dr. Laura TV show has been canned in Canada due to low ratings.\"\"Our audience has voted and, unfortunately, they\'ve cast a \'nay\' ballot for Dr. Laura on television,\" says Roy Gardner, a vice president of programming for CanWest Global Communications. \"The latter part of the afternoon is very important to us because it forms the lead-up to our evening news programming, and Dr. Laura just isn\'t delivering the viewers.\" \"More from MSNThe beginning of the end is near,\" says outspoken Schlessinger critic John Aravosis, a cofounder of StopDrLaura.com. \"First the advertisers fled the sinking ship, now the TV stations are following suit.\"

\"We urge U.S. stations to follow CanWest Global\'s responsible example and drop this show,\" Joan M. Garry, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said in a statement.

Show Being Retooled

Blake — Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:14:49 -0500

Dr. Laura Schlessinger\'s new television show is ailing.

The \"Dr. Laura\" syndicated talk show has drawn low ratings and protests from gay activists, and now production has been stopped for a week, officials said.

Show spokeswoman Linda Lipman said the move was part of a pre-planned hiatus. But it is surprising because the show premiered only last week.

The break will give Paramount a chance to retool the daytime show, according to Friday\'s Los Angeles Times and the New York Post.
From AP

Dear Dr. Laura ...

Blake — Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:31:11 -0500

Brian writes \"Friday was my day off, so I watched Dr. Laura\'s TV show about pornbraries. My impression is that she\'ll get cancelled fairly quickly in many markets; she doesn\'t have much of a TV presence, sighing and hmmphing around the set like a little kid. (I could be wrong: I didn\'t think Conan would stay on the air after I saw him shaking his way through his monologues at the beginning.) The big revelation was that an e-mail address was given out on the air: mail4drlaura@yahoo.com. I noticed a bit of misinformation given on the show and on the Web-based Dr. Laura Activism Center she plugged, so I sent a note encouraging her to go do the right thing and take a moral stand for truth:

Read on for the letter...======

Dear Dr. Laura --

I am a librarian at the public library in a suburb of Chicago. I had the opportunity to view your "Lewd Libraries" program on TV and the "Dr. Laura Activism Center" on the Web, and I noticed some information which was inaccurate or misleading. I am writing to encourage you to correct anything presented on your program or website which was not truthful. I\'m sure you agree that making such corrections would be "the right thing" to do, as you don\'t want to be the bearer of false witness. I also ask that you consider adding a link on your Activism Center to a website I have written about filtering in libraries. The site is called filteReality,\">http://www.crosswinds.net/~filtereality/\">filteReality, and it is located at http://www.crosswinds.net/~filtereality/.

I believe that you have left your audience misinformed on several points, including:

1. On your television show you made a point of saying things to the effect that the American Library Association "thinks it\'s important" that children access pornography and that ALA\'s concept of intellectual freedom means that children have access to "any and all information." I believe that this is a misrepresentation of ALA\'s position, as indicated by a number of documents available on ALA\'s website. In 1998, the Intellectual Freedom Committee of ALA issued guidelines recommending that public libraries adopt policies to prohibit the use of Internet computers to access obscenity, child pornography, and other illegal material, in accordance with local laws. If you read other ALA statements about Internet access, you will notice that they all include explicit references to "constitutionally protected" material; as you know, the distribution of hardcore pornography to minors is not, in most cases, constitutionally protected.

2. The point that children cannot go to an R-rated movie or rent one from a store, made more than once on the show, is not relevant to public libraries, which are government agencies. A federal district court in Wisconsin ruled 30 years ago that the government may not use MPAA ratings as the basis for denying minors\' access to films. (Engdahl v. Kenosha, 317 F. Supp. 1133) To my knowledge, there have been no federal rulings issued since then which indicate otherwise.

3. At the end of your show, you expressed a view of the First Amendment which seems to limit the amendment as offering protection to people who "speak out against the government." The U.S. Supreme Court has not taken such a restrictive position for quite some time, having said in 1969 that crucial to the First Amendment is "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences." (Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367) This broad application of the First Amendment was affirmed by the Court just a few months ago: "It is through speech that our convictions and beliefs are influenced, expressed, and tested. It is through speech that we bring those beliefs to bear on Government and on society. It is through speech that our personalities are formed and expressed." (U.S. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, no. 98-1682) The Court has also said that children have rights under the First Amendment, which you didn\'t seem to recognize on your show.

4. The librarian on your show misled your audience when she said that people on both sides of the filtering-in-libraries issue have determined that less than 1% of information is wrongly blocked by filters. The "less than 1%" statistics have all been fabricated by an advocate of filtering, who compared bad blocks to such inapplicable populations as the total number of sites accessed or the complete Web. As a scientist, you surely understand that, when one wishes to measure the incidence of bad blocks, one compares bad blocks with the total number of *blocked sites*. Making this proper comparison, one discovers that incorrectly blocked material accounts for around 5% of blocks or more. This may be seen even in data collected and published by pro-filter activists, which is likely biased towards under-reporting bad blocks. There are indications that personal and student websites are more likely to be incorrectly blocked than those of commercial enterprises or large organizations. In addition to the thousands upon thousands of websites which are clearly blocked by filters in error, there are also a large number of borderline sites which are blocked. These are websites which may include sexual content, but not in a way that meets statutory definitions of obscenity -- publications with the type of context you mentioned on your show after a young man asked about sex in Shakespeare. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that sensitive tools are required to distinguish protected from unprotected speech, and filtering programs ain\'t very sensitive.

5. One of the arguments listed in favor of filters on a page in your Activism Center (http://www.speakout.com/coop/drlaura/libraries.asp) includes some erroneous assumptions. It says, "By not implementing proven computer programs and devices that effectively filter pornographic images and extreme content, children are left exposed to violent, obscene and graphic images that can rob them of their innocence." This ignores the fact that filtering software has *not* proven to be effective. The former president of Filtering Facts once even commented that it was extremely easy to find pornography let through by filters, and a number of the "incidents" of pornography access in libraries which he collected for his _Dangerous Access 2000_ report happened in libraries that had filters up and running. In my own testing of CyberPatrol, a filtering product mentioned on your Web page, I found that non-blocked porn could be displayed within minutes, using a very slow Internet connection and search methods familiar to most adolescents. You should also be aware that blocking pornographic websites -- rather, *attempting* to block them -- does not address what law enforcement officials say is the greatest online danger to kids: predators who communicate with young people for the purpose of arranging sexual contact. Filters are also unlikely to block much child pornography, since my understanding is that known sources are quickly shut down.

While it\'s true that many libraries need to deal more appropriately with minors and adults who use library computers to commit illegal acts, filtering software is not the answer. There is at this time no evidence that filter-using libraries are any safer for children than non-filtering libraries, nor is there evidence that Internet-related crimes committed in libraries differ from non-Internet crimes. (The most serious thing I\'m aware of happening in the library where I work was an incident of a man exposing himself to a girl while they were both using *the library catalog*.) Considering your regular \"nagging\" about parental responsibility, it seems ironic that you\'re so eager for corporations to secretly decide which websites everyone\'s children may see. Another irony is the presence of a VISA ad banner on your Activism Center page: Credit-card subscriptions fuel the cyberporn machine, so an argument can be made that your page sponsor is much more responsible than libraries for the easy availability of pornography on the Web.

I await the moral stand you\'ll make for the truth in the matters I have described. Please see my filteReality website for more information.

By the way, I agree with you that parents should be able to find out what items their children have checked out from the library. You must recognize, though, that kids who really want privacy about their reading selections will find other ways to keep their parents in the dark.

Good luck with the new TV show.
\"

Report from Robert Willard On Dr. Laura

Blake — Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:21:34 -0500

Cathy Gilletter was kind enough to send along an email
from Robert S. Willard, Executive Director National
Commission on Libraries and Information Science. He
was on the \"Lewd Libraries\" show on Friday,
and has more than
a few things to say about his experiences.

From: \"Bob Willard\"This week marks the
premiere of the syndicated
television show hosted by
Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The program dealing with
libraries, and
specifically access to inappropriate material on the
Internet by
children,
will air this Friday (9/15). The show is placed in different
time slots
in
different cities; a locator is at
http://www.drlaura.com/tv/watch.html
that
identifies the broadcast time in all cities where the
show is broadcast.
I
am disappointed to report that the name chosen for this
particular show
is
\"Lewd Libraries.\"

I participated in the show and I thought I would share
my impressions
about
the whole process.
Reply-To:
From: \"Bob Willard\"
To: \"\"
Subject: Dr. L. tv show
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:29:43 -0400
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal

(I am sending this note to friends and colleagues who, I
believe, have
an
interest in the topic. I have no objection to its being
further
circulated.)

This week marks the premiere of the syndicated
television show hosted by
Dr. Laura Schlessinger. The program dealing with
libraries, and
specifically access to inappropriate material on the
Internet by
children,
will air this Friday (9/15). The show is placed in different
time slots
in
different cities; a locator is at
http://www.drlaura.com/tv/watch.html
that
identifies the broadcast time in all cities where the
show is broadcast.
I
am disappointed to report that the name chosen for this
particular show
is
\"Lewd Libraries.\"

I participated in the show and I thought I would share
my impressions
about
the whole process.

The National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science (NCLIS) had
held a hearing on the topic \"Kids and the Internet: The
Promise and the
Peril\" in late 1998, and had sent material about the
hearing to Dr.
Schlessinger. As is known to just about everybody, she
has been an
unrelenting critic of library policies that may allow kids
to see
pornography on Internet terminals in public libraries. A
producer from
her
show contacted NCLIS on Monday, 7/31, to invite
participation in the
taping
which was scheduled for the end of that same week. I
agreed to take
part,
and was flown to Los Angeles Thursday afternoon.

Friday morning I went to the studio and shared a
waiting room with Larry
Worrall, an attorney who advises insurance companies
that provide
coverage
for libraries. We watched the first three-quarters of the
show fom our
room
on a small monitor. The show began with Dr.
Schlessinger describing
herself
as \"computer-stupid,\" and then simulating searches on
the Internet. She
was
alleging that one could get nasty sites by making typos
or slight
differences in a URL, so the first example, of course
was
whitehouse.com.
Then she claimed to misspell \"shareware\" and
connected with
sharware.com,
which (then, perhaps, but not now) was a porn site.
With both sites,
screenshots were displayed on a monitor with strategic
areas out of
focus.
Finally she claimed that entering the names of innocent
body parts could
get unwelcome results. She typed (with a lot more
keystrokes than
necessary) \"knee.\" She then looked at her computer
monitor, tilted her
head
to the side, said something like \"I didn\'t know you could
do that,\" and
then said she wouldn\'t display that picture to the
audience. I wonder
how
many searches will take place on \"knee\" on Friday. Of
course, I tried
it!
The first screen, naturally, was a list of sites. I really
didn\'t
explore
too long, but most sites seemed to discuss knee
surgery.

Next we saw a hidden camera segment where a
15-year old girl was wired
to
snoop on the Denver Public Library. She checked out
R-rated videos and
used
an Internet terminal to retrieve pornographic pictures.
This was
followed
by a second hidden camera foray with Mom present
questioning a Denver
librarian about the policy on checking out material.
Then Mom, Dad and
daughter appeared on the set with Dr. Schlessinger for
a brief
conversation.

The next two segments of the show featured U.S.
Representative Ernest
Istook and former librarian Heidi Borton. Mr. Istook
discussed his
filtering legislation and Ms. Borton described quitting
her job in
disagreement with her institutions\'s policy on Internet
access. (Ms.
Borton
had been a witness at the earlier NCLIS hearing.)

Finally, Mr. Worrall and I went on the set (and Borton
and Istook
remained
there too). In less than 10 minutes, discussion ranged
over many issues
including whether selection policy was a form of
censorship, a
Washington
Times article on political bias in libraries (I was familiar
with the
article and said the effort didn\'t even deserve to be
called research),
and
the effectiveness of filtering software. Certainly, there
was no
in-depth
conversation in this limited time.

The last segment focused on a brand new topic. A
woman from California,
Mrs. Shurtleff, was being lauded for her fight with the
library about
access to her daughter\'s borrowing records. Dr.
Schlessinger said she
couldn\'t imagine any circumstance where that
information should be
withheld. Although my part of the show was over, and I
was sitting on
the
opposite side of the audience, I piped up and said that I
could think of
an
example. That caused a little stir as cameras relocated
and Dr.
Schlessinger got up to ask me to explain. I quickly
described a
situation
in which a parent is abusing a child and the child
comes to the library
for
information on what to do; I said the parent should not
be able to know
that material was requested. Dr. Schlessinger
immediately dismissed that
example as a \"one in a zillion\" situation. I was
somewhat heartened
however
when, during the break before the credits, a young
woman came up and
tapped
me on the shoulder saying, \"I just want you to know I
agree with you;
she
doesn\'t know what goes on in the real world.\"

After an interminable session of applause by the
audience (background, I
presume, for rolling the credits), the show was over and
I made a
beeline
to the airport to see if I could get back home without
taking a
\"redeye.\" I
succeeded, and on the flight I spent a good deal of time
hunched over my
notebook computer drafting a letter to the Dr. Laura
Show. Essentially,
I
said that they could do the show any way they wanted,
but if they hoped
to
involve people who had a view contrary to Dr.
Schlessinger\'s, they could
not continue the format I experienced. I complained
about the lack of
time
to discuss the issues, and then set forth the points that
I would have
liked to discuss: 1) Internet access policy should be
determined locally
(that was the position of NCLIS) and that national
legislation calling
for
filtering was an inappropriate, unfunded mandate; 2)
filtering
technology
was imperfect and not a panacea; and 3) the real
shameful activity
taking
place in school libraries, which Dr. Schlessinger could
do something
about
if she wished, was the woefully inadequate level of
funding. I also
expressed regret at her sensationalizing of the subject
with reference
to
\"sex in the libraries\" and \"X-rated\" libraries and called
for her to
work
together with librarians to address the issue of
potential harm to kids.
(I\'d be glad to email a copy of the letter to anyone who
requests it.)

That was the end of it, I thought, but early Tuesday
evening, August 29,
I
received a rushed call from the producer. She told me
they had taken the
show to focus groups and they needed to reshoot part
of the show. Could
I
come back? She also mentioned my letter. It sounded
like I would get a
chance to discuss the topic more fully, and I readily
agreed to fly out
again for a taping Friday morning.

As it turned out, not much changed the second time. I
learned that the
first taping was a \"test\" show; I suppose if it tested well,
it would
have
aired. However, an almost entirely new show needed to
be produced. Only
the
undercover camera work from the Denver Public Library
was retained,
pricipally because the family could not return to L.A. (I
guess
sharp-eyed
viewers will notice a wholesale shift in the audience
between segments!)
If
anything, the new show was a little more tawdry. Mr.
Istook, discussing
his
dry legislation, was no longer on the docket; instead, a
Louisiana
police
chief was there to discuss the arrest of a 38-year old
man who had
masturbated at a public library Internet terminal in view
of two young
teenage girls. The chief argued that every single
terminal in libraries
should have blocking software. Heidi Borton was
invited back; she
acknowledged the NCLIS position supporting local
policymaking, but said
it
didn\'t go far enough.

On the other hand however, there was also included as
a panelist Sally
Romano, a First Amendment lawyer currently involved
in a case in her
home
state of Texas similar to the Loudon County case. In the
audience, there
was also an individual brought in by the show to
participate in the
discussion: Mike Wessells, an ALA member who is
described as both a
fundamentalist Christian pastor and an intellectual
freedom advocate.
Both
participated in an articulate and effective manner.

The final segment was again the recogition of the
mother who wanted to
see
her daughter\'s borrowing record. This time, the
opportunity to interurpt
didn\'t present itself, so my earlier example remains
forever on the
cutting
room floor!

I did\'t have a stop-watch with me, but my gut
assessment is that I had
no
more time than on the first show. Despite encouraging
words by members
of
the production staff who mentioned my letter and told
me this was my
chance
to make my points, it really didn\'t work out that way.
Again, the
limited
time, the need for breaks between segments, and the
time Dr.
Schlessinger
used to read from the teleprompter a lengthy statement
of her views,
just
didn\'t allow for any meaningful dialogue. Regretfully, Dr.
Schlessinger
continues to demonize librarians and ALA instead of
seeking some way to
work together to resolve this issue. But maybe that\'s the
way to build
up
an audience in television.

I don\'t know what the appropriate next steps are. It is
said that
Abraham
Lincoln was asked once to comment on a particular
book and he said that
it
was the type of book that would appeal to people who
like that type of
book. Maybe the same is true of the Dr. Laura Show. If it
is watched
only
by those who agree with her and have made up their
mind to focus on the
solitary issue of access to pornography and ignore all
the good things
done
by libraries and librarians, then perhaps no further effort
should be
expended. However, I strongly believe in the \"come, let
us reason
together\"
approach to problem-solving. Whether that approach
will work with Dr.
Schlessinger and her followers remains to be seen.
-Bob

Robert S. Willard
Executive Director
National Commission on Libraries and Information
Science
1110 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 820
Washington, DC 20005-3552
Phone: 202-606-9200; fax: 202-606-9203
Cell phone: 202-255-8306
Email: bwillard@nclis.gov

Quotes from Lewd Libraries

Blake — Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:47:03 -0500

Dr. Laura’s big “LEWD LIBRARIES” show is over. Both sides made some good points, but there was not much new offered, and it was rather boring as far as talk shows go. I pulled out some quotes from both sides, for those of you who can’t or won’t watch the show. I was supreised The ALA declined to go on the show.
Dr. Laura-“I would be first online with the sign to oppose censorship in the library ”Seen during the opening credit:
Love - Tolerance -Trust - Do the right thing

The kid they used to go in the library and look at porn does not have a filter at home on her parents computer.
Is that ironic?
15 Year old Stacy Wells.
While looking at the porn in the library:
“Oh my god, i can’t believe you can just do this”

Quotes from those on the Pro-Filtering Side
Chief John Doyle
I can assure you when our forefathers wrote the constitution never thought about cyber sex. if they would\'ve they would have put some kind of responsibility into it.
it’s all about responsibility.
It’s common sense, we need filters.
The tax payers are paying for people t go in and access pornography.
.

Heidi Borton [librarian who quit her job over filtering]
This is the best thing that has happened to pornographers, getting 12-17 year old boys in there and getting them hooked on this stuff.

Allison
Our tax money pays for the libraries, we need to trust they are safe there.
Maybe we need independent libraries.
I know a story about a boy who was checking out books about suicide and he killed himself, because the library couldn’t tell the parents.

Quotes from those against the filters-
Bob Willard
This filtering is not a human being
We don’t want to limit the good, because of the bad.
I don’t want a single incident to restrict or freedoms.

Sally Mann Romano
You can’t be certain your values are shared by the companies making the filtering software.

Michael Wessells.[Librarian and minister]
Kids that read succeed, porn is a very poor choice for reading the poor choice is not the same as no choice, I want to make sure that there are good choices in the library.
While they are working hard on what not should be in the library, I want to be sure what is in the library.

Dr. Laura Herself.
I admit it, I’m computer stupid. [First thing said on the show]

It’s really frightening just how easy anyone can get to these sites.
[on what libraries make available to kids]-Sexually explicit books, R-Rated films and an Un Censored internet.

This is like a stealth activity

The technology it’s self has a kind of an innocence to it.

It’s like having kids in an adult book store.

In how many realms do we allow children free access to porn, and thinks that’s a good idea.

I can’t see what’s intellectual about porn.

You as a mother would abridge what your kids see, why not in the library? [on the ALA bill of rights]

We adults are responsible for the sins of the children.

The ALA thinks its important for children to access the things we are told spiritually to avoid.

to me this is part of a big design to put a wedge between parents and children as if parents were a threat were a danger to children. [On not being able to see children\'s circulation records]

Keep in mind, some of these are just paraphrased, don\'t quote me on any of these! I may have made a few mistakes, as I am prone to do, if you want to know exactly what was said, watch the show. I did my best to be accurate and fair to both sides.

Dr. Laura in the Library

Blake — Thu, 14 Sep 2000 18:05:48 -0500

Dr. Laura\'s show (The Friday, September 15, 2000 \"LEWD LIBRARIES\") was recently filmed at the Denver Public Library. You can find out if the show airs in your neck of the woods Here

\"Library officials said Tuesday that the show taped a 15-year-old girl using a computer at the library to access pornographic Web sites. The youngster also checked out an R-rated video.
Library spokewoman Anya Breitenbach said library officials declined an invitation to appear on the show. \"We felt it was a set-up, and we weren\'t interested.\"