Freedomain Radio

Tom and I talked to Tom Whipple from The Times on the explicit condition that a link to the entire interview would be made available in both the print and online versions - Mr. Whipple agreed to this, and had a few weeks advance notice to sort things out at his end.

A few minutes before the article came out online, Mr. Whipple emailed me to tell me that The Times was not going to include a link to the interview in either the print or online versions.

Anyway, this is a link to the article itself:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5485325.ece

If you would like to listen to the entire interview, it is below:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_Times_Reporter_Tom_Whipple_Jan_6_2009.mp3

The 'cult' accusations are ridiculous and annoying. Is Rush Limbaugh's show a cult? What about Oprah's show? Is Fox News a cult? Are the Republican and Democratic parties cults?

The disparity between the interview and the title alone is simply astonishing.  I will never read or trust the news again.

Stefan Molyneux:

A few minutes before the article came out online, Mr. Whipple emailed me to tell me that The Times was not going to include a link to the interview in either the print or online versions.

This is quite dishonest. Some thoughts that came to mind:

Did you get his promise in writing? If so, this could be grounds for legal action (I know this may not be palatable, but, heck, they would deserve it and you could get financial compensation). Just a thought.

I wouldn't be surprised that Mr Whipple knew full well he could not guarantee your terms. He promised just so he could get your interview. He may have tried to get the full interview online, but he knowingly lacked the clout to make it happen.

If it were me, I would be very angry at Mr Whipple.

Now that I've read the article, I'm a bit more pleased than I was with the others.  Quite a bit more objective and better written I think, athough you were misquoted once.

The headline bothered me, but they have got to print inflammatory headlines in order to attract readers. The article itself was quite fair, I thought. It was obvious how little respect Tom’s mother has for her son, and how nonexistent her interest is in developing a healthy relationship with him. At least the other parents are reportedly attempting not to “alienate” their children further. Barbara seems hell-bent on belittling Tom publicly simply to assuage her own dying conscience. It is clear who the bad guys are here.

I like the article very much!  I am more proud than ever to be associated with Freedomainradio.

The quotes from both Tom and Stef are so good!  I especially love Stef's comment that "The question is not the rapidity, but the accuracy.”  Brilliant!

Congratulations, Stef.  I would be proud to forward this article to anyone!  It might not be wildly popular among parents, but I'll bet quite a number of young adults will be intrigued enough to check out the Freedomain website.

Fantastic interview, Tom and Stef.  It was enormously courageous of you to speak publicly like this, Tom, and I think you did an enormously fantastic job.  I'm proud of you and I'm proud to know you. 

By the way, I can't help but observe that it's in the "women" section of the paper...

I just finished listening to the entire interview. I was thoroughly impressed with Tom's intelligent, articulate answers and his composed, dignified demeanor. He is already much further along than most of those his age and I think he has a bright future ahead.

Stef, you did a great job and I thought that letting Tom do most of the talking was the right thing to do. Also, pointing out the hypocrisy of his mom's feigned concern over Tom's safety and security was really outstanding.

In all fairness to Tom the reporter, I thought that he was fair and polite. It can be difficult to ask tough questions without coming across as bellicose and obnoxious.

In closing, I find it contemptable that The Times elected not to link to the interview. There is no excuse for that.

I see that according to the mainstream media FDR is a family destroying cult, but this guy http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html?em is a "Pastor with a Macho Conception of Christ"

you know because a messed up crazy ass christian message is good for young impressionable adults, and um reason and escaping abusive people is bad for them y'see?

and Stef is terrible (according to some) because he bans people for being abusive. and this guy is "hypermasculine" when he threatens violence against and encourages shunning people with questions... hmm

"In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself."

Listening to tom speak about his expierence with his parents made me very emotional.  he spoke about being in the room with them during times when they weren't actively fighting. I understand that feeling. It feels like the room will explode at any minute and you want to get away.  I am sorry that he has to go through all of this. But he spoke wonderfully. I think he is very smart and couragous

Well, this article was significantly better than the others, though that is not saying much.

This conversarion reminded me of conversations with my parents, a lot of thinking, contemplation, eloquence on the one side and an obligatory hmm,hmm on the other side. As we say overhere "pearls thrown for the swines", with the false hope that this time you will get through. Anyway kudos to you Stef and Tom, I can only agree that it was a smart decision of Whipple to leave the link out, because it would be like the governement writing they care for the poor and finishing of with a link to a webcam on the housing projects, or how they care about education with a web camera link to a public school at the end. etc. etc.

P.S. I must admit I did not get past the headline and reading the other messages in this thread, maybe I should

Uncle Bob:

Stefan Molyneux:

A few minutes before the article came out online, Mr. Whipple emailed me to tell me that The Times was not going to include a link to the interview in either the print or online versions.

This is quite dishonest. Some thoughts that came to mind:

Did you get his promise in writing? If so, this could be grounds for legal action (I know this may not be palatable, but, heck, they would deserve it and you could get financial compensation). Just a thought.

I wouldn't be surprised that Mr Whipple knew full well he could not guarantee your terms. He promised just so he could get your interview. He may have tried to get the full interview online, but he knowingly lacked the clout to make it happen.

If it were me, I would be very angry at Mr Whipple.

 

I thought about this too,if you agree to do an interview with someone on the explicit condition that a certain something is followed through in order for the interview to take the place then i thought legal action can be taken if the person in agreement fails to meet that condition (with out any good reason of course, which clearly Tom Whipple did not have!)

What stood out to me most about the title was the fact they said something like "Online 'cult' which destroys families. . ." suggesting they are aware there isn't any real evidnce that FDR is a cult. So I think the title purely was to catch attention

I suspect it went into the woman's section of the newspaper because it concerned the mother mostly as opposed to the father or the family as a whole, also women may just be more interested in reading about other families since they do tend to be the primary care givers and such.

 Despite the lies involved in getting the interview I thought this was objective considering its in a newspaper that will to a certain extent rely on sensationalising stories to sell them.  Thats not a problem with statism but a problem with pluralism, people in general want to hear bad things, a story about a site which helps people isn't that interesting for a paper.

If I'm ever inclined to read a paper its generally this one, I'm glad that its not completely disingenuous.