Dispatches from the Creation Wars

mmmmmmm.......

let's deliver Megyn Kelly right to a brothel...

sweet! here's 30 bucks!

Posted by: Kevin | March 6, 2009 9:23 AM

This goes way beyond being just a 'dumbass quote' if you ask me.

This should be Exhibit A (more like Exhibit A to the 12th power) in why Fox News should lose its license to broadcast. When you have an acknowledged propaganda outfit telling consistent absolute lies in a partisan effort at regime destabilization, under the guise of a "news" station, I don't see how the station is fulfilling its responsibilities to be in the public interest.

Fox News should be pulled (years ago!), any other stations in the Republican Talking Points Axis proven to be pulling the same crap should be pulled off the air, and if there is some way to prosecute those responsible, please, somebody, throw the frackin' book at them.

Media accuracy and truthiness are crucial to a functioning democracy in The Reality World - that's the world we all actually live in, in case you can't remember or recognize it any more.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 6, 2009 9:41 AM

Is Gingerbakers idea possible? I know next to nothing about broadcasting regulation in the US but I thought broadcasters just got a frequency to put on whatever they want so long as it doesn't breach (fairly broad) rules such as not telling every viewer to go next door and kill the neighbours.

So is there a public interest requirement? and if so who decides what the public interest is and how does that fit with you 1st amendment?

Posted by: Matty | March 6, 2009 9:49 AM

Moopheus said:

"Do even Fox viewers find this sort of thing credible? Sure, probably some of them do."

I'll bet my copy of Orwell's 1984 that most of them believe this to be true. Faux has made a crucial error these many years - they actually tell the truth occasionally. You know, to put a layer of bio-engineered lifelike flesh over the vanadium plasma-quenched boron alloy endoskeleton.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 6, 2009 10:07 AM

So should your tax dollars be paying for these kinds of projects?

Sounds to me like even Rupert Murdoch should not be wasting his money paying for ignorant blather like this.

And, yes, Matty there is a public interest component to licensing of TV stations, but as I understand it, that is aimed at local stations, not networks. So you'd have to question the licenses of individual Fox affiliates, not the network itself.

Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 6, 2009 10:27 AM

I say yes; better rides at the bunny ranch!

Posted by: Don | March 6, 2009 10:38 AM

So Gingerbaker - don't believe in freedom of speech, eh?

Media outlets have -always- been biased and have -always- had political leanings. Your utopian vision of "Media accuracy and truthiness" (were you going for irony with using "truthiness"?) never existed.

Just spend 10 minutes reading about the presidential campaigns after Washington retired and you will see the most vile attacks printed in newspapers against whatever candidate they despised. And our democracy still managed to survive.

Posted by: yoshi | March 6, 2009 10:52 AM

Aside from the question of whether government should regulate broadcast TV news content at all, is Kelly on Fox News channel--the cable/satellite network? I don't think they hold broadcast licenses.

Posted by: Dr. X | March 6, 2009 11:15 AM

yoshi said:

"So Gingerbaker - don't believe in freedom of speech, eh?"

There is a BIG difference between opinion, humor, and a "newscast" consistently broadcasting outright blatant lies.

The broadcast media is not like other media - they use public property- the airwaves. (I'm not sure how cable TV is regulated - I believe the stations still have to purchase licenses (?) and that means an obligation to 'public interest' concerns) And news is different from opinion and enjoys protections because it is supposed to have certain responsibilities. Among those would be an inherent responsibility to not deliberately lie.

This story about an imaginary train is not protected opinion - it is a deliberate lie, a deliberate propaganda piece under the guise of 'news' that is hellbent on political destabilization of the Obama regime.

This is worse than mere libel - it seems to me that one might go so far as to make a case for treason here. The very future and stability of this nation is at stake during this economic crises. The use of a deliberate campaign of complete falsehoods aimed at derailing a recovery package is completely subversive - Fox is giving Osama Bin Laden a wet dream come true.

CPT Doom - I wonder if the parent network is indeed accountable here - where are the "newscasts" produced and shot - home headquarters, right?

Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 6, 2009 11:38 AM

Apparently the whole Bunny Ranch issue is the ridiculous conflation of two proposed projects -- a proposed high speed link between LA and LV, and the restoration of a historic railroad line between Gold Hill,NV and Carson City, NV, hundreds of miles to the north, which is the project Harry Reid's office is aware of.

And by conservative Republican logic, a restoring a railroad line anywhere near Carson City -- home of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch -- is tantamount to a publicly funded effort to ferry passengers to a brothel.

In that light, I will have to look again at the stated purpose of the new passenger light rail link they're about to open here in Austin, TX. They claim that it's a great, green, cost effective way for commuters and U.T. students to get downtown, but given that there is at least one strip club in downtown Austin, I am now suspicious that it may be a multimillion dollar conspiracy to corrupt the souls of bored suburban men by providing them a means to visit strip clubs without having to drive there.

I will be writing to my local congressman forthwith...

Posted by: tacitus | March 6, 2009 11:52 AM

Gingerbaker:

The very future and stability of this nation is at stake during this economic crises.

Future and stability are always at stake. I agree with Kevin - Ginger you have yet to suggest an alternative licensing cure that is not worse than the disease of bad reporting.

I also agree with J.Z. I kid you not. :-)

Posted by: eric | March 6, 2009 12:04 PM

Perhaps we can make do with the current situation, Right-wing nuts say bizarre things, and we mock them. But it's kinda' sad about the poor schmucks who buy into that.

Posted by: Tim | March 6, 2009 12:28 PM

How come these conservatives can name a specific brothel? Doesn't this suggest an unusual interest in, and awareness of, brothels?

Not really. There are only a few brothels in Nevada (and hence only a few in the entire country), and the Moonlight Bunny Ranch is probably the most famous of them.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 6, 2009 12:37 PM

and the Moonlight Bunny Ranch is probably the most famous of them.

Oh, how easily we forget. Surely, the "Mustang Ranch" is the most (im)famous.

Google searches:
"Mustang Ranch" ~193,000 hits
(first hit: worldfamousbrothel.com !)
"Moonlight Bunny Ranch" ~24,900 hits

-Richard

Posted by: Richard | March 6, 2009 1:04 PM

Don't silence Fox News! They're the bread-and-butter for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert right now. In fact, I think Comedy Central should have a third show which is nothing but mocking Fox News' stupidity.

Posted by: Chayanov | March 6, 2009 1:44 PM

Oh, how easily we forget. Surely, the "Mustang Ranch" is the most (im)famous.

Yes, but since it's closed I didn't count it.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 6, 2009 1:56 PM

Relative to the Fascist News Channel, let's not forget Keith Olbermann. How could he assign worst person in the world awards without fucktards like Billo the clown O'Reilly and Sean Hannity on that channel?

Posted by: SLC | March 6, 2009 2:09 PM

Ayn...sorry, scratch that...James said:

"So, James, is it your vision of America that news stations should be allowed to deliberately lie with their newscasts?

Yes, not because the lies are desirable, but because the alternative is worse."

James, this is why I, and millions of other folks, can not take Libertarianism seriously.

Your position here, which I think (?) is representative of Libertarianism, is why many years ago, I came away from a study of the LP statements of principles with the distinct impression that the LP is happy to cut off its nose to spite its face.

The concept that Government regulation of content in and of itself is SO pernicious that orchestrated lies and a permanent program of disinformation by a so-called news media is preferable to governmental corrective action is completely bizarre!

Somehow, the LP has morphed a concept of limited governmental intrusion into civil liberties into a slavish distrust of any governmental regulation whatsoever, it seems. To its eternal damnation.

I really can not fathom how you have come to believe that the government does not have a proper function to preserve the public good, or that somehow deliberate lies fulfill a station's charter for broadcasting in the public interest. Whatever philosophical streets you have traveled down to come to such a pass, are paths I cannot follow.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 6, 2009 2:15 PM

Gingerbaker said:

The concept that Government regulation of content in and of itself is SO pernicious that orchestrated lies and a permanent program of disinformation by a so-called news media is preferable to governmental corrective action is completely bizarre!

Argument from personal incredulity. One could just as easily argue against any kind of objectionable speech by saying that it's "bizarre" to think it's better to allow that speech than to prohibit it.

I believe that the regulations which apply to what can be said or shown on television should be no more restrictive than those which apply to what can be printed, spoken out loud, published on the internet, etc. However "bizarre" and hard to fathom you might find that, it's at least consistent and you haven't formulated a remotely good argument for why a Truth Police for television broadcasting would even be workable, let alone a good idea.

I really can not fathom how you have come to believe that the government does not have a proper function to preserve the public good

Posted by: Gretchen | March 6, 2009 2:36 PM

Everything Gretchen just said, especially about the public good argument being a strawman. The legal system is a public good, and I firmly believe in government providing it. Clean air and water are also public goods, and I believe in government policies preventing pollution of those (such pollution is an externality--a cost imposed on others against their will, just the kind of thing libertarians don't like).

It's funny that you slipped in the "Ayn...James" line, because in fact I am very much not a Randian. But what that, and your strawman about the public good, demonstrates is that the arguments that you don't take serioulsy are just your own intepretation of libertarianism, not my own (which you persistently misinterpret and take pains to avoid dealing with on its own terms).

As to the specific question, what we're debating is not whether truth in broadcasting is a good thing (we both seem to think it is), but about whether a government bureaucracy empowered to enforce truthfulness in broadcasting would cause more good than harm. You believe it would, I believe it would not. Here are my reasons:

1) It is not always so obvious what the truth is. While the claim that the government is building a train directly to the FuckBunny Ranch is obviously untrue, most other claims that are made are not so factually obvious. Presumably the bureaucracy would be empowered to act when complaints were made, which would open up every broadcasting company to repeated investigations based upon claims of untruthfulness made by biased people. As in all cases, that would be costly to them, even if they were cleared. That would cause networks not so much to stick to the truth as to never say anything controversial. Political reporting would go right out the window.

2) To whom do we limit these rules? Just broadcasters because they're operating on the public airwaves? (Keep in mind, we could in fact privatize those airwaves, undermining that argument entirely--they're only public because government refuses to relinquish its property claim to them). If it was always so easy to limit the reach of rules to the initial target, government would be easy. But as soon as Fox News was targeted for untruthfulness, you know conservatives (including politicians with budget authority over the truthfulness bureaucracy) would demand that it be extended to other sources of information that they personally believe should be punished (you know--all the liberal sources).

3) Such investigations would always provide a temptation to those whose interest is not truth but ideological conformity. Anytime there is a risk that government policies will be used disproportionately against those whose sin is being ideologically opposed to those in power, we have created a very dangerous--indeed Orwellian--situation.

Now each of those points is debatable. I fully recognize that. You and I can have an honest disagreement about them. But if you think my objection to a government truth squad is merely ideological and paranoiac, you need to demonstrate why each of those argument is in fact so non-sensical that a reasonable person could not hold them.

That's much harder than creating a strawman and attacking it. But if you can't create a compelling argument about why no reasonable person could believe each of those three points, then you should admit that the libertarian perspective on a government truth bureaucracy is, if still not convincing to you, at least reasonable.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 6, 2009 3:19 PM

I'm with Hanley, up to a point. I don't give a flying fuck what FuckedUp Newsiness does in terms of their opinion pieces. When they are spreading lies, calling it news, it tends to energize me. I don't believe there is much that can be done about it, as the law is soft and vague.

It would be refreshing to see the networks have a 90 second segment every night wherein they called "bullshit" on Fox's factrications.

ktesibios:

Comstock Load sounds like a great name for a Nevada porn star.

Posted by: democommie | March 6, 2009 3:28 PM

Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee

Schwarze geld

Die Schweizer Regierung will am Bankgeheimnis vorerst nicht rütteln. Sie bietet allerdings Gespräche über die anonyme Zinsbesteuerung, wie sie schon mit der EU besteht, und die Amtshilfe an. Nach einer Regierungssitzung sagte Bundespräsident und Finanzminister Hans-Rudolf Merz, die Schweiz habe viele völkerrechtliche Verträge geschlossen, die eine Grundlage für den Informationsaustausch mit anderen Staaten böten. Mit einer Expertengruppe soll diese Zusammenarbeit über „Steuerdelikte“ verstärkt werden, kündigte Merz an. Der Finanzplatz dürfe keine Wettbewerbsnachteile erleiden. Zugleich schloss der Finanzminister nicht aus, dass die Schweiz auf eine „schwarze Liste“ geraten könne.

Die Schweiz leistet Amtshilfe nur bei mutmaßlichem Steuerbetrug, nicht jedoch bei Steuerhinterziehung. Der Begriff „Steuerdelikt“, den Merz jetzt verwendete, lässt den weiteren Weg offen. Merz hatte vor wenigen Tagen gesagt, das Bankgeheimnis solle „weiterentwickelt“ werden. Mit ihrem Gesprächsangebot versucht die Regierung dem wachsenden internationalen Druck zu begegnen. In der Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise haben die Kritiker vermehrt Gehör gefunden, welche die „Steueroase“ Schweiz austrocknen wollen. So erwägen die wichtigsten Industrie- und Schwellenländer (G-20) unter Führung der Vereinigten Staaten, Großbritanniens, Frankreichs und Deutschlands entsprechende Beschlüsse auf ihrem Weltfinanzgipfel am 2. April in London. Eine Teilnahme der Schweiz wurde abgelehnt.

Posted by: raivo pommer | March 6, 2009 3:36 PM

"Der Finanzplatz dürfe keine Wettbewerbsnachteile erleiden.

yes but that does not mean we should be happy about it...

Posted by: Kevin | March 6, 2009 4:02 PM

democommie said:

It would be refreshing to see the networks have a 90 second segment every night wherein they called "bullshit" on Fox's factrications.

90 seconds wouldn't cover 1% of it. Besides, doesn't Jon Stewart do a good bit of exactly that?

Posted by: Gretchen | March 6, 2009 5:29 PM

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, unless it hops on a train and goes to Disneyland.

Posted by: BaldApe | March 6, 2009 8:17 PM

Gretchen:

Stewart does a great job, but a lot of people that watch the evening news have never seen him.

90 Seconds ain't much, but it's 90 seconds more than they're giving it now.

Posted by: democommie | March 6, 2009 9:26 PM

DJ:

I believe that. I gotta say I still know lots of folks who watch the network news as if it were a sacrament. They don't believe anything Limbaugh says, per se, but they talk to people who do--and they think those folks wouldn't lie to them.

Posted by: democommie | March 7, 2009 6:53 AM

Someone please explain to me why lying in public, big, bold obvious lies, lies that have been corrected nearly as many times as they've been told, isn't a crime?

Posted by: Bachalon | March 7, 2009 9:05 AM