Comments on: Dept of Fair and Balanced http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:19:24 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Micha Ghertner http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7113 Micha Ghertner Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:55:17 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7113 <i>But I don’t see a legal or moral problem with public ownership of property in general</i> Obviously there is no <i>legal</i> problem with public ownership, because currently the law is whatever the government declares it to be. Morally, though, the important question is how the government initially came to acquire this property - justly, or unjustly. For that one would need a theory, and as I mentioned, the theories of initial property acquisition from both a libertarian and statist perspective are pretty weak. I'm not very knowledgeable on the technical issues relating to radio frequencies, but I have heard that these sorts of problems are becoming less and less relevant as new technologies like satellite radio and wireless Internet become increasingly widespread. The FCC, for its part, is doing a fine job of stifling many of these developments through its enforcement of out-of-date regulations. <i>establishing rights to physical property also involves quite a lot of government coercion.</i> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Establishing rights to physical property may involve quite a lot of force - the force needed to back up such a claim - but I don't see why this has to be only government force, or initiated force (coercion). And again I have to ask, what do you mean by "below-market leasing of the airwaves"? Where is the market by which to compare the value of the lease? But I don’t see a legal or moral problem with public ownership of property in general Obviously there is no legal problem with public ownership, because currently the law is whatever the government declares it to be. Morally, though, the important question is how the government initially came to acquire this property – justly, or unjustly. For that one would need a theory, and as I mentioned, the theories of initial property acquisition from both a libertarian and statist perspective are pretty weak. I’m not very knowledgeable on the technical issues relating to radio frequencies, but I have heard that these sorts of problems are becoming less and less relevant as new technologies like satellite radio and wireless Internet become increasingly widespread. The FCC, for its part, is doing a fine job of stifling many of these developments through its enforcement of out-of-date regulations. establishing rights to physical property also involves quite a lot of government coercion. I’m not sure what you mean by this. Establishing rights to physical property may involve quite a lot of force – the force needed to back up such a claim – but I don’t see why this has to be only government force, or initiated force (coercion). And again I have to ask, what do you mean by “below-market leasing of the airwaves”? Where is the market by which to compare the value of the lease?

]]> By: Matt Weiner http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7112 Matt Weiner Fri, 31 Oct 2003 21:22:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7112 Micha-- Well, this raises interesting questions, though I'm not an expert (nor willing to devote too much thought to it, actually). I think that it is legally true that the People or government owns the right to broadcast--whether we ought to own it is another question. But I don't see a legal or moral problem with public ownership of property in general--I have no problem with the idea that the government owns the Pentagon building, for instance. The more interesting question to me is the sense in which the airwaves are property that can be owned by the government or a radio station. To operate a big radio station, it's not enough to have a transmitter--you also need to be able to get the FCC to squash anyone else who tries to broadcast on your frequency. This is at least prima facie unlike the example of owning, say, a piece of wood you find on the ground--that's a physical object that can be restored to you if someone takes it from you. Are there really sharp lines between ownership of physical property and ownership of the right to broadcast? I'm not sure, but that's because establishing rights to physical property also involves quite a lot of government coercion. (As you can tell, I'm not a libertarian.) Maybe the best I can come up with is to say that, if people are secure in their property rights, as I am in the ownership of my car, it's wrong to take them away. But--because of the way the laws are--that's not the case with the airwaves, which legally are public property. So I do think that below-market leasing of the airwaves is a much greater subsidy than the direct subsidy NPR receives. (NPR receives that subsidy too, of course.) Micha—Well, this raises interesting questions, though I’m not an expert (nor willing to devote too much thought to it, actually). I think that it is legally true that the People or government owns the right to broadcast—whether we ought to own it is another question. But I don’t see a legal or moral problem with public ownership of property in general—I have no problem with the idea that the government owns the Pentagon building, for instance. The more interesting question to me is the sense in which the airwaves are property that can be owned by the government or a radio station. To operate a big radio station, it’s not enough to have a transmitter—you also need to be able to get the FCC to squash anyone else who tries to broadcast on your frequency. This is at least prima facie unlike the example of owning, say, a piece of wood you find on the ground—that’s a physical object that can be restored to you if someone takes it from you. Are there really sharp lines between ownership of physical property and ownership of the right to broadcast? I’m not sure, but that’s because establishing rights to physical property also involves quite a lot of government coercion. (As you can tell, I’m not a libertarian.) Maybe the best I can come up with is to say that, if people are secure in their property rights, as I am in the ownership of my car, it’s wrong to take them away. But—because of the way the laws are—that’s not the case with the airwaves, which legally are public property. So I do think that below-market leasing of the airwaves is a much greater subsidy than the direct subsidy NPR receives. (NPR receives that subsidy too, of course.)

]]> By: Micha Ghertner http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7111 Micha Ghertner Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:58:23 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7111 <i>In fact, technically, the airwaves belong to me and you and the rest of the people</i> How did we, as a people, acquire this property right? I acknowledge that the arguments for homesteading, i.e. finders keepers, are not very strong, but neither are the arguments for public ownership of property. In other words, if the fact that I am the first one to find and use a resource does not entitle me to own it, neither does your simple existence entitle you to a portion of ownership. Both claims must be established through a strong argument, and I am unaware of any strong arguments for either position. In fact, technically, the airwaves belong to me and you and the rest of the people How did we, as a people, acquire this property right? I acknowledge that the arguments for homesteading, i.e. finders keepers, are not very strong, but neither are the arguments for public ownership of property. In other words, if the fact that I am the first one to find and use a resource does not entitle me to own it, neither does your simple existence entitle you to a portion of ownership. Both claims must be established through a strong argument, and I am unaware of any strong arguments for either position.

]]> By: Chris http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7110 Chris Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:51:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7110 Some NPR-haters on the left refer to it as National Pentagon Radio, while some on the right refer to it as National Palestine Radio. There were some pro-Israel donors last year who withheld contributions because they thought NPR was coverage was anti-Israel but I don't know what ever became of that. Some NPR-haters on the left refer to it as National Pentagon Radio, while some on the right refer to it as National Palestine Radio. There were some pro-Israel donors last year who withheld contributions because they thought NPR was coverage was anti-Israel but I don’t know what ever became of that.

]]> By: Datanerd http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7109 Datanerd Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:52:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7109 I hate to be a party-pooper, but the program is locally produced by WAMU in Washington, DC, not by NPR, and is not syndicated around to other areas by NPR anymore. They stopped distributing it September 30, 2002. But, hey, why not take some whacks at NPR anyway, it's fun! <a href="http://www.npr.org/about/press/020909.public.html">NPR to End Distribution of Weekday Talk Show Public Interest Hosted by Kojo Nnamdi</a> I hate to be a party-pooper, but the program is locally produced by WAMU in Washington, DC, not by NPR, and is not syndicated around to other areas by NPR anymore. They stopped distributing it September 30, 2002. But, hey, why not take some whacks at NPR anyway, it’s fun! NPR to End Distribution of Weekday Talk Show Public Interest Hosted by Kojo Nnamdi

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7108 Thorley Winston Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:02:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7108 Matt Weiner wrote: <blockquote> Rush Limbaugh derives a HUGE amount of money from the government’s enforcement of radio stations’ monopoly on the airwaves. </blockquote> How so? <blockquote> In fact, technically, the airwaves belong to me and you and the rest of the people and are leased to radio stations at well below market rates. </blockquote> What’s the market rate and how was it determined? <blockquote> So, if we were truly to open the airwaves to market competition, I would be getting a lot more money out of Limbaugh’s pocket than out of NPR’s. </blockquote> I think you may want to reword this. Matt Weiner wrote:
Rush Limbaugh derives a HUGE amount of money from the government’s enforcement of radio stations’ monopoly on the airwaves.
How so?
In fact, technically, the airwaves belong to me and you and the rest of the people and are leased to radio stations at well below market rates.
What’s the market rate and how was it determined?
So, if we were truly to open the airwaves to market competition, I would be getting a lot more money out of Limbaugh’s pocket than out of NPR’s.
I think you may want to reword this.

]]> By: Matt Weiner http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7107 Matt Weiner Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:54:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7107 Rush Limbaugh derives a HUGE amount of money from the government's enforcement of radio stations' monopoly on the airwaves. In fact, technically, the airwaves belong to me and you and the rest of the people and are leased to radio stations at well below market rates. So, if we were truly to open the airwaves to market competition, I would be getting a lot more money out of Limbaugh's pocket than out of NPR's. Rush Limbaugh derives a HUGE amount of money from the government’s enforcement of radio stations’ monopoly on the airwaves. In fact, technically, the airwaves belong to me and you and the rest of the people and are leased to radio stations at well below market rates. So, if we were truly to open the airwaves to market competition, I would be getting a lot more money out of Limbaugh’s pocket than out of NPR’s.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7106 Thorley Winston Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:35:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7106 DocG wrote: <blockquote> Maybe their need for govt support says that. But maybe there is value to having non-profit media. Ever consider that? </blockquote> I’ve considered it and I’ve rejected it on two grounds. First, I do not believe that there is anything inherently virtuous in being “non-profit” as opposed to being “for profit.” “For profit” indicates that one has provided a good or service that people appreciate enough to pay for voluntarily whereas “non profit” often but not always indicates the opposite. I’m a big fan of market discipline and mistrustful of any institution which thinks it deserves funding without having to prove that it pleases the people it expects to pay for it. So much for the theory of “value.” Second, you can run a “non-profit” enterprise while still having to earn revenue and be self-supporting even through voluntary contributions (as is the bulk of NPR’s funding source). If you really believe there is something “good” or “valuable” in an enterprise which is not competent enough to earn a profit, then you can find a way to run one without making a profit. Of course you have to rely on persuasion rather than force – which always seems to be a problem with supporters of statist radio and television. It seems to me that if “non profit” media had value, then they would prove it by being self-supporting. DocG wrote:
Maybe their need for govt support says that. But maybe there is value to having non-profit media. Ever consider that?
I’ve considered it and I’ve rejected it on two grounds. First, I do not believe that there is anything inherently virtuous in being “non-profit” as opposed to being “for profit.” “For profit” indicates that one has provided a good or service that people appreciate enough to pay for voluntarily whereas “non profit” often but not always indicates the opposite. I’m a big fan of market discipline and mistrustful of any institution which thinks it deserves funding without having to prove that it pleases the people it expects to pay for it. So much for the theory of “value.” Second, you can run a “non-profit” enterprise while still having to earn revenue and be self-supporting even through voluntary contributions (as is the bulk of NPR’s funding source). If you really believe there is something “good” or “valuable” in an enterprise which is not competent enough to earn a profit, then you can find a way to run one without making a profit. Of course you have to rely on persuasion rather than force – which always seems to be a problem with supporters of statist radio and television. It seems to me that if “non profit” media had value, then they would prove it by being self-supporting.

]]> By: DocG http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7105 DocG Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:14:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7105 Thorley: Maybe their need for govt support says that. But maybe there is value to having non-profit media. Ever consider that? Thorley: Maybe their need for govt support says that. But maybe there is value to having non-profit media. Ever consider that?

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7104 Thorley Winston Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:26:37 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7104 Pouncer wrote: <blockquote> The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on the other hand, gets it’s “modest public subsidy” as a cut out of my taxes every year. </blockquote> I agree, the CPB ought to have to compete in the marketplace like its commercial counter-parts. If the subsidy they have stolen from my pay check is so “modest” as Kieran claims, then they can certainly forgo it and have to earn their support much like commercial stations – not that NPR does not run commercials to support its programming, they just call them “thanking the sponsors.” Daniel Bernstein is right about NPR’s leftward bias which is only one example - “On the Media” is pretty much an hour-long editorial, most of the commentators veer pretty much port-side (even in supposedly entertainment shows such as Prairie Home Companion), and the shows do take a definitely left-ward tilt in the premises by which they examine issues almost taking it as axiomatic that the government ought to be involved in a particular enterprise (which is typical for a forum dependent on government subsidies to operate). I guess it does speak of the unpopularity and rejection of leftist ideas that they cannot compete with conservative and libertarian ones without relying on the government to support them. Pouncer wrote:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on the other hand, gets it’s “modest public subsidy” as a cut out of my taxes every year.
I agree, the CPB ought to have to compete in the marketplace like its commercial counter-parts. If the subsidy they have stolen from my pay check is so “modest” as Kieran claims, then they can certainly forgo it and have to earn their support much like commercial stations – not that NPR does not run commercials to support its programming, they just call them “thanking the sponsors.” Daniel Bernstein is right about NPR’s leftward bias which is only one example – “On the Media” is pretty much an hour-long editorial, most of the commentators veer pretty much port-side (even in supposedly entertainment shows such as Prairie Home Companion), and the shows do take a definitely left-ward tilt in the premises by which they examine issues almost taking it as axiomatic that the government ought to be involved in a particular enterprise (which is typical for a forum dependent on government subsidies to operate). I guess it does speak of the unpopularity and rejection of leftist ideas that they cannot compete with conservative and libertarian ones without relying on the government to support them.

]]> By: David W. http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7103 David W. Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:58:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7103 Bernstein's complaint is silly, because any fool can look at ONE particular program and find evidence of so-called 'bias'. This is nothing more than taking an outlier and calling it the entire data set. Sheesh. Bernstein’s complaint is silly, because any fool can look at ONE particular program and find evidence of so-called ‘bias’. This is nothing more than taking an outlier and calling it the entire data set. Sheesh.

]]> By: rea http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7102 rea Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:23:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7102 ” the platform of a drug-addled, draft-dodging, hypocritical old bigot who spews lies and hatred like a slurry spreader shifts pigshit” What an outrageous slur--he isn't THAT old . . . ” the platform of a drug-addled, draft-dodging, hypocritical old bigot who spews lies and hatred like a slurry spreader shifts pigshit” What an outrageous slur—he isn’t THAT old . . .

]]> By: Pouncer http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7101 Pouncer Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:41:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7101 " the platform of a drug-addled, draft-dodging, hypocritical old bigot who spews lies and hatred like a slurry spreader shifts pigshit" has never gotten a dime of my money, since I don't buy Bose Wave radios, ComfortAir beds, Snapple, CleanShower, etc etc. Not that I'm boycotting, mind you; it's just that the sponsors of the Limbaugh comedy hours are not meeting my needs. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on the other hand, gets it's "modest public subsidy" as a cut out of my taxes every year. The local NPR affiliate also comes on, interrupting "Car Talk" and "This American Life" and "Motley Fool" about 4 times a year begging additional voluntary contributions, which I begrudgingly send. Yeah, I WOULD prefer that the network and station I directly support would at least SLIGHTLY attempt to present more than one side to an news issue, and that sometimes that one of those sides be MINE. But if Click and Clack start doing three hours daily opposite Rush, I could get over it. Is that selfish of me? ” the platform of a drug-addled, draft-dodging, hypocritical old bigot who spews lies and hatred like a slurry spreader shifts pigshit” has never gotten a dime of my money, since I don’t buy Bose Wave radios, ComfortAir beds, Snapple, CleanShower, etc etc. Not that I’m boycotting, mind you; it’s just that the sponsors of the Limbaugh comedy hours are not meeting my needs. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, on the other hand, gets it’s “modest public subsidy” as a cut out of my taxes every year. The local NPR affiliate also comes on, interrupting “Car Talk” and “This American Life” and “Motley Fool” about 4 times a year begging additional voluntary contributions, which I begrudgingly send. Yeah, I WOULD prefer that the network and station I directly support would at least SLIGHTLY attempt to present more than one side to an news issue, and that sometimes that one of those sides be MINE. But if Click and Clack start doing three hours daily opposite Rush, I could get over it. Is that selfish of me?

]]> By: saranwarp http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7100 saranwarp Fri, 31 Oct 2003 07:49:55 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7100 <i>Bernstein has really done a disservice to the Conspiracy, which used to be at least interesting. Now it’s rapidly devolving into an unintellectual Instapundit-type site.</i> I agree. He really needs to stop posting about his book, too. Bernstein has really done a disservice to the Conspiracy, which used to be at least interesting. Now it’s rapidly devolving into an unintellectual Instapundit-type site. I agree. He really needs to stop posting about his book, too.

]]> By: Hooray http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/31/dept-of-fair-and-balanced/comment-page-1/#comment-7099 Hooray Fri, 31 Oct 2003 06:18:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=506#comment-7099 Bernstein has really done a disservice to the Conspiracy, which used to be at least interesting. Now it's rapidly devolving into an unintellectual Instapundit-type site. There was a great moment yesterday, for anyone who missed it, where <a href="http://volokh.com/2003_10_26_volokh_archive.html#106744376480440821">Eugene criticized</a> Slate's Bushism of the Day for making Bush look stupid by removing his quote from context. Fair enough, but look at this! Two posts later, <a href="http://volokh.com/2003_10_26_volokh_archive.html#106745440886834773">Bernstein shows his expertise</a> at this tactic by favorably linking to an article which plucks a single word, "metrosexual," from a Howard Dean speech, and then concludes that Dean "waffled" (you know, it's the polite way of saying "lied") by uttering the word. Certainly no possibility that he could've been using it in jest, right? Well, we'll never know, because the context isn't provided. Consistency is the hobgoblin of.. oh, whatever. I just hope that a few other readers shook their heads in sadness at this display, as I did. Bernstein has really done a disservice to the Conspiracy, which used to be at least interesting. Now it’s rapidly devolving into an unintellectual Instapundit-type site. There was a great moment yesterday, for anyone who missed it, where Eugene criticized Slate’s Bushism of the Day for making Bush look stupid by removing his quote from context. Fair enough, but look at this! Two posts later, Bernstein shows his expertise at this tactic by favorably linking to an article which plucks a single word, “metrosexual,” from a Howard Dean speech, and then concludes that Dean “waffled” (you know, it’s the polite way of saying “lied”) by uttering the word. Certainly no possibility that he could’ve been using it in jest, right? Well, we’ll never know, because the context isn’t provided. Consistency is the hobgoblin of.. oh, whatever. I just hope that a few other readers shook their heads in sadness at this display, as I did.

]]>