David Bernstein, who has been relentlessly flogging his book via his Volokh posts over the last few weeks, complains about NPR:
TYPICAL NPR ‘BALANCE’: I listened to part of the “Kojo Namdi Show” on WAMU, Washington, D.C. today. The promos said there would be three women Jerusalem residents on the phone, one Christian, one Moslem, and one Jew, talking about their daily lives. … [T]he Christian and Moslem [were] Palestinian spokespeople who had clearly undergone extensive media training … And the Jew? An extreme leftist who … seemed unwilling to defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish nation. … Kojo did try to note that none of the political movements represented in the current Palestinian government believe in non-violent resistance, but he backed down when the Palestinians objected. Disgusting.
Indeed. To coin a phrase. Decent people with a concern for standards in broadcasting ought to be appalled. Meanwhile, David says in his next post,
You can catch me on the Rush Limbaugh Show, guest host Walter Williams, tomorrow (Friday) at around 2:05.
Yeah, yeah I know what you’re going to say about the difference between NPR and Rush. And believe me, I fully agree. One has for years received the benefit of a modest public subsidy and so has an obligation to be objective and balanced in all aspects of its broadcasting mission, perhaps even its phone-in talk shows; whereas the other has for years been the platform of a drug-addled, draft-dodging, hypocritical old bigot who spews lies and hatred like a slurry spreader shifts pigshit. You’re right, you’re right. I’m sorry.
CBC has been getting attacked for being anti-Israel lately too. Again, I think it’s due to the fact that CBC’s responsible to the public, rather than to a corporation.
But, Kieran, more importantly than saying you are sorry, and I apologize foe even asking, what is your point?
This is an apples to oranges comparison, unless you take Bernstein’s willingness to appear on Limbaugh’s show as an endorsement of the show and its practices. I believe the first part of your post amply demonstrates that he will go some lengths to hawk his book, and therefore is unlikely to restrict his activities to those fora with which he is in substantial agreement. I rather expect he would jump at the chance to speak about his book on NPR, his irritation with the Kojo Namdi show or any other NPR programming notwithstanding.
I suppose you could simply consider the Rush Limbaugh show beyond all civilized discourse. Still, the solution to speech is often rightly thought to be more speech, and the abuse employed above persuades only the previously convinced.
That said, the invective was an excellent example of the type, and what value to the disinterested reader it lacked it reasoned persuasiveness it more than made up in venom.
hc writes:
This is an apples to oranges comparison
Yes, I believe I said that in the last paragraph.
unless you take Bernstein’s willingness to appear on Limbaugh’s show as an endorsement of the show
Oh yeah, there is that issue. Well spotted. I took it that David Bernstein had established his threshold for disgust towards radio-show hosts in his first post, and was wondering how it might apply to the second.
the abuse employed above persuades only the previously convinced.
The statement that “Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritcial bigot” strikes me more as an informed opinion that is well-supported by the facts than a piece of cheap abuse.
what value to the disinterested reader it lacked it reasoned persuasiveness it more than made up in venom.
I count half of one sentence worth of venom in my post. It’s not directed towards David Bernstein, either.
I count half of one sentence worth of venom in my post.
“Officer, I couldn’t possibly have killed him — the only part of him I severed was his head!”
This wouldn’t be more of that pigshit stuff, would it?
Kieran,
I believe we had different apple/orange comparisons in mind: I understand you to have had the two talk shows in mind while I intended to contrast Bernstein’s complaint about a radio show he heard with his willingness to speak about on a radio program about his book. The different actions imply different standards to me.
kieran healy writes:
“The statement that “Rush Limbaugh is a hypocritcial bigot” strikes me more as an informed opinion that is well-supported by the facts than a piece of cheap abuse.”
Even richly deserved abuse may be persuasively ineffective beyond preaching to the choir.
As to the mention of venom, I had not intended that as criticism but praise. Persuasion is hardly the only purpose of writing, and invective is an art of its own. It is true that your post was no display of sustained animosity, but its conclusion was sharp, vicious, and memorably pungent.
Even richly deserved abuse may be persuasively ineffective beyond preaching to the choir.
Precisely what is effective in persuading racist, foaming dittoheads? Enquiring minds want to know.
And I should add: what is wrong with preaching to the choir?
As a mezzosoprano myself, I’m really quite tired of the bowing, scraping, currying favor with right wing nuts type semidemihemi-and-3/4-tonic liberals. What’s wrong with me hearing remarks which do not feel like an insult to my intelligence and/or my morals and which seem to have some purchase on reality? I spend enough time around lunatics, it’s rather brain-refreshing and heart-warming to hear sane speech.
We in the choir have needs too. I’m just saying.
Way to elevate the discourse, folks.
And the choir applauds the conductor/preacher!
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.
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.
” 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”
What an outrageous slur—he isn’t THAT old . . .
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.
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.”
Thorley:
Maybe their need for govt support says that. But maybe there is value to having non-profit media. Ever consider that?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)
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?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review