Why won't the MSM investigate Dealergate?!?!?!?!

Bob - I was listening to the end of the podcast from yesterday, and I thought it might be good to have a thread for talking about the radio show the day AFTER it airs, because so much is missed if you're not actually on the phone. You and Lee discussing Eric Boehlert's (sp?) book was really interesting, and some of the concerns you raise about conflating commenters with the blogger, etc.,are worth exploring more - and that's just an example.

Either that, or maybe you can do like Elvis does and have the show scheduled for 2 hours? That way there's no "continuing in the podcast" to worry about - we can talk about the radio show ideas in real time.

QT

The MSM doesn't investigate anything. They just read whatever press releases they are told to.

wasn't Glenn Beck calling Sotomayor "Hey, Hispanic chick lady" just super special?

Git- that's true, although in the case of 'dealergate' it's just Michelle Malkin whining about how the media won't investigate something she pulled out of her bum.

Ceu- I defend Glenn Beck's right to call Sotomayor 'hey, hispanic chick lady' just as long as he respects my right to call Glenn Beck 'hey, doughy fuckwit manchild'

Can somebody please explain to me why we have "Truth In Advertising" laws on the books, but no "Truth In the News Media" laws? Why is that?

ElGDMysti -

I am not at all certain that it was her bum she pulled it from. It was certainly somewhere dark, dank and moist.

doughy fuckwit manchild is excellent. My objection is that I see little evidence to convince me that his chromosomes are XY, so I prefer doughy fuckwit child. But I am being picky.

Wait juuuust a second..."Hispanic chick lady?" Really?

It boggles the mind to think that less than a year ago President Obama was labeled a sexist for saying something about putting lipstick on a pig, doesn't it?

They were all "poor Palin is a victim of the mean, sexist Democrats and the sexist media." Now they've pivoted from that to "Hispanic chick lady?"For real? Sorta like they pivoted from "Obama the Magic Negro," to..."Hey, look! We have a negro too, and he's the head of the RNC,and we'll have our negro agree that President Obama is only President b/c he's a "magic negro."

Ady,

The Truth in Advertising laws are designed to protect the consumer from dishonest busineses. The business must be able to back up it's claims, not be deceptive or "unfair". This is a good thing.

The media falls under free speech, which is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation (mostly).

"Truth" and what is "true" can be subjective, and the country benefits by airing all points of view, even if they are irritating to hear at times. That is how minority opinions come to the surface. How would Gay Marriage ever have come to the point it is now? What if someone in power had decided it wasn't the "truth"? This freedom of speech allowed it to surface, instead of being surpressed.

Ady -

We never needed such laws before. In the golden age of Newspapers the truth usually won out. Now that the ownership of the news media in concentrated in the hands of the few, the truth is often suppressed and/or replaced with what ever fairy tale is desired. The change was gradual, we were warned about the changes as early as 1976 (Network), by Walter Cronkite when he retired, and by Noam Chomsky in his book "Manufacturing Consent."

When you consider that many (most?) Americans actually believe that Fox News Channel is a real news channel, then it is an uphill battle to get anyone to believe that such a law is necessary.

In the mean time all one can do is try to crosscheck important stories across as many sources as practical. Keep track of sources that appear trustworthy but don't trust blindly. The Philadelphia Inquirer was one of my trusted sources. It was recently taken over by a wrong wing asshole so I am still trying to determine if they still can be trusted. The editorial staff and reporters are the same, but I think new management will fuck things up. They just hired Yoo to write a column. This does not look good.

There is precedent for law restricting untruthful speech. Libel and defamation have been actionable for a very long time.

We don't need a law to mandate truth in news reporting. We only need to break up the media cartels so that local stations can be locally owned again. It should be required that they be locally owned. Television news should not be rated like entertainment shows. Advertising rates can be determined by some average of rates for the entertainment shows. This is how it was in the 60s. Ratings came in the 70s and the news quality has been on a perpetual decline ever since.

Ady-

I think that the First Amendment to the Constitution is pretty clear on this-

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Git - Furthermore, the way that ratings are determined is a complete farce too.

@JJ, I know all about freedom of speech and all that jazz. I studied journalism in college for a year, but I was both the editorial editor and the editor-in-chief of my high school newspaper for 3 years. To make a very long story short, even as the editorial editor, I had to make sure that all opinions were anchored in facts and SOME semblance of truth. I don't want anybody's opinion silenced. That goes totally against the grain of who I am. But, if we're not "consumers of the news," what are we?

@Git, I agree with ya. The problem that we have right now is that the major networks now have to profit from their news departments, and I don't believe that's a good thing for any of us.

Freedom of speech does not extend to demonstrably untruthful speech.

Examples of unlawful speech: Slander, libel, defamation, deceitful advertising, yelling 'Fire' in a theater when there is no Fire.

The first amendment does not protect anyone's unconditional right to tell blatant lies or else my examples of well established law would all be unconstitutional.

@JJ: Le sigh. If this were true, 13 year olds in WA would have been able to hold up his "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign all the livelong day. We put restrictions on free speech all the damn time. Second: You are free to say/write whatever you want. I am free to call you a liar. There are laws (libel, slander) for just this reason.

"Freedom of speech does not extend to demonstrably untruthful speech.

Examples of unlawful speech: Slander, libel, defamation, deceitful advertising, yelling 'Fire' in a theater when there is no Fire."

Of course, all true. Please note what I said- "The media falls under free speech, which is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation (mostly)." See the "mostly" in there for that reason. I did not differ with what you're saying.

J-

"At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS," which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event--respondent Frederick--refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy."

It appears that the problem with a sign that says "Bong hits 4 Jesus" was that it was at a school supervised event. May have gotten away with it somewhere else.

You brought this subject up, you must have known something about it beforehand, but didn't disclose the school aspect, so "I am free to call you a liar"

Speaking of Bong Hits 4 Jesus, Sotomayor once came down on (what I believe to be) the wrong side of a public school free speech case.

Nothing too frightening, really, unless you consider what high school kids think about the first amendment (i.e. Future of the First Amendment surveys).

JJ -

We are in agreement, my comments were for the sake of developing a more complete coverage of the topic.

As I said, I don't think law restricting speech is desirable at all and our news media problems are better solved by other solutions than trying to outlaw propaganda (which will never work because no one will ever agree on what propaganda is. It's a different version of the pornography problem.). That's a slippery slope I would prefer to avoid.

ElMystico: May I borrow this: "...doughy fuckwit manchild"?

I am beginning to worry about this lady. The idiot catholic dude is for her nomination. That makes me askeert. I need some reassurance guys.

vera -

I saw that too. I'm not askeert, but it does make me uncomfortable.

OK. This might help. Everything I have read about Ms. Sotomayor says that she has a religious regard for the law. She has never to my knowledge made a ruling that was not strictly based on law. She even decided against the way she wanted to rule on several occasions because the law compelled her to do so (She thought the law was wrong, but the law is the law). I don't believe for a moment that her religious views will cause her to ignore law. It never has so far. The current abortion situation is based on Constitutional grounds. She is not likely to vote to overturn Roe V. Wade even if she wanted to because the law will compel her to uphold the current ruling.

At least I hope so.

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that anybody's freedom of speech be interrupted, censored, or silenced. I wasn't headed in that direction at all.

I really wish this interview was live. I would SO call in to talk to him. I have always been so intrigued by JFK, and even had a rocking chair made for myself in the likeness of JFK's favorite rocking chair. And I STILL have it too!

Ady -

I figured your question was more rhetorical than a suggestion for a solution. You recognized a problem and compared it with a similar problem that was solved.

Interestingly enough, the same rationale that was used to justify the truth in advertising laws could be recycled to create truth in news reporting.

The reason for lies in advertising is to get more people to buy your product. The reason for lies in news is to get more people to buy your bullshit.

If you haven't read Manufacturing Consent you should. Everything we see in our broadcast is predicted by the concepts developed in the book. When you have ratings on news shows, they become infotainment shows. The propaganda is not motivated by conspiracies and/or the trilateral commission, the propaganda is a direct result of the quest for profits. That doesn't mean that you can't also have an editorial policy that favors the corporatist platform, it just means that you would have wound up with propaganda even without the corporatist editorial bias.

@JJ: I am aware of the school aspect; namely, that the student was on a public sidewalk outside a school. My point was not to advocate censorship, but to point out that we routinely examine free speech for what is responsible. And the media has seriously fallen down on that.

Rocking chair, rocking chair, it makes me feel good to know you are there.

Git is right, when the news divisions of the major networks went "for profit", the quality of news took a dive. It really is infotainment.

And thanks Git for the reassurance. I should remember the President knows what he is doing.

I think we can count on Sotomayor to rule based on proper interpretation of the law. That is all I can realistically ask for or expect.

I still wish he'd picked Sullivan.

Matt, I love that old rocking chair. I've had it since I left home when I was 17 years-old.

I recently read somewhere that rocking in a rocking chair increases the level of serotonin in the brain. So does eating popsicles. (Don't ask me. I just report. You guys decide).

Here it is! Here's the rocking chair! Just like the one I had made. Awesome. (Mine has seen a lot of "rockin'"--I have a feeling his did too).

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-John-F-Kennedy-Rocking-Chair

I miss my rocking chair. I used it a lot when my children were small.

Elizabeth Edwards on The Daily Show just now "$1 out of every $700 dollars spent on Health Care go to pay the President of United Healthcare's salary."

Sounds like he may be a bit overpaid. Those clowns keep a low profile because they know that what they are doing is really just legalized extortion and robbery.

Are we really going to let "W" back in.? He now thinks it is ok to start defending this shit? He has something to say that's going to make all of our lives pre-Goreshouldhavesofuckingwonandwewouldn'tbeinthisthisshitif.

(in my best gary coleman voice) whatchoo talkin bout jacksmom?

he left the country? is that country a signatory on the Geneva conventions and required to arrest him? oh please, oh please...

never mind jacksmom. I just read about it. damn them all to hell. fuckers. they are the worst of our bad "angels". if I believed hell existed, there would be a special place in hell for all they have done. I may have to believe it to keep sane.

George "Faux Texan, Faux Rancher, Faux President, Faux Human" Bush spoke in Michigan.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2009/05/george-bush-finally-speaks-if-you-can.html

He said nothing of importance. As you would expect. He's still a box of hammers.