Prometheus 6

The problem, P6, is that guys like Casey Lartigue are so ensconced in their ideological bubbles that they have no sense of irony. I did not, for example, think that you were advocating for the creation of a government panel or office that would fact check and clear claims and assertions made by talk radio show hosts or guests. Unless Lartigue is simply an ignoramus then he is quite aware of the sheer volume of outright lies that are made on a daily basis by many, many right wing talk radio hosts. Look at the nonsense being spewed about the two border guards. These guys shot an unarmed man in the back 15 times and then tried to cover up the crime.

Aside from Lartigue's feigned (I hope) obtuseness or, perhaps, solidarity with the rightwing, you were also laboring against the media's never ending desire to present any issue or controversy in a binary format. I find this tendency particularly galling on programs like News and Notes but since it is part of NPR, which is too timid to do anything else, I am not surprised. The issue that I suspect you really wanted to get at was not the "Fairness Doctrine" per se but the amount of untrue and distorted information about black folks that is pumped into the ether every day. Barber doesn't care and Lartigue should but if he did then his revenue streams would dry up.

He also said that "Read A Book" video made it seem like Black people would only read if a womanpull a book out of her g-string, and the Obama Girl video means we're too desperate to get people to vote, even when they aren't qualified to.

You know, someday my resolve to deal with issues instead of people will crack, and the report will be as peals of thunder. 

Mr. Lartigue is adept at playing the generalization game when it comes to black folk. It's funny (or, maybe, it isn't) but I never think those kinds of ads are directed toward me or any black person I know. They are obviously directed toward some black people in this country but when black p.r. firms do niche marketing then free market capitalists like Br. Lartigue go crazy. I never find any of those ads embarrassing either.

Really.

I can still recite, word for word, Rudy Ray Moore's Dolomite. We've all heard dirty jokes. I don't understand the big deal.

Mr. Lartigue is an updated version of the New Negro, like John McWhorter, and part of their story is that they don't ever want white folks to think that black folks are raunchy. Spoils that Madison Avenue or Cato Institute shine.

P6 wrote: He also said that "Read A Book" video made it seem like Black people would only read if a womanpull a book out of her g-string,

Seems you need an Accuracy Doctrine. Perhaps you were going entirely based on your memory?

First, I didn't say that it seemed that black people would only read if women pulled books out of their g-strings. Instead, what you are referring to is when I dismissed the BET video at the beginning as being offensive.

Second, I didn't say people aren't "qualified" to vote. As far as I know, as long as you aren't currently behind bars, you are "qualified" to vote. Rather, my point was about politically active people trying to get people to vote even when those people aren't interested in politics. That's why we get surveys in which people can name the Rice Krispies or Simpson characters, but can't name a single Supreme Court justice.

Below I will post the full exchange for any of your readers who many want to judge for themselves. It isn't a big deal, but I will just point out that some parts of the transcript aren't exactly correct. For example, at the end, when I said "dummying down," the person doing the transcript heard that as "dummy-get-down." (And, speaking of Redd Foxx as you did, that "dummy-get-down" sounds like something he should have said.)

CHIDEYA: Casey?

Mr. LARTIGUE: Yeah. Just ridiculous. I mean, I guess the one thing we can learn from this video is that black women hide books in their G-strings. I mean, that seems to be the point of the video when you watch it, and...

CHIDEYA: Oh, boy.

Mr. LARTIGUE: I mean, and you - I mean, the thing is they're saying read, but I - it seems like they're saying read comic books. I mean, just read just anything. I mean - but it's just, to me, it's outrageous. But what's insulting is the idea that there's something important being said, and they're going to put a bunch of curse words around it, and it's okay as long we're saying read. It doesn't matter what other kind of outrage is out there. And I mean, so this is BET, right?

CHIDEYA: Yup.

Mr. LARTIGUE: That did this? Okay. Now, see, I guess I shouldn't expect anymore because if they put on booty-shaking videos all the time and then they put on something saying read and - but they got booty shaking going on there, too. So I guess it's just more of the same of what they do.

* * *

P6 wrote: and the Obama Girl video means we're too desperate to get people to vote, even when they aren't qualified to.

Here's the exchange:

CHIDEYA: Casey, is this a situation where people will do anything to get young people to care about politics?

Mr. LARTIGUE: Well, that's it. We're constantly begging people to vote even when they show no interest. I mean, we see the man-on-the-street interviews and people just not having any idea who's in office right now, much less who's running trying to get into office later on.So I mean, some people who will look - looking at this video they might be thinking that, you know, Obama's girlfriend wants us to convince him to run for president. I mean, I just, you know, I think a lot of people just aren't really aware.

But I have to say, you know, obviously, you know, as an education consultant I usually read studies and books with graphs and tables and this was definitely a different kind of assignment to read, to, you know, watch these kinds of videos. So - but, yeah, but I think it is just kind of a general dummy-get-down even further that will just do whatever is necessary to get people to vote, again, even when they don't show interest in doing so.

CJL

Dummy, get down!

Perhaps you were going entirely based on your memory?

Yup. Entirely. I got to deliver the gist of it to folks who actually heard it themselves already. Didn't think it deep enough to go back for word-for-word quote.

So no...an accuracy doctine isn't necessary. Honesty covers it nicely. 

And as I said in your comments, I was suggesting that people stop lying. Do you really not understand that?

By the way, P6--the NPR transcript quotes you as agreeing with me:

CHIDEYA: Let me ask - go to Casey here. Casey, do you think that it's really - is there any means of whether it's a fairness doctrine-type situation trying to have equal time between different sides or even fact checking or vetting or is this just something where different media outlets are going to have to duke it out on a partisan or political level?Mr. LARTIGUE: Yeah, you know, it's a terrible policy to begin with. It's outdated, even if ever was any good, it's outdated based on the technological changes. If you look at the Internet, satellite radio, blogs. And I'll say, thankfully, it's not applied to university faculty, newspapers or blogs. I don't need advice from the government about which opinions I need to hear.Mr. DUNOVANT: Hear, hear.Mr. LARTIGUE: I can go out and find those things on my own.And what's interesting is that now, you know, as the gentleman just pointed out, that people were tracking conservative radio, it was back during the 1960s that the Kennedy administration was saying that, oh, it's conservative radio that helped upturn the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and that's when they began tracking radio and coming up with these fairness complaints so they could start to get these people knocked off the air.So this is an - and let me be clear also that the Nixon administration also went after their enemies. So this is a weapon that's used at different times based on who's in office.

And I agree with La Shawn - let's leave it to the market. People can find out the - find the opinions on their own. And again you look back - back in 1949, there were less than 3,000 radio stations at that time. Now we have well more than 10,000. We've got satellite radio with 15 - what is it, 15,000 subscribers, I guess - 15 million subscribers. So there's just been so many changes that this policy is just out of date and it's fit for the 1940s.

P6, we just may be talking past one another. You're saying people (talk-show hosts in particular) should stop lying, and I'm saying it is unrealistic to expect government to be the enforcer of the truth to get people to "stop lying." If the government has that power then I would hope government would hold itself to that standard, first. 

CJL

By the way, P6--the NPR transcript quotes you as agreeing with me:

My fault...bad phone connection. I was saying "Giddowdaheah!"

P6, we just may be talking past one another.

No, we're talking about different things. You are staying on message about the government being the problem I'm saying hate radio (which you will note, is not the government) lies and should stop. The government is not the problem this time; excess or insufficient regulation is not the problem. Straight dishonesty, intentional misrepresentation of the facts, is the problem.

People trying to distract folks from that fact is another related problem.

p6: My fault...bad phone connection. I was saying "Giddowdaheah!"

cjl: lol! Actually, if you listen to the show again, you'll see that it was La Shawn saying "hear, hear!" I was just pointing out that if anyone reads the transcript that they would have reason to believe that you were agreeing with me.

I'm staying "on message" because that was my point--enforcing an "Honesty Doctrine" is not a function of government and that government has no monopoly on honesty. I would oppose it for talk radio just as I would oppose trying to enforce it on blogs or university professors. Your suggestion of an "Honesty Doctrine" sounds fine to me, I haven't expressed opposition to it.

That leads me to a question, p6, no sarcasm intended: Why are the folks on your site so hostile? I'm not suggesting you shut them down, nothing of the sort. I just noticed that it didn't take very long for the comments to get hostile when the level of disagreement, at least on this issue, is small, and it may be more of an issue of focus rather than real disagreement.

CJL

...post on your site are so hostile? Why can't we be more like Mr. Lartigue and address issues with a more dispassionate, less bumptious, attitude. Please tell us, P6?

cjl: lol! Actually, if you listen to the show again, you'll see that it was La Shawn saying "hear, hear!" I was just pointing out that if anyone reads the transcript that they would have reason to believe that you were agreeing with me.

Only if they missed my first statement..."I like the idea but..."

Plus, I only say "Here, here!" when I'm watching The Prime Minsiter's Questions and something strikes me particularly funny. 

And you actually don't see that I wasn't calling for a government agency or anything like that.

Tell Us Please, P6, Why Negroes Who post on your site are so hostile?

You see, Mr. Cruiser, we are all mostly intelligent Black folks up in here...more that a few, frightfully so. And we have all heard the Conservative arguments and the Republican arguments and yes, the Libertarian ones too. We've seen the same attacks launched , the same excuses given, the same deep denial of reality and truth.

It makes us hold and express opinions with great intensity. Some might confuse that with hostility.

[P6: Edited because we ain't all Black in here, though we are all intelligent as hell]

I appreciate the tip!