Transterrestrial Musings  

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Fake Bambi | Main | Is It Vietnam Yet? »

They Won't Let Us Lie

Terry McAuliffe is upset because a local Fox affiliate in Wisconsin won't air his misleading ad about Bush "misleading" the American people.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe responded with an attack on the decision to not run the ad: "Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from 'We report, you decide' to 'we let Bush decide what we air.'"

Fox spokeswoman Irena Steffen in New York said the decision was not made at the national level.

"You would think a man in his position would know the difference between a local affiliate and a national news network," she said.

Yeah, you'd think.

What a maroon. Here's hoping that the Dems don't come to their senses, and that they keep him as head of the DNC for a long, long time.

[Update at 1:13 PM PDT]

S-Train is upset with this post, and my apparent approval of the Fox affiliate's judgment.

Like the Republicans ads won't be misleading. Ain't that the purpose? Mislead the people about your opponent so you can get votes. Oh those pious, honest Republicans...

...As long as I have been aware of politics, the Democrats and Republicans political ads during election time have been dubious to say the least.

Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing with a Republican ad, I'll have no complaint, if it's as bad, or even if it's not.

I was approving the general principle of a media outlet finally standing up and saying "enough" to demogoguery, from any party. This just happened to be a particularly juicy topical example.

I don't believe that television stations should be required to run political ads that they believe to be misleading. There's enough diversity of the media that I have no sympathy for the notion that every outlet should have to run everything.

If a station manager wants to use some discretion, I say more power to them. Maybe it will elevate the political discourse a little, if both sides come to realize that they can't get away with any slanderous lie they want just because they're a political party.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 25, 2003 12:06 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Of all the pompous, arrogant...
Excerpt: Rand Simberg has stoked the fires in my blood with his support of a local FoxNews affiliate not airing a...
Weblog: The S-Train Canvass
Tracked: July 25, 2003 12:56 PM
2 + 2 = Fair media??
Excerpt: Rand Simberg says in reply to my previous post: Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing...
Weblog: The S-Train Canvass
Tracked: July 25, 2003 09:49 PM
2 + 2 = Fair media??
Excerpt: Rand Simberg says in reply to my previous post: Sure. So what? If Fox wants to do the same thing...
Weblog: The S-Train Canvass
Tracked: July 25, 2003 09:52 PM

I believe that the only real chance for the Democrats to win agains Bush will be with their firm and fundamental support of science and space exploration. taking pop shots (whatever they may be) can not succeed with nationalism as high as it is.

Republicans have always been reluctant to spend money on science and space and always favor the military. The only counter to this, that I can see, is to be equally as fervent on Science and Space! Why not forget about the pop shots and promote real programs that will ultimately draw unity and peace together again?


Posted by Christopher Eldridge at July 25, 2003 05:59 PM

What firmn and fundamental support is that? Walter Mondale and William Proxmire(Is that bastard pushing up daisies yet?) trying to kill the manned space program?

With the exception of Kennedy and Johnson, more damage has been done to NASA by the likes of Liberal Democrats raiding NASA's budget for more assinine vote buying give away programs. All the Democrats want to do is to turn us into a visionless, wimp nanny state like the once great Britan.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 25, 2003 07:52 PM

Yes, I distinctly remember Mondale's legislative attacks on the space program, and Proxmire doesn't surprise me.

By contrast, I seem to recall a certain Ronald Reagan talking up a variety of space initiatives -- though of course the Dems and their willing accomplices in the media would like us to remember only "Star Wars."

Posted by McGehee at July 26, 2003 06:07 PM

Why is "Science & Space" treated so separately from the military? From what I can see, an investment in one is, to a large degree, an investment in another.

Posted by Con Tendem at July 26, 2003 06:34 PM

Republicans have always been reluctant to spend money on science and space and always favor the military.
I can't speak for all republicans but this is my thoughts on govt sponsorship of science and space.
It is better to allow private entities to pursue those goals and to perhaps spur it on with tax incentives or such. Otherwise what we wind up with is similar to the National Endowment for the Arts. To promote arts we give a taxpayer funded grant to a lady to smear herself with chocolate.
Or this one:
"I waited a year to get a severed head," he says, congratulating himself on his own forbearance as Le Baiser (The Kiss) appears up on the wall. The picture caused a scandal in 1982 when a janitor, who happened to be a born-again Christian, discovered prints of it (along with some actual fetuses) in a darkroom at the University of New Mexico. The police were called, the pictures confiscated.
Mr Witkin, it was determined, wheedled the cadavers out the the medical facilities at the University of New Mexico until they discovered the uses to which he was submitting them. In one photo he had sawed a man?s head down the middle, ?He then photographed the two halves together, touching at the mouth, a neat conceit joining necrophilia, homosexuality, and an inert form of auto-eroticism.?
He has been described as ?Jeffery Dahmer with a camera. Since 1980 he has received four grants from the NEA. The latest, in 1992, for $20,000.
If these people don't get a grant the following year they sue the govt.
This kind of stuff results from govt involvement in affairs that they should just stay out of and let the market handle.

Posted by tom scott at July 27, 2003 11:17 AM

Gosh, does anyone have a comment that actually relates to the post?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 27, 2003 11:32 AM

Geez, Rand, this is the 'net... I thought topic drift was obligatory! ;)

Posted by Troy at July 27, 2003 11:51 PM

I belive that a useful quote (relating to the original topic) might be:

'Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one' -- A.J. Leibling

Posted by Scott at July 28, 2003 08:46 AM

Is anyone surprised at the reaction the Fox news Station in madison has gotten? If your from Wisconsin you wouldn't be. The great country of madison is the perfect place to continue the DNCBS

Steve H. Milwaukee, WI, USA

Posted by Steve Harvey at July 28, 2003 09:14 AM

I don't understand why this is even news. TV affiliates are a business, and unlike in Europe businesses still have some free reign over their own operation.

Posted by Ian S. at July 28, 2003 01:41 PM

Gosh, does anyone have a comment that actually relates to the post?

Well, yeah. I do.

I think broadcasters should be forbidden to charge politicians for air time. BUT, they should not be required to give air time to any politician.

That would pretty much take care of misleading radio and television ads.

Posted by Gary Utter at July 28, 2003 02:25 PM

Garry, your suggestion would fill the midnight airwaves with partisan comercials as different stations picked their candidates and were forced to give them free air. I don't think it would work as you intend.

In my humble opinion by the time the 2008 election rolls around candidates will have to have blogs and respond in near-real time to ensure their message gets out undiluted. They'll still have comercials to scare the old folks, of course, but that trick will work less and less as even dimwitted folks start to catch on to the game.

Posted by Ruprecht at July 28, 2003 05:31 PM

Like Tim Rutten last month, Mr. McAuliffe is simply in shock and awe that anyone would dare interfere with the divine right of liberals to invent history as it happens. At least Rutten salted his tripe with a couple of innocuous facts about who really made some statement and when. God forbid an independently owned station should make telling the actual truth a requirement! It's bad enough those pesky facts and you annoying blogers keep getting in their way. Next thing you know someone will start a whole network that refuses to take orders directly from the DNC! Oh, wait. They already did that didn't they? Gosh. No wonder Hillary wants to shut you guys down.

Posted by Scot Echols at August 1, 2003 02:45 AM

Post a comment

Email Address: