Agree, but my point was that when Maher does step out of line, even his supporters nail him for it. Since I haven't seen any of his supporters nailing him (yet), is he actually out of line this time?

One of the examples of his misogyny was the (approximate) quote about Palin and Bachmann, "I'm not saying this [lack of intelligence] because they have breasts, but because they are boobs". That's not misogyny. As he said in a later show (with Ann Coulter of all people), I just hate idiots. Is it okay to call men idiots but if I call a woman an idiot, that's misogyny?

Re: religion bashing. Watch Religiousity. That is basically one large strawman. There are many places on-line where it has been eviscerated. Incidentally, again many of his supporters called him out on that film too.


I don't know. Limbaugh was quoted in pretty much full context. This was done to demonstrate he didn't even know what the meeting was about, hadn't heard it himself, was factually wrong in some of his statements, and then started name-calling based on his misunderstandings--which he refused to correct for three days, and then offered a 'not apology' only when sponsors yanked their ads.

The Maher quotes are out of context, one or two lines, no background offered. I know a few of them are taken out of context because I've seen the whole show they were taken from on youtube.

Again, none of this means Maher isn't a misogynist. He has already demonstrated the black-white mindset needed in other areas (religion, vaccines) so no surprise if that leaks into his views on men and women.

As an aside, I agree with Ed's comment. Plus I'll wonder out loud, does anyone think Rush is a comedian? Maybe he is funny, but from what I've heard he's just an angry man who spills bile across the airways. Maher, by comparison, can be funny even when he rants and is quite wrong in what he says.

Our news station covered the Limbaugh issue. In 2 or 3 minutes they presented the information quite accurately. They showed Limbaugh saying something, then stopped it and pointed out what he said was factually wrong. Continue the reel, stop and again show that he was wrong.

Our main tv news channels do a fairly good job of reporting. They know when you need to be "fair and balanced" and when "fair and balanced" is just a crock as there is one and only one side to the issue. They're not perfect, but the anchors are probably as well trusted and respected as Walter Cronkite was in his day.

Maher > Limbaugh. That's all I'm saying. If I were to get stuck on an island with Maher, I bet I could open his mind and make him think. I don't think anyone could open Limbaugh's mind. Also, I could laugh with Maher, or even at him, and he'd get it. Limbaugh won't.

Just saying.

I know, but why are you just saying it, unless it has some relevance to the question at hand? If you're saying you'd hold Maher to a lesser standard because you like him better, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to avoid.

Factually wrong? I thought that what got him in trouble was a particularly nasty piece of invective. That's not a question of facts, it's a matter of manners.



That can be a slippery slope. A lot of people start off doing that. But it eventually devolves from "only one side to an issue" to "only one legitimate side to an issue". The usual end result is that they eventually decide that their own side is the only legitimate side to any issue, and become completely one-sided without even realizing it. There are a lot of examples of this on Facebook, that I could plug into the Idiotic Facebook Thread. In fact, thanks for the suggestion...

But again, I didn't know that Limbaugh got in trouble over facts, at all. He may have have made some factual error in what he said also, but it was the invective that really started the firestorm.

This is a double sided slippery slope where going down either side is problematic. We see "fair and balanced" reporting of psychic phenomena all the time. A ghost sighting, esp experience, or communication with the dead is reported as if it has the same (sometimes more) legitimacy as a mountain of scientific evidence or carefully controlled demonstrations.

There is no dispute in these cases. The dead are beyond our ability to speak to them. The folks who find ghosts with fancy scientific equipment are found to be using the equipment incorrectly. Etc.

Sadly these myths are perpetuated by a media that for whatever reason(s) suggests that there is in fact a legitimate debate. Media that insists on "balanced" reporting. Failure to recognize this has severe harms.

The South Dakota Governor trotted out a republican talking point plan this year legislating merit pay for teachers. There was lots of "balanced" reporting on differences of opinion, but no one bothered to look into the facts. Overlapping research from motivation psychology, organizational psychology, and behavioral economics provides ample evidence that there is no merit to merit pay for teachers. Science writer Daniel Pink summarizes.

No mention of actual evidence, just a re-hash of republicans vs teachers as if both sides had equally legitimate arguments. They didn't--the gov was/is wrong. (the teachers are right, but more by luck than deliberate knowledge so I hesitate to give them a whole lot of credit.)

Rather than "balanced" journalists need to focus on "accurate." If there are truly two sides to an issue then those need to be reported, not for "balance" but for "accuracy." When there is only one side then the only "balance" is to accurately report the one side.

I don't know if we can communicate with the dead or not. I believe that we cannot. I'd be willing to entertain the alternative view, but shows like that don't really seem to present any evidence, only assurances.

The History Channel in particular, has gone gaga on some of its recent programming. I've not only seen shows about psychic phenomena, but about Eric Von Daniken-esque theories about prehistoric aliens. I don't object to the subject matter, if they've got something to say, but the show seemed to be about 2 hours of "experts" assuring us how wholeheartedly they believed in the idea. Occasionally a fact would be presented that allowed multiple interpretations, and they'd admit that it did, but would reiterate how sure they felt that theirs was the right interpretation. They didn't interview anyone who took the other side. Not a dissenting voice was heard for the entire program. The facts were far from conclusive, the whole persuasive thrust of the program was "If this many people feel that sure, doesn't that show that there's something to it?" No, it doesn't.



Another example of that is Holoaust Denial. Dirty Little Secrets of World War II cites the Holocaust on a list of famous "coverups" that really weren't. The evidence for the Holocaust is as close to 100% as historical evidence ever is, and is supported by reams of testimony from survivors, liberating Allied troops, confessions of German officers, and mountains of captured German documents. We can maybe dispute the 7 million number (was it as little as 4, or as many as 8?), but there's no reasonably denying that the Holocaust did happen.

But according to Jim Dunnigan, the book's author, news stories that took the idea seriously occurred because news anchors are communications majors and the like. They don't really know good evidence from bad, aren't historical experts, and aren't willing to do the legwork to determine the truth of the matter. They see people disagreeing, think "Oh, good! Controversy! Ratings!", and they report on the existence of the controversy. Part of it may be a philosophical aversion to taking sides, but another part is old fashioned laziness.




I can see multiple sides to that one. On the one hand, yes, the results of the studies should have been mentioned. On the other hand, a lot of average viewers my not fully trust things like motivational studies and behavioral economics in the first place. A lot of people probably don't trust the methodology at all, or or find the possiblility of bias to be great. (I'm not sure where I'd fall, but I'd find the results of such a study to be less convincing than the historical evidence for the Holocaust. So, that evidence should have been mentioned, but it might also open up a whole debate about the validity of that kind of evidence in general (a debate about the method for obtaining historical facts is also possible, but seems less likely).

I bet you couldn't. a) because he's too set in his ways, and b) because you don't like to push your views on anyone in the first place.

You'd probably have an easier time with Limbaugh, just because of the respective formats of their shows. Limbaugh has a call-in show where he has to face opposing viewpoints daily, while Maher has a panel show full of toadying guests who just want to be part of the cool crowd, and so are afraid to challenge him too hard.

Whenever I see him, Maher strikes me as an old-fashioned bigot. More pitiable than contemptible, since he wouldn't actually hurt anyone himself, but is unswervingly dedicated to the feeling that "those people" are responsible for everything wrong in the world, and absolutely convinced that feeling this way constitutes the height of reason itself. The only difference between Maher and the 1950's Bigot is who "those people" are. If I had dinner with him, I wouldn't even try to change his mind on anything. You know the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."

There are no sides to this point. We aren't talking about a study or two here or there, we are talking about a meaningfully large body of evidence gathered by many researchers over many years. There are multiple converging lines of evidence that bonus pay for teachers is a flawed idea.

The first problem is that unless you are one of the "elites" privy to that information you don't know about it. The only reason for a debate on the topic is ignorance. No one even vaguely resembling an expert in the field was asked.

I know that motivation gets mentioned in business school, but apparently it isn't getting through to the students or what is presented is too limited. Every businessperson and b-school grad in the state should have howled at notion of bonuses for teachers. If you want to run businesses effectively you should understand how pay, benefits, and work environment impact motivation (productivity).

But they don't. If they do they sure aren't letting them get in the way of their political beliefs.

The second problem you identify spot on: People just don't understand and therefore don't trust science. How many are dying because they seek "alternative" treatments rather than following established medical protocols?

In large part there is a communication gap between scientists and everyone else. People like stories, scientists like facts. Scientists keep presenting more facts and expect to change people's minds. Quacks and politicians tell stories that sooth our discomfort.

Stories win every time.

Okay, well I have no strong opinion on that question, so I'm quite willing to accept your take on it. But in general, sociological data sometimes changes, unlike scientific facts. So, if people react in Manner A to Stimulus B for decades, there's a chance that they might suddenly start reacting in Manner C if some relevant factor changed. so, even accepting that they react this way now, it's at least possible that it might not always work that way.

On some issues, at least. Not necessarily this one.