National Radio Hall of Fame Follow-up

Well, I wasn't able to post my comment on this article at the Chicago Reader: their filters didn't like my HTML, and I couldn't figure out why not. Update: Took out the links, got it posted. Here it is anyway, but please read the article first:

The induction of James Dobson into the National Radio Hall of Fame is another example of the reasons for the disdain in which Americans have come to hold the traditional media. Regrettably, this article and Deanna Isaacs' handling of Bruce DuMont do nothing to save the situation. There are two important points here on which Isaacs gave DuMont a pass when he should have been challenged.

First, the "election." "The public has spoken?" Please. Anyone who pays attention to these things knows that the only thing an on-line poll demonstrates is who has the largest e-mail list. PZ Myers of Pharyngula regularly invites his readers to skew the results of polls on right-wing sites, and he's certainly not alone in that, on either end of the political spectrum. On-line elections are a prime example of the old Chicago mantra, "Vote early and often." Why should we think the results of this one were somehow pure? And why was DuMont allowed to get away with this assertion?

Second, and by far the more egregious miss on Isaacs' part, is the implicit idea that the protest is somehow a function of the left's attempt to stifle dissent, which is a right-wing talking point that DuMont exploits and I'm sure Dobson is only too happy to see in print. Contrary to DuMont's assertion, this is not only about "political philosophy," and the principal objection is not to what Dobson says, repellent as it is. Most of those protesting would, I think, be among the first to support Dobson's right to voice his beliefs. The fact is, which both Wayne Besen and Rick Garcia mention in their comments quoted here, that Dobson is a liar. He regularly misrepresents facts and, when that doesn't work, makes them up. This is not at all an unfounded assertion: it's well documented and is a characteristic of socially regressive extremists, of which Dobson is only the most prominent example. (Box Turtle Bulletin is only one Web site that regularly documents instances of these distortions.)

This reflexive mendacity is what is being affirmed by this induction, and yet Isaacs meekly accepts DuMont's claim that there is no criterion for "political philosophy" and slides past the real objections -- apparently there are no criteria for veracity and integrity, as well. (And in that light, DuMont's sanctimonious appeal to "fairness" in his comment speaks for itself.)

If anyone wonders why the traditional media has so little credibility these days, one only need read something like this.