Posted tagged ‘bad behavior’

What Does The Fox Say? (Zombie Goebbels Is Taking Notes Edition)

December 22, 2014

No, I don’t think that title is hyperbole.

Via Talking Points Memo, here’s how a Fox affiliate “informs” its viewers:

A Fox affiliate in Baltimore aired a segment on Sunday showing footage from a “Justice For All” demonstration in Washington, D.C. in which it edited a chant to sound like protestors were shouting “kill a cop.”

“At this rally in Washington, D.C. protestors chanted, ‘we won’t stop, we can’t stop, so kill a cop,'” the WBFF broadcast said.

But the full footage, flagged by Gawker on Monday via C-SPAN, revealed that the chant was “we won’t stop, we can’t stop, ’til killer cops are in cell blocks.”

On being caught lying on the air, this is how the station responded:

We aired part of a protest covered by CSPAN that appeared to have protesters chanting “kill a cop”. We spoke to the person in the video today and she told us that is not what she was chanting. Indeed, Tawanda Jones, says she was chanting, “We won’t stop ‘til killer cops are in cell blocks”. We invited Tawanda to appear on Fox45 News at 5:00 and Fox45 News at Ten tonight for an interview so we can discuss the video and the recent violence in New York City. She has kindly accepted and we will bring you that tonight.

This is, of course, a double-dip of the bullshit.  You can listen to the raw and edited clips at TPM.  When you do so, you’ll see that there’s nothing but a lie in the phrase “appeared to have protesters chanting “kill a cop”.”

The Fox affiliate in Baltimore edited audio to create a statement no one said, one certain to inflame anger.  Most important, as the GOP-led bullshit hailstorm around “anti-cop rhetoric” begins to founder on the fact that people like DiBasio, Holder and Obama didn’t utter any, audio like this provides an answer to folks like me and many here.

We say “show us this anti-cop stuff.”  Give us links that plausibly tie those of us who argue that cops have been shown to be able to use excess force with impunity to the deaths of those two officers in Brooklyn.

They say, “let’s go to the videotape.”  Which they manufacture.

Fox 45 Baltimore is a local broadcast station.  As such, it is subject to licensing by the FCC.  Once upon a time, it might have been possible to mount at least a vaguely threatening challenge to its license renewal for sh*t like this.  The Reagan Revolution, aided by the GOP Congress under a Bill Clinton who did not wield a veto pen, has made that essentially impossible, while ensuring that broadcast TV will ever-increasingly belong to our oligarchs.

The FCC’s vision of the public interest standard ­ and how to achieve diverse programming — underwent a significant transformation in the 1980s. As new media industries arose and a new set of FCC Commissioners took office, the FCC made a major policy shift by adopting a marketplace approach to public interest goals. In essence, the FCC held that competition would adequately serve public needs, and that federally mandated obligations were both too vague to be enforced properly and too threatening of broadcasters’ First Amendment rights.(17) Many citizen groups argued that the new policy was tantamount to abandoning the public interest mandate entirely.

Pursuant to its marketplace approach, the FCC embarked upon a sweeping program of deregulation by eliminating a number of long-standing rules designed to promote program diversity, localism, and compliance with public interest standards. These rules included requirements to maintain program logs, limit advertising time, air minimum amounts of public affairs programming, and formally ascertain community needs.(18) The license renewal process — historically, the time at which a station’s public interest performance is formally evaluated — was shortened and made virtually automatic through a so-called “postcard renewal” process.(19) The FCC also abolished the Fairness Doctrine, which had long functioned as the centerpiece of the public interest standard.(20)

In 1996, Congress expanded the deregulatory approach of the 1980s with its enactment of the Telecommunications Act.(21) Among other things, the Act extended the length of broadcast licenses from five years to eight years, and instituted new license renewal procedures that made it more difficult for competitors to compete for an existing broadcast license. These changes affected the ability of citizens and would-be license applicants to critique (at license renewal time) a broadcaster’s implementation of public interest obligations. The 1996 Act also lifted limits on the number of stations that a single company could own, a rule that historically had been used to promote greater diversity in programming.

The results? Unsurprising:

The range of programming has expanded as the number of broadcasting stations and other media has proliferated over the past twenty years. Yet market forces have not necessarily generated the kinds of quality, non-commercial programming that Congress, the FCC and others envisioned.

In any event, it’s not clear to me that one false report would have cost anyone a license even in the good old days (get offa my lawn!) — but this one is egregious.  It’s shouting “Fire!” in an uningnited croweded theater.  It’s gasoline on the bonfire.  It’ s vicious and abhorrent.

And you know the worst thing.  I’m not nearly as surprised as I wish I were.

Forget it, Jake, it’s Fox.

[no pic today — recovering from minor surgery and can only concentrate in intervals — doing the pic search is a bridge too far.  Sorry]

 

“A Tradition Of Service”

February 7, 2013

That would be the motto for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. And it contains your full USDA recommended level of irony for the day.

Via BoingBoing’s Xeni Jardin, we learn that the murder (so far) of three people by an ex-cop, which sparked a remarkable outbreak of shooting of folks accused of DWDBT (Driving While Driving A Blue Truck) is not the only news to come out of LA law enforcement this week. Get your heads around this:

Seven Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies have been notified that the department intends to fire them for belonging to a secret law enforcement clique that allegedly celebrated shootings and branded its members with matching tattoos, officials said.

The Times reported last year about the existence of the clique, dubbed the Jump Out Boys, and the discovery of a pamphlet that described the group’s creed, which required aggressive policing and awarded tattoo modifications for police shootings.

Investigators did not find that the seven had actually, you know, killed anyone with their arquebuses whilst on night patrol…

The_Nightwatch_by_Rembrandt

…but I can’t say anyone who might be on the receiving end of “aggressive policing” would feel much comfort on that:

One member, who spoke to The Times and requested anonymity, said the group promoted only hard work and bravery. He dismissed concerns about the group’s tattoo, noting that deputies throughout the department get matching tattoos. He said there was nothing sinister about their creed or conduct. The deputy, who was notified of the department’s intent to terminate him, read The Times several passages from the pamphlet, which he said supported proactive policing.

“We are alpha dogs who think and act like the wolf, but never become the wolf,” one passage stated, comparing criminals to wolves. Another passage stated, “We are not afraid to get our hands dirty without any disgrace, dishonor or hesitation… sometimes (members) need to do the things they don’t want to in order to get where they want to be.”

…”We do not glorify shootings,” he continued. “What we do is commend and honor the shootings. I have to remember them because it can happen any time, any day. I don’t want to forget them because I’m glad I’m alive.”

The only good news out of this is that the Sherrif’s department does seem serious enough to actually fire these guys. I suppose you could file that impulse under “damage control,” but hell, I’ll take it.

I’ll add one more thing: being a cop is a terrifically hard job. It’s made harder by the unbelievable availability of firearms for any bad guy (or gal) to wield — which is why so many in law enforcement favor gun control.

But that job becomes harder, IMHO, not easier, the more you militarize the civilian act of policing. Such militarization doesn’t merely include weaponization, tactics and all that; it’s a culture too. And cultures can go very bad.

So I’m not calling down snark and thunder on everyone who does law enforcement. I am saying that as in so much else humans undertake, being a good cop, or department is a matter of eternal vigilance and all that.

Image: Rembrandt van Rijn, The Company of Frans Banning Cocq and Willem van Ruytenburch, known as the ‘Night Watch’, 1642

It’s not that McArdle can’t read…it’s that she can’t (won’t) think: part two.

October 7, 2009

So:  on to the bill of particulars on McArdle’s recent attempt to claim the intellectual high ground in her ongoing attempt to convince us that we live in the best of all possible drug markets. [Part one is here]

I’m not going to fisk the entire piece in question.  Instead, I’m going to focus on one passage in which she invokes the research community to defend her assertion that artificially high US drug prices for big pharma are essential to the future of drug innovation.  You can read in the way she treats this literature that she either doesn’t or willfully won’t engage her subject up to the level that would allow her to make believable arguments.

She introduces her bravura display of rigor this way:

…we could go to the academic literature.  Not the literature from advocacy groups which too often fills the pages of political magazines on the left and right, but something from someplace like Rand.  And fortuitously, Rand happens to have published a paper on this very topic!

McArdle goes on to quote at length a passage about what would happen to longevity if the US imposed price controls on pharmaceuticals to bring US costs down to those paid by Europeans (about 20% less than current prices, according to the paper).

McArdle then seeks to emphasize the urgency, even the moral quality of her concern for maintaining the status quo in pricing by citing this conclusion from the Rand group:

…. the introduction of price controls would reduce life expectancy by two-tenths of a year for Americans ages 55-59 alive in 2010 and by one-tenth for Europeans ages 55-59 alive in the same year. In percentage terms, these correspond to 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent declines from the status quo.


And, just to finish laying the groundwork, she adds one more cite from the professional literature to affirm the authority of the quite striking claim above:

If you’re wondering how much levels of spending matter, you could go to Acemoglu and Linn, who estimate that a 1% increase in market size (aka revenue) for pharmaceuticals results in a 3-4% increase in the number of drugs being approved.

Sounds pretty devastating, right?


Well, yes…and that ought to be the clue.  In science, and in common experience too, of course, the rule of thumb is that the more striking the claim the greater the appropriate level of skepticism.   So before you endorse or adopt such positions, you need to test the inference.


There are a number of ways to do so, of course.  Step one is to consider the source.


Did McArdle?  Not really.  A first reality check comes from an inquiry into the background of the Rand study.


Go to what the Rand paper actually says:  It analyzes two cases:   either reduce payments to drug companies, or increase subsidies to consumers to get an effect on consumer pocketbooks (absent the tax consquences of the latter policy) that would be the same.  Reducing drug expenditures though it saves consumers money but, according to this analysis, costs them life expectancy.  Subsidies leave consumer finances unchanged, but do not impose the cost in months of life lost.  As the value of life in the model exceeds that of the saving on drug costs, the conclusion is obvious:  No attempt to reduce drug company receipts should be made, with policy makers concerned about the effects of the cost of health care instead told to focus on further subsidizing the purchase of drugs.


That is:  pay the man, or we will kill grandpa before his time.*


But then, if you go on to read to the end of the study, you find something interesting.  The study was not a piece of social science research undertaken by a body of disinterested researchers. Rather, you are reminded that Rand is a private, nonprofit research shop, available to perform academic-level, but not academic-housed studies for those willing to pay.  The lead funder for this study?


Pfizer.


Which, if you’re interested, is, by a wide margin, the largest pharmaceutical company in the world.


McArdle does not point this out.  I’m not sure if she noticed it in her first reading of the piece.  She does respond in the comment thread to a reader who pointed this out, writing”If you can find articles on the subject that are not funded by an institution with a clear dog in this fight, please send them. Rand is a widely respected institution.”


This is…how to put it…seriously weak sauce.


Juxtapose it with her snark about “the literature from advocacy groups which too often fills the pages of political magazines on the left and right.”


In other words, she’s relying on the argument from authority, again:  Rand is respectable…a member of the village.  The fact that it is an intellectual gun-for-hire does not seem to matter to her, and of course her defense — that everybody does it —  is wrong, a false statement.


You don’t have to go far to find the confounding counter-example.  The other paper she cites, (on which more later), was written by two economists both then at MIT.  The work, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, lists its outside funders:  first the National Science Foundation, and then the Russell Sage Foundation, a one hundred year old philanthropic institution with a focus on “the improvement of social and living conditions in the United States.”


Oh well…


Now of course, the fact that Rand was hired by the world’s largest drug company, and then produced a paper which argued that the pharmaceutical industry’s revenue should under no circumstances be cut unless you are willing to accept death and lamentations, is not in itself prima facie evidence that this paper is a put-up job, astroturf research with Rand serving as the cut-out for big Pharma.


But it does, or it should, compel you to interrogate the paper with great care.


And for that:  look to part three of this series.


*Or perhaps, if  you follow the learned doctor M. Python, pay the man and we’ll kill grandpa before his time…;)



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 10,343 other followers