I think the core of the problem that Carl/Sean/Phil/PZ have (and I agree with them) is having a full fledged (or even half baked) creationist on the show as though thy were not a whacko is giving them legitimacy.

It’s worse than that. As I wrote on Panda’s Thumb, the ‘legitimacy’ BH.tv gave the whackos was borrowed from people who had earned it on their own — Plait, Zimmer, Carroll, and Myers. It was their credibility that BH.tv borrowed and then gave to Behe and Nelson and McWhorter (the latter for his credulous sycophancy wrt Behe).

Let me be clear: I’m NOT saying that it would be a GOOD idea. I’m just saying that you could not get mad at the management for trying to pull that off. Or, of you are the sort hat would walk away from and thence disdain an outlet for doing something stupid, then you are probably also the sort that yells at servers in restaurants, so when we have lunch together some day let’s do it at the drive through!

I think the core of the problem that Carl/Sean/Phil/PZ have (and I agree with them) is having a full fledged (or even half baked) creationist on the show as though thy were not a whacko is giving them legitimacy. I have no problem with a freak-show (but it is bad programming) or a full on debate (but those never work). But the “oh, our next guess is Ken Ham, let’s here what he has to say about evolution” is not OK.

The reason why the hard and fast rule does not work is this:

Ken Ham
Duane Gish
Michael Behe
Stephen Meyer
Ken Miller

This is an incomplete list, of course, and could be done much better (but this is a comment on a blog post) but imagine a list like this. Draw the line. I would draw the line between MIller and Meyer but I’d be uncomfortable with a show in which Miller (and whomever he was talking to) focused on some god of the gaps. that would be an epic failure. But others would draw the line between the ID’ers and the YEC/s How do you make a rule that works to decrease complaints when different people would draw the line in different places?

Better to spread out the blame in who decides where to draw the line on a case by case basis.

(Then only invite your friends to the party, of course.)

BTW, I know people find the dominance or Robert Write (or his personality or decisions, etc.) annoying, and I personally do not go along with all of his ideas at all (not even close) but could you please name for me a media outlet that actually exists and has some success without a person/personality behind it, at lest in the first several years of its existence? From New York Times to Scienceblogs.com, it is pretty common.

That’s a pretty fine line you’re trying to draw there. However, even if we were to assume such a line could be drawn, it still doesn’t address Phil’s point: The problem is equivalence. By hosting respectable scientists and then hosting crackpots, BhTV just gives more credence to the crackpots, and hurts the reputations of the scientists. It’s because of this that they are right to demand at least one “simple minded” rule: no crackpots.

This does not make any sense. They gave a space for creationists to have a voice. They did not sympathize or give them a voice.

It sounds to me like Wright is trying to avoid simple minded rule-based behavior, but the Big Time Bloggingheads (PZ and all) are demanding it.

Not that the pullouts were a bad decision but still, it takes the idea closer to being a pipe dream.