I am having a problem with the mind set of some of the people that comment here at the good Doctor (what else is new?) First of all, in a slightly related matter, I would like to welcome back Dr. Uhberschnitzel as a follower, we missed you!
Now on to the issue at hand. Why is it considered censorship and fascism when one exercises his right of free speech if it isn't condoning a liberal position? No one is more slanted than the left wing press, yet they are the first to scream censorship, even as they practice it every day, in how they release sound bites, who they allow to write in their op-ed pieces, and who they choose to feature. These last two come to mind with the New York Times not allowing McCain to write a piece, and one of the two ( I don't remember which) national weekly rags ran a puff lovefest piece on the pre-burka wearing creature that lives with the President, but nothing on Cindy McCain. I waited in vain for the piece on her, and it never came.
I posted a comment and was attacked for suggesting that a euphemism be agreed upon for one of the National Weekly Rags ( or both, for that matter). This was done to protect people. I have not disallowed discussion, I merely requested that it be euphemismed to protect the sensibilities of the readers who might be offended by what they stand for, or their very mention. Also the children, who should not be intrigued to go read that garbage that passes for journalism.
( I know, I know, they throw the token bone to the Conservative in the back, but then they force him to write every third column about baseball, and wear the bowtie)
So how about us all getting along, and working for change, and changing the name of that aforementioned rag to something we can all agree upon.
I shall start. Newsbleak ( Oh wait, now that Bush is gone, that should be Newsgreat)
All the News we decided you must see, slanted our very own way ( too long?)
Obama's Voice
Pelosi's Panderer
The Rag ( i like that one) .
OK , now its your turn, and remember, its important to have dialogue to create change, its what the President's teleprompter would want.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If the press were run by the government and ran slanted or one sided pieces, that would be censorship. Editorial decisions are up to the editor and owner of the news outlet. Due diligence is up to the reader. The reader needs to know if she agrees with the editorial view, or the owners view, or even the view of the news articles. Looking to news outlets, or talk radio or any source for "what to think," is not only foolhardy, but dangerous. Further, one has the absolute right to only get his news from Fox News or the Washington Times.
It is also dangerous to only read publications that you agree with. First, you cannot fully grasp the issues if you don't fully see both sides. Second, you have to know what the "opposition" is saying.
You can't bury your head in the sand, and if a publication like Newsweek is as essential part of the national debate as you seem to think it is, then it is a must read for anyone who actually cares about this country.
And you do censor people.
FBB the only problem with what you are saying is that unlike a publication like the EDITORIAL page of the WSJ or Commentary magazine or even FoxNews the "mainstream media" like the New York Times or Newsweek claim to be giving unbiased news that is not slanted in either direction. That news is slanted at all should be obvious to anyone who reads anything written. But the way we get our news now in soundbites or on the radio in 10 second segments leaves very little room ofr a full story. Take for example the "bonuses" given out at AIG. Really they were yearlong Defered payments for work done for free. But the press decided to call them bonuses and now that is what they are. If the main news outlets think there is no place for the other side of the story then we have every right to call their unbiased reporting into question.
good point dispy,( but I still cring when I read news***k.)
Remember, FBB, this IS my blog, and as you say, my editorial decisions. There have been some that you have not seen that you would surely approve of, but were in fact, censorship of someone else, so where, exactly is the distinction?
You can't ask me a question about hypothetical things I would agree with you about, and then ask how I would make an editorial distinction on something I've never seen.
"truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
Post a Comment