Compare and contrats these two clips. First one from the original airing, second one “sanitized” for the re-broadcast:
CENSORED BY CNN: BILL MAHER SUGGESTS RNC CHAIR MEHLMAN IS GAY…
What gives and what happened to Freedom of the press? Obviously, Bill is not outing Mehlman for being gay – Bill has a long-standing record as a proponent for equal rights, including gay marriage – but rather to prove, once gain, the hypocrisy of the GOP.
Question up for debate: is this all about legal ramifications and CNN doing some (too late) ass-covering?
Guess telling the truth is not Kosher in certain airwaves. Bill’s HBO show on Friday should be quite a closet-buster.
I just checked out the videos and the transcripts (thanks), and I don’t get what they think they’re accomplishing. I guess it must be a legal thing, them wanting to minimize any damage if this thing blows up. It’ll be interesting to see what Mahr says tonight.
In your OP you said:
But outing him for being gay is exactly what he did. (Assuming he is.) I understand your point is that he wasn’t trying to slap Mehlman with the “stink” of being gay, but with the stink of being a hypocrite. This issue of outing gays to reveal hypocricy and/or help the cause has been discussed here before. I find it disappointing. I think a more consistent position, and the higher ground, particularly for those who believe that being gay is not a choice, is to truly ignore someone’s sexual orientation and. I understand why they do it, but if being gay is not a choice, whcih I believe to be the case 99% of the time, that person should still be able to think through public policy and arrive at any conclusion he wishes concerning what he believes is best for the society in which he lives? For me, it’s like a black person being against affirmative action. Just because they have a certain color skin doesn’t mean they can’t think through the issue and arrive at a position that anyone else might arrive at.
Doesn’t Bill Mahr have his own show where he can make his own allegations of unknown veracity? Freedom of the press doesn’t mean that CNN has to air what everyone says.
Personally, I think outing gay people is really a mean thing to do to someone. I have no idea if Melman is gay, but outing him would potentially lead to serious personal consequences to him. If he wants to be gay in the privacy of his own home, that’s his business and not Bill Mahr’s. I understand the cheap shot at the hypocracy of the GOP, but that does not excuse the hypocracy of Mahr: he is a frequent advocate of having one’s doings in one’s own bedroom be a matter of privacy, but when it comes time to take a shot at political opponents, he doesn’t feel the need to abide by that principle. That’s pretty disgraceful.
Perhaps CNN feels the same way and doesn’t think that its network should be complicit in such behavior, I don’t know. but I don’t think CNN nor any other establishment of the press is under any obligation NOT to edit interviews for content. Freedom works both ways, you know.
Nothing happened to freedom of the press. Those concerns are only triggered by government action. CNN can choose to air or not air any content they like.
Personally, I consider outing homosexual conservatives who fight against gay rights to be self-defense. Then again, I personally think homosexual conservatives who fight against gay rights should be treated as lepers by the gay community. No nookie, no respect, no acknowledgment of their existence outside of screaming nasty names at them at political rallies. I see no reason why anyone like Mehlman, Foley, or Haggard should get any respect from us, seeing as how that would be sort of like Norway, after WWII, naming Quisling to the Order of St. Olav.
Who cares? CNN is a private company and they own the program. There is no censorship and there are no implications for freedom of the press. Anyone who thinks so needs to take a remedial course on the Constitution.
John, no, it’s surprisingly still up on the Huffington Post. And I say “surprisingly” because CNN sent a letter to YouTube to take their clips down – which they did.
I kind of wrote a hasty OP because of that, wasn’t sure how long they’d be able to leave it up on there either. Link still working for me.
Anyway, I guess it wouldn’t have been more acurate of me to call it “Freedom of expression” and not “Freedom of the press.” Point being, Marh was censored. Thing I don’t quite understand is what difference does it make if in the original program (that I happened to watch, love Bill) he was unedited? IOW, anyone who saw the original show heard what Bill said. Not only that, if you could log on, you’d see for yourself that it’s right there on tape anyway.
magellan, I understand how doing what he did is certainly not “taking the high ground,” OTOH, it is sort of a dilemma isn’t it?
Please read jayjay’s excellent post to see what I mean. In that sense, I fully agree with both of them (jayjay and Bill)
Friday Spell,
The quality of your input is only surpassed by the acuity of your political views. From what I can gather they are both running on empty.
Again, no he was not. CNN can’t censor anyone. CNN is a private company that has the ultimate decision about what goes out on its channel. Decided to remove certain comments from a TV show is not censorship. Maher is not prevented from saying anything – he can write a column, post it on the Internet, go on another show, or use his own HBO show to say whatever he wants. CNN simply decided that they did not want his specific comment to go out over their network.
That is far from censorship and it is no infringement on his right of free expression. The right of free expression does not mean that a television network is obligated to allow you an outlet for whatever you want to say.
Again, how does that make a difference if in the original program (which is the on on primetime) everyone heard what Bill said? If they are going to get sued the tape is right there.
Actually it is censorship, but not the kind being discussed. CNN is free to censor what they choose to censor and not allow to go out over their network. It is just not called censorship. It is “exercizing editorial control.” It is a totally different issue, for example, if the government attempts to prevent the media from publishing something.
But did the original broadcast go out over the network?
(snark) Perhaps it was because the original broadcast was live – as in Larry King Live – and Ted Turner hasn’t invented a way to edit for content live TV programming. Once it’s on tape, it can be done. Just because something is broadcast once doesn’t mean that CNN producers can’t look back and say, whoa, that’s not appropriate, let’s not air that again.