Why do we care about freedom of the press?
We care because we don’t want a small group to control what gets reported. With media consolidation people worry that decisions on what is reported are being based not on the news worthiness of the story but upon weather or not the reporting of the story will benefit the companies reporting the story.
If a small number of groups control the press to push there own agendas freedom of the press is abridged in much the same way as the government doing it.
I care about freedom of the press because I don’t want the government telling me what I can read, view, or hear.
Except the media has become much more diverse over the past decade. We have more television channels, more news sources available over the Internet, more radio stations, and more alternative news sources.
No, it’s not, because there is no “small number of groups” controlling the media.
Take the Maher situation. He claims that Mehlmann is gay and CNN takes it off the rebroadcast of Larry King Live. So what? You have a variety of Internet sources that are saying this and a variety of alternative newspapers that pick up this kind of stuff. You also have the ability for Maher to use his own show to say this. How is this information being supressed?
Yeah, because outing gay people is a crittical thing for the press to do? :dubious: I mean, there might be a good argument about the badness of press consolidation, but this ain’t it.
And that pretty much covers the entire issue. “Freedom of the press” has to do with government not censoring the press. CNN, as a private company—and within the definition of its “freedom”—has the right to air its content as it sees fit, short of slander/libel.
Do I think this is the best example of journalistic interity on the part of CNN? Not really, but then again I don’t expect much from Larry King. Perhaps CNN was trying to avoid a suit for slander, which is their right to do.
Also, as I understand it, it’s really only acceptable to “out” a homosexual if he or she is publically working against gays or to supress the rights of gays, similar to the Ted Haggard ordeal. Depending on the man Maher mentioned (of whom I know very little), that principle might apply here.
I don’t really see it as a dilemma, per se. Homosexuality is not a choice, right? So, shouldn’t a homosexual be allowed to think through an issue and arrive at a conclusion the same way a straight person can? I would see it as much more a dilemma if homosexuality was a choice. But even then, I don’t necessarily see as hypocritical someone’s choice to not want to extend marriage rights to gays (which is really what we’re talking about here) and their desire to sleep with people of the same sex —even have long-term monogamous relationships. Their position is every bit as valid or invalid as a straight person’s position on the issue. But to say that because someone is born gay that they must ascribe to the same line of thinking on all issues gay as most gays is unfair and ridculous. And, I’d add, hypocritical. To allow them to come to any conclusion on any issue is a muchmore consistent position.
Additionally, I think Ravenman makes an excellent point: if what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is nobody’s business but their own, how in the world can Mahr out someone and then even utter the word “hypocrite” except in referriing to himself.
No one’s asking for lockstep on all issues. However, homosexuals fighting against gay rights makes about as much sense as such hypothetical organizations as Jews for Hitler or Blacks against the 14th Amendment.
And, like I said above, until the societal punishment for working against community interests is strong enough to deter such things, there will always be quislings who are more interested in the size of their wallets than the size of their rights. Until the gay community starts shunning these right-wing traitors, until they start to be denied entry into the society that they work so hard to destroy, it will continue.
Freedom of the Press applies only to the folks who own the press. They can print whatever they choose to print (or broadcast); they can also choose what not to broadcast. If you get your own press, you can make your own choices. Until then, you have no freedom of the press.
If you say there should be no censorship, I mostly agree with you. Every network censors its own output to some degree, even the “unregulated” cable networks.
Sweet Mercury, Mehlman was actively working to restrict the rights of gays. He’s the chairman of a party that uses gay marriage as a lever and a sledgehammer to feed the fires of bigotry within the party. He was at the controls of the machine that hoped to trash any candidate who thought it was right to grant simple human rights to gay people.
I have no idea if Ken Mehlman is gay or not. If he is, though, he’s fair game, the bestid.
I’d so those gays who are closeted and while closeted support exercises in raw bigotry against gays – like the anti-gay marriage stuff – deserve any fucking thing they get. I don’t think that gays should have to put up with Citizen Coens.
We have more television channels but those channels are owned by a much smaller group of media companies. There was a time when cities had more than one serious news paper that has gone away. Newspapers in various cities are being bought up by media companies. Consolidation in the radio business means that there are two or three conglomerates that own a majority of the radio stations. The only thing that has become more diverse over the last decade is the ease of internet access to various news sources.
Make that on ANY issue. The way someone is born should have no bearing on what rules and regulations he thinks would make for the best society. He shold be able to do and think whatever he wants. The only difference is that he is attracted to the same sex, correct?
I think a better analogy than the 14th Amendment (which allows Blacks to actively participate in constructing a society of their likiing) is Affirmative Action. A black or other minority can very well believe that even though AA might benefit him or his children in the short term, that it, in balance, is bad for the society in which he lives. Being born with darker skin does not prevent him from being able to think outside of the immediate effect it will have on him and come to a conclusion where the society in shich he lives would be better without it.
I’d have much less problem with this, but it is still hypocrital. It’s using how someone was born to dictate what they think. For a community whose battle cry for a long time was “tolerance”, it still smells like hypocricy.
I don’t see why anyone would believe that sexual orientation shouldould be linked to what one thinks. I think the gay cause would me much better served by INSISTING that the only difference is sexual preference. And that if you’re gay you’re entitled to be just as longsighted, shortsighted, brilliant, or wrongheaded as anyone else.
magellan, the 14th Amendment is a better analogy than Affirmative Action. It was the 14th Amendment that pulled African-Americans up from being less than full citizens to being full citizens. While gay folk don’t have an omnibus bill of sorts that does the same thing right now, same-sex marriage is a component of that “pulling up”.
And I’m sorry, but I just do not understand the mindset that says that someone is going to work to keep HIMSELF as a second-class citizen. I don’t understand the mindset that someone will work to keep from giving HIMSELF equality with the majority. I don’t understand that. It requires either a monstrous self-loathing, a complete lack of morality for anything but money and power, or both.
Too many individual posts to answer to, so I’ll attempt a combined response.
First off I’ll admit that in my haste I misworded my OP. I guess a good analogy could be the SDMB itself. While we are free to write what we’d like, they reserve the right to delete material which they do not wish to publish – for reasons of their own; which one may or may not agree with.
Is that about right? If so, let’s move on.
What I’m saying is, even if that is the case, the integrity of the show/network becomes questionable. Why? Because someone watching the re-broadcast is NOT getting the full scoop. So unless they show a disclaimer – in the form of a ticker and/or scrolling screen or whatever – how does one know it hasn’t been “editorialized”? Remember, not everyone uses the “Internets” nor does much digging beyond the MSM. Which, BTW, as far as I know, has not said a word about the incident.
On the outing itself: I don’t know this guy from shinola, but if what some of the other posters upthread have said is true (and I tend to believe them, why else would Bill have done it? Surely not out of spite for his sexual preferense, that’s absurd) then fuck him. It’s richly deserved.
Anyway, should be an interesting “Real Time w/Bill Maher” 2nite. I know I’ll be watching.
Yeah, but I believe you’re missing the point. This guy’s actually an activist against people of his own disposition.
Beyond hypocritical, it’s actually pathological.
I just don’t see it that way. Why can’t a guy be gay, and beleive that society would be better if marriage stood as it has fo all these centuries? Why is he deprived of that opinion because of the way he was born? Why can a straight person hold that opinion with no consequences, and a gay person have to suffer being outed againt his desire?
Excuse what will of course be a somewhat clumsy analogy, but oyu were an Albino, would oyu be morally obligated to agree with the (hypothetical) Global Albino Alliance to argue for 30% of all public park space being covered? Couldn’t you say, “yeah that would be great for me personally, but that would make for a less better society on the whole, so I’m nott going to support it?” Should we have wheelchair access to every public place able walkers could go? Why can’t gay people put the society before themselves (if, in fact, they believe SSM to be detrimental to society) without fear of retribution by someone disclosing what they do behind closed doors? It’s balckmail. Why can’t an Black person be against AA without beiing accuse of being an Uncle Tom? Why must he be bullied into a position by someone holding the color of his skin against him?
Why shouldn’t a Jew help the Nazis, after all, if he truly believes that German society would be better served without a Jewish population?
Why shouldn’t a black man endorse the return of slavery if he truly believes that American society would be better served to have blacks as property?
More importantly, and non-ironically, why shouldn’t gay people be allowed to hold a hypocrite up in the sunlight if he’s working to damage his own people?
These analogies are inapt. It’s always hard to come up with a perfect one. You’re pointing to what someone should do. It may be wise or unwise, and you are free to convince him of the errors of his view. Just like the gay person who may be against SSM or gays adopting. But he should be free to hold his view without the sexuality he was born with used as a weapon of blackmail against him.
Because they are then being hypocrites themselves. The person has no control over his gayness. And what he does in the privacy of his bedroom is no one’s business. By outing him they are making the bedroom public and using his sexualtiy as a cudgel, forcing submission. I think the best thing the gay rights movement has going for it is a moral high ground. They should never give that up. They’ve stated that the bedroom is private. They stated that gays are exactly like everyone else, save their preference for the same sex. They’ve stated that they should be treated equally. Their actions, as a group, she be in sync with those words. If they don’t here to it, it makes it less likely that others will.
I think that a good position would be: “Yes, there are rumors that Person X is gay. I don’t know if he is. I don’t care if he is. I do care that his position on the issue (SSM, etc.) is wrong and unfair. His sexuality is immaterial. He’s free to be wrong on the issue whether he is straight or gay. he is wrong on this issue.” Or something like that.
On the other hand, and I can see where you might see this as hypocritical, revealing their sexuality is extremely effective in stopping their influence, since the people they’re so cozy with tend to look at people like us with revulsion. If stopping their influence on the subject in question is paramount, then outing is not only recommended, but required, from a self-defense stance.
I am simply NOT required to be complicit in protecting someone’s defenses if those defenses are being used against me. Period. The closet is fragile, in that it requires complicity from your gay brothers (or lesbian sisters) if you have any wish at all to be a part of the gay community, however marginal that part is. If someone breaks the social compact that keeps their closet in place, then it’s not the fault of the outer, but the outee. There is a price to maintaining camouflage. It’s paid in goodwill.
I just got finished watching Bill Maher’s show. No mention of Mehlman and no outing of any Republicans. There was a little talk about Foley and and that evangelical preacher, but no on else.
Because: 1) what someone does in their bedroom is pretty much their own business; 2) those who believe that sexuality is a personal affair act in an unprincipled manner when they make other people’s sexuality their own business; 3) debate on important issues should be about the merits of the issue, not character attacks; 4) outing is a petty form of blackmail or revenge that does not actually change anyone’s minds; 5) I have a problem with “the Group” deciding what an individual’s political views should be, and backing up those decisions with efforts to humiliate or embarass; 6) there’s always the chance that someone could be outed and their lives damaged due to wrong information or malicious rumors.
Censorship!!!11!!!1!