Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of consistency

The media is a business, pure and simple. Their aim is to supply what the public wants. If the public seems to be going through a “sensitive” trend, the media will ape it. If the public wanted Jesus bondage porn, by golly, that’s what they would provide.

The problem is that the squeaky wheel really does get the grease. Whereas most of the public probably couldn’t give two shits one way or another, the groups that send in clamorous protests are the ones who are heard. If those groups can make the outcry seem large enough, the media hastens to comply.

If anything, it’s self-censorship. No power commanded them to heed the complaints. It’s the way it always has been-- and always will be-- forever and ever, amen. I think a perfect example of how the media follows public mood is the aftermath of September 11th, up to the start of the Iraqi war. Now, since the public is disgruntled, unfavorable stories are being brought to the forefront. (Anyone who was interested in staying informed at the time could do so through other media outlets, but the Big Guys weren’t openly criticizing as they are now.)

You have to be the most arrogant asshole on these boards. Almost every thread I see you post in you make the absolute statements that shows nothing but your smug ignorance. I am constantly stunned at your fucking audacity to proclaim your views are the only ones that matter, and are in fact the only ones that need to be taken. I can’t see how anyone who is so fucking self centered can even live with himself. My heart goes out to you, and anyone you come in contact with.

You do realize that showing the cartoon, wich is the basis to the whole story, would be supporting the story more than the West cover supports the abstract stories you suggested. CNN actually did show the cartoon, but they pixelated it. They didn’t do it as a freedom of speech campaignlike many European medias did. They were covering the legitimate story and only pixelated the image to not offend Muslems. I have no doubt it is a double standard. I am glad they did not show an offensive image. That doesn’t change the fact that the standard is different for Christains and Muslems.

Again, this only works if you believe that the West image is as offensive as those cartoons.

I dont. Period.

I don’t think the cartoons were offensive. What do your, mine, or DTC’s opinions have fuckall to do with it?

Period. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Our opinions have something to do with it, you retarded fuck-knuckle, because the members of the media making these decisions are also human beings with opinions on the relative offensiveness of these images.

You are free to disagree with their interpretations, but just because their opinions differ from yours does not make them hypocrites.

Shove your rolleyes up your arse, you herpes-infested foreskin.

When your neighbor is a psychopath, you tiptoe when you are around him, lest something you say proves to be a trigger for his psychotic brain, even though you don’t watch your behavior as much around your normal neighbors.

LOL, slow down fool. If your opinion matters, then Malkin’s opinion matters. But she is an idiot because her opinion is defferent than yours. Gotcha. :smiley: :wally

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I know you are but what am I…period. :smiley:

No, certainly not all of them, and I never made the blanket statement that they were.

This is not what I would call civilized behavior.

This is fine and dandy if you are the final worldwide arbitrator of offense. Since you’re not, where is the line. huh? If a dozen Christians find the West picture offensive, should it be censored? A hundred? A thousand? A hundred thousand? A million? Where is the line at which censorship becomes acceptable? Personally, I don’t find either one offensive.

No, moron.

Let me spell it out slowly so you get it.

She’s not an idiot because her opinion differs from mine. She’s an idiot because she believes that, because her opinion differs from the folks at CNN, they must be engaged in some sort of hypocrisy or double standard, and that this is some sort of mainstream media program to placate Muslims and offend Christians.

There were a couple of four-syllable words in there. If you have trouble, go here.

Never said i was the “worldwide arbitrator,” dickhead.

I was merely using my own position to point out that different people can reasonably differ on how offensive the two images were. Given the lack of any final authority or global standard, the people at these media outlets have to decide who may be offended by certain images, and whether the cost of showing them outweighs the value.

As i’ve said on multiple occasions, i don’t expect people to agree with me about the relative offensiveness of the two images. In fact, the heart of my argument is that, because people can honestly differ over this issue, it’s not necessarily hypocritical or inconsistent for CNN to show one and not the other.

But i guess it was more important for you to respond to that one sentence than to the whole string of rebuttals that i presented to your earlier, stupid arguments.

Do you have any evidence that CNN found only the cartoons offensive? Or that they personally found them offensive at all? You have alot of assumptions there, Sport.

That sounds to me like the only thing that matters is what you find offensive. You’re the fucking idiot and a backpedaler. Period. What a dipshit.

No, i don’t have such evidence.

But i have no less evidence than does anyone who’s making accusations of hypocrisy of conspiracy. I was simply offering it as a plausible alternative to those ranting accusations.

No, idiot.

You’re just too stupid for words. I’m not going to explain to you again the distinction i’m drawing between people’s differing opinions regarding the offensiveness of the images, on the one hand, and the accusations of media bias or hypocrisy, on the other. If you haven’t grasped that concept yet, you’re not going to, so i’m through with you.

I understand you are saying the possibility that CNN found a caricature of Mohammad offensive ,and the fact that you don’t think the RS cover was offensive, means that it is idiotic to think that CNN has a double standard. I still don’t understand where you get that fact from. If people can have differing opinions, then surely one can find a double standard where another just makes up excuses. :stuck_out_tongue:

Look, Skippy, YOU’RE the one who made up some hypothesis about there being accusations of an “anti-Christian” media bias in the Michelle Malkin’s piece, and you’ve been arguing with yourself the whole thread about it. Here you even admit that you don’t have any facts, you’re just stating your opinion about Michelle Malkin’s opinion. Strangely enough you insist on telling us what her opinion is, in contradiction to what she actually wrote. Your name shouldn’t be mhendo, it should be rbolger.

You mean, like when she wrote:

I notice that you’re still too much of a coward to respond to my earlier rebuttals of your “arguments.”

But don’t bother now; you’re too pathetic for words, you ignorant fucking hump, and you’re no longer worth the effort.

Run away and call others coward. Par for the course there, mhendo. Seems you excel at accusing others of what you are actually doing. Malkin is an idiot because, although you have no more proof than she does, you don’t agree with her.

I’m running from nothing. The argument i was hoping the moron would respond to was posted hours ago, and he has responded to this thread at least twice since then without addressing those issues. He’s made it quite clear that he’s not interested in intelligent debate over it.

Or, to be honest, maybe he’s just like you and doesn’t have the intellectual capacity for it.