The sad thing here, outside of any merits of this case, is that if it a Democrat wrote a letter to Drudge saying that she worked for a magazine and was fired by her Republican boss after admitting she was a Democrat, the same people who are demanding proof in this thread would be launching pit threads about the climate of fear the ‘tighty righties’ were blowing across the nation.
If and when that happens, feel free to ask for proof and to doubt their claims in the absence of proof. I’m pretty sure no one’s stopping you. (I’m not sure why a Democrat would expect to get succour from Matt Drudge, but that’s another story.)
To repeat myself from the other thread, Playgirl’s circulation declined from around 500,000 in the late 1990s to around 350,000 by 2002 (links are work-safe). I don’t know how rigorously checked these numbers are or how long Ms. Zipp has held her post at Playgirl, but it’s plausible that she was fired due to lack of performance rather than political pressures.
Way to miss the point, Orbifold. Hypocrisy and double standards are what Sam was commenting on.
DMC, it was so kind of you to remember. But I think you, too, miss the point. By saying my line of thinking, I mean it is absent left-wing bias.
Corii, it was not my allegation that the action was illegal. Only that it illustrates something I’ve long championed here, i.e., left-wing bias in the field of journalism.
Lissa, what can I say? Your accusations of right-wing simple-mindedness is simple-mindedness in itself.
Giraffe, of course it’s my contention that it’s wrong.
Oh, I assure you I got the point. I just found Sam’s railing against the hypothetical future actions of unnamed posters worthy of derision.
ROTFLMAO 
Well, yeah … wasn’t that my point? 
My post was made to follow-up on yours, not to disagree with it.
Wrong for all magazines? Should magazines like The National Review or The Nation be able to hire people based on political party? If not, how can they hold an editorial position if they aren’t allowed to select their staff based on political views? If so, how is that different than Playgirl, especially since both magainzes deal with current events, not naked guys?
Magazines are not the media. While there are some magazines which claim to be unbiased news sources, they are by far the exception. I read Playboy, for example, and would not be the least bit surprised if Republicans were not allowed to work there. The magazine takes a very strong pro-civil liberties stance, and is openly critical of Republicans. I see nothing wrong with this, any more than I expect Guns and Ammo to give equal time to pro-gun control Democrats.
If you think either of these examples are indicative of mainstream media bias in either direction, you’re a fucking moron. That’s just my own editorial position.
So any media outlet that doesn’t openly espouse your line of thinking has a left-wing bias?
Mildly disagree, even though the issue is hardly worth the breath to state such disagreement. I haven’t seen a Playboy in a very long time, but unless its changed fundamentally, it has always been a pander for Moloch and a disciple of Mammon. Its all about money, money and sex, money as sex. The exaggeration of material values and wretched excess is very “capitalist” in viewpoint, if not necessarily in editorial stance.
Its about buying sex in an indirect fashion, by displays of beautiful plumage that attracts the female of the morally bankrupt sub-species. Pithecanthropus Vacuous. Of course you can buy sex, you can also buy friends, in both cases you get what you pay for, and what you deserve.
Which is to say from this end of things Playboy represents a set of values that make its political positions irrelevent. It is spiritually Republican, however well intended its intellectual liberalism.
Not indicative, illustrative. How many time do I have to say it, asspipe?
Or can you not make the distinction?
Not to mention the fact that it would be quite out of character for Hef to adopt such a draconian policy as Giraffe poses toward his employees. Hef has always been an easy going live-and-let-live type despite the causes he espouses, and I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he has Republicans among his friends as well as his employees. Hell, I’m critical of Democrats and liberals, yet most of my friends are Democrats and liberals. I doubt that Hef is less inclined to accept the premise that others are entitled to their own POV than I am.
Both of them?
Feel free to replace the word indicative with the word illustrative – the sentence stands. If you think an entertainment magazine holding an editorial political stance is illustrative of bias in the mainstream media, you’re a fucking moron.
elucidator, I disagree. While the magazine is and has always been staunchly pro-consumerism, this is hardly just a Republican attitude. Like it or not, consumerism is a fundamentally mainstream American attitude. Socially, the magazine is a vigilant critic of government-imposed morality or infringement on civil liberties. As such, they’ve been nothing but harsh and scornful of the Bush administration. If an editor starting writing in the magazine about voting for Bush and supporting his policies, I wouldn’t be surprised if he/she were fired. And I see nothing wrong with that.
Au, contraire, mon buttpipe! All mass produced media are mainstream media. This would apply to magazines, movies, newspapers, network television, cable television, radio, etc.
Further, I would contend the political atmosphere at Playgirl is little different than than at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, or CBS.
And, oh, yeah…I really hate to have to say this, but you’re a fucking idiot!
(See how silly that sounds.) Moron. 
I forgot to take into account how one has to parse things around here. Make that “…mass produced, marketed and distributed nationally to the public at large are mainstream media.”
Thank yuh veruh much.
“Further, I would contend the political atmosphere at Playgirl is little different than than at the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, or CBS.”
You meant “a little different”, didn’t you? Or is your “point” that “the media” is a bunch of indistinguishable whores with political viewpoints that can all be ignored?
Playgirl. Sheesh.
I see. So if both the editors of Model Railroader and those of Mini Trucker Monthly decide they agree with Bush’s Social Security plan, this to you represents a significant shift in the political landscape of the mainstream media? :dubious:
Yeah, that makes sense. After all, compiling a daily summary of national and world news is similar enough to assembling monthly pictorials of naked guys that you’d expect the same political atmosphere at both places.
Oh, come on now, Elvis. You know perfectly well those aren’t the only two possibilities. Nice straw man, though. As to your question, I’ll give it the response it deserves: