Why should they care about showing the whole Pledge? I’ll ask again, is there a list of other things that may not be edited, or is the Pledge special somehow?
It was apaprently in their self interest to truncate it for purposes of time. The tard tantrums were an unforseen result.
Why? Who gives a fuck?
No, it’s on the assholes who have nothing better to do with their lives than call networks and complain about nothing. You’re blaming the victim for how she was dressed. NBC was attacked by predators. Blame the predators.
You would agree that nobody had any legitimate grievance or grounds for complaint, would you not?
First off, they weren’t editing for time constraints. They cut from the pledge to show a soldier saluting the flag, and then cut back to it after the missing words. Then they went through a snippet of the pledge again.
Now, the first time through they only omitted three words - and these happen to include the words that arouse controversy in the pledge. It is absurd to think that this wouldn’t be noticed. That is why I characterize it as a mistake on NBC’s part and it is why they were correct in making their apology.
No. It isn’t for me to tell others how they should feel.
The fact that you don’t understand is irrelevant.
I’ve never suggested they did it for time reasons. And that’s not all you’ve said, you started out talking about case law and Section 2 of the 14th Amendment. It appears that you’re backpedalling and just asking questions about how it can be financially beneficial to them.
Agreed. But even if they “flubbed” it, it’s their right and it doesn’t mean that they should have done anything different..
Why should we care that the Pledge was edited? You’ve given us a run-down of the segment in section and what edits were made. But you still haven’t explained why anyone should care.
We should care, because (as a commenter to the article linked by Mr. Moto eloquently states):
[del]God[/del] help me, I can no longer tell what is satire.
I wonder what Richard Stands has to say about this.
I agree with Mr. Moto that this was no coincidence on which words were edited. I also agree with him that this was not about time constraints. NBC, in my opinion, clearly didn’t want to include “under God”.
However, I completely disagree with him that a US Senator has any business getting involved in this. As others noted, he has the weight of the full Congress behind him, whether he explicitly wields it or not. If all Coats did was state the found he exclusion of those words to be improper, I think that would have been okay. In that way, he would be like every other citizen, expressing a distaste for what NBC did.
But to write “I would like to request that NBC provide me with a full written account of its decision-making process in this matter, including an explanation of why these specific words were omitted, and what actions NBC intends to take to prevent such inappropriate edits from occurring in the future.” is in no way sounding like a regular citizen.
Wow, what a useless thing to do. They should be governing instead. You know, doing their jobs.
It’s not a question about how the feel. It’s a question about whether they have a grievance against NBC. they don’t, and you know they don’t.
This is ludicrous.
Why, in your opinion, didn’t they want to include it? Some kind of atheistic agenda?
I pledge allegiance… [/snip]
I just want to see Moto lose his shit.
In my opinion, no. I have said in other threads this springs from a misplaced risk aversion. People try to avoid what they see as controversy but stumble into bigger public relations hassles as a result.
Maybe they didn’t want to risk the ire of a bunch of busybody atheists and some vote-pandering Senator… whoops. Guess that backfired!
What risk were they averting? Who was going to care if they included “under God?”
I’m not going to argue with you. I’ve seen your pit threads and I know better. We disagree. I entertain the possibility NBC did this for marketing reasons and not time constraints. If you honestly believe with 100% certainty that the only reasonable speculation on why NBC cut “under God” was to save 10 second in a 6 hour broadcast, then your statement stands.
[QUOTE=Retvim]
Why, in your opinion, didn’t they want to include it? Some kind of atheistic agenda?
[/QUOTE]
For the same reason stores now say, “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”. I’ll let you define if that is an atheistic agenda. Personally, I simply see it as a company trying to accommodate as broad an audience as possible. There is a vocal group that has made lots of noise about the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge. My guess is NBC thought not including it would pacify everyone. I think they were betting most Christians wouldn’t notice or care if it was omitted while the “under God” attackers would have been vocal had it been included. It was a gamble and looking back it was a dumb decision.
Previewing.. what Vinyl Turnip said. Only he said it better.
That’s why I said it was misplaced. I don’t ascribe malice to this - just stupidity.
Vinyl Turnip was being facetious, dude. There isn’t any liberal, atheist media conspiracy, and there’s no way NBC was cutting those words to pacify anyone they thought would be offended. The fact that they also cut “indivisible” undercuts the paranoid conspiracy theory that content had anything to do with it.
However, even if they HAD cut those words out of some desire to be inclusive, so WHAT? Why does anybody care? What justification is there for anyone to bitch about it? How was anybody injured?