# The Freedom of the Press: Illusory **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544 "2003-03-06T18:30:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/21 "2003-03-07T15:47:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by El\_Kabong \* > All I ever hear on this subject is a lot of vague whining about the press being hijacked by corporate interests, as if that wasn’t the case all the way back to the 19th century. Hearst newspapers, anyone? I’d be happy to listen to any modest proposal for a press system that replaces the one we’ve got. So watchoo got? A system of regulation, like the one we currently have at the FCC – only with teeth? And a director whose main goal isn’t sapping the ramparts? Can we get one that increases its reach and efficacy, instead of sawing off its hands? > [@](#): > > Hey, wait, I know: let’s each of us take on the responsibility of deciding for ourselves whether any given press story we hear is accurate, unbiased and relevant or not. I agree with this point, actually. Education would help – in the future. In the present, we still have, what, 41% of people believing that Saddam is linked to Iraq? How is that not an indictment of our one-sided media, that so many people have been convinced by volume and viewpoint alone? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/22 "2003-03-07T15:52:32Z")
I found a few cites. The denial of press services is a known issue with anti-war organizers: [Anti-military bus ads refused.](http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/14/edtdi.html) [Viacom refused anti-war billboard ads.](http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/billboardban.html) ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/23 "2003-03-07T17:10:35Z")
Of course, **Ace** , you noticed that the Viacom article first appeared as a _Newsweek_ web exclusive, hosted by MSNBC, those conservative bastards. Neither Viacom, the NYT, nor the WSJ have to accept any ads just because you want them printed. These are political advertisements, and they can turn them down simply because they don’t want it implied they are taking any side on the cause. Of course, not everyone can get his op-ed piece published. There is only so much space in a paper after advertisements. However, the major newspapers try to print a cross-section of ideas on their op-ed pages, whereas the editorial pages will definitely reflect the views of … the editors (what a concept!) People want to march on the UN, during a heightened terror threat (regardless of whether it was warranted or not), when our police capabilities are already being stretched to their limits and beyond, and they get upset when they are told, “Get a clue.” What better cover could a terrorist want for a prime target in a prime city? > [@](#): > > In the present, we still have, what, 41% of people believing that Saddam is linked to Iraq? How is that not an indictment of our one-sided media, that so many people have been convinced by volume and viewpoint alone? Are you arguing Saddam isn’t linked to Iraq? Now if you mean Al-Qaeda, then I can see your point. Pres. Bush says he is, but can’t reveal how he knows. However, mainstream media outlets have often stated that Bin Laden finds Hussein worse than Western infidels. So if 41% believe Hussein is linked to Al-Qaeda, then they are either (i)listening to and accepting the President’s stance, or (ii)not paying attention to the available news. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/24 "2003-03-07T18:55:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*\*Editorials and op-ed columns are reknowned for showcasing the political influence of the editor. \*\*Um, yeah, that’s precisely my point. Editors and op-ed columnists can showcase their political influences all they want, and no jackbooted thugs will come and shut them down. There are leftist editors and op-ed columnists, and there are right-wing editors and op-ed columnists, all over this great land of ours. Show me a cite that says that any of them have been muffled by official agents of theUnited States government, or by Media Giants working in concert with the government to shut them down. Show me one editor or one op-ed columnist whose plug was pulled because he voiced opinions that were critical of the United States government. > [@](#): > > \*\*Full-page ads are being turned town. Radio ads are being turned down. TV Commentators better sure as hell toe what their bosses have programmed on the teleprompted, or there’ll be a new, more loyal one in the morning. \*\*So, evidently, you prefer to believe that this is all because the Media Giants are in cahoots with the Government, conspiring to muffle all anti-government sentiment? That the Government is deliberately implementing a policy of allowing the corporate giants to merge into even larger corporations, all in the interests of silencing dissent? You cannot entertain the possibility that it might be simply due to market forces? That the full-page ads in question are being turned down because the newspapers think they might offend their readers and so lead to loss of sales? Ditto the radio and TV spots? And ditto the TV station managers and commentators, who “toe the line” because the station’s owner doesn’t want to offend his viewers and lead to them tune in to the _other_ channel for their nightly news? No, it has to be a “the world’s going to hell in a handbasket” conspiracy, does it? I see. > [@](#): > > \*\*The public access to the public places are barred; leafletting the wrong thing at the wrong place might get you beat up by the cops or worse; The right to assemble and broadcast a protest is hemmed in by barricades and forbidden by judges; . \*\*First of all, got a cite for anybody leafletting the “wrong thing” in the wrong place being beat up by the cops? The rest of it is just the most bizarrely paranoid “spin” on actual events that I can imagine. In February’s UPJ anti-war rally in NYC, assuming that that’s what you’re referring to, the UPJ applied for a permit for 50,000 to 100,000 people to march directly in front of the UN building, and they were, not surprisingly, for reasons that would be stunningly obvious to a child who was old enough to know what 9/11 was, turned down. And when they held their rally across the street, not surprisingly, for security reasons that would be stunningly obvious to a child who was old enough to know who Timothy McVeigh was, they were held away from the UN entrance proper by police barricades. [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/15/sprj.irq.protests.main/index.html) > [@](#): > > In New York on Saturday…the cheering crowd…was pressed against police barricades near U.N. headquarters. The main demonstration stretched 20 blocks down First Avenue, and overflowed onto Second and Third avenues as more people tried to reach the rally. And, yeah, it was “forbidden by a judge”–a judge upheld the city’s call, again citing the same security reasons that would be obvious to a child older than about 12. [http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/044/nation/Judges\_barring\_of\_antiwar\_march\_in\_NYC\_stirs\_more\_dissent+.shtml](http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/044/nation/Judges_barring_of_antiwar_march_in_NYC_stirs_more_dissent+.shtml) > [@](#): > > Judges’ barring of antiwar march in NYC stirs more dissent > By Grant McCool, Reuters, 2/13/2003 > > A US appeals court yesterday upheld a Manhattan federal court ruling that New York’s mayor could ban a march planned for Saturday coinciding with global protests against possible war. > > Judge Barbara Jones said on Monday that in ‘‘this time of heightened security,’’ the city’s need to protect the public outweighed the protesters’ First Amendment rights. > > However, the city will not stop a rally in a plaza across the street from UN headquarters that the organizers, the United for Peace and Justice coalition, said could attract up to 100,000 people. > The panel of three appellate judges said the city’s restrictions ‘‘would not impede the UPJ’s ability to communicate its message to the United Nations and to the world.’’ But, ya know, the thing that caused all the trouble was that the UPJ insisted that they just _had_ to march in front of the UN. [http://www.nyclu.org/un\_demo\_compl\_021103.html](http://www.nyclu.org/un_demo_compl_021103.html) > [@](#): > > Memorandum In Support Of Plaintiff’s Request For A Preliminary Injunction > > The plaintiff-appellant’s emergency appeal in this matter is premised on the following undisputed facts: (1) The plaintiff has planned a large anti-war event expected to draw between 50,000 and 100,000 people for this coming Saturday (February 15, 2003) for which a march, preferably in front of or in direct view of the United Nations, is an essential component; > > (2) The City has taken the position that the plaintiff may not engage in any march anywhere in the City of New York in conjunction with its anti-war event; > > (3) The City is routinely issuing parade permits for “cultural” parades – such as the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and Puerto Rican Day Parade – that regularly draw 100,000 or more participants (as well as tens if not hundreds of thousands of spectators); > > (4) The City in 1994, 1988, and 1982 issued permits for huge protest marches, all of which went directly past the United Nations on First Avenue, and > > (5) In the fall of 2002 the City changed its policy governing parade-permit requests and since then has not issued a parade permit for a single protest march in Manhattan below 59th Street. Now, it’s quite clear to even a small child that since 9/11, the City of New York thinks it would be a Bad Thing to allow large groups of people anywhere near certain sites, like the UN which is on East 42nd Street. So they stopped issuing parade permits for venues below 59th Street. The fact that before 9/11 they used to issue parade permits for folks to march past the UN is stunningly irrelevant. There’s “before” and there’s “after” 9/11. “After”, the rules changed. Even kids know that. If the UPJ had really wanted to march, they could have chosen another location above 59th Street, and they would have been granted their permit. But since they decided to be so boneheadedly hardnosed about it, the City said, “Fine, forget you”, and said “no permit, period”. So, sorry, but I don’t see a “destroy all freedom of speech” issue here–I see a “organization in a snit behaves like a jackass” issue. And anyway, a compromise was eventually reached. If all dissent was being stifled, where did this compromise come from? Jackbooted thugs asleep at the switch or what? > **[Opinion | The Antiwar Non-March (Published 2003)](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/opinion/the-antiwar-non-march.html)** > > Editorial on New York City's refusal to allow antiwar protesters to march near UN; acknowledges concerns about public safety and terrorism, but hopes policy does not become standard for future > [@](#): > > February 14, 2003 > The Antiwar Non-March > > When antiwar protesters gather in Manhattan tomorrow, they will not be allowed to march and will not be permitted near the United Nations. New York City officials have decided to limit the protest to a stationary rally several blocks away. The city has the right to impose reasonable restrictions to protect public safety, particularly now when the Police Department’s resources are strained by a heightened terrorist alert. But the way this demonstration is being handled should not become the standard for the future. > > United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of local and national organizations that are opposed to war in Iraq, asked permission for 50,000 to 100,000 people to march down First Avenue past the United Nations. After some negotiations the city offered the protesters a stationary rally at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, on East 47th Street, with overflow going up First Avenue. When United for Peace and Justice sued, a federal district judge ruled for the city. A three-judge appeals court panel affirmed her decision. > [@](#): > > \*\*Your sign may be ripped apart by beauraucrats en route as violating some ridiculous safety protocol. \*\*I can’t find this anywhere as happening. Cite? > [@](#): > > \*\*Pulling half the electrical permits is reasonable? Denying port-a-potties is reasonable? Threatening reporters, pushing them, and breaking their cameras is reasonable? \*\*If you’re referring to the February UPJ protest in NYC, I can’t find evidence of this happening anywhere, either. Got a cite? All I can find is [this](http://www.counterpunch.org/hughes02172003.html), which doesn’t mention either loss of electricity or a lack of Portapotties as the “heinous restrictions” (I also don’t see where the City of New York even offers PortaPotties to marchers. I find getting electrical hookups for your sound system mentioned, but not PortaPotties.) All the article mentions are the “crowd control” barricades and a load of sand and salt that rational persons would recognize as an attempt to improve traction on slippery streets, but which conspiracy theorists recognized as an attempt by jackbooted thugs to prevent people from demonstrating “right there”. And I’d like to see a cite for where New York City employees threatened reporters, pushed them, and broke their cameras. It isn’t mentioned on CNN.com–is that more of your conspiracy? And anyway, the whole thing is about to become a non-issue, as it looks like they’re gonna get their permit anyway. Notice how the UPJ has evidently gotten a clue as regards the venue. [http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC\_030603\_nycantiwar.html](http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_030603_nycantiwar.html) > [@](#): > > Bloomberg Considers Granting Permit For Anti-War March > > (New York-AP, March 6, 2003) — Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the administration was likely to grant anti-war demonstrators a permit to march through the city’s streets later this month, one month after officials blocked a similar request to march near the United Nations. > > In February, the city cited security risks in its decision not to give protest organizers, United for Peace and Justice, a permit to march past the United Nations. > > But Bloomberg said the city was likely to grant the group a permit for a march down Fifth Avenue, from 59th Street to Washington Square Park, on March 22. > > “This city has a long history of allowing people to march,” Bloomberg said Wednesday at a news conference. “And I don’t see any reason why we can’t work out a route that will be acceptable to the organizers and to the city.” And finally, your whole “protest is no longer allowed!” thesis kind of goes in the toilet right about…now. [http://www.nyclu.org/right\_to\_demonstrate.html](http://www.nyclu.org/right_to_demonstrate.html) > [@](#): > > Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in New York City > > New Yorkers have the right to engage in peaceful, protest activity on public sidewalks, in public parks, and on public streets in New York City. This includes the right to distribute handbills or leaflets; the right to hold press conferences, demonstrations, and rallies; and the right to march on public sidewalks and in pubic streets. The City can and does impose certain restrictions on these activities, and in some instances one must obtain a permit before engaging in certain activity. This brochure is intended to inform New Yorkers of the basic rules governing demonstration activity. > > Do I Need a Permit? > > It depends on what you want to do. **If you want to distribute handbills on a public sidewalk or in a public park, have a demonstration, rally, or press conference on a public sidewalk, or march on a public sidewalk and you do not intend to use amplified sound, you do not need any permit.** … > > If I Want to Distribute Handbills; Have a Demonstration, Rally, Press Conference; or March on a Public Sidewalk, What Do I Need to Do? > > **Nothing but plan your event.** … You can say whatever you want on a public sidewalk in New York. The UPJ wasn’t “suppressed” because they were voicing anti-government sentiments–they just screwed up on the permit thing and didn’t get to march where they wanted to march. But they _did_ eventually get to march, didn’t they? Their voices were heard, weren’t they? No jackbooted thugs showed up at the rally and went around kicking old ladies, did they? Uh huh. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > **Read up on what Michael Moore and his best-selling book went through to get published** Oh boo friggin’ hoo. Michael Moore the Persecuted Free Speech Martyr. Thank you for missing my point entirely. :rolleyes: See the phrase “…even if it’s only vanity publishing”? You know what that is? That’s where you pay to have your own book published. When I see jackbooted thugs coming around to the vanity presses of America and scrutinizing their offerings for anti-government sentiments, and destroying all copies of books that are deemed “unsuitable”, then I’ll start worrying about free speech in America. And I suppose that, to you, the reason that Harper’s didn’t want to publish _Stupid White Men_ was because the government was leaning on them to hush it up, instead of the more logical explanation that they simply didn’t think it would sell and might instead stir up a shitstorm of negative publicity for them, given the “change in political climate” which they cited? > **[Freelance Writing and Consulting](https://www.thebalancesmb.com/freelance-consulting-4161522)** > > Looking to go solo? Find out everything you need to know about being a freelancer -- whether it's writing, consulting, or another individual freelance pursuit. > [@](#): > > Following the terrorism attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, HarperCollins, who had already printed 50,000 copies and announced the printing of an additional 100,000, put all books on hold–a reasonable approach considering the magnitude of events. Several weeks after the slipped pub date, the publisher asked Moore to rewrite much of the book, because Moore was told, “the political climate has changed in America.” > > Like most of Moore’s work, Stupid White Men is, well, critical of our government. The publisher wanted him to at least ‘tone down’ his book. Not surprisingly, Moore refused. And for awhile it looked like HarperCollins might shred all 50,000 copies of the book rather than release it in the face of the ‘political climate.’ > > But during Moore’s discussions with the publisher, word began to spread that the book was in jeopardy. [Salon.com](http://Salon.com) published a story about the book, questioning the publisher’s judgment. > > Word started to spread via email through the librarian community, which responded with email, letters and calls to HarperCollins pointing out that trashing an already-printed book because it questions the government might not be the finest example of supporting free speech. > > HarperCollins came to their senses and released the book on February 2, 2002. Notice, Ace, how the “free press” which you seem to believe is in jeopardy suddenly kicked in and rescued Michael’s book. The Internet, especially. Jackbooted thugs asleep at the switch again, I guess. > [@](#): > > \*\*Duck Duck Goose stated that you can write any old editorial and get it published anywhere. I stated that it didn’t, and cited an example. \*\*Um, no, you didn’t. I will also point out that your OP deals with governmental restrictions of free speech, whereas you have offered cites of members of a free market economy who are merely exercising their rights as capitalists. Transportation Displays, Inc. is owned by CBS. Viacom is just–Viacom. Neither of those entities is the American government. As “sellers” in a capitalist system, both Viacom and TDI are free to choose which advertising space they want to sell to which people. They are under no obligation to sell advertising space to any and all comers, the same way that the owner of the Pet Store is under no obligation to sell you that puppy in the window. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/25 "2003-03-07T19:44:15Z")
Regarding the TDI bus ad banning: > [@](#): > > When asked what exactly in the advertisements was offensive, Yi argued that it was the image of the weapon in two of the ads. > > Yi said that in response to the recent violence in Littleton, Colo., TDI had instituted a company-wide policy of banning advertisements with weapon images. Excessive? Yeah. But given the many people’s current obsession over gun-control - especially considering this ad was to appear in SF, which is pretty much the national liberal anti-gun HQ, it doesn’t surprise me. I disagree with the decision not to air the ads, but I have little reason to believe that there’s anything more nefarious going on than what Yi says. If you can find proof that TDI has used ads with prominently-placed guns in them since the implementation of their no-gun policy, then I’ll concede something fishy is afoot. As to the Viacom situation, again the “official reason” is that the potential ads didn’t comply with company policy - specifically, that any poltical ads must be paid upfront, and must be scheduled 30 days in advance. Can you provide any evidence that Viacom is lying? Anything beyond, “C’mon, of course they’re lying! They must be!” would be particularly helpful. Now, to respond to Ace’s response to my response. Or something. **The man with the banned shirt** The police report says that the man was going up to customers and harrassing them, and that he had been engaged in a loud and disruptive argument with some people. It’s the word of the security guards against the word of a protester who had a vested interest in making a commotion. I have to side with the guards on this one. **Phil Donahue and his blissfully short return to TV** Double standard? I see none. Donahue’s show may have been ranked higher than any number of other shows on that network, but the fact is he was ranked much lower than other, comparable shows on other networks. If this was not good enough for MSNBC, and they thought they could do better, then can you explain why they should feel obligated to keep him around? It’s all about the Benjamins, baby. **Freeway banners** Please provide a cite for CalTrans tearing down peace sign banners that contained no words. The fact is, banners with words slow down traffic. Billboards are different, because they are not directly over the road. Most people just ignore them as part of the scenery. I have seen the evidence of this slow down on numerous occasions. I’m not imagining it. If American flags slowed down traffic too, you can bet your sweet bippy they’d be gone in a flash. Right after CalTrans okayed it with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, of course. **Clear Channel Radio** So far as I can tell, the big “freedom of press” thing here is that CCR told it’s member stations not to air some songs that may be found offensive after 9/11. Silly? Sure. Insidious? Pardon me if I don’t tremble. **CNN vs Fox vs whatever** I didn’t say that CNN was ultra-liberal. It’s not, even though it’s run by an ultra liberal (unless Ted Turner is too conservative for you). But it has a slight liberal slant, just as FoxNews has a slight conservative slant. The point is, there’s plenty of room for opposing viewpoints to get out, in all mediums. CNN has Crossfire, which routinely has liberals and conservatives. FoxNews has a number of venues that feature liberals. Even the NYT has the occasional conservative opinion. The WSJ has liberal articles. Hell, you can see liberal viewpoints voiced in National Review at times. If you honestly believe the liberal viewpoint isn’t out there, then either you aren’t looking very hard, or you’re so far left that Noam Chomsky seems like a hard-line right-winger. **The police conspiracy to underestimate protest turnouts** Out of curiosity, to what extent do you go to personally count all of the attendees? Doesn’t that impede with your ability to effectively protest? Personally, I’d trust the figures of those whose job it is to be counting. > [@](#): > > Ah. I guess we on the left should be grateful for the media crumbs alloted us rather then agitate for a representative voice. And Mr. Bush has been such a font of new information; Bah. If you’re unwilling to see that your viewpoint is being expressed, there’s nothing anybody can do to help you out. If your beef is just that nobody cares, well, that’s life. Or is your real complaint not that the anti-war crowd can’t get their message out, but that the pro-war crowd _can_? After years of being able to effectively stifle the conservative voice, it’s finally getting out - the liberals no longer have the monopoly on media opinion, and you don’t particularly care for that, do you? Sucks to see an even playing field, hmm? Oh, and by the way, Colin Powell gave a bevy of new info at the UN not too long ago. Maybe you heard about that? What has the anti-war crowd done that’s comparable? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/26 "2003-03-07T19:47:31Z")
> [@](#): > > You aren’t of course. Do you live in NY or DC? The public access to the public places are barred; leafletting the wrong thing at the wrong place might get you beat up by the cops or worse; The right to assemble and broadcast a protest is hemmed in by barricades and forbidden by judges; Your sign may be ripped apart by beauraucrats en route as violating some ridiculous safety protocol. No kidding. I know an awful lot of people who went to that protest, **Ace**. Even my own brother went downtown to check it out, because hey, it was interesting. And truly, this is the first I have heard of these alleged shenanigans. Though perhaps my friends have a slightly dimmer view of the protest than you do, since they were unfortunately located close to one of the barricades, were pushed over by unruly protesters, and came home dirty, torn, and bloody. The cops, according to them, were unbelievably professional given their paltry numbers. The cops opened the barricade onto second avenue for them to keep them from being trampled by more protesters. And according to my brother’s photos, the only protesters who were beatun up by cops were the ones who jumped cars and tried to dispose of the barricades. Ironically, one of my friends said that he never felt so isolated from the anti-war movement as he was at the rally. Apparently the “Thirtysomething Ordinary White Guys Against the War in Iraq” were pretty friendly, though. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/27 "2003-03-07T21:28:59Z")
**ElJeffe** , Turner is no longer in charge of CNN; some might argue it has been some time since he has been. > **[MSNBC News - Breaking News and News Today | Latest News](https://www.msnbc.com/)** > > MSNBC breaking news and the latest news for today. Get daily news from local news reporters and world news updates with live audio & video from our team. That’s all I have to add. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2003, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/28 "2003-03-07T21:47:02Z")
Thanks, D\_Odds. Guess it’s time to crawl out from under the rock I was living under. 🙂 Fortunately, Turners position, or lack thereof, as head of CNN/Time/Warner/AOL/whatever else they buy out wasn’t relevant to my point. Jeff ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544/29 "2003-03-08T02:46:48Z")
I’m tryin to understan the OP: people have an obligation to listen to an opposing _and pay money_ for the privelage, even if they disagree? Because all those examples seem to come down to civil disturbances or viewers not interested in one side’s politics. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-freedom-of-the-press-illusory/159544.md?page=1)