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?
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?
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?
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.
**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.
**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.
**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
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.
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?
**I can’t find this anywhere as happening. Cite?
**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, 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.
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:
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?
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.
**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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Fortunately, Turners position, or lack thereof, as head of CNN/Time/Warner/AOL/whatever else they buy out wasn’t relevant to my point.