Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
explain this you dirty neocons
    #2634486 - 05/03/04 11:23 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

ABC news ran an episode of nightline on friday where koppel read the names of dead soldiers as they flashed pictures. Some conservative media company wo contributes to bush banned their 7 affiliates from broadcasting!!!! censoring the news? these fucking conservative facist pricks make me sick. they want this country turned into a nazi police state. this really is the scary, i mean censoring news??? what comes next?? burning books?? Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney are probably the 3 most corrupt evil men to ever hold their offices.

...one more note, the media company also makes all its new casters finish the news by saying "we stand 100% behind out president"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleClean
the lense
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/11/03
Posts: 2,369
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634530 - 05/03/04 11:32 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

the CEO of sinclair broadcasting (the company and indeed the very man who censored nightline) was busted in 96 getting a BJ from a hooker.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634581 - 05/03/04 11:40 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

this really is the scary, i mean censoring news???

Sinclair Broadcast Group (the company that pulled the special) is not a part of the government, nor were they forced by the government to pull the show. poor decision? yes. censorship? absolutely not.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 22,840
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 1 month, 7 days
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634610 - 05/03/04 11:46 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Can you provide a link showing that the word "censorship" means censorship by a government?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634636 - 05/03/04 11:54 PM (13 years, 2 months ago)

how do you know bush didnt give a call to his good buddy over at sinclair media and have him pull that show? id wager someone in the administration giving orders to his media buddies...i think bush had someone at clear channel pull the plug on howard stern in florida, a key swing state cuz stern started exposing him.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2634658 - 05/04/04 12:03 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

he said:

"i mean censoring news??? what comes next?? burning books?? Bush, Ashcroft, Cheney are probably the 3 most corrupt evil men to ever hold their offices."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634668 - 05/04/04 12:06 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

how do you know bush didnt give a call to his good buddy over at sinclair media and have him pull that show? id wager someone in the administration giving orders to his media buddies...i think bush had someone at clear channel pull the plug on howard stern in florida, a key swing state cuz stern started exposing him.

you can speculate all you want, but we know for certain that no one was forced. a private owner made a voluntary decision about what to show on the media outlet that they own and operate. this is not an example of government censorship. take a look at what goes on in places like cuba and north korea if you want to see how government censorship works.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634667 - 05/04/04 12:07 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

what are u, some kind of repeublican?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634676 - 05/04/04 12:09 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

oh you know for certain?? and how do you know this?? did bill oreilly tell u?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634683 - 05/04/04 12:12 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

what are u, some kind of repeublican?

"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces," McCain, a Vietnam veteran, wrote in a letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group. "It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/30/abc.nightline/

(john mccain is a republican)

i am more of a libertarian, and while i think it was wrong for sinclair broadcast group to do what it did, anyone, of any political frame of reference, and as long as they hold a little objectivity, can see that this is not an example of government censorship.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2634700 - 05/04/04 12:21 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

you dont know for a fact bush had nothing to do with it, and i dont have 100% proof that he did. point is, bush is involved in some fucked up shit with his corporate buddies. i would bet $100 that the bush administration is calling the shots and telling fox, clear channel and others what not to air. bush makes me sick, he is a despicible human being and worse a fundamentalist christian. i know ive gone off topic, but let me sceam something:

ITS 2000-FUCKING-4 AND OUR GOD DAMN, LUNATIC PRESIDENT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION!! HE IS A CREATIONIST!!! OMGGG!!! IN HIS PRESS CONFERENCE, HE SAID OUR SOLDIERS ARE DOING GODS WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK EVER HAPPENED TO SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!! HE TALKS TO JESUS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND ASKS HIS ADVICE!!!! THATS LIKE ASKING THE EASTER BUNNY ABOUT FORIEGN POLICY!!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblekaiowas
mndfrayze'speppet urme
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,498
Loc: oz
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634711 - 05/04/04 12:27 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

haha I stand behind my pres!!! :goatse:


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.---senior doobie


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: kaiowas]
    #2634732 - 05/04/04 12:31 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

my guess is , back in his cocaine days, a lot of men stood behind him  :smirk:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 6 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #2634798 - 05/04/04 12:44 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

From the Oxford Dictionary of Current English:

censor: 1n. official with power to suppress whole or parts of books, plays, films, letters, news etc. on grounds of obscenity, threat to security, etc.

When a publisher decides on his own not to publish certain things, that is not censorship. When a publisher is told by government that he may not publish certain things, that is censorship.

In the case of a private owner of a privately-owned television station deciding to air or not air a certain program, the term "censorship" is inappropriate.

We can argue till the cows come home over whether or not Sinclair Group's decision was a wise business decision. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination "censorship".

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleKingOftheThing
the cool fool
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/17/02
Posts: 27,389
Loc: USA
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2634863 - 05/04/04 12:57 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

im saying bush and his cronies had a hand in the not showing of that broadcast... then its censorship, of course my only proof is the strong ties that company has to bush.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineKommunist
Stranger

Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 34
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2634901 - 05/04/04 01:03 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

Private owners dont have the right to censor, only the Government does


--------------------
Join The American Communist Party


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Kommunist]
    #2634910 - 05/04/04 01:04 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

you got it backwards.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleJellric
altered statesman

Registered: 11/08/98
Posts: 2,261
Loc: non-local
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: ]
    #2635193 - 05/04/04 01:51 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

i mean censoring news??? what comes next?? burning books??

'They don't have to burn the books, they just remove 'em.'

Rage Against The Machine


--------------------
I AM what Willis was talkin' bout.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: KingOftheThing]
    #2635259 - 05/04/04 02:11 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

I'm waiting for the day when they flash up the pictures of every IRAQI killed...


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXochitl
synchronicitycircuit
Registered: 07/15/03
Posts: 1,241
Loc: the brainforest
Re: explain this you dirty neocons [Re: Phred]
    #2635313 - 05/04/04 02:30 AM (13 years, 2 months ago)

definition of the word official from the same Oxford English Dictionary of Current English:

official

? adjective 1 relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities. 2 having the approval or authorization of such a body.

? noun a person holding public office or having official duties.

There seems to be an assumption here that the airwaves are privately owned. They are not. The public owns the airwaves.

Newspapers and magazines belong to their respective publishers. Anything they want to say is on their dime, because they pay for the paper, the ink, the reportage, and the distribution.

Radio and television, however, use a precious resource that belongs to all of us: the airwaves. There is only so much ?ther to go around, and the broadcasters lease the spectrum from us, the American people. Because they are using a scarce resource, they have to abide by the terms of the lease; those terms are administered by the FCC. One of those terms is that you can't use our national resources to support one political candidate without giving others equal time.


So, in the case of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, they essentially limited public information on public airwaves for political purposes. Now, the Nightline special was incredibly factual - it was a simple reading of the names of the fallen. They showed the solider's name, rank, and age along with a photograph - most of them were official military photographs in uniform. Nothing more, nothing less. Ted Koppel did not include commentary with the reading of the names - the only commentary was during the last 30 seconds of the hour or so long program; it was a commentary about the controversy. Here is what he said:

Quote:

There is no easier applause line in American politics than to invoke the brave men and women fighting in our behalf.

As for those who've died, they can be used with equal cynicism by the hawks and the doves.

You want to whip up support for the war? It goes something like this: "We owe it to the men and women who have died in the cause of freedom that we complete their mission with honor."

You oppose the war and want to pull the troops out? It's one variation or another of this theme: "Too many brave men and women have already died in a war that never should have been fought in the first place."

Our goal was to elevate the fallen above the politics and the daily journalism, to let their names and faces remind us of what has always been true: When the American people fully understand the cause for which our troops are fighting, and when they accept that it is essential to our national welfare and security, no burden is too heavy, no cost is too high.

It may well be that the war against terrorism, which is all too real, does require that our troops spend many more dangerous years in Iraq. At times, there is no alternative to war.

During World War II, more than 16 million Americans served in uniform; and over 400,000 of those died. Most Americans believed then and believe now that the sacrifice was necessary.

The reading of those 721 names was neither intended to provoke opposition to the war nor was it meant as an endorsement.

Some of you doubt that. You are convinced that I am opposed to the war.

I'm not; but that's beside the point. I am opposed to sustaining the illusion that war can be waged by the sacrifice of a few, without burdening the rest of us in any way. I oppose the notion that to be at war is to forfeit the right to question, criticize or debate our leaders' policies, or, for that matter, the policies of those who would like to become our leaders.

Nightline will continue to do all of those things in the weeks and months to come. But that is not what this broadcast was about.





I do not see how a reading of names is political spin or anti-war activism when there is no political or anti-war coloring of the reading. It is reality - it is fact. The role of the media and its journalists is provide citizens with information. Funny how when the media actually provides information without spin or bias for once, they are attacked.

So, the score is: the Sinclair Broadcasting Group prevented the release of straight fact/public record on public airwaves for its political reasons. Okay - so how is this not a form of censorship again? And if its not a literal censorship, it is pretty damn close.

Does anyone else see a slippery slope here? What if Sinclair disagreed with other news stories? Are they going to continue to prevent the broadcasting of these because of their political stance? Is this a pattern that will continue? How is this "a good thing" for nation again?


--------------------
As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.

-Donald Rumsfeld 2/2/02 Pentagon


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evidence shows use of US Chem. weapons against Fallujah civilians
( 1 2 3 all )
SquattingMarmot 5,075 59 11/10/05 05:06 PM
by Phred
* Fallujah Napalmed
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
SWEDEN 4,990 82 12/20/04 05:09 PM
by SoopaX
* Neocon Attack on Ron Paul: Greasing the Skids for Implementation of H.R. 1955? Visionary Tools 902 10 11/16/07 05:36 PM
by zappaisgod
* Neocon agenda
( 1 2 all )
Moonshoe 1,691 29 09/19/04 03:30 AM
by ekomstop
* Kick-ass party in Fallujah
( 1 2 all )
FrankieJustTrypt 1,895 20 02/19/05 12:48 AM
by Catalysis
* Sail with America's swashbuckling neocon carbonhoots 655 2 08/08/07 05:49 PM
by zappaisgod
* Major US Defeat In Fallujah Claimed usefulidiot 740 12 12/19/04 12:38 PM
by afoaf
* IRAQ: FALLUJAH SHEIKH SAYS AL-ZARQAWI DIED ON FRIDAY Los_Pepes 903 9 09/21/05 01:57 AM
by Alex213

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
3,307 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 21 queries.