Murdoch rips competitors for bias even as more Fox critics emerge on the right

[Linflas]

Your sarcasm meter requires new batteries.

Well you have to admit it would not be an extreme position for a lot of posters here. The next reply was someone seeming to back your position based on "libel and slander" being illegal which seemingly would justify in his mind what you sarcastically suggested.

 

[Bowfinger]

Well you have to admit it would not be an extreme position for a lot of posters here. The next reply was someone seeming to back your position based on "libel and slander" being illegal which seemingly would justify in his mind what you sarcastically suggested.

Indeed. We used to see it quite frequently from some of the righties who thought the ebil libruhl media should be controlled.

 

[Linflas]

Indeed. We used to see it quite frequently from some of the righties who thought the ebil libruhl media should be controlled.

Show me. Show me where the right has ever advocated controlling political speech in media. No doubt you can find lots of examples of "righties" reacting to sexual content and language on over the air broadcast media but show me where they have ever advocated controlling or limiting political speech as a matter of policy. Pointing out corruption and bias in media is not advocating government controls over media.

 

[Bowfinger]

Show me. Show me where the right has ever advocated controlling political speech in media. No doubt you can find lots of examples of "righties" reacting to sexual content and language on over the air broadcast media but show me where they have ever advocated controlling or limiting political speech as a matter of policy. Pointing out corruption and bias in media is not advocating government controls over media.

Sorry, not so bored that I'm willing to dig though hundreds of old threads to try to humor you. Maybe if I could think of good search terms to narrow the focus, but nothing is coming to me. It would be even more difficult and time consuming than demanding you document your claim that political censorship "would not be an extreme position" for many here (presumably all lefties in your world view).

Suffice it to say that any P&N regulars during the Bush terms saw many such suggestions from Bush faithful, regularly "outraged" at the disrespect and outright treason shown towards the Bush admin. It was during a time of WAR!!!!, you know.

 

[Mani]

I think too many people are still brainwashed by the left wing media, that they are unable to think for themselves.

Honestly, how brainwashed do you have to be yourself to actually believe this? Between Fox News, talk radio and teabagging each other, the right seems to have a lock on brainwashing in this country.

 

[hal2kilo]

Honestly, how brainwashed do you have to be yourself to actually believe this? Between Fox News, talk radio and teabagging each other, the right seems to have a lock on brainwashing in this country.

Really, the righties crack me up. What is actually left of anything left of center in the MSM other than MSNBC, or the NY Times (although they were very complicate in shoveling the propaganda for the run up to the second IRAQ war). Even the Washington Post has turned into a right wing rag. And don't get me started on CNN now that they hired that new hack.

 

[woolfe9999]

Show me. Show me where the right has ever advocated controlling political speech in media. No doubt you can find lots of examples of "righties" reacting to sexual content and language on over the air broadcast media but show me where they have ever advocated controlling or limiting political speech as a matter of policy. Pointing out corruption and bias in media is not advocating government controls over media.

Ever read up on the Pentagon Papers case, i.e. New York Times v. United States?

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Ever read up on the Pentagon Papers case, i.e. New York Times v. United States?

- wolf

I agree that the Espionage Act was incredibly over-broad, but printing classified military information is NOT political speech. It's arguably treason, but it's no more political speech than would be giving out Obama's upcoming travel arrangements in Afghanistan or Iraq. Both may be done for political purposes (as was the break-in as the Watergate), but that does not make them political speech or Constitutionally protected.

 

[woolfe9999]

I agree that the Espionage Act was incredibly over-broad, but printing classified military information is NOT political speech. It's arguably treason, but it's no more political speech than would be giving out Obama's upcoming travel arrangements in Afghanistan or Iraq. Both may be done for political purposes (as was the break-in as the Watergate), but that does not make them political speech or Constitutionally protected.

Well the SCOTUS disagreed in NYT v. U.S., where the Nixon administration wanted a gag order on the NYT, preventing it from writing articles about the PP's. 6-3 they ruled it unconsitutional as a prior restraint of political speech. More to the point, the assertion I offered it up as an example of is the right wanting to control/censor political speech. In this case, whatever the rationale used by the Nixon admin, and "national security" is of course the typical one used (as it pertained to then 6-28 year old policy decisions), if you really think that their actual motive was not to silence the NYT because they feared the news would stoke opposition to the Vietnam war, I've got a bridge to sell you. The Nixon admin wanted that information suppressed for political reasons. Had the contents of those papers put that administration's war effort in a good light, they certainly would never have tried to gag the media.

- wolf