Papers Slammed Over Insert on Muslims

Associated Press ^ | October 3, 2008 | ANICK JESDANUN,

[libstripper]

Newspapers that carried an advertising supplement in recent weeks containing a DVD critical of radical Muslims have faced complaints from readers and questions about whether newspapers should offer a platform to everyone willing to pay for distribution.

[libstripper]

Once again the ROP shows its devotion to the 1st Amendment and some parts of our illustrious MSM do their best to help.

[Boiling Pots]

Of course, if the DVD had of “exposed” Sarah Palin’s church’s “dominionist” views, it would have been necessary.

[neodad]

The newspaper’s desperation for ad revenue will outweigh their desire for political correctness.

[Diogenesis]

ROP now OWNs American youth through Obama and Saudi Arabia (thank you, StateDept).

[BallyBill]

The space could be put to much better use containing an advertisement for Bill Mahers new movie on Religion. /S

[ncfool]

Papers are nothing more then paid WHORES anymore. So why not take the revenue. The DVD at least is telling the truth which the MSM and the paper will not print.

[mlocher]

The AP hates it when they have competition through the same distribution channels they use.

[Westbrook]

> questions about whether newspapers should offer a
> platform to everyone willing to pay for distribution.

What’s the objection?

They give free advertising to the Democrat Party all the time.

I’m wondering if they are not in violation of Electioneering Law, since they are giving services of great value without having to report them as Political Contributions.

[ncfool]

Papers are nothing more then paid WHORES anymore. So why not take the revenue. The DVD at least is telling the truth which the MSM and the paper will not print.

[dennisw]

Muzzies don’t like it? Go back to allah land where there is no free speech

Funny how Muslims proclaim they are anti terrorism but always try to cover for Muslim terrorists. What double talk

[Paladin2]

"Slammed"?

Doesn't sound like much of a backlash to me.

[VeniVidiVici]

Newspapers that carried an advertising supplement in recent weeks containing a DVD critical of radical Muslims have faced complaints from readers and questions about whether newspapers should offer a platform to everyone willing to pay for distribution.

Of course they shouldn't offer a platform to everyone. They should only be allowed to carry what a government arbiter approves to be in good taste.

/s

[IronJack]

If the ad was sponsored by baby-killers or promoted some obscene gay parade, nobody would be asking this question. But since it condemns people who routinely behead their imaginary enemies, censorship doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.

[Godwin1]

“Slammed” by whom? By a liberal journalist with a pro-terrorist agenda? By Islamic radicals? Talk about a non story......

[sportutegrl]

There are two polls to freep at the site:

One asks which is worse: Rejecting ads that address controversial or unpopular viewpoints?(63%)

Or, accepting any paid advertisement regardless of content.(37%)

(17,736 votes cast).

The other poll asks: If you received this DVD in your newspaper, would you watch it?

With 22,882 votes, Yes--59%, No--26%, Maybe--15%.

So it would seem that, in contrast to the headline, more people would have a problem if the DVD were rejected.

[anniegetyourgun]

I got a copy of Obsession in the mail today. It’s addressed to me with non-profit org postage - The Clarion Fund. After all my family & friends see it, I’ll be passing it on to neighbors.