Posted on 06/25/2010 9:54:05 PM PDT by Bratch
I was unaware that this was going on when I killed my feed, so I didn’t get all of it. So if someone else has it, please let me know and I’ll post it:
Read #15.
Then WHO was it? Are they saying that?
“I blame the media of today for this nonsense. They have taught the young people who want to be journalists that its Ok to be biased”
Bumped and Repeated, because it deserves to be said again. It’s the God’s Honest Truth! I’ve spoken with some - even 10 years ago, and they straight out said “we can print anything we want”. I said, you can’t print lies about the election - or at least you shouldn’t be allowed to. They said, “Yes, we can - the First Amendment allows us to print ANYTHING.” There was more, but you get the point. It was sickening.
NM, I see where someone has posted that info. now. :)
Actually, they do. Its called the 1st Amendment and it is covered fairly well in most high school civics classes. The flip side of that of that is you have the right to spew whatever hateful crap you wish to about the station and the people involved to anyone that will listen, right up to the point of threatening their lives or property.
I find that statement fascinating, given your FR handle.
First lesson in Broadcasting...always, ALWAYS assume the mic is hot.
Dummies.
Has anyone figured out who is the Mandarin Monodrone MSM lackey holding court with his overpreening obnoxiousness? LET THE FISKING BEGIN!
Why? What is there about Liberty that doesn’t include Responsibility?
So, you think a newspaper should be allowed to print blatant falsehoods, and not be held accountable in some way, shape, or form?
You can’t knowingly and willingly print libelous statements and expect to hide behind the First Amendment. Nor can you commit acts of fraud and not be held accountable according to law.
It probably would have been a better choice of words to say “and expect to get away with it”, in my original post.
This sounds very plausible. I’ve covered events for radio like this. But there’s normally a multbox that allows you to plug your audio recorder or audio input line into, thus you don’t have to take the audio from a speaker. They may not have had one in this case.
If the TV station was just allowed to shoot at the projector screen and use the audio from a speaker, they would be picking up every conversation in the room. It makes for a very poor broadcast product.
When I have to cover these types of events, and there’s no multbox, I stand near a speaker, hold my microphone nearby, closely monitor the record levels, and pray that I’ll have some usable audio at the end. Oh, and just to be safe, I always interview a few individuals in the crowd for their reaction. So, if the audio of the actual event sucks, I have something from the event.
“Local affiliate.”
When does FR branch out into that medium and become somebody’s local affiliate?
Glenn Beck’s camera man used to purposely do a horrible job also.
So Sarah's speech was an exercise in misery and mayhem, eh?
Yes, I saw the Murdoch interview. He seems to think that everybody who sneaks over the border has a Ph.D. in physics and will save us from economic decline. Sadly, the exact opposite is true.
Ohh, OK, now I understand. You just want a mini-true that agrees with you and sees the world exactly as you see it, instead of using and relying on the sloppy and disorderly competition of ideas.
Libels and fraud are, as you pointed out, subject to civil remedy. So how is your lawsuit against the newspaper going? Or did you go to your local DA and register a fraud complaint? Of course, you could just publish the truth and see what the marketplace has to say about accurate reporting.
Of course, all of that is a lot more complicated than ranting about restricting the freedom of other private citizens that happen to believe, perceive, and strive for different things than you.
In the mind of a cooky liberal everything that has to do with a Conservative is mayhem and misery. Perhaps someone should remind THEM we have to suffer through mayhem and misery for the last two damn years!
How did you come to that conclusion based upon what I related?
Look, I DID use a ‘market solution’ to deal with the lies that were printed. I organized a protest against the paper, and we received (probably MORE) coverage because of that than we would have gotten in the “Election Guide” that was printed. And, finally - 10 years later - the newspaper is no longer in business, just like I predicted to those kids I spoke with if the paper continued to employ journalists who are incompetent or unethical.
I’m not talking about things that can be viewed as an OPINION. I’m talking about purposely printing false information. Are you saying that people should NOT have the right to sue if something libelous is printed about them, and it damages their public reputation in some way?
I realize this is a complicated subject, and there are many different concerns. You have the difference between ‘public figures’ and ‘private citizens’ for one...
I should have explained the next part of the conversation as well. I responded to them that the First Amendment guarantees that you have the absolute right to publish information about any subject you want, and SAY anything you want.
However, publishing lies intentionally — “Factual Errors” that can be PROVEN untrue, NOT OPINION — is NOT a ‘right’ protected by the First Amendment. You CAN sue a newspaper if you’ve been directly harmed. The candidates who were intentionally omitted could have filed something with the DA, or civil courts and try their arguments, but being public figures it probably would have been tough to prosecute — hence, why we organized the protest.
In my post today I was merely attempting to point out the attitude of the college-aged journalist “interns” who I had spoken with when I was outside the newspaper passing out flyers about the protest I organized. They stated to me and my friend that the Newspaper and all the folks in there could write ANYTHING they want, and lie with impunity about people, places, events and NEVER be held accountable for ANY of it in regards to the law no matter what or whom they publish the lies about... And, clearly — EVEN Liberatarians — understand civil suits have been adjudicated AGAINST newspapers who published libelous information, and your ONLY defense against a claim is that your information is TRUTHFUL.
It may not have been warranted in THIS case — but, they were talking about things beyond the reason I was there. Beyond what I asked them about... It was a several minute long conversation as well, and 10 years ago. I can’t reproduce exactly what was said by the four people in the discussion...
*Libertarians
The differences between your newspaper with the factual errors from 10 years and this incident, featuring junior high level (I’m being generous) intellects, offering up their opinions on Sarah Palin’s peach are quite apparent.
The original poster claimed that the A/V crew from the acedemically acclaimed Stanislaus State University, “had no right to spew their hateful...”. I pointed out that they did. As you correctly pointed out, deliberate falsehoods which cause harm are a different kettle of fish from expressing an opinion, now matter how ignorant, juvenile, or hateful — right up to direct threats or urges to violence that others act on immediately.
A thumbs up to you for taking the fishwrapper in question to task.
The conclusion was reached by comingling your post with the original post I responded to and a Saturday morning caffeine deficiency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.