Oh, please.
The right to free speech DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to be published in a newspaper of your choice.
Since no newspaper threatens to jail the vets, there is no "rights" issue.
Is it bias? Sure. Is it against the interests of the populace? You betcha.
But it's not a violation of the vets' free speech rights.
True. It's more like "squelching" of the Vets' stories.
| MoreKerry 2004 |
| Flimandflam |
Well said, Izzy Dunne.
The 1st amendment states, "Congress shall make no law..."
A private property owner has the right to publish or not publish any story they see fit.
Freeper's worry me when they sound like Democrats invoking the right of free speech over a private property owner.
"The right to free speech DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to be published in a newspaper of your choice. Since no newspaper threatens to jail the vets, there is no "rights" issue."
I agree to a point, but there is an expectation of equal treatment that they should expect from a purportedly "free and unbiased" press. For the "mainstream" media to blatantly black them out, and restrict access to media outlets that the likes of Moore, Clarke, and Wilson dominated for weeks is just plain wrong. It isn't a matter of being published in a paper of your choice; it is a matter of being covered at ALL.
Nobody could compare the NG story and the SBVT story and claim that coverage was equivalent. Not with a straight face anyway.
Whether you like how they do it or not, Rush, Hannity, and more recently, FoxNews have given play to both sides of these issues and other, probably in line with their "we report, you decide" motto. The rest of the media appears to have a "we report what we decide is fit for you to hear/see" motto, which, though unstated, screams louder than any amount of advertising Fox could do.