|
|
Post by trapperdave on Oct 28, 2008 23:43:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 29, 2008 0:01:10 GMT -5
The Fuhrer must not be put in a bad light!
|
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Oct 29, 2008 18:40:11 GMT -5
The Fuhrer must not be put in a bad light! Got that right! They probably fear being blacklisted by the Obama campaign or future administration like a couple other news outlets have been. Or worse, be "investigated" ( by government owned computers BTW) like Joe Wurzelbacher and having their personal lives ruined. It's the standard SOP for socialists of all breeds. If you can't defeat the opponent in the arena of ideas, simply eliminate the opponent - by any means necessary. It's the motivation behind legislation such as the fairness doctrine. How people can vote for political thugs such as these and not have an inkling of the harm they are causing the Republic is beyond my understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Oct 30, 2008 3:11:51 GMT -5
The Fuhrer must not be put in a bad light! Got that right! They probably fear being blacklisted by the Obama campaign or future administration like a couple other news outlets have been. Or worse, be "investigated" ( by government owned computers BTW) like Joe Wurzelbacher and having their personal lives ruined. It's the standard SOP for socialists of all breeds. If you can't defeat the opponent in the arena of ideas, simply eliminate the opponent - by any means necessary. It's the motivation behind legislation such as the fairness doctrine. How people can vote for political thugs such as these and not have an inkling of the harm they are causing the Republic is beyond my understanding. You got it Hux. |
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Oct 30, 2008 8:42:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Oct 31, 2008 5:45:07 GMT -5
Like it or not, no news org is required by any law to disseminate a video, whether it favors of scourges their candidate of choice. The First Amendment exists to protect free speech, but it also protects the choice of silence as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 31, 2008 7:38:35 GMT -5
Kevin,
You are 100% right.
The LA Times has been and always will be very biased for liberal politicians.
That bias transcends honesty on reporting..
Geetting Obama elected AT ALL COSTS is the matra of these groups..
|
|
|
|
Post by Sleazy E on Oct 31, 2008 13:30:46 GMT -5
Like it or not, no news org is required by any law to disseminate a video, whether it favors of scourges their candidate of choice. The First Amendment exists to protect free speech, but it also protects the choice of silence as well. You are very right Kevin...... But to be a journalist for a reputible paper you are supposed to be unbiased and write the stories based on actual facts... you are required by ethics to present all facts for both sides... if you are really going to practice investigative journalism.... What they write (or choose not to write) tells me that theya re not journalist... but fiction writers.... You wanna write fiction... but work for a national news paper... then get a job with the Sun or the Enquirer You wanna tell the whole story good or bad with the facts... then by all means work for a reputable paper.. There are people out there that do not know they are being lied to about some different things not only the presidential race... but their rights in general... the economy... etc etc... they take what their local paper says at it's word... and then they make decisions on misinformation... It should be criminal.... To print something that is not true and makes a person look bad is considered libel. I say if you write something that is not true to make a person look good it should be considered the same thing. And journalists should be held to the highest standard of truthfulness. |
|
