[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

COVID-19 - Lazy8 - Jan 17, 2021 - 8:23am
 
Freedom of speech? - miamizsun - Jan 17, 2021 - 8:22am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - miamizsun - Jan 17, 2021 - 8:09am
 
Things You Thought Today - Lazy8 - Jan 17, 2021 - 7:50am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Jan 17, 2021 - 7:48am
 
Social Media Are Changing Everything - black321 - Jan 17, 2021 - 7:37am
 
Trump - miamizsun - Jan 17, 2021 - 7:36am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 17, 2021 - 7:36am
 
Best movies ever? - rhahl - Jan 17, 2021 - 3:41am
 
Breaking News - kurtster - Jan 16, 2021 - 4:37pm
 
Automotive Lust - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 16, 2021 - 4:28pm
 
Language - rhahl - Jan 16, 2021 - 1:03pm
 
Trump Lies - ScottN - Jan 16, 2021 - 12:05pm
 
Outstanding Covers - R_P - Jan 16, 2021 - 11:48am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottN - Jan 16, 2021 - 8:47am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 16, 2021 - 6:27am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - miamizsun - Jan 16, 2021 - 5:54am
 
Vocabulary Quiz - rhahl - Jan 16, 2021 - 5:31am
 
Flim Festivals on Now - rhahl - Jan 16, 2021 - 3:59am
 
2020 Elections - haresfur - Jan 15, 2021 - 8:44pm
 
Baby words that stuck in your family - Manbird - Jan 15, 2021 - 8:06pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jan 15, 2021 - 2:29pm
 
Our tolerance for opposing views - Isabeau - Jan 15, 2021 - 2:14pm
 
What is the meaning of this? - Isabeau - Jan 15, 2021 - 2:00pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jan 15, 2021 - 12:47pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jan 15, 2021 - 10:20am
 
What the hell OV? - miamizsun - Jan 15, 2021 - 9:51am
 
Physics questions - oldviolin - Jan 15, 2021 - 8:56am
 
Classical Music - rhahl - Jan 15, 2021 - 6:48am
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - miamizsun - Jan 15, 2021 - 6:10am
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2021 - 5:55am
 
Back to the 10's - rhahl - Jan 15, 2021 - 5:37am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Jan 15, 2021 - 4:58am
 
Twitter's finest moment - Jiggz - Jan 15, 2021 - 1:28am
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2021 - 8:14pm
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2021 - 8:09pm
 
In My Room - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2021 - 7:58pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Jan 14, 2021 - 5:25pm
 
Insane-looking Lawyers - rhahl - Jan 14, 2021 - 4:14pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 14, 2021 - 2:54pm
 
Joe Biden - black321 - Jan 14, 2021 - 2:07pm
 
Race in America - sirdroseph - Jan 14, 2021 - 12:32pm
 
New Music - R_P - Jan 14, 2021 - 12:11pm
 
hallucinogenic drugs - sirdroseph - Jan 14, 2021 - 11:09am
 
Back to the 90's - rgio - Jan 14, 2021 - 7:47am
 
Concept Albums - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2021 - 7:34am
 
Democratic Party - kurtster - Jan 14, 2021 - 6:17am
 
Capital Punishment - R_P - Jan 13, 2021 - 8:54pm
 
Biden Crime Family - westslope - Jan 13, 2021 - 6:59pm
 
2 questions. - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2021 - 5:30pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Jan 13, 2021 - 5:12pm
 
Impeachment Time: - R_P - Jan 13, 2021 - 2:49pm
 
Back to the 60's - kcar - Jan 13, 2021 - 2:45pm
 
Oh, The Stupidity - R_P - Jan 13, 2021 - 2:16pm
 
Know your memes - black321 - Jan 13, 2021 - 12:02pm
 
Republican Party - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2021 - 10:53am
 
The Global War on Terror - westslope - Jan 13, 2021 - 9:36am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Jan 13, 2021 - 8:11am
 
Great guitar faces - yuel - Jan 13, 2021 - 6:37am
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2021 - 4:41am
 
• • • Poopoo • • • - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2021 - 4:15am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - haresfur - Jan 12, 2021 - 5:26pm
 
The death penalty on trial? - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 4:41pm
 
Live Music - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 3:39pm
 
Military Matters - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 2:00pm
 
Dear Retail Fashion Industry - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 1:30pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Jan 12, 2021 - 10:30am
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Jan 12, 2021 - 10:22am
 
Net Neutrality - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:55am
 
FOUR WORDS - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:43am
 
TWO WORDS - oldviolin - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:40am
 
ONE WORD - oldviolin - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:38am
 
THREE WORDS - oldviolin - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:38am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:18am
 
The Dragons' Roost - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2021 - 9:07am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » (Big) Media Watch Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jan 7, 2021 - 2:52pm

Covering Pro-Trump Mobs, the News Media Became a Target
“Murder the media” was scratched into a door of the Capitol. Violent protesters smashed equipment and punched a photographer.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Dec 21, 2020 - 8:58am

The ‘Red Slime’ Lawsuit That Could Sink Right-Wing Media
Voting machine companies threaten “highly dangerous” cases against Fox, Newsmax and OAN, says Floyd Abrams.
Here’s the thing: Smartmatic wasn’t even used in the contested states. The company, now a major global player with over 300 employees, pulled out of the United States in 2007 after a controversy over its founders’ Venezuelan roots, and its only involvement this November was with a contract to help Los Angeles County run its election.

In an era of brazen political lies, Mr. Mugica has emerged as an unlikely figure with the power to put the genie back in the bottle. Last week, his lawyer sent scathing letters to the Fox News Channel, Newsmax and OAN demanding that they immediately, forcefully clear his company’s name — and that they retain documents for a planned defamation lawsuit. He has, legal experts say, an unusually strong case. And his new lawyer is J. Erik Connolly, who not coincidentally won the largest settlement in the history of American media defamation in 2017, at least $177 million, for a beef producer whose “lean finely textured beef” was described by ABC News as “pink slime.”

Mr. Connolly’s target is a kind of red slime, the stream of preposterous lies coming from the White House and Republican officials around the country.

“We’ve gotten to this point where there’s so much falsity that is being spread on certain platforms, and you may need an occasion where you send a message, and that’s what punitive damages can do in a case like this,” Mr. Connolly said.

Mr. Mugica isn’t the only potential plaintiff. Dominion Voting Systems has hired another high-powered libel lawyer, Tom Clare, who has threatened legal action against Ms. Powell and the Trump campaign. Mr. Clare said in an emailed statement that “we are moving forward on the basis that she will not retract those false statements and that it will be necessary for Dominion to take aggressive legal action, both against Ms. Powell and the many others who have enabled and amplified her campaign of defamation by spreading damaging falsehoods about Dominion.”

These are legal threats any company, even a giant like Fox Corporation, would take seriously. And they could be fatal to the dream of a new “Trump TV,” a giant new media company in the president’s image, and perhaps contributing to his bottom line. Newsmax and OAN would each like to become that, and are both burning money to steal ratings from Fox, executives from both companies have acknowledged. They will need to raise significantly more money, or to sell quickly to investors, to build a Fox-style multibillion-dollar empire. But outstanding litigation with the potential of an enormous verdict will be enough to scare away most buyers.

kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 8:44pm



 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

I think the whole Murdoch empire is a bit of an enigma at present. Kind of startling how they pulled the plug on Trump. Maybe it's a succession issue in the family. Or maybe they have other plans about to unfold. 
 

Rupert is pragmatic. He backs the side he thinks is going to win—within reasonable limits. He backed Labour when Tony Blair was on the rise. The WaPo piece below thinks that Fox will project itself as the underdog counterweight to Joe Biden and be even more successful as a result. 

It wouldn't surprise me if Rupert is quietly horrified by the monster he helped create, though. 



What happens to Fox News if Trump loses? Rupert Murdoch is prepared.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 8:38pm

ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Shep Smith, I think, probably fits the description

The internal tensions at Fox News appear to have contributed to his resignation, according to multiple people at the network and those close to Smith who spoke to The Washington Post for this story. Smith was also in the middle of a long-term contract, making his resignation — and Fox’s agreement to release him — highly unusual.

So did a posse of reporters assemble and claim that Shepard Smith was a threat to their safety, and needed to be removed for his thoughtcrimes? If so they didn't publish a manifesto.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 8:33pm

NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I think the whole Murdoch empire is a bit of an enigma at present. Kind of startling how they pulled the plug on Trump. Maybe it's a succession issue in the family. Or maybe they have other plans about to unfold. 

Or ships leaving a sinking rat.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 1:26pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I liked this a lot:
"Cotton's op-ed was poorly argued, constitutionally unsound, morally questionable, and factually flawed. But Cotton is not some random right-wing kook. The fact that he is a key policy maker of the Trump era might suggest that publishing his authoritarian dictates is a better course of action than keeping Times readers in the dark about them."

To be fair, and I'm sure you agree, there is equal and opposite outrage when a Fox (e.g.) personality allows "wrong" thought to creep through. Not sure it's led to any resignations but someone here can probably confirm.

The point of the article wasn't that the editor resigned, but the internal lynch mob that assembled to force that—and that that mob was able to manipulate the paper's management.

I very much doubt that would happen at Fox.




Shep Smith
, I think, probably fits the description

The internal tensions at Fox News appear to have contributed to his resignation, according to multiple people at the network and those close to Smith who spoke to The Washington Post for this story. Smith was also in the middle of a long-term contract, making his resignation — and Fox’s agreement to release him — highly unusual.
 
I think the whole Murdoch empire is a bit of an enigma at present. Kind of startling how they pulled the plug on Trump. Maybe it's a succession issue in the family. Or maybe they have other plans about to unfold. 
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 1:14pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I liked this a lot:
"Cotton's op-ed was poorly argued, constitutionally unsound, morally questionable, and factually flawed. But Cotton is not some random right-wing kook. The fact that he is a key policy maker of the Trump era might suggest that publishing his authoritarian dictates is a better course of action than keeping Times readers in the dark about them."

To be fair, and I'm sure you agree, there is equal and opposite outrage when a Fox (e.g.) personality allows "wrong" thought to creep through. Not sure it's led to any resignations but someone here can probably confirm.

The point of the article wasn't that the editor resigned, but the internal lynch mob that assembled to force that—and that that mob was able to manipulate the paper's management.

I very much doubt that would happen at Fox.




Shep Smith
, I think, probably fits the description

The internal tensions at Fox News appear to have contributed to his resignation, according to multiple people at the network and those close to Smith who spoke to The Washington Post for this story. Smith was also in the middle of a long-term contract, making his resignation — and Fox’s agreement to release him — highly unusual.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 10:51am

ScottFromWyoming wrote:
I liked this a lot:
"Cotton's op-ed was poorly argued, constitutionally unsound, morally questionable, and factually flawed. But Cotton is not some random right-wing kook. The fact that he is a key policy maker of the Trump era might suggest that publishing his authoritarian dictates is a better course of action than keeping Times readers in the dark about them."

To be fair, and I'm sure you agree, there is equal and opposite outrage when a Fox (e.g.) personality allows "wrong" thought to creep through. Not sure it's led to any resignations but someone here can probably confirm.

The point of the article wasn't that the editor resigned, but the internal lynch mob that assembled to force that—and that that mob was able to manipulate the paper's management.

I very much doubt that would happen at Fox.
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 9:40am



 Lazy8 wrote:
Not worried about Tom Cotton finding a platform, I'm worried that the NYT media bubble so many people are in is getting bricked up.

Here's a little more on the topic.

 

I liked this a lot:
"Cotton's op-ed was poorly argued, constitutionally unsound, morally questionable, and factually flawed. But Cotton is not some random right-wing kook. The fact that he is a key policy maker of the Trump era might suggest that publishing his authoritarian dictates is a better course of action than keeping Times readers in the dark about them."

To be fair, and I'm sure you agree, there is equal and opposite outrage when a Fox (e.g.) personality allows "wrong" thought to creep through. Not sure it's led to any resignations but someone here can probably confirm.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 9, 2020 - 7:20am

kcar wrote:
"The NYT (as an institution—there a a few writers on staff who aren't completely comfortable with this, but it can't be long before they make the mob that seems to be running the place feel "unsafe") has no problem with concentration of power, it just wants it in the hands of people who think like they do."


I'm not even going to ask you to prove this because you love to make sweeping generalizations without backing them up. And then you *dodge* when asked to support your claims. 

If libertarian politicians had more common sense than I think people and voters would pay more attention to them. No, letting the American public determine which companies should get Covid-related financial support/relief from the federal government is not a good idea—sorry, Jo Jorgensen. And Jo, letting individuals determine whether to wear masks in public has not worked out well for the US. 

I do hope this wasn't too long for you to read, Lazy8.   

You could read the link I posted below.

Not too long to read, just off-topic.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 8, 2020 - 10:37pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:
Everyone on the political spectrum, in a climate of polarization, has their bubbles consisting of preferred (or trusted) news sources. And some bubbles are (way) smaller than others...

I don't think the NYT is particularly problematic or worrisome in that context. I can certainly see a centrist and establishmentarian streak as well.

and

haresfur wrote:
It's pretty hard to consider the staff as left-leaning anymore when the tea party and trump have shifted the right wing so far to the extreme that pretty much anyone, including true libertarians could be classified as left-leaning.

This is the problem with one-dimensional political thinking: it's left or it's right. The rainbow is reduced to shades of gray.

There is more than one way to be a fan of entrenched power. Left and right don't define it. Venezuela has an authoritarian regime, so does the Philippines. The NYT (as an institution—there a a few writers on staff who aren't completely comfortable with this, but it can't be long before they make the mob that seems to be running the place feel "unsafe") has no problem with concentration of power, it just wants it in the hands of people who think like they do.

If you can't figure out where libertarians belong on your map it's because you map needs more dimensions. Defining one's political identity based on what other people think is like setting your thermostat based on the temperatures in Jakarta and Moose Jaw.
 

"The NYT (as an institution—there a a few writers on staff who aren't completely comfortable with this, but it can't be long before they make the mob that seems to be running the place feel "unsafe") has no problem with concentration of power, it just wants it in the hands of people who think like they do."


I'm not even going to ask you to prove this because you love to make sweeping generalizations without backing them up. And then you *dodge* when asked to support your claims. 

If libertarian politicians had more common sense than I think people and voters would pay more attention to them. No, letting the American public determine which companies should get Covid-related financial support/relief from the federal government is not a good idea—sorry, Jo Jorgensen. And Jo, letting individuals determine whether to wear masks in public has not worked out well for the US. 

I do hope this wasn't too long for you to read, Lazy8.   
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Nov 8, 2020 - 9:26pm

Trump Had One Last Story to Sell. The Wall Street Journal Wouldn’t Buy It.
Inside the White House’s secret, last-ditch effort to change the narrative, and the election — and the return of the media gatekeepers.
(...) Perhaps the most influential media document of the last four years is a chart by a co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, Yochai Benkler. The study showed that a dense new right-wing media sphere had emerged — and that the mainstream news “revolved around the agenda that the right-wing media sphere set.”

Mr. Bannon had known this, too. He described his strategy as “anchor left, pivot right,” and even as he ran Breitbart News, he worked to place attacks on Hillary Clinton in mainstream outlets. The validating power of those outlets was clear when The New York Times and Washington Post were given early access in the spring of 2015 to the book “Clinton Cash,” an investigation of the Clinton family’s blurring of business, philanthropic and political interests by the writer Peter Schweizer.

Mr. Schweizer is still around this cycle. But you won’t find his work in mainstream outlets. He’s over on Breitbart, with a couple of Hunter Biden stories this month.

And the fact that Mr. Bobulinski emerged not in the pages of the widely respected Journal but in a statement to Breitbart was essentially Mr. Bannon’s nightmare, and Mr. Benkler’s fondest wish. And a broad array of mainstream outlets, unpersuaded that Hunter Biden’s doings tie directly to the former vice president, have largely kept the story off their front pages, and confined to skeptical explanations of what Mr. Trump and his allies are claiming about his opponent.

“SO USA TODAY DIDN’T WANT TO RUN MY HUNTER BIDEN COLUMN THIS WEEK,” the conservative writer Glenn Reynolds complained Oct. 20, posting the article instead to his blog. President Trump himself hit a wall when he tried to push the Hunter Biden narrative onto CBS News.

“This is ‘60 Minutes,’ and we can’t put on things we can’t verify,” Lesley Stahl told him. Mr. Trump then did more or less the same thing as Mr. Reynolds, posting a video of his side of the interview to his own blog, Facebook.

The media’s control over information, of course, is not as total as it used to be. The people who own printing presses and broadcast towers can’t actually stop you from reading leaked emails or unproven theories about Joe Biden’s knowledge of his son’s business. But what Mr. Benkler’s research showed was that the elite outlets’ ability to set the agenda endured in spite of social media.

We should have known it, of course. Many of our readers, screaming about headlines on Twitter, did. And Mr. Trump knew it all along — one way to read his endless attacks on the establishment media is as an expression of obsession, a form of love. This week, you can hear howls of betrayal from people who have for years said the legacy media was both utterly biased and totally irrelevant. (...)

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 11, 2020 - 9:38am

 Lazy8 wrote:
If you can't figure out where libertarians belong on your map it's because you map needs more dimensions.
 
Yes, they're so unfathomable and mysterious. Impossible to know where they stand. Who they like/dislike? Even their club magazine provides no clues.

Whatever the spectrum may look like, the bubbles will still be there too.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 11, 2020 - 7:40am

R_P wrote:
Everyone on the political spectrum, in a climate of polarization, has their bubbles consisting of preferred (or trusted) news sources. And some bubbles are (way) smaller than others...

I don't think the NYT is particularly problematic or worrisome in that context. I can certainly see a centrist and establishmentarian streak as well.

and

haresfur wrote:
It's pretty hard to consider the staff as left-leaning anymore when the tea party and trump have shifted the right wing so far to the extreme that pretty much anyone, including true libertarians could be classified as left-leaning.

This is the problem with one-dimensional political thinking: it's left or it's right. The rainbow is reduced to shades of gray.

There is more than one way to be a fan of entrenched power. Left and right don't define it. Venezuela has an authoritarian regime, so does the Philippines. The NYT (as an institution—there a a few writers on staff who aren't completely comfortable with this, but it can't be long before they make the mob that seems to be running the place feel "unsafe") has no problem with concentration of power, it just wants it in the hands of people who think like they do.

If you can't figure out where libertarians belong on your map it's because you map needs more dimensions. Defining one's political identity based on what other people think is like setting your thermostat based on the temperatures in Jakarta and Moose Jaw.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 10, 2020 - 3:05pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:
I don't think we need to worry too much about Mr. Cotton being deplatformed any time soon. I suspect he's a beloved regular on platforms that cater to the right.

As such, that makes it all a bit of a straw man, seeing how Mr. Cotton's screed still exists (now with NYT mea culpa) and how the criticism in the article is more nuanced than simply censoring a frothing law-and-order hawk. It could've used some editing...

Not worried about Tom Cotton finding a platform, I'm worried that the NYT media bubble so many people are in is getting bricked up.

Here's a little more on the topic.

 
Everyone on the political spectrum, in a climate of polarization, has their bubbles consisting of preferred (or trusted) news sources. And some bubbles are (way) smaller than others...

I don't think the NYT is particularly problematic or worrisome in that context. I can certainly see a centrist and establishmentarian streak as well.
haresfur

haresfur Avatar

Location: The Golden Triangle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 10, 2020 - 2:55pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:
I don't think we need to worry too much about Mr. Cotton being deplatformed any time soon. I suspect he's a beloved regular on platforms that cater to the right.

As such, that makes it all a bit of a straw man, seeing how Mr. Cotton's screed still exists (now with NYT mea culpa) and how the criticism in the article is more nuanced than simply censoring a frothing law-and-order hawk. It could've used some editing...

Not worried about Tom Cotton finding a platform, I'm worried that the NYT media bubble so many people are in is getting bricked up.

Here's a little more on the topic.

 

It's pretty hard to consider the staff as left-leaning anymore when the tea party and trump have shifted the right wing so far to the extreme that pretty much anyone, including true libertarians could be classified as left-leaning.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 10, 2020 - 1:19pm

R_P wrote:
I don't think we need to worry too much about Mr. Cotton being deplatformed any time soon. I suspect he's a beloved regular on platforms that cater to the right.

As such, that makes it all a bit of a straw man, seeing how Mr. Cotton's screed still exists (now with NYT mea culpa) and how the criticism in the article is more nuanced than simply censoring a frothing law-and-order hawk. It could've used some editing...

Not worried about Tom Cotton finding a platform, I'm worried that the NYT media bubble so many people are in is getting bricked up.

Here's a little more on the topic.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Jun 5, 2020 - 5:55pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
R_P wrote:

No no we can't have that! Some voices must be silenced, some opinions are too dangerous.

Shame on the NYT! What if people read those words and formed their own opinions? We can't have that.
 
I don't think we need to worry too much about Mr. Cotton being deplatformed any time soon. I suspect he's a beloved regular on platforms that cater to the right.

As such, that makes it all a bit of a straw man, seeing how Mr. Cotton's screed still exists (now with NYT mea culpa) and how the criticism in the article is more nuanced than simply censoring a frothing law-and-order hawk. It could've used some editing...
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 5, 2020 - 5:09pm

R_P wrote:

No no we can't have that! Some voices must be silenced, some opinions are too dangerous.

Shame on the NYT! What if people read those words and formed their own opinions? We can't have that.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 5, 2020 - 4:59pm

 R_P wrote: 
because squelching speech is en vogue?

sounds like something lindsey graham would say
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31  Next