Sarah Palin: Forget Freedom, These Yahoos Would Shut Down Fox News PLEASE READ
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Forget freedom of speech and freedom of the press if these yahoos ever get their way in America. It seems "prominent" journalistic champions of free speech suggested having the federal government shut down a media outlet that takes a broader look at issues than these "media elites" would like you to see.
- Sarah Palin
If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.
But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio (update: Spitz was a producer for NPR affiliate KCRW for the show Left, Right & Center), that isn’t what you’d do at all.
In a post to the list-serv Journalist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.
In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.” […]
The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journalist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.
“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organization *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracized. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.
“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”
Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “I hate to open this can of worms,” he wrote, “but is there any reason why the FCC couldn’t simply pull their broadcasting permit once it expires?”
And so a debate ensued. Time’s Scherer, who had seemed to express support for increased regulation of Fox, suddenly appeared to have qualms: “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”
But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”
Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”
John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”
Source:
Posts
Concert Master Said,
Here again, proponents of the left claiming they have the better understanding of freedom of speech. These are the same people that claim all conservatives are George Bush's brown shirt base. You know, if this is the same group all connected in New Jersey, it is no surprise. Don't get me wrong, I love New York, but there is a different way of existing and communicating there almost like a different language. The only words and attitudes they understand is hate and hostility. You cannot be nice them, you cannot give them a break, you have to ride them...ride them...ride them...through all the denegration, hate, abuse, and their personal failure which culminates in a political display of such nastiness that it does not seem humanely possible that individuals would even want to exist in the USA with their perceptions of our Nation. It is not called the trash-can state for nothing and, they always link up with professors etc. who have relocated to California. Go figure.
It is a waste of Sarah Palin's time to wrestle with the media being she is considering a Presidential run but, she has no choice because these downers are the reason we are heading into a socialistic society. Many Americans are shocked with the direction we are currently heading. We have rights, liberties, and protections under the law. The media is subject to laws just like the fortune 500 companies. Accepting bribes, payoffs, etc. to further the destruction of candidates, change the media to suit their parties purposes and agenda, etc. is AGAINST THE LAW. If they are caught doing this, they should be prosecuted under the law. Just like Martha Stewart serving her time for Wall Street breeches, media representatives, companies, and affiliates should be tried and convicted for unethical and unprofessional conduct of this nature. Since when did these media people have the ability to be above the law? It is time they are caught and tried for their crimes!!
Posted on July 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM