Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship
jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Why should any politician step down because they are gay? It's ridiculous.
cat
Censorship and speech issues aside, should we really be encouraging gay witch-hunts like this?
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
This all seemed unlikely to me, and reading the original letter:
1) The only mention of the DMCA is in the return address. They're not claiming any DMCA violation
2) DMCA or not, there's no fair-use right to be able to put content on YouTube. The guy isn't being sued.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use)
You're confusing two very different parts of the DMCA.
One part deals with circumvention of copy protection devices. That part does not recognize a fair use exemption. It doesn't apply here since the content was not copy-protected.
The other part deals with take-down notices. The way it works is:
Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
A files a counter-notice with C that he believes the content does not infringe the copyright because of fair use or any other reason. The reason doesn't matter: having received the counter-notice, C is required to restore the content.
C then restores the content and provides B with the name and address of A (required in the counter-notice).
B then sues A under the old pre-DMCA copyright infringement laws.
A and B go to court.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Towards whom am I suppose to direct my geek anger here, YouTube, the DMCA or the Republicans? I'm looking forward to being indignant, I just want to make sure I'm on the same page as everyone else.
That outing gay repulicans is good because they are all evil.
Outing anyone else though is a hate crime and the democrates will see to it that you will go to jail if you do so.
You're dead on. I read the guys blog. Next to promotions for his "Why Bush is Evil" NYT best-seller (not the real title) and the "keep Roe v Wade in place!" ads, we're supposed to act as though this has any relevance to technology? The entire point of the post was not, blog author's protestations to the contrary, about the behavior of the Washington Post (let alone technology) - it was about how President Bush lied and isn't that awful.
The thing is, there could be an interesting story here about how the internet catches mainstream media self-censoring. But A - that's not really news and B - that's not the focus of this story. We could even ask more politically-minded questions like "why does the media self-censor" and I think that would be worth discussing. Personally, I think it comes down to cowardice. The mainstream media is under economic pressure as the barrier to entry for their particular market has all but completely eroded and as a result they want to present sensational news, but not seriously controversial news. I can think of no other realistic reason to explain the two examples of self-censoring noted.
But oh no! We get treated to a long exposition of the Bush Lie versus the Bill Clinton Lie. It's got nothing to do with tech, and as an ethics discussion goes, it's pretty poor there too. Are we honestly going to pretend that all lies are the same now? That "Honey, of course I didn't sleep with the babysitter!" is equivalent to "No! That doesn't make you look fat!"
On every single level, this "news" article fails dismally.
-stormin
The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
You might not have noticed, but he's the head of a political party that just lost a huge election. It's natural that he'd be resigning because of the defeat. The absurd notion that he's resigning because of this random (and wholly unsubstantiated) comment on CNN is totally stupid. You're jumping to conclusions that aren't necessarily warranted.
David
>
>On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Slashdotter tackhead unbellyfeel oldspeak rewrite newspeak:
Slashdotter jamie unbellyfeel Amsoc. refs unhappenings. Render unperson.
Oldthinker Maher CNN reporting ungood refs sexcrimes Mehlman rewrite fullwise antefiling. Oldthinker youtube refs unhappenings malquote maher. DMCA quickwise vidmove memhole. Plusgood duckspeakers Wapo rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
Being gay is a non-issue. Being a hypocrite should be huge issue in politics. Censorship is even a bigger issue.
Here's the clip. Note in the comment section of that post, they mention a few other hypocrites.
Here's the image that CNN showed on their censored rebroadcast of their 9/11 footage. I guess they didn't want people to wonder why their were reports of bombs in the building, and start doing research.
Fact is censorship is everywhere. We only get half the story, if that.
If random Person A goes on a live show and makes a COMPLETELY UNSOURCED accusation that Person B is gay, it would be completely unethical and irresponsible for CNN to leave it in a subsequent broadcast of the show. I used to be a journalist, and I guarantee that most reasonable (non-ideological) journalists would make the same decision. It's not censorship. It's a responsible editorial decision regarding an completely unsubstantiated charge. The guy may or may not be gay. I haven't a clue (and don't care), but you don't broadcast something like that without having some reasonable basis for believing it's TRUE.
David
The struggle between news writers/reporters and their management chain and the tendency of the management to cover their backsides and not publish anything unfavorable to {advertisers, the legal department, the higher-ups} has been ongoing ever since the invention of the newspaper. Indeed, in some form, it probably dates back even farther. This is nothing new, happens every day, and should be criticized when it occurs (particularly internally within the organization), but it's not particularly newsworthy.
The best way to handle this sort of thing is to decide what is more important---the bits from the story or your job. If you decide that the higher-ups are censoring something that needs to be heard, you tell your news director "the story airs as-is or I quit" (ideally after you have been there for a while). Sadly, most journalists don't have the stomach for that these days, but when this occurs you have to stand up for yourself or the upper management will walk all over you. Of course, this also points to a weak and ineffectual news director who doesn't have the guts to protect his/her reporters from the upper management.
However, that's probably not what happened in the case of CNN. What probably happened here is that they condensed the interview for time and cut out bits that they considered less important. This, too, happens every day. Unless the reporter was pressured to remove those pieces (and there's no reason to believe that this is the case), there's really not a story here at all. It's just the normal, day-to-day operation of a TV news outfit.
The Washington Post story, however, is very disturbing. If the reports of them changing their story are true, and if, in fact, Bush said the things claimed in the original version of the story, their editorial staff should be held accountable for their actions in turning a factually accurate story into a factually inaccurate story and deliberately removing highly relevant factual content from their story.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is? If you need to know, perhaps you need to get a life. Judge a person on his job performance, not what he/she does on their own time, which is really none of your business anyway.
That's a very nice sentiment and would be fine if the person in question did almost anything except politics. In the case of politics, specifically republican politics, there is a platform of most things gay being "wrong, bad, perverted, or evil, etc." If a top member of this group is gay then you run into quite a few dilemmas. The laws that the GOP push affect everyone, all the time, so it very much matters what someone does "on their own time."
That is funny you say that....considering how many people had their say about what President Clinton did while in office. Whether he screwed someone or got a blow job was his own personal/family problem. However, the republican propaganda machine didn't stop, did it? When it is the same news about republicans however, "Oh. Everyone needs their privacy and has a right to it". Typical republicans.....What is good enough for the goose is not good enough for the gander.
The point of Maher doing this is to expose the blatant hipocrisy that is going on. The current Republican leadership has been hostile towards gay and lesbian people and their rights. They pander to an audience of religious fundamentalists on a platform that alienates a minority group while being part of that group themselves. If they kept their own internal struggles and self-loathing private then I'd say they have a right to privacy. However, as it stands their public actions and policies have the potential to make life miserable for a group of people so their hipocrisy deserves to be brought under public scrutiny. Just because the minority group happens to be gays doesn't make this ok, there would be an uproar if you had a black man advocating segregation or making interracial marriages illegal, for example.
Admittedly, I didn't read TFA, but I think the relevance to technology is pretty solid. The networks are making it so that ordinary people can call out the old-guard information monopolists. It is widely known that most broadcasting companies long ago internalized the values of the establishment, with the consequence that people are not exposed to criticism of the establishment ... in the absence of official censorship!. Cf. "The Propaganda Model"
Youtube's not going to save us all, but it can and should start a trend toward egalitarian broadcasting of serious content & criticism.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Kind of has that feel, doesn't it?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Removing details about someone's personal life, revealed by a third party, is not censorship, it's good taste. CNN is a news network, and the fact that a station made an editorial decision to remove rumors from its newscast is not censorship.
...this is really a censorship issue. CNN has also edited the written transcripts to reflect the new censored version as if Maher never mentioned Mehlman at all.
No, they didn't. You rerun the interview or you don't, and you don't ask Bill Maher back because he acted like an asshole in an interview. It's that simple. You don't just edit it out because it's not politically correct, especially if it's billed as the original interview.
Now, I haven't a clue who Ken Mehlman is, but if he is a politician, or political operative, who creates or influenced policy on issues affecting homosexuals, then his orientation may indeed be salient.
I'm not trying to say Bill Maher is wrong or right (back when I was born, it used to be a free country), but a news organization altering facts and then using copyright law to cover up that modification is certainly not okay.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The entire post except for ONE line was about media self-censoring on the Mehlman thing. And that one line was about WP self-censorship (albeit on another subject). I really have no idea how the post can be construed as being party-specific, unless you consider any post about censorship to be left-wing. Heck, even the linked article about the WP censorship was about the censorship itself rather than the lie involved, regardless of what the other content was on the site. The only ideology I see here from /. is that censorship is bad. And I don't think most of the people reading this site have a problem with that particular point of view.
I don't see how a short snippet like this, which is revealing about the media, could not be considered fair use. I also don't think the DMCA absolutely overrides fair use.
The worst offense a politician can incur is to be a hypocrit. If you're going to blast others for their lifestyles and actively work to pass laws to limit their lifestyles, all the while participating in the exact same lifestyles yourself... then you are:
A. A hypocrit
B. A masochist
and... it *IS* different for Democrats, because Democrats are NOT the ones trying to demonize the gay lifestyle.
ps. Preachers like Haggard claim that homosexuality is a "choice" and not an inate character trait. Then he writes an apology letter to his congregation saying "I have been at war with these inner demons most of my adult life". Sounds like he's admitting that it WASN'T a choice... it's just who he is and he's forced to come to grips with it. And his followers offer HIM forgiveness, meanwhile their still bashing OTHERS like him.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
If Ken Mehlman resigns from the RNC Chair, it's not because he may or may not take it in the ass, it's because he was the chair when the whole party took it in the ass on election day.
When I first started scanning the stories at Digg, people would cram all kinds of political stories in there, and they would shoot straight to the top. People would whine about it, then be called "fuck-tards" for complaining about it, invited to leave, etc. Finally, Digg introduced more categories, which you can ignore if you wish. Maybe /. is headed there too?
At least this one has something to do with YouTube. But you could tell from the story summary that we would be talking about gay Republicans.
Dark Reflection
Mentioning youtube makes the contents of the DNC daily fax a technology story?
"And somewhat related: Who cares what someones sexual preference is?"
The republicans do. They want to limit what rights you have if you are gay. These rights include serving in the military, teaching, joining civic organizations and marriage amongst others.
evil is as evil does
It'll be interesting to see if a challenge is mounted to the VA gay-marriage ban, on U.S. Constitutional grounds; it seems as though it might violate the Equal Protection clause, at least as long as heterosexual people get certain tax benefits and exemptions as a result of being married.
Frankly, I would like to see them just eliminate all the "pro-family" marriage subsidies as a result of this. Let the homophobes keep marriage, just make it a totally religious, nonsecular distinction. Get rid of it from tax law, probate and inheritance law, and other aspects where it usually comes across. If people want those things, they can lobby their congresspeople for tax breaks for everyone, not just married people; write a will and medical-power-of-attorney to sort out the inheritance and medical decision-making issues, and have the "benefits" of marriage with whomever they want.
It's ridiculous that we still have the State sanctioning marriage and childbearing, as if we really need to be encouraging people to pump out more babies. If we need more workers, we can just import them from Mexico or India. Given the state of our educational system, they'll probably be more qualified anyway.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How is this insightful? It is a terrible analysis.
The point of the article is that the mass media/news in the United States is being censored. What might be more to the point is 'who cares who is doing the censorship?'. This is akin to lying to the public by withholding information.
Some of this might be due to the networks being afraid of lawsuits, but again, who cares what the reason is. This is just another example of the poor journalism exhibited in America. When I lived there, it was very difficult to find any good investigative journalism (for fear of lawsuits... e.g. CBS and the tobacco industry), nor any reference to other country's contributions to foreign projects (something is done by America or basically 'some other guys'), or even bend the story so that America is the hero even if it is Americans being rescued (e.g. a Canadian team flying in to rescue sick Americans at the south pole in the dead of winter when no one else could because of the extreme conditions... CNN reported the sick Americans as heroes and did not mention the Canadians who seriously risked their lives flying in there).
People in other countries wonder why Americans seem so ignorant of other countries. Considering the amount of time they are glued to the TV you would think they would learn more of the outside world. But the poor journalism (even somewhat xenophobic journalism) in the U.S. sure doesn't help. Censorship is just the icing on this botulism infested cake.
I liked living in the U.S., but their news services absolutely sucked. Thank goodness from living in other countries I knew what good news looked like and could find it on the internet. Interestingly, even though it is as full of bullshit propaganda as many U.S. news services like Fox (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Hannity), you could not even get the Aljazeera news service in the U.S., at least while I was there... that is direct censorship.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
They are not a hypocrit if they disagree with the catholic church that abortion is wrong.
.. say make public speeches against abortion, have laws passed against abortion, and then it turns out they are having abortions themselves or supporting abortion actively in secret.
They are only a hypocrit if they
However, hypocrisy just doesn't have the sting it did 20 years ago. People have no shame any more.
Except maybe republicans *once* they are caught.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Then you need to get out more.
In large sections of the country, although Republicans may be more socially conservative than Democrats, they're certainly not anywhere near the level of the rabid, religiously-motivated, hateful far-right (really authoritarian) bloc that seems to be most Democrats' stereotype of conservatives.
Given the bipolar political system, if you want a political party that supports lower taxation and doesn't believe in providing "bad luck insurance" by punishing people who plan ahead (say, by saving up money or property to give to their children rather than spending it) to pay for others' mistakes, you don't have a lot of choices.
The Republican party over the past few years has been almost completely hijacked by religious-right, and by ultra-hawks who have run up the deficit in order to fund the war. However, this doesn't mean that the Democrats are any more attractive than they have always been; basically offering only marginally more fiscal control, in order to fund welfare and other social programs. It's only because of the depths to which the Republican party has fallen, and sold out its core values, that the Democrats look fiscally responsible.
I would say that many Republicans that I have met in New England (and if you look at 'Yankee Republicans' in general) are not really that socially conservative on an absolute scale, and are torn between disliking the quasi-socialist fiscal policies of the Democrats (particularly New England Democrats), and the authoritarian social policies of Midwest and Southern Republicans. I suspect if you looked at stances on the issues, many Northeast Republicans (say, Olympia Snowe) would actually be very fiscally conservative Democrats, if they were in another part of the country, and vice versa.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Remember when John Kerry brought up a mention of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter? That kind of backfired.
FOX News link -- too lazy to do better. IMHO the hypocracy of the Republicans is one problem, but the farce of "family values" when your dad is actively legislating against your life is even more astonishing.
Of course, they definitely kept Mary Cheney out of the public eye. In fact, the Cheneys overall seem to be kept in a locked box somewhere and only unleashed when it's time to sling some serious shite.
Two comments:
Plenty of print publications and some of the more responsible TV and radio news outlets (e.g. NPR) give retractions, corrections, or apologies when they say something incorrect or inappropriate. That's a good thing. I can even see editing something before re-airing or reprinting it to correct the problem, but then you must tell people that this is now a different piece, and you should say why. Simply changing a piece and pretending it's the same while throwing you mistakes down the memory hole is completely unethical.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
The YouTube is definitely a case of censorship. The Washington Post MAY have simply been editing the article for length. The blog regarding the WP contains a lot of insinuations, but but it does not carry any substantial evidence to support the insinuations or conclusions.
Again, the blogger insists that the blog subject is about the WP comitting censorship, not abut the President's evasiveness. IMO, the public has a right to know, but the administration has an agenda and a strategy, and we are not automatically entitled to know what that is. We, as the public, are not entitled in all cases, to pass on decisions that we have delegated to out elected representatives. The solution is to find a way to elect people who make good decisons in a trustworthy environment. Neither of those conditions exists at this time.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
1, 2, and 3 are doing well, but 7 8 9 and is now serving 20 to life...
Wow, that doesn't work when it's not spoken.
I believe you should re-read the parent post without being defensive. He explicitly stated that the exit polls showed that most Republicans didn't vote because of money issues but, like you said, because the Republican party said that they believed in certain moral issues. Issues that they, through their actions, didn't embody.
He went on to say that IF a republican voted for money reasons they were either rich (because this group of Republicans has mostly helped the rich) OR they were stupid.
This was not a slam against Republicans who really believe in their base values.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Wrong. It is legal for "the gays" to marry in Massachusetts, right now. The Republican govenor (now a lame duck) and some Republican members of the state legislature want to now make it illegal.
Segregation, slavery, the right to vote belonging to white males only...these are all examples of the status quo at one time in the USA. Does that make positions supporting them any less bigoted? Those who wish to create OR maintain an inferior class of citizen deserve to be demonized.
Sorry Bill or Larry or who ever in the media companies where threatened and told to abuse this law. You just made the case.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Yea- I don't think most people realize how ruthless marriage was before the jewelry and movie business got ahold of it.
Marriages were about *PROPERTY* not about "true love".
Agree on the other points too- you raise children, then maybe the state gives you a break since we currently view it as good for society (I don't but I think we are overpopulating ourselves to death).
Otherwise, why should a childless couple of any gender mix be able to form a legal contract governing inheritance, power of attorney, distribution of property, support (alimony), etc. that is banned to other couples?
Separate MARRIAGE (religious) from CIVIL UNION (Secular). And then separate MARRIAGE (Catholic, Baptist) from MARRIAGE (Other religion that is cool with gay marriages). You shouldn't be able to force the catholic church to marry two gays because it's against their religion. You shouldn't be able to bar a pro-gay marriage religion from marrying gays.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Other choices that would also be made more attractive include moving all or parts of the company to other countries.