Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Endorses the Candidate It's Suing Over Copyright
An anonymous reader writes "Remember Righthaven? The copyright troll owned by the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal? You may remember, then, that Righthaven had sued Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle for posting LVRJ stories on her site. At the same time, LVRJ has been having its execs talk about how copyright infringement is no different than garden variety theft. So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd that the LVRJ is endorsing the very same candidate that it sued for such 'theft'?"
*giggle* I just tooted *giggle*
...to politics!
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
. So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd
Corporations aren't just immortals, they're schizophrenic immortals. With 'human' rights.
Try to keep this straight.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The right half of the brain doesn't know what the left half is doing?
That's not odd, that's how it's supposed to work. The editorial staff should be independent from the business side of the business. It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.
It's also possible that the owner is - shock! - able to disagree with someone on one issue but agrees on others. Or maybe he doesn't put his own interest ahead of what he thinks is good for society. OF course if you want to be cynical, maybe he wants the candidate to win so she can pay whatever he's suing for.
Fleur de Sel
Ideally, the newspaper ought to be endorsing the candidate they think is best for the citizens, not best for the paper.
anybody will sleep with anybody
if the price is right, evidently
Just a statement on how bad the opposing candidate is.
Awesome!
nothing to see here.
The same people that complain when a newspaper's editorial board is not sufficiently distanced from its straight news department will complain when the two departments are at odds with one another. Some people just like to complain.
This reminds me of Fox News accusing Fox news co-owner of terror funding.
Partly because it's a newspaper, partly because it's such a big discordance, this makes the news, but it's not unusual for there to be disagreements and differing agendas within companies. And I suppose with lawyers involved, as I suppose there are in this case (didn't RTFA of course!), all bets are off.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Perhaps we truly are living in a time when "endorse" no longer means "I like this guy more" but "this guy over here sucks less"
I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.
About twenty years ago when my children were small and we lived in a bad neighborhood, there was a gang war right down the street. Probably more than 50 rounds were fired; it sounded similar to strings of firecrackers going off (the timbre was different, of course). An innocent bystander was shot and crippled as he tried to get his kids inside. I watched a police car go airborne as it crossed the railroad tracks ate a very high rate of speed. Two days later the crack house the gangsters lived in "mysteriously" burned to the ground.
Not a word of this made the paper, although "news" of petty vandalism and burglaries and so forth were.
A few weeks ago a school bus carrying fifteen kids ran a red light and was hit by an SUV, and missed being hit by inches by another vehicle. This happened less than two minutes before I walked into the bar at that intersection. Several police cars showed up, then another school bus came by, parked in the biker bar's* parking lot and the kids got on it and left. There were no injuries, but the SUV's air bags deployed and it was damaged pretty severely.
The next day's paper carried stories about fender benders, petty vandalism, and residential burglaries. Not a word about the school bus wreck or the school bus driver running a red light with kids on board.
And they wonder why their circulation continues to drop.
* Google maps is out of date; the place is called "Scooter's" now.
Free Martian Whores!
Endorsing Sharron Angle is simply just a survival tactic for the newspapers. The gaffes, foibles, unfounded and inaccurate claims she makes almost every time she opens her mouth guarantees that the newspaper will be in business for at least the next 6 years.
... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." --Sharron Angle, during an interview with Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2010
"We needed to have the press be our friend
Spoken like a true statesperson.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Go, Sharron, go! Angle 2010!
2010: The Year American says GTFO to Liberal Fascists.
The alternative would be to endorse Harry Reid. Given those choices, it doesn't matter what Angle stole, she still looks like the better candidate.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
"Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses garden-variety thief for office!"
Politics is about greed, corruption, power, influence, and nepotism.
And there is never anything we, the people can do about it, right?
It is just too bad we have to sit here and take it like serfs/slaves/peasants/rabble while our betters scheme and do the mysterious things they do in their castles.
If only there were a better way.
Oh well.
Before anyone goes and calls this "ironic," please remember the definition of the word. Thank you, Alanis Morissette.
Someone is supposed to say that, right? Whenever a textbook example of irony comes up? Someone idiot to act like everyone else is stupid?
Whale
By posting this story in a tone of mild outrage, what are we trying to say? People should never support a candidate they have a disagreement with, no matter how much they disagree with the OTHER candidate? People should never sue someone of their own political party, no matter how much they are affronted? Seriously, why does this story exist? How childish does your though process have to be to see this as anything other than mildly ironic.
I see your point, but "in Soviet America, the companies control the government"
~KingAlanI
Angle is a verbally-spastic nutball, with little logic, even less grasp of facts, and nothing to recommend her other than a knowing look while she spews phrases that lack any connection to reality.
This editorial endorsement is illogical, based on misrepresentation of facts, and printed with ink and dead trees to give the impression of a wise and knowing directive to voters, despite disconnection from rationality.
Seems perfectly congruent to me....
Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
The LVRJ has just de facto said that:
It opposes abortions even in the case of rape or incest
The Department of Education is unconstitutional
The United States should withdraw from the United Nations
A flat tax should replace the income tax
A free-market alternative should be established to cut social security
Not to politicize this discussion but she is a right wing freak.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
They're trying to get her to repost the endorsement so they can file an additional lawsuit.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Maybe if she gets the job she'll earn more cash for them to take in the suit?
Most probable: the left hand isn't watching the right
Also likely: editorial staff cares more about other issues that differentiate the candidates (copyright is a very low priority for pretty much everyone except the AAs)
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Their lawsuit gives them leverage over her.
If she wins, she gets power.
It's good for business to have leverage over people in power.
They are Republicans/Corporations - they lie from the depth of what would be their souls. It's what they do.
Not at all. People who act professionally or who run business understand the meaning of "dont burn bridges." In this case, once the lawsuit is completed and all debts are settled everyone acts like adults and moves on.
No, not really. Everything associated with Sharron Angle is somewhere between Odd and Just Plain Fucking Nuts.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I'm honestly not up on Angle other than the occasional "OMG what a nutter!" media blurb. But I am curious about this issue, if you happen to know one way or the other.
Most "pro-life" folks I've talked to, I've had a really hard time respecting. This is mainly because, when you really start talking about things, it becomes apparent that they are very against abortion, but have no problem with the death penalty or war. If life is so sacred that they cannot allow the termination of a pregnancy (an unwanted one at that), why then are they fine with bombs and lethal injections? The few truly pro-life people that I've talked with and walked away with a genuine sense of respect were those who had clear convictions that make coherent sense. These folks cannot morally allow the termination of a pregnancy out of a strong belief in the sacredness of life -- and they are pacifist and against the death penalty. I may not be swayed enough to adopt their points of view, but I can at least respect them.
I have family who are of the schizophrenic "pro-life" variety. We do our best not to talk about various subjects those few times when we're all together. I've discovered I have real trouble agreeing with people who don't even agree with themselves.
Cheers,
I think you'll find that the pro-life and pro-death-penalty people usually rationalize it on the basis of innocence. You can't kill innocent people like babies. But murderers, rapists, and (worse) muslims? Go to town.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
I'm not Harry Reid, either! And I grew up in DC, so I won't get lost on my way to those frequent and paid-for lobbyist lunches. Vote for me!
Cheers,
Interesting. That would be where they lose me, then, for how one judges another to be innocent is a very subjective affair, as your list aptly demonstrates. Being absolutist about relative criteria doesn't work very well.
Cheers,
Maybe I'm confused -- most libertarians I've ever heard from hold to the view that regulation is abhorrent as they interfere with personal liberties. If that's so, how would you be comfortable with any ban on abortions?
Curious,
No no no, we're supposed to bill our chicken pay with doctors!
Our northern neighbor is looking better every day by comparison...
Cheers,
My brain hiccupped and I read that as (Odd && Just Plain) (Fucking Nuts), like some kind of bizarre sexual airline snack. Oofda.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
No. Schizophrenia (295) is characterized by:
With the debatable exception of (4) catatonia (buildings don't usually move around a whole lot), no corporations I know of exhibit any of these characteristics. Antisocial Personality Disorder (301.7) (ASPD) on the other hand, is very much in line with corporate behavior; necessary for diagnosis, at least 3 of:
Now I'd argue (much to the contrary of the supreme court) that a corporation is not a human being, and as such cannot be diagnosed as one, but I don't think anyone on Slashdot will disagree that most corporations exhibit at least most of these criteria - everything listed here in many cases. Incidentally, this same analysis was run by the documentary The Corporation.
Please have a heart and do not compare the poor souls who suffer from Schizophrenia to the soulless corporations of America.