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'?"

28 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Corporations by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . 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)
    1. Re:Corporations by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

          Nope, I'd bet it was more of a calculated decision. Put yourself in their position.

          You are a local media mogul, and have a political candidate over a barrel. They've committed a violation of law.

          There are two options. Well, two main ones. There are of course others.

          1) They can fight you in court, but they'll get torn up both publicly in the media (which you own) and in court. They won't win their campaign.

          2) You promise to forget about their little transgression, but in exchange you may ask for "favors" in the future. Additionally, you will support them in your media, adding to the stack of redeemable "favors".

          Option 1 costs a lot of money, and no one wins.

          Option 2 doesn't cost a lot, and it's advantageous to both parties involved. It's dirty, but that's the game of both business and politics.

          Any good business person will go for option 2. Any responsible business person will go for option 1. Responsibility goes out the window when you can have a politician in your pocket.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  2. Nothing odd about it by matt4077 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nothing odd about it by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Insightful

      . 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.

      Randolph Hearst predates him by a century, Ben Franklin when he was publishing stuck his nose into things and every other newspaper owner before them.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:Nothing odd about it by Crippere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's also possible for a newspaper to care to endorse a white-collar thief precisely because that's the kind of morality that the newspaper wants to see in office.

    3. Re:Nothing odd about it by OakDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also possible that for whatever deficiencies Sharron Angle exhibits, they see her as a vastly superior choice to the execrable Harry Reid.

    4. Re:Nothing odd about it by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But don't you realize that Murdoch is "right wing extremism" and that is bad, but people like Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr are okay because he's left wing?

      When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left. Which is why people should get the news raw and and unfiltered.

      And the internet provides a very broad voice for news accounts of important events and stories. Some are slanted left, others right, and somewhere there is the truth. It is out there, you just have to learn to filter out the bias.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Nothing odd about it by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left. Which is why people should get the news raw and and unfiltered.

      Shush! Next you'll be asking people to think for themselves!

      I honestly think the best way to read news is to read *everything*, from Mother Jones to The Blaze, from NPR to Fox News, and when you find points of disagreement in their narratives, dig into it and figure it out for yourself. Too much work for most people, but if you just listen to one news source, due to the gatekeeper effect, you'll have a very biased idea of what is happening in our world.

    6. Re:Nothing odd about it by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue I have with Faux News is that they claim to be a news channel, but have more editorials than news, and the editorials are not labeled as such.

      Take the newspaper. They have editorials. They are labeled as such and only two pages out of 50. But a news channel with more editorial than news and nothing differentiating them isn't a news channel. When even their name is lying to me, it's hard to be a fan.

      And no, "the other guys do it too" doesn't excuse unethical behavior. If everyone else in your class cheated, I'd still expect you to not cheat. If you did, even if everyone else did it too, I'd still expel you.

    7. Re:Nothing odd about it by bogjobber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not a partisan issue. Murdoch isn't worse than Sulzberger because he's conservative and Sulzberger is liberal. Murdoch is worse than Sulzberger because he doesn't care about journalism. Not one little bit.

      Other than the various business news organizations News Corp. owns (also probably a lot of local papers which I'm not familiar with) most of his newspapers and TV channels are complete tabloid trash. Fox News devotes 7 hours a day to news (even being generous and counting Shephard Smith and Matt Braier as completely non-editorial) and 17 hours to opinion, which on Fox means a carefully selected batch of stories that reinforce a hard conservative viewpoint served with an extra helping of indignity and anger. Just because he's talking about current events does not make Bill O'Reilly a journalist. And how often does the New York Post or The Sun break a significant news story that has nothing to do with sports or entertainment?

      Murdoch is certainly the more successful businessman. But he actively manipulates the popular dialog in order to achieve his own political gains, and he does this all over the world. As soon as you have evidence of a Sulzberger-run news organization manipulating or avoiding a story because it might affect The New York Times Company's bottom line, then you will have a legitimate comparison.

  3. Not Odd by doomicon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just a statement on how bad the opposing candidate is.

    --

    Awesome!
    1. Re:Not Odd by operagost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, and he thinks that losing "only" 36,000 jobs in one day is good. He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure. He made prejudiced statements about President Obama. That's just the nonpartisan stuff, because obviously his voting record is debatable based on whatever your opinions are.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Not Odd by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Insightful

          Maybe Senator Reid hasn't been playing ball with them lately.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Not Odd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Senate/House leaders are chosen on the basis of seniority and the unlikelihood of them being defeated in an election (or "safety", as they put it) and not for actual leadership qualities. This is true of both parties.

    4. Re:Not Odd by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, and he thinks that losing "only" 36,000 jobs in one day is good

      I don't see how his outlook on that would have changed anything. Surely you're not suggesting the US economy had problems because Harry Reid wasn't optimistic enough.

      He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure.

      Yep. He doesn't have a crystal ball and is clearly unfit for office. As far as losing the war, that was stupid to say for a politician. I'm not a politician, so I can say we lost the war when we confused Iraq with al qaeda.

      He made prejudiced statements about President Obama.

      So? Are we going to pretend most people in congress are not at least a little prejudiced? I'm taking it as a given that we're pretending that everyone isn't at least a little prejudiced (though we all are.) Or are we going to pretend that a politician who has gaffes is unfit in some way?

      And keep in mind we're talking about Reid vs Sharon Angle, who is campaigning against those evil, evil immigrants.

  4. Where does this sound familiar? by kaoshin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Re:Where does this sound familiar? by chris+mazuc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently you don't realize that in a free society, when you place shares into the free market, anyone can buy them. There's nothing you can do to stop them - it's a free country.

      It doesn't look like Rupert was telling him to sell his shares in this photo.

      HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, Chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC) met with Mr. Rupert Murdoch Chairman and CEO of News Corporation (News Corp.) at the company's headquarters in New York on Thursday 14th January, 2010.

      The meeting began as Prince Alwaleed and Mr. Murdoch discussed economic and investment issues especially in the media sector and the two discussed Rotana and LBCSAT 90% owned by HRH. Moreover, the meetings touched upon future potential alliance with News Corp.

      and you have to wonder about the real motives behind those who want to place a "victory" mosque next to Ground Zero.

      And I wonder about the motives of those who deliberately distort language to further a bigoted political agenda.

      --
      E pluribus unum
  5. Newspapers? Pshaw. by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

      I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.

      So you are frequenting slashdot for its journalistic excellence, lack of absurdity, and total adherence to the truth.

  6. It's simple survival tactics... by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Informative

    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 needed to have the press be our friend ... 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
    Spoken like a true statesperson.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  7. It's a Trap!! by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're trying to get her to repost the endorsement so they can file an additional lawsuit.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  8. Re:*toot* by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did you get sued for it? Maybe you should think about running for office.

    "The fart party: we promise to break the political gridlock in washington and also promise to break wind."

    Maybe democrats should look into this as a method of getting past fillibustering everything: there's probably not a rule against farting in the face of the speaker to make him pass out (thus breaking the fillibuster). It's also not like that would be beneath the dignity of the senate.

  9. Re:It's obvious by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bout the only thing I have heard her say that sounded to have some kind of sanity to it was not fluorinating tap water.

    $irony++;

  10. Leverage by WarwickRyan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Ideally by Surt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As opposed to when their partiality is more subtle? You just take their news at face value then?
    Always be suspicious of the reporting. Always. It's all done by partial observers. All of it.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  12. Doesn't It Seem a Bit Odd? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  13. Re:Why? by electron+sponge · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?

    Possibly so. Thank goodness you're here to explain it to us.

    Making blanket statements about other nationalities, however, is a concept we're very familiar with.

  14. Re:slightly better version by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You seem to have misspelled fascist.