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'?"

Comments

Corporations

[bill_mcgonigle]

. 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.

Re:Corporations

[JWSmythe]

    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.

Nothing odd about it

[matt4077]

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.

Re:Nothing odd about it

[AnonymousClown]

. 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.

Re:Nothing odd about it

[Crippere]

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.

Re:Nothing odd about it

[OakDragon]

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

Re:Nothing odd about it

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Nothing odd about it

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.

Not Odd

[doomicon]

Just a statement on how bad the opposing candidate is.

Re:Not Odd

[operagost]

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.

Where does this sound familiar?

[kaoshin]

This reminds me of Fox News accusing Fox news co-owner of terror funding.

It's a Trap!!

[rlp]

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

Re:*toot*

[interkin3tic]

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.