Well said. Too many people, including the Turkish Government, still deny that the Armenian Genocide ever occured. Even mentioning it in print (in Turkey) is enough to be sent to prison for "anti-Turkishness."
And journalists that push the issue seem to wind up dead fairly quickly.
"Uphill in the snow" stories aside I think that the religious blogger fiasco does a lot more to ruin his credibility. His staff didn't understand the public eye process enough to properly vet a new staff member. Bill O'Reilly's people did some good work on this one; bigots of any persuasion should be exposed.
There's actually a very good reason for this. Gawker put the ads in front of the clips to prevent other blogs from using the video without giving Gawker props. Gawker essentially attempted to declare a limited form of ownership. They tried to have their cake and eat it, too: Offloading the video hosting costs to YouTube while trying to say "No one else can use our videos without paying the toll."
This is the reverse of the eBaum's World business strategy. eBaum's just strips copyrights and watermarks from the videos that they steal. I wonder how long it'll take until an enterprising young author gets ripped off and takes them for a few million.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. Too many people, including the Turkish Government, still deny that the Armenian Genocide ever occured. Even mentioning it in print (in Turkey) is enough to be sent to prison for "anti-Turkishness."
And journalists that push the issue seem to wind up dead fairly quickly.
"Uphill in the snow" stories aside I think that the religious blogger fiasco does a lot more to ruin his credibility. His staff didn't understand the public eye process enough to properly vet a new staff member. Bill O'Reilly's people did some good work on this one; bigots of any persuasion should be exposed.
l [Fox News]
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251906,00.htm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GkEZVGsdrw8 [YouTube]
There's actually a very good reason for this. Gawker put the ads in front of the clips to prevent other blogs from using the video without giving Gawker props. Gawker essentially attempted to declare a limited form of ownership. They tried to have their cake and eat it, too: Offloading the video hosting costs to YouTube while trying to say "No one else can use our videos without paying the toll."
This is the reverse of the eBaum's World business strategy. eBaum's just strips copyrights and watermarks from the videos that they steal. I wonder how long it'll take until an enterprising young author gets ripped off and takes them for a few million.