"Colmes is a moderate liberal who can't stand up for himself (much less for the values of liberalism) and O'Reilly is definitely conservative."
Colmes is a liberal, but the difference is that he is "mild mannered", and unlike his counterparts on Crossfire, he refuses to lie just to spin a point. O'Reilly is definitely moderate, based on his views. I rarely listen to him on radio anymore, but he was bashing Bush last night. I've heard him harp on Cheney's secrecy over and over. He is a true oddity: an angry moderate.
However, as for your main point. Fox is to the right as CNN is to the left. I don't agree that they are "balanced" as they tip to the right. They are as "fair" as any large news organization in that they get many consultants of different stripes to refute things on many of their programs.
Whether or not they tip to the right (as we think they do) or are perfectly balanced (as the parent said), they have a First Amendment right to be either way. It is their editorial decision.
Not only that, Marillion did the album "marillion.com" way before everyone started to think it was cool to ".com " just about everything. They're ahead of the curve. (can't help but mention that Marillion is much better than Trent musically, but that is just opinion)
"I cannot support any bill by any congressman from any political party that will limit our ability to fight spam, advertising via e-mail, distribution of pornography and child pornography, and the transmission of malware"
So, while the part of protecting the first amendment right of bloggers would (I think) appear to be fine to you, the bill also is a "trojan horse" to promote harassment by politicos in the form of political spam?
"The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock is pretty good."
Too much of it is paranoia and non-existent overarching conspiracies. The Right has done books like this, as well. Realize where Brock is coming from now. He's a hardcore partisan. When he was blinded by the Right, he engaged in one-sided bashing of the Left. Now he has been blinded by the Left, and he is doing the same sort of thing the other way. The guy is an unstable individual: look for him to flip back the other way again sometime, losing more and more credibility with each flip between "angry obnoxious left-winger" and "angry obnoxious right-winger".
"I would prefer not to return to the days of the "Fairness" Doctrine, where stations are afraid they'll lose their license, so put on nothing more controversial than potato salad recipies."
That is it exactly. There is one guy on Slashdot who actually made the argument against the Fairness Doctrine: if radio stations did not express opinions they wanted, they'd better go back to airing music instead. I've seen this elsewhere. It is clear from him and many others that the "Fairness Doctrine" is not about fairness. It is about censoring undesirable opinions, even if it means censoring all opinions on the way to it.
Also, it was not only "losing their licenses". The chilling effect was to the point where if you aired something controversial, an intolerant twit could petition the government to demand "equal time" at the station, in which case the intolerant twit has now become the station's program manager. What station wants this? Why not air music, as to keep outsider boneheads from micro-managing your schedule?
"The actions of the Sinclair group were clearly partisan and not in the interest of the public airwaves."
Once again, entirely false. Partisan freedom of expression is a protected public activity.
"In that regard, they have broken the 'deal' they made to get the airwaves in the first place."
No, they did not. They did not sign something that said "And you agree not to say anything that might anger intolerant twits who can't stand anyone saying anything they do not agree with."
"MMFA has the right and responsibility to ensure the public airwaves are used for the public good."
The best way to do this is to ensure that the principles of the Bill of Rights are not abandoned when it comes to the airwaves. That is truly in the public interest.
How about this idea: the public interest is best served when it comes to the airwaves by ensuring that basic Constitutional rights are preserved, even on the air.
Treating airwave freedom the same as newspaper print freedom is the best way for this. If there is any problem, it should be solved by the government granting many more licenses, not by the government censoring.
"Show me where the Constitution says freedom of the press includes the government having to supply the press."
Hmmm. Does this mean that the Government should be able to censor the Internet, because the Government quite clearly invented and supplied the press here?
It certainly is not true of the airwaves, which existed for at least a couple of years before governments discovered them.
"What part of "the airwaves are the property of the people as a whole, and holders of broadcast licenses are only permitted to use them in the public interest, not to exploit a monopoly to push one particular point of view " are you not grasping?"
I am not grasping it because of the contradiction contained therein. "The public interest" should be determined by the public. If the public happens to like what some individuals subjectively determine to be an undesirable point of view, the public interest is being served.
If the public does not like it, by the way, the ratings system has built accountability such that if the public interest is not being served, ratings go down and the station suffers (and is discouraged not to ignore the public again).
"After Sinclair releases their lips from the nipple of public support, they can enjoy all the freedoms of the New York Times."
Others properly pointed out that Sinclair pays a lot of money to operate, and it is not a recipient of welfare. However, even if your false assertion were true, no-where does the Constitution deny welfare recipients free speech rights.
Again, and again, you are looking for a flimsly excuse to strip people of their Constitutional free speech rights. Why not face up to the fact that there are people who do not agree with you, and will express different opinions? Can you live with this without pushing for getting them censored?
Final word on this one:
1. Read the Cuomo quote. Anyone who is any sort of civil libertarian would think it is great.
2. Read the Bill of Rights. There is no exception made in the first part "....except for claptrap."
"The spectrum is limited. The spectrum belongs to the people"
You are really failing at making any sort of argument for denying First Amendment rights.
"Anyone acting outside the public interest is subject to having their license revoked. "
So let the public determine this. If the public's interest is not being served, the ratings will tank. However, the public's interest is not served when some fringe group pressures the government to pull a license in order to censor opinion.
"Hence, use of the spectrum is and should be regulated and use of the Internet is not and should not be"
Check the First Amendment again.
Why such intolerance for expression of different opinion?
Check the Cuomo quote again. It makes sense unless you are quite dense.
"This is different from a newspaper, because the airwaves are a limited resources, are owned by the people"
Then why not let the people decide? Leave the government out of it. Also, your argument is rather false. I am in an area where TV stations outnumber newspapers. This makes newspapers a "limited resource". Time to censor them?
" stewardship of OUR airwaves, these companies agree to serve the public interest."
Which is something they best do by expressing opinions freely. If they don't serve the public interest, the ratings go down.
"People called for Dan Rather's resignation over a largely political issue (fired over not checking the font? A blunder yes, but not damning)."
He was fired not only for airing a fake story, but for insisting it was real for weeks after everyone knew it was fake. However, Rather's job is CBS's business alone. Whatever CBS wants to air, that is their free speech.
"I just want to know, why do you quote Cuomo so much"
Because it makes so much sense, and those who strongly favor censorship of unpopular opinions should take it to heart....
I should probably quote it again. It is a great statement about how important it is to oppose censorship. Perhaps I should just quote the First Amendment instead. The First Amendment is entirely incompatible with the ideas being expressed here that Sinclair is "abusing privileges" by exercising free speech rights.
"sinclair - a company licensed PUBLIC airwaves and beholden to public interests and standards of fairness"
Why not let the public decide what is fair or not, like with anything else? The government does not have to be involved. It is entirely a free speech issue. It is no way "abuse of" their free speech rights.
" When Media Matters is leased huge portions of the television market...."
This argument is false on two fronts:
Sinclair owns a small minority of TV stations
Free speech rights are not abridged if you own more stations.
Media Matters could not "abuse" anything by owning a huge number of TV stations. Free speech is not abuse, whether or not it would be Media Matters putting what they wanted on TV or Sinclair doing it.
"However, in a wider context of ideologies, the States is very Right-Wing, and far from moderate."
How so, as compared to others? Many other places are much more right-wing in other areas than the US, and I am talking about so-called enlightened areas; a large part of Canada has a law banning personal communication in the wrong language for "nationalist" reasons. The Netherlands now executes people for the crime of being handicapped (this was how the Nazis started: the "useless eaters"). Just a few years ago, France had a massive antisemitic demonstration. Austria has had a couple of actual card-carrying Nazi leaders in the last few decades.
"Sinclair is using airwaves that belong to the people to broadcast their claptrap"
Memo to the Baker: The First Amendment protects claptrap.
"Once again we see that ignorance and a high user ID are strongly correlated."
Once again we see that ID number is directly proportional to IQ and respect for free speech rights....even for "claptrap".
Once again, here is that arch conservative Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.".
"Dare I ask which ultra-conservative publication? (a given considering what you posted about them.)"
Actually, someone linked directly to them on another discussion item. I went directly to mediamatters.com (I did not pass Go, did not collect $200, and I did not read what another site or even any conservative said about them). I learned about mediamatters by reading their own web site earlier this evening.
"Sigh. Media Matters is an organization headed by David Brock, formerly a part of the Republican propoganda machine"
I find interesting the use of the pejorative "propaganda" to describe information you do not like. You are already burying yourself in a hole trying to look at these matters from as biased and partisan a view as possible.
"The mission of Media Matters is to act as a watchdog"
They are not a "watchdog" any more than Sinclair is. They are just a partisan pressure group that does the predictable thing of opposing those in the other party.
"to highlight false or outrageous statements made DAILY by conservative pundits"
Many of which are differences of opinions. So it boils down to left-wing pundits cross-firing over the web at right-wing pundits. Can't forget also mediamatters involvement in the "stop sinclair" censorship push.
"The ultra-right wing Sinclair Group *is* abusing their ownership of the public airwaves."
You are betraying your own extremism. In reality, there is no ultra anything that has a foothold in politics. For another, free speech is not abuse. To make a false claim that it is is usually part of a call for censorship.
"Just off the top of my head, there was the "news program" (ie, swift boat smear propoganda) about John Kerry they ran just before the election."
So? Pretty outrageous. But so what? I may disagree with what someone says, but I respect their right to say it.
"Then there was the time they ordered their affiliate stations to not air the Nightline episode"
So? It sucks, but network affiliates are allowed by networks not to run some network programs. In any case, it is a network-vs-affiliate affair. It is not a government affair.
"Seems unbiased to me"
It seems rather biased to me, but so what? Right-wing bias even. Free speech rights do not go away because someone thinks you are "biased".
"Please ask the Sinclair people, and then get back to me"
If Sinclair is involved in a campaign to censor a media sector, they are wrong. However, they are 100% within their "freedom of the press" rights to air biased crap.
"I suggest you do some research first. Media Matters is one of the very few sites that actually hold people accountable for the misinformation"
That is hilarious. It is no more true to say this about Media Matters than it is to say about Rush Limbuagh. Both claim to be icons of truth, watchdogs on those evil folks on the other side. In reality, both are strongly partisan and strongly biased. They heap hypocritical derision on the "other side" while ignoring what their own side does.
I support the right of all three (Limbaugh, Sinclair, Media Matters) to free speech. Do you? Let us quote a relevant Mario Cuomo statement about those who would say that free speech is "abusing the airwaves": "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press."
"No, I'll say it, LIES-- they regularly spew on those right wing cable/radio crapfests "
Welcome to Crossfire! Did you get spittle on the monitor? The right-wing nuts foam at the mouth in the same way you do. All the same, all the same. A difference of opinion is always a lie. Your own side never lies, either. How could they? They share your opinions.
"What you are suggesting is close to what China as a government thinks."
Kohath was indeed insightful, and his view is the opposite of the China government system. There, no-one has the freedom to run against, spend against, or criticize government officials. What Kohath asked for was the maximum unfettered freedom to do these things.
"However, when you present such opinion as Truth on my airwaves, well, we have a problem."
So, if the opinion does not agree with yours, it must be censored? No, they are our airwaves. The government has rightly seen to it that this "medium" is much like the newspapers, with freedom of content. Also, last time I checked, it was free speech for someone to say that their opinion is true.
"All I'm asking for is to present both sides as just that -- opposing views"
You can ask, but you cannot force your views onto someone else.
"Moore offered Sinclair his movie for free. If they were truly interested in political neutrality, they'd play F9/11 right after Stolen Honor."
So? Who said that "Sinclair" was political neutral? I certainly did not. I don't think they are. All I am doing is defending their right to make their own programming decisions, regardless of someone's opinion of neutrality. If someone were calling for the censorship of Dan Rather (assuming he was a liberal bogeyman), I would defend him as well.
"Again, you might own the licence to the spectrum, but they're everyone's airwaves. Respect that"
Yes. Allow the maximum freedom of expression on them. That is thebest use. Again, a great quote by Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.". He made it in opposition to censoring. electronic media.
"How can you argue that such a situation isn't totally screwed?"
Whether or not it is screwed, is it really the government's business how many are in the private political organizations in which people band together out of common interest? Or how many of these organizations there are? Or how few? The Constitution is party-neutral.
"OK. Show me where you get "opposing views" from the Sinclair's spouted over the airwaves "
It is their programming. They have a right to say whatever they want. Including opposing views is an editorial decision they might or might not make. It is exactly the same as the New York Times choosing to print whatever views they want in their editorial pages. (and whether or not you count CNN as an opposing view, it is one. Not that it matters).
"BTW, in case you haven't noticed, these guys are the establishment now. Playing the "poor little stomped on me" "
Freedom of the press does not go away even for a large company. Besides, anyone is "poor little stomped me" if the government threatens to muzzle them.
Here is Mario Cuomo making an argument against censoring broadcasters just because someone does not like their opinions: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press."
I support the right of content-creators in all media (TV, internet, radio, newspaper, etc) to exercise control over the political content of their own material, even if someone does not like it and wants it censored.
Slashdot Mirror
Colmes is a liberal, but the difference is that he is "mild mannered", and unlike his counterparts on Crossfire, he refuses to lie just to spin a point. O'Reilly is definitely moderate, based on his views. I rarely listen to him on radio anymore, but he was bashing Bush last night. I've heard him harp on Cheney's secrecy over and over. He is a true oddity: an angry moderate.
However, as for your main point. Fox is to the right as CNN is to the left. I don't agree that they are "balanced" as they tip to the right. They are as "fair" as any large news organization in that they get many consultants of different stripes to refute things on many of their programs.
Whether or not they tip to the right (as we think they do) or are perfectly balanced (as the parent said), they have a First Amendment right to be either way. It is their editorial decision.
Not only that, Marillion did the album "marillion.com" way before everyone started to think it was cool to ".com " just about everything. They're ahead of the curve. (can't help but mention that Marillion is much better than Trent musically, but that is just opinion)
So, while the part of protecting the first amendment right of bloggers would (I think) appear to be fine to you, the bill also is a "trojan horse" to promote harassment by politicos in the form of political spam?
Too much of it is paranoia and non-existent overarching conspiracies. The Right has done books like this, as well. Realize where Brock is coming from now. He's a hardcore partisan. When he was blinded by the Right, he engaged in one-sided bashing of the Left. Now he has been blinded by the Left, and he is doing the same sort of thing the other way. The guy is an unstable individual: look for him to flip back the other way again sometime, losing more and more credibility with each flip between "angry obnoxious left-winger" and "angry obnoxious right-winger".
If someone wants to spend that money, and someone wants to watch, so what? Is it really anyone else's business?
That is it exactly. There is one guy on Slashdot who actually made the argument against the Fairness Doctrine: if radio stations did not express opinions they wanted, they'd better go back to airing music instead. I've seen this elsewhere. It is clear from him and many others that the "Fairness Doctrine" is not about fairness. It is about censoring undesirable opinions, even if it means censoring all opinions on the way to it.
Also, it was not only "losing their licenses". The chilling effect was to the point where if you aired something controversial, an intolerant twit could petition the government to demand "equal time" at the station, in which case the intolerant twit has now become the station's program manager. What station wants this? Why not air music, as to keep outsider boneheads from micro-managing your schedule?
Once again, entirely false. Partisan freedom of expression is a protected public activity.
"In that regard, they have broken the 'deal' they made to get the airwaves in the first place."
No, they did not. They did not sign something that said "And you agree not to say anything that might anger intolerant twits who can't stand anyone saying anything they do not agree with."
"MMFA has the right and responsibility to ensure the public airwaves are used for the public good."
The best way to do this is to ensure that the principles of the Bill of Rights are not abandoned when it comes to the airwaves. That is truly in the public interest.
Freedom of speech is not a privilege.
How about this idea: the public interest is best served when it comes to the airwaves by ensuring that basic Constitutional rights are preserved, even on the air.
Treating airwave freedom the same as newspaper print freedom is the best way for this. If there is any problem, it should be solved by the government granting many more licenses, not by the government censoring.
Hold it right there. It does not exist, anymore than the "Jews controlling the media" exists. Simple conspiracy theories appeal to simple minds.
Hmmm. Does this mean that the Government should be able to censor the Internet, because the Government quite clearly invented and supplied the press here?
It certainly is not true of the airwaves, which existed for at least a couple of years before governments discovered them.
"What part of "the airwaves are the property of the people as a whole, and holders of broadcast licenses are only permitted to use them in the public interest, not to exploit a monopoly to push one particular point of view " are you not grasping?"
I am not grasping it because of the contradiction contained therein. "The public interest" should be determined by the public. If the public happens to like what some individuals subjectively determine to be an undesirable point of view, the public interest is being served.
If the public does not like it, by the way, the ratings system has built accountability such that if the public interest is not being served, ratings go down and the station suffers (and is discouraged not to ignore the public again).
Freedom of the press is not a privilege.
Others properly pointed out that Sinclair pays a lot of money to operate, and it is not a recipient of welfare. However, even if your false assertion were true, no-where does the Constitution deny welfare recipients free speech rights.
Again, and again, you are looking for a flimsly excuse to strip people of their Constitutional free speech rights. Why not face up to the fact that there are people who do not agree with you, and will express different opinions? Can you live with this without pushing for getting them censored?
Final word on this one:
1. Read the Cuomo quote. Anyone who is any sort of civil libertarian would think it is great.
2. Read the Bill of Rights. There is no exception made in the first part "....except for claptrap."
Whether or not it is, this is not relevant. The First Amendment does not allow for censorship because someone thinks things are "unbalanced".
You are really failing at making any sort of argument for denying First Amendment rights.
"Anyone acting outside the public interest is subject to having their license revoked. "
So let the public determine this. If the public's interest is not being served, the ratings will tank. However, the public's interest is not served when some fringe group pressures the government to pull a license in order to censor opinion.
"Hence, use of the spectrum is and should be regulated and use of the Internet is not and should not be"
Check the First Amendment again.
Why such intolerance for expression of different opinion?
Check the Cuomo quote again. It makes sense unless you are quite dense.
They do, actually. They advocate pressuring the government to censor the Sinclair Group. They are very intolerant of differing opinions.
Then why not let the people decide? Leave the government out of it. Also, your argument is rather false. I am in an area where TV stations outnumber newspapers. This makes newspapers a "limited resource". Time to censor them?
" stewardship of OUR airwaves, these companies agree to serve the public interest."
Which is something they best do by expressing opinions freely. If they don't serve the public interest, the ratings go down.
He was fired not only for airing a fake story, but for insisting it was real for weeks after everyone knew it was fake. However, Rather's job is CBS's business alone. Whatever CBS wants to air, that is their free speech.
"I just want to know, why do you quote Cuomo so much"
Because it makes so much sense, and those who strongly favor censorship of unpopular opinions should take it to heart....
Freedom of the press is not a "privilege".
I should probably quote it again. It is a great statement about how important it is to oppose censorship. Perhaps I should just quote the First Amendment instead. The First Amendment is entirely incompatible with the ideas being expressed here that Sinclair is "abusing privileges" by exercising free speech rights.
Freedom of the press is not a "privilege".
Why not let the public decide what is fair or not, like with anything else? The government does not have to be involved. It is entirely a free speech issue. It is no way "abuse of" their free speech rights.
" When Media Matters is leased huge portions of the television market...."
This argument is false on two fronts:
Sinclair owns a small minority of TV stations
Free speech rights are not abridged if you own more stations.
Media Matters could not "abuse" anything by owning a huge number of TV stations. Free speech is not abuse, whether or not it would be Media Matters putting what they wanted on TV or Sinclair doing it.
How so, as compared to others? Many other places are much more right-wing in other areas than the US, and I am talking about so-called enlightened areas; a large part of Canada has a law banning personal communication in the wrong language for "nationalist" reasons. The Netherlands now executes people for the crime of being handicapped (this was how the Nazis started: the "useless eaters"). Just a few years ago, France had a massive antisemitic demonstration. Austria has had a couple of actual card-carrying Nazi leaders in the last few decades.
Memo to the Baker: The First Amendment protects claptrap.
"Once again we see that ignorance and a high user ID are strongly correlated."
Once again we see that ID number is directly proportional to IQ and respect for free speech rights....even for "claptrap".
Once again, here is that arch conservative Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.".
Actually, someone linked directly to them on another discussion item. I went directly to mediamatters.com (I did not pass Go, did not collect $200, and I did not read what another site or even any conservative said about them). I learned about mediamatters by reading their own web site earlier this evening.
"Sigh. Media Matters is an organization headed by David Brock, formerly a part of the Republican propoganda machine"
I find interesting the use of the pejorative "propaganda" to describe information you do not like. You are already burying yourself in a hole trying to look at these matters from as biased and partisan a view as possible.
"The mission of Media Matters is to act as a watchdog"
They are not a "watchdog" any more than Sinclair is. They are just a partisan pressure group that does the predictable thing of opposing those in the other party.
"to highlight false or outrageous statements made DAILY by conservative pundits"
Many of which are differences of opinions. So it boils down to left-wing pundits cross-firing over the web at right-wing pundits. Can't forget also mediamatters involvement in the "stop sinclair" censorship push.
"The ultra-right wing Sinclair Group *is* abusing their ownership of the public airwaves."
You are betraying your own extremism. In reality, there is no ultra anything that has a foothold in politics. For another, free speech is not abuse. To make a false claim that it is is usually part of a call for censorship.
"Just off the top of my head, there was the "news program" (ie, swift boat smear propoganda) about John Kerry they ran just before the election."
So? Pretty outrageous. But so what? I may disagree with what someone says, but I respect their right to say it.
"Then there was the time they ordered their affiliate stations to not air the Nightline episode"
So? It sucks, but network affiliates are allowed by networks not to run some network programs. In any case, it is a network-vs-affiliate affair. It is not a government affair.
"Seems unbiased to me"
It seems rather biased to me, but so what? Right-wing bias even. Free speech rights do not go away because someone thinks you are "biased".
"Please ask the Sinclair people, and then get back to me"
If Sinclair is involved in a campaign to censor a media sector, they are wrong. However, they are 100% within their "freedom of the press" rights to air biased crap.
"I suggest you do some research first. Media Matters is one of the very few sites that actually hold people accountable for the misinformation"
That is hilarious. It is no more true to say this about Media Matters than it is to say about Rush Limbuagh. Both claim to be icons of truth, watchdogs on those evil folks on the other side. In reality, both are strongly partisan and strongly biased. They heap hypocritical derision on the "other side" while ignoring what their own side does.
I support the right of all three (Limbaugh, Sinclair, Media Matters) to free speech. Do you? Let us quote a relevant Mario Cuomo statement about those who would say that free speech is "abusing the airwaves": "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press."
"No, I'll say it, LIES-- they regularly spew on those right wing cable/radio crapfests "
Welcome to Crossfire! Did you get spittle on the monitor? The right-wing nuts foam at the mouth in the same way you do. All the same, all the same. A difference of opinion is always a lie. Your own side never lies, either. How could they? They share your opinions.
Kohath was indeed insightful, and his view is the opposite of the China government system. There, no-one has the freedom to run against, spend against, or criticize government officials. What Kohath asked for was the maximum unfettered freedom to do these things.
So, if the opinion does not agree with yours, it must be censored? No, they are our airwaves. The government has rightly seen to it that this "medium" is much like the newspapers, with freedom of content. Also, last time I checked, it was free speech for someone to say that their opinion is true.
"All I'm asking for is to present both sides as just that -- opposing views"
You can ask, but you cannot force your views onto someone else.
"Moore offered Sinclair his movie for free. If they were truly interested in political neutrality, they'd play F9/11 right after Stolen Honor."
So? Who said that "Sinclair" was political neutral? I certainly did not. I don't think they are. All I am doing is defending their right to make their own programming decisions, regardless of someone's opinion of neutrality. If someone were calling for the censorship of Dan Rather (assuming he was a liberal bogeyman), I would defend him as well.
"Again, you might own the licence to the spectrum, but they're everyone's airwaves. Respect that"
Yes. Allow the maximum freedom of expression on them. That is thebest use. Again, a great quote by Mario Cuomo: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.". He made it in opposition to censoring. electronic media.
Whether or not it is screwed, is it really the government's business how many are in the private political organizations in which people band together out of common interest? Or how many of these organizations there are? Or how few? The Constitution is party-neutral.
It is their programming. They have a right to say whatever they want. Including opposing views is an editorial decision they might or might not make. It is exactly the same as the New York Times choosing to print whatever views they want in their editorial pages. (and whether or not you count CNN as an opposing view, it is one. Not that it matters).
"BTW, in case you haven't noticed, these guys are the establishment now. Playing the "poor little stomped on me" "
Freedom of the press does not go away even for a large company. Besides, anyone is "poor little stomped me" if the government threatens to muzzle them.
Here is Mario Cuomo making an argument against censoring broadcasters just because someone does not like their opinions: "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press."
I support the right of content-creators in all media (TV, internet, radio, newspaper, etc) to exercise control over the political content of their own material, even if someone does not like it and wants it censored.