Actually I have been, and it was a snap to walk everywhere I wanted to go. That's why I questioned if the 'burbs were the cause of the need for improvements, since a tourist is hardly a sufficient sampling of the population to determine a need for transit infrastructure.
Things to consider about Seattle's transport system would be the potential for a cripling earthquake or mudslide, as well as the water that is everywhere.
When I was there, coming in on the bus, the traffic was as bad or worse than getting out of New York on the bus, and I never drove downtown myself, but it seemed like downtown traffic was manageable. A person I met also, come to think of it, complained they couldn't get back home by bus at a late hour, so they had to crash downtown for the night after a baseball game.
I found this on the forum linked, it looks like it might work for digital camera displays too, although I'd like to test it before recommending it to my family and friends. If it doesn't remove cleanly after many weeks or months, then it's not a great idea.
"Jase Roberts Joined: Sep, 2005 Posts: 1 I keep my cell phone in my jeans pocket, and used to have major problems with scratching (to the point where it was very hard to read). I found that a piece of clear packing tape cut carefully to the size of the screen worked great and didn't leave any residue when I removed it. If you trim it to the size carefully, it'll stay on well. Maybe try sticking an oversize piece on, trace the screen with a Sharpie marker, then remove it and trim it exactly. Costs nothing and provides good protection that you can replace easily when you need to. "
I'm sure he would have too, had his city not been invaded and he were still in possession of most of Europe? Don't be a dense person, it doesn't help you win your argument.
Seattle didn't strike me as a place that needs a monorail, unless the outerlying 'burbs don't have a viable link with the other parts of the city?
New York would need one, if it weren't for the subway. I bet the council got the idea for a monorail from watching Batman Begins. They saw Gotham City had one, and wanted one too.
Sorry I don't have a Simpsons joke to share. So my work here is done.
A robot doesn't have to have legs, or lack wings. Saying a robot can't have wings is robot discrimination, and is a violation of the Robot-Human treaty of 2001. Prepare to have your service line discontinued, to be in compliance.
"I can only pray the rest of your countrymen have a better respect for the rights of the press than you."
In Capitalist Jesusland, O'Idiot preys YOU!
But seriously, when you'd go to bat for the "rights" of someone to lie to the public on behalf of the government, to preserve a "free press", then something's gone horribly wrong between your reasoning and outcome. Your boat is sinking, and you're more concerned with keeping the motor running than bailing.
Sure censorship can be done wrong, but it can be done right too. Was the world wrong to censor Hitler by killing him? The sad truth is some people just need killin', and some just need censoring, when the normal checks and balances just aren't working. Unless you want Bill O' choosing your next boy king, then I'd recommend you find a way to get him and those like him out of the top rankings of your TV. Either let corporate greed run your life, or take it back and deal with the consequences of lingering censorship later.
"Neither O'Reilly nor Stewart are on the public airwaves, genius. They are both on cable.
And using the phrase "government shrills" to describe those you disagree with doesn't change a thing. "
SHILL. It's a word that means to bid up your own [auction] while pretending to be unbiased; although Bill is pretty shrill too, I can see how you misunderstood.
These days, cable might as well be the airwaves it's so ubiquitous. And The Daily Show is on CTV here, not cable, just for your information. The CRTC has decided to let Canadians watch Fox News legally, which obviously I have mixed feelings about, because although they might be as good a live news station as CNN, like CNN they have crappy analysis of events. I'm not nearly as confident in my countrymen's ability to pick out the lies on Fox News as I'd have to be to be pefectly ok with it being widely available.
Where there isn't sufficient education to ward off government brainwashing, censorship is the public's only defence against a hostile government's [mis]information campaign. Look at China, and their Great Firewall, and ban on subversive forgeign blogs [to keep out INFORMATION in that case]. Look up WWII history, I'm sure you'll find warring nations had laws prohibitting radio broadcasts from being publicly transmitted to ward off propaganda infiltration. Canada and the USA might not be at war, but there is a trade war for instance, and not enough Canadians know the facts about it to be confident that Bill O'Idiot is blowing smoke when he starts telling his lies.
"So... that pretty much encompases the entire province I'd say."
Sweet joke. Yeah they just put a tower up on Spy Hill, Wood Mountain, and Climax for redundancy, as a tower anywhere would serve all locations, or at least the edges of towns facing the towers.
For those that don't get the joke, there are no towers in any of those three places that sound like high elevations, and SK has an un-deserved reputation for being a completely flat wheat field because that's what it looks like from the Trans Canada Highway through the southern grain belt. Nearly half of the province is actually trees, lakes, rocks, and brush.
As another pointed out, your mocking of the ACLU is precious irony.
"the First Amendment (since you're a foreigner, you're probably not familiar with it)" Can I plead the Fifth and not answer that?;-) Not I didn't have to look that one up. Good thing you've got your Second handy, you can just show me your bare arm and I'll run away now.
Just because you know nothing else of the world, or even your neighbouring country, doesn't mean foreigners don't know anything about your country. Canada has freedom of expression, and a free press too, we just go about it a different way. People can't say openly racist things on the air trying to incite hatred against an identifable group, or you'll get fined or worse. Look up Ahenakew's trial if you'd like to learn more about recent case law in Canada. And as best as I can tell, it's only our politicians who sometimes lie to us, not our journalists. Your news media might want to try it sometime - being honest that is.
Actually I'm pro-American, I want America to do well because when it does Canada will do well to [as long as you don't get bigger heads and try to take us over in a hostile way].
I'm just anti-American-administration. It's openly hostile to Canadian and other foreign interests. Just ask Iraq. Or BC loggers. Or cattle ranchers. Need I go on? There's a lot of issues for a Canadian to get a little bitter over, especially when your government officials break international trade laws you agreed to abide by, and then tells Canada to "stop being emotional", and get back to the bargaining table so you can bend us over.
It's rather disheartening though that nearly one in two of your voting citizens voted for Bush after the horrors of the first term. You might be excused for letting him slip in the first time by tweaking the Florida results, but the second time is just uncalled for. Thanks for your effort in keeping him out, but somewhere your system failed and let a cronyism master take the reigns yet again. Hang on, the ride isn't over yet. If Congress doesn't ban blogging of political events, then it will be interesting reading the next few years for those on the outside looking in.
"Considering what you seem to think "free press" means (only people you agree with can get on TV, and anyone who speaks against that is banned for life)..."
You're so wrong. I haven't said that, what I'm saying is that government shills should not be allowed on public airwaves. Of course the challenge is to enforce that without encroaching upon free speech of the individual who wants to lie to support his friends in government, but for the good of society we have to find a way to better counter destructive people like Bill O'Idiot. Our free society depends on it, because without a real free press that provides facts about the government to the public, we're doomed to have only administrations like Paul Martin and George Bush that can get away with tax money stealing or murder.
The free press is supposed to prevent the government from flooding the media with misinformation that portrays the administration positively in negative situations. It's apparently not able to do that with a popular a-hole like Bill O' front and center, so we have to fix it. Your countrymen can't survive another three years of, "You're doing a great job Brownie."-spin
"its okay to have a few on that I don't like or that I disagree strongly with."
My point is though that it's NOT OK. It's not that I just don't like it and disagree with it, it's that Bill O' and his ilk, lie. They lie to protray their friends in government in a favourable way. It's the very thing that the free press is supposed to be working against, and he's got so many people fooled that even people like you who are in favour of a free press don't seem to care that he's subverting the purpose of the free press. A free press is supposed to stop the government from spreading lies and misinformation; if it doesn't do that, what good is it?
"You mean like how you think the Daily Show is news? "
Oh come on, do you honestly think I don't understand he's a satirist? The thing about satirists though, if they know their stuff, they are much funnier because you KNOW they know the facts but they put a spin on them that's supposed to be absurd. It's a job that is hard to look good at these days, with North American governments going out of their way to do absurd things in the guise of normalcy - much how a satirist works.
Even though Jon Stewart isn't a "real" news anchor, he's been responsible for brining important interviews and viewpoints to the American mainstream. He is maybe not an actual anchor, but he IS an actual type of journalists, and one I'd argue that does a better job at informing the public than many "real" journalists.
Because at the end of the day it's not the hat you wear, it's the good you do. And right now Jon is good for the American free press, and Bill O' is very bad.
"You can't ban him from the airwaves just because you disagree with him on something. Thats called censorship."
Why not? Someone LET him on the air, someone can TAKE him back off. Murdoch or whoever allows someone to tell lies for the government on an "independent" news channel is ruining your freedom of the press. The press is not free to tell lies, it's free to tell the TRUTH, whether it's FOR or AGAINST the government at the time. Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press.
You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time? There's much better, and true content that is entertaining and informative that can be put on the air for the same cost. You may be advocating for the letter of the law in regards to free press, but your support of Fox News reveals your true motive. As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth.
I'm not taking away Bill's right to speak [on a blog or on the street {or *gasp* even TV}], I'm asking that he be taken off the air in a context where gullible people think he's *NEWS* and not ego stroking entertainment for doofi.
== "How do any of those shows keep the people free to do that? What they in fact do is engage in criticising people in power. The point of the free press is the dissemination of information. And that's it."
How do you think Bill O' operates? He's *engaged* in shilling the administration. He's the antithesis of people criticizing the government AND he's disseminating mis-information. Please explain how he's supporting society's dream of a free press, by abusing his free speach to lie and manipulate?
I'm headed to bed now though, I'll see your attempt in the morning.
"I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".
Actually, it does. But anyway:"
No, it doesn't. See that? I just disagreed with you, and didn't lie to do it.
I could have said, "No, it doesn't because you're a dense mofo," which would have been lying to support my opposing position [or at least I assume it'd be lying?].
Oh look: "O'Reilly again falsely accused former guest of claiming that Bush "orchestrat[ed] 9-11" On the September 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly revived his false allegation that Jeremy Glick, a former guest on the program whose father was killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11" during his O'Reilly Factor appearance."
"O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch" In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents"
====== "Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.
Got it now?"
Canada and America go about this different ways, that's part of why we're butting heads right now. Canada seems to realize that the point of a free press is to keep the people free to criticize people in power, which explains shows like Air Farce, 22 Minutes, and the popularity of The Daily Show. Americans go more by the letter of the law, even if the spirit is stompped all to hell by people like Bill O'Idiot.
Consider this: Bill O'Idiot works for the government but the public either isn't aware of that, or they don't care because they don't know that their government would mislead them. Would it still be a free press if this government shill has so much air time disseminating government propoganda [lies]? Perhaps. But if anyone tries to contradict him on air he simply has to tell them to "SHUT UP" and then he wins and his viewers love him for it.
Don't forget the purpose of a free press. The free press is supposed to stop a government take over of factual information distribution, so they can disseminate whatever spin, lies, and brainwashing they can put out in order to stay in power. Do you really think Bill O'Idiot is contributing to that goal? He's on the wrong side; he's on the side that wants people like Jon Stewart to "SHUT UP!"
Your A) and B), while being poor jokes, is also pretty insensitive to your nation's closest ally. Take some responsibility for what you write and say - impressionable minds may be reading and take those things seriously. Although with Bill O'Idiot being one of your role models for a "free" press, I'd be surprised if you did.
"I didn't realise the Daily Show ran with the word "NEWS" in the corner these days." The "NEWS" thing from FOX NEWS is a deliberate poke at the other networks. Fox is biased crap, but they, unlike the other networks, are completely up-front about their slogan which the average Fox News viewer takes at face value. The Daily Show is the closest thing the US main stream media has to a hard hitting news program these days, asking the tough questions and interviewing real people in all their un-glory.
Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.
"Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you."
I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies". Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies. It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies. But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.
I have no problem with a dissenting opinion in the media on missle defence, troop strength in Iraq, or the effectiveness of FEMA, etc. I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again. It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.
Me: Truth good even if it hurts Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.
That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think: Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.
CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia. They cover important stories for Canadians, and even if they don't end up interviewing people you might agree with, they still talk to people, and give normal people air time as fairly as possible. They also do in-depth coverage of usually the top story, AFTER the rest of the news has been read, so you don't have to sit through blab if you don't want to.
As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining. As Jon Stewart said about Crossfire on CNN, Bill too is "Hurrrrting America". He may be entertainment, but he's providing lies and saying they are true and verified and because he's broadcast with the word "NEWS" in the corner, the more gullible of the American nation take him at face value.
If Bill O' had a blog and no TV show I'm sure crackpots and those who enjoy real-life parody would continue to support him, but for a station to put him on the air is completely irresponsible. If they loved their country and were actually commited to being fair and balanced and informing the public, they'd be ashamed to have someone like him working for them. Money talks, but look who has the money in China, Iran, etc. Do you really want the people with the most money doing your talking?
If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences. And there are differences, although on some stations it's hard to tell with some Canadian broadcasts trying to use the American "non-news" model.
We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time. People who lie that much do not belong on a regular cable channel on a show that claims to be fair and balanced. It'd be ok if he was on the Comedy Network, but so many people think he's seriously telling them the truth about whatever he's talking about. They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press.
Perhaps we just need to teach our children to think more critically, instead of asuming that every white guy in a suit on TV knows what they are talking about if they either praise Jesus, or Bush.
The problem may be more keeping the content accessible, once you've sufficiently annonymized yourself so you can keep publishing. Because for every One blogger in an oppressive country, there will be 3 government workers with the task of silencing that person, and making sure anyone who reads the subversive material will be afraid to pass on the information to others.
""A call for free elections... has a maximum online life of about half an hour," Pain writes of censorship in China."
We don't know how lucky we are to be in areas that still have an essentially free [although lackluster] press.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I have been, and it was a snap to walk everywhere I wanted to go. That's why I questioned if the 'burbs were the cause of the need for improvements, since a tourist is hardly a sufficient sampling of the population to determine a need for transit infrastructure.
Things to consider about Seattle's transport system would be the potential for a cripling earthquake or mudslide, as well as the water that is everywhere.
When I was there, coming in on the bus, the traffic was as bad or worse than getting out of New York on the bus, and I never drove downtown myself, but it seemed like downtown traffic was manageable. A person I met also, come to think of it, complained they couldn't get back home by bus at a late hour, so they had to crash downtown for the night after a baseball game.
It's added to my "list of things to sell". If the other person who replied doesn't do it first and make the news, that is.
Thanks for the idea, I'll give you 10% if I get incredibly rich from the sale.
I found this on the forum linked, it looks like it might work for digital camera displays too, although I'd like to test it before recommending it to my family and friends. If it doesn't remove cleanly after many weeks or months, then it's not a great idea.
"Jase Roberts
Joined: Sep, 2005
Posts: 1 I keep my cell phone in my jeans pocket, and used to have major problems with scratching (to the point where it was very hard to read). I found that a piece of clear packing tape cut carefully to the size of the screen worked great and didn't leave any residue when I removed it. If you trim it to the size carefully, it'll stay on well. Maybe try sticking an oversize piece on, trace the screen with a Sharpie marker, then remove it and trim it exactly. Costs nothing and provides good protection that you can replace easily when you need to. "
" Hitler killed himself, dumbass. "
I'm sure he would have too, had his city not been invaded and he were still in possession of most of Europe? Don't be a dense person, it doesn't help you win your argument.
Seattle didn't strike me as a place that needs a monorail, unless the outerlying 'burbs don't have a viable link with the other parts of the city?
New York would need one, if it weren't for the subway. I bet the council got the idea for a monorail from watching Batman Begins. They saw Gotham City had one, and wanted one too.
Sorry I don't have a Simpsons joke to share. So my work here is done.
A robot doesn't have to have legs, or lack wings. Saying a robot can't have wings is robot discrimination, and is a violation of the Robot-Human treaty of 2001. Prepare to have your service line discontinued, to be in compliance.
"I can only pray the rest of your countrymen have a better respect for the rights of the press than you."
In Capitalist Jesusland, O'Idiot preys YOU!
But seriously, when you'd go to bat for the "rights" of someone to lie to the public on behalf of the government, to preserve a "free press", then something's gone horribly wrong between your reasoning and outcome. Your boat is sinking, and you're more concerned with keeping the motor running than bailing.
Sure censorship can be done wrong, but it can be done right too. Was the world wrong to censor Hitler by killing him? The sad truth is some people just need killin', and some just need censoring, when the normal checks and balances just aren't working. Unless you want Bill O' choosing your next boy king, then I'd recommend you find a way to get him and those like him out of the top rankings of your TV. Either let corporate greed run your life, or take it back and deal with the consequences of lingering censorship later.
"Neither O'Reilly nor Stewart are on the public airwaves, genius. They are both on cable.
And using the phrase "government shrills" to describe those you disagree with doesn't change a thing. "
SHILL. It's a word that means to bid up your own [auction] while pretending to be unbiased; although Bill is pretty shrill too, I can see how you misunderstood.
These days, cable might as well be the airwaves it's so ubiquitous. And The Daily Show is on CTV here, not cable, just for your information. The CRTC has decided to let Canadians watch Fox News legally, which obviously I have mixed feelings about, because although they might be as good a live news station as CNN, like CNN they have crappy analysis of events. I'm not nearly as confident in my countrymen's ability to pick out the lies on Fox News as I'd have to be to be pefectly ok with it being widely available.
Where there isn't sufficient education to ward off government brainwashing, censorship is the public's only defence against a hostile government's [mis]information campaign. Look at China, and their Great Firewall, and ban on subversive forgeign blogs [to keep out INFORMATION in that case]. Look up WWII history, I'm sure you'll find warring nations had laws prohibitting radio broadcasts from being publicly transmitted to ward off propaganda infiltration. Canada and the USA might not be at war, but there is a trade war for instance, and not enough Canadians know the facts about it to be confident that Bill O'Idiot is blowing smoke when he starts telling his lies.
"So... that pretty much encompases the entire province I'd say."
Sweet joke. Yeah they just put a tower up on Spy Hill, Wood Mountain, and Climax for redundancy, as a tower anywhere would serve all locations, or at least the edges of towns facing the towers.
For those that don't get the joke, there are no towers in any of those three places that sound like high elevations, and SK has an un-deserved reputation for being a completely flat wheat field because that's what it looks like from the Trans Canada Highway through the southern grain belt. Nearly half of the province is actually trees, lakes, rocks, and brush.
Move to Saskatchewan:0 4_news_releases/sasktel_announces_communitynet_dep loyment_schedule.html
http://www.sasktel.com/about_sasktel/news_room/20
With the spread of Community Net II wireless land based line-of-sight internet access in rural Saskatchewan, I wonder how long until more communities set up their own podcasts here. All I'm aware of so far is an independent TV station out of Indian Head, SK. I'll try to look it up and give a link for that later.
As another pointed out, your mocking of the ACLU is precious irony.
;-) Not I didn't have to look that one up. Good thing you've got your Second handy, you can just show me your bare arm and I'll run away now.
"the First Amendment (since you're a foreigner, you're probably not familiar with it)"
Can I plead the Fifth and not answer that?
Just because you know nothing else of the world, or even your neighbouring country, doesn't mean foreigners don't know anything about your country. Canada has freedom of expression, and a free press too, we just go about it a different way. People can't say openly racist things on the air trying to incite hatred against an identifable group, or you'll get fined or worse. Look up Ahenakew's trial if you'd like to learn more about recent case law in Canada. And as best as I can tell, it's only our politicians who sometimes lie to us, not our journalists. Your news media might want to try it sometime - being honest that is.
Actually I'm pro-American, I want America to do well because when it does Canada will do well to [as long as you don't get bigger heads and try to take us over in a hostile way].
I'm just anti-American-administration. It's openly hostile to Canadian and other foreign interests. Just ask Iraq. Or BC loggers. Or cattle ranchers. Need I go on? There's a lot of issues for a Canadian to get a little bitter over, especially when your government officials break international trade laws you agreed to abide by, and then tells Canada to "stop being emotional", and get back to the bargaining table so you can bend us over.
It's rather disheartening though that nearly one in two of your voting citizens voted for Bush after the horrors of the first term. You might be excused for letting him slip in the first time by tweaking the Florida results, but the second time is just uncalled for. Thanks for your effort in keeping him out, but somewhere your system failed and let a cronyism master take the reigns yet again. Hang on, the ride isn't over yet. If Congress doesn't ban blogging of political events, then it will be interesting reading the next few years for those on the outside looking in.
"Considering what you seem to think "free press" means (only people you agree with can get on TV, and anyone who speaks against that is banned for life)..."
You're so wrong. I haven't said that, what I'm saying is that government shills should not be allowed on public airwaves. Of course the challenge is to enforce that without encroaching upon free speech of the individual who wants to lie to support his friends in government, but for the good of society we have to find a way to better counter destructive people like Bill O'Idiot. Our free society depends on it, because without a real free press that provides facts about the government to the public, we're doomed to have only administrations like Paul Martin and George Bush that can get away with tax money stealing or murder.
The free press is supposed to prevent the government from flooding the media with misinformation that portrays the administration positively in negative situations. It's apparently not able to do that with a popular a-hole like Bill O' front and center, so we have to fix it. Your countrymen can't survive another three years of, "You're doing a great job Brownie."-spin
"its okay to have a few on that I don't like or that I disagree strongly with."
My point is though that it's NOT OK. It's not that I just don't like it and disagree with it, it's that Bill O' and his ilk, lie. They lie to protray their friends in government in a favourable way. It's the very thing that the free press is supposed to be working against, and he's got so many people fooled that even people like you who are in favour of a free press don't seem to care that he's subverting the purpose of the free press. A free press is supposed to stop the government from spreading lies and misinformation; if it doesn't do that, what good is it?
Not technically a dupe. But it might as well be I'm saying.
-Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places-
"You mean like how you think the Daily Show is news? "
Oh come on, do you honestly think I don't understand he's a satirist? The thing about satirists though, if they know their stuff, they are much funnier because you KNOW they know the facts but they put a spin on them that's supposed to be absurd. It's a job that is hard to look good at these days, with North American governments going out of their way to do absurd things in the guise of normalcy - much how a satirist works.
Even though Jon Stewart isn't a "real" news anchor, he's been responsible for brining important interviews and viewpoints to the American mainstream. He is maybe not an actual anchor, but he IS an actual type of journalists, and one I'd argue that does a better job at informing the public than many "real" journalists.
Because at the end of the day it's not the hat you wear, it's the good you do. And right now Jon is good for the American free press, and Bill O' is very bad.
"You can't ban him from the airwaves just because you disagree with him on something. Thats called censorship."
Why not? Someone LET him on the air, someone can TAKE him back off. Murdoch or whoever allows someone to tell lies for the government on an "independent" news channel is ruining your freedom of the press. The press is not free to tell lies, it's free to tell the TRUTH, whether it's FOR or AGAINST the government at the time. Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press.
You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time? There's much better, and true content that is entertaining and informative that can be put on the air for the same cost. You may be advocating for the letter of the law in regards to free press, but your support of Fox News reveals your true motive. As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth.
I'm not taking away Bill's right to speak [on a blog or on the street {or *gasp* even TV}], I'm asking that he be taken off the air in a context where gullible people think he's *NEWS* and not ego stroking entertainment for doofi.
==
"How do any of those shows keep the people free to do that? What they in fact do is engage in criticising people in power.
The point of the free press is the dissemination of information. And that's it."
How do you think Bill O' operates? He's *engaged* in shilling the administration. He's the antithesis of people criticizing the government AND he's disseminating mis-information. Please explain how he's supporting society's dream of a free press, by abusing his free speach to lie and manipulate?
I'm headed to bed now though, I'll see your attempt in the morning.
"I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".
Actually, it does. But anyway:"
No, it doesn't. See that? I just disagreed with you, and didn't lie to do it.
I could have said, "No, it doesn't because you're a dense mofo," which would have been lying to support my opposing position [or at least I assume it'd be lying?].
======
All your cite are belong to MediaMatters.org
Oh look:
"O'Reilly again falsely accused former guest of claiming that Bush "orchestrat[ed] 9-11"
On the September 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly revived his false allegation that Jeremy Glick, a former guest on the program whose father was killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11" during his O'Reilly Factor appearance."
"O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch"
In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents"
======
"Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.
Got it now?"
Canada and America go about this different ways, that's part of why we're butting heads right now. Canada seems to realize that the point of a free press is to keep the people free to criticize people in power, which explains shows like Air Farce, 22 Minutes, and the popularity of The Daily Show. Americans go more by the letter of the law, even if the spirit is stompped all to hell by people like Bill O'Idiot.
It is late, so I'll give you the night to sleep on it.6 27274
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163127&cid=13
Consider this:
Bill O'Idiot works for the government but the public either isn't aware of that, or they don't care because they don't know that their government would mislead them. Would it still be a free press if this government shill has so much air time disseminating government propoganda [lies]? Perhaps. But if anyone tries to contradict him on air he simply has to tell them to "SHUT UP" and then he wins and his viewers love him for it.
Don't forget the purpose of a free press. The free press is supposed to stop a government take over of factual information distribution, so they can disseminate whatever spin, lies, and brainwashing they can put out in order to stay in power. Do you really think Bill O'Idiot is contributing to that goal? He's on the wrong side; he's on the side that wants people like Jon Stewart to "SHUT UP!"
Your A) and B), while being poor jokes, is also pretty insensitive to your nation's closest ally. Take some responsibility for what you write and say - impressionable minds may be reading and take those things seriously. Although with Bill O'Idiot being one of your role models for a "free" press, I'd be surprised if you did.
"I didn't realise the Daily Show ran with the word "NEWS" in the corner these days."
The "NEWS" thing from FOX NEWS is a deliberate poke at the other networks. Fox is biased crap, but they, unlike the other networks, are completely up-front about their slogan which the average Fox News viewer takes at face value. The Daily Show is the closest thing the US main stream media has to a hard hitting news program these days, asking the tough questions and interviewing real people in all their un-glory.
Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.
"Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you."
I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies". Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies. It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies. But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.
I have no problem with a dissenting opinion in the media on missle defence, troop strength in Iraq, or the effectiveness of FEMA, etc. I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again. It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.
Me: Truth good even if it hurts
Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.
That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think:
Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.
CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia. They cover important stories for Canadians, and even if they don't end up interviewing people you might agree with, they still talk to people, and give normal people air time as fairly as possible. They also do in-depth coverage of usually the top story, AFTER the rest of the news has been read, so you don't have to sit through blab if you don't want to.
As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining. As Jon Stewart said about Crossfire on CNN, Bill too is "Hurrrrting America". He may be entertainment, but he's providing lies and saying they are true and verified and because he's broadcast with the word "NEWS" in the corner, the more gullible of the American nation take him at face value.
If Bill O' had a blog and no TV show I'm sure crackpots and those who enjoy real-life parody would continue to support him, but for a station to put him on the air is completely irresponsible. If they loved their country and were actually commited to being fair and balanced and informing the public, they'd be ashamed to have someone like him working for them. Money talks, but look who has the money in China, Iran, etc. Do you really want the people with the most money doing your talking?
"We should rename TV to the propaganda box."
If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences. And there are differences, although on some stations it's hard to tell with some Canadian broadcasts trying to use the American "non-news" model.
We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time. People who lie that much do not belong on a regular cable channel on a show that claims to be fair and balanced. It'd be ok if he was on the Comedy Network, but so many people think he's seriously telling them the truth about whatever he's talking about. They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press.
Perhaps we just need to teach our children to think more critically, instead of asuming that every white guy in a suit on TV knows what they are talking about if they either praise Jesus, or Bush.
The problem may be more keeping the content accessible, once you've sufficiently annonymized yourself so you can keep publishing. Because for every One blogger in an oppressive country, there will be 3 government workers with the task of silencing that person, and making sure anyone who reads the subversive material will be afraid to pass on the information to others.
... has a maximum online life of about half an hour," Pain writes of censorship in China."
""A call for free elections
We don't know how lucky we are to be in areas that still have an essentially free [although lackluster] press.