How Can the Media Operate in the National Interest
george landry
bureaucrats regulate interstate commerce and make the laws?
I thought that was the function of Congress. It appears that
we no longer have Democracy in America, but a Dictatorship, and
that our First Amendment right to a free press has been violated.
Stuart Grey
george landry wrote:
> When it is owned by Globalists?
Start your own newspaper/website. You are completely free to
do so. Your problem seems to be that no one cares to hear
what you have to say, so you complain about OTHER people
having a right to free speech as if it infringes upon your
own? Even globalists, damn their black hearts, have a right
to free speech.
> And since when do unelected
> bureaucrats regulate interstate commerce and make the laws?
Since the people voted to put people in office that wanted
to operate that way.
> I thought that was the function of Congress.
Yes. Congress picks the bureaucrats to do their dirty work;
that way their hands look clean. "Oh, we'll get those
bureaucrat scoundrels!" the congressman says. Of course, he
is the one who told the bureaucrat to do the dirty deed in
the first place.
> It appears that
> we no longer have Democracy in America, but a Dictatorship,
We voted it in. Get over it.
> and
> that our First Amendment right to a free press has been violated.
I see you exercising your right to free speech, so you're
not being very rational about this.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr
wrote:
I'm optimistic. In the past, papers could say just anything and no one
would no any different, really.
There was not a second opinion. TV - provides some check on the local
paper. But now with the internet - there are lots of people busting
the mediaheads when they get it wrong.
Now - will the internet coalesce into common ownership, all of us
gravitating to the news page of AOL?
I think not. I'm gonna check out Josh Marshall and Bob Somersby who
sure as shootin are going to bust Maureen Dowd when she goes haywire.
OF course, the govt will soon require our computers to identify
themselves - and tyranny could kill off the undesirables, I suppose.
But for now - we should see some improvement.
.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr
wrote:
>
>
>george landry wrote:
>> When it is owned by Globalists?
>
>Start your own newspaper/website. You are completely free to
>do so. Your problem seems to be that no one cares to hear
>what you have to say, so you complain about OTHER people
>having a right to free speech as if it infringes upon your
>own? Even globalists, damn their black hearts, have a right
>to free speech.
Their speech isn't free - it's purchased with campaign contributions.
To give them monopoly ownership in local markets.
Not free at all - costs a lot.
A monopoly is not what we intended with free speech. Free speech
intended many voices - not a single voice.
The idea is that from the WIDE DIVERSITY of ideas which "free speech"
would permit, the truth might be in there, and the truth would be
likely to bubble up to the public.
But when you permit monopoly ownership - that variety - the essence of
the benefits of "free speech" dies off.
Think about the MECHANISM whereby free speech leads to good things -
and whether monopoly ownership in local markets - fits within that
mechanism.
mellstrrr
"George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr" <spa...@not.com> wrote in message
news:2a8ldvobrevg87rel...@4ax.com...
> On 1 Jun 2003 15:15:41 -0700, per...@mailandnews.com (george landry)
> wrote:
>
> >When it is owned by Globalists? And since when do unelected
> >bureaucrats regulate interstate commerce and make the laws?
> >I thought that was the function of Congress. It appears that
> >we no longer have Democracy in America, but a Dictatorship, and
> >that our First Amendment right to a free press has been violated.
>
>
> OF course, the govt will soon require our computers to identify
> themselves - and tyranny could kill off the undesirables, I suppose.
>
Oh sure. Make it all nice, clean, and sanitized out here so *you* can
continue to live in a vacum.
Ignorance is bliss--so, apparently, is denial.
mellstrr
Stuart Grey
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:43:01 GMT, Stuart Grey <us...@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>george landry wrote:
>>
>>>When it is owned by Globalists?
>>
>>Start your own newspaper/website. You are completely free to
>>do so. Your problem seems to be that no one cares to hear
>>what you have to say, so you complain about OTHER people
>>having a right to free speech as if it infringes upon your
>>own? Even globalists, damn their black hearts, have a right
>>to free speech.
>
>
> Their speech isn't free - it's purchased with campaign contributions.
You're an idiot. Mistaking dual meanings of words is a fundamental
logical error.
> To give them monopoly ownership in local markets.
>
> Not free at all - costs a lot.
Start your own paper and stop your pathetic bitching that
you can't control and dictate what someone else says in their
paper.
Your problem is that no one wants to listen to your stupid
drivel.
Well, stop and contemplate why that might be.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr
wrote:
>
>
>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:43:01 GMT, Stuart Grey <us...@example.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>george landry wrote:
>>>
>>>>When it is owned by Globalists?
>>>
>>>Start your own newspaper/website. You are completely free to
>>>do so. Your problem seems to be that no one cares to hear
>>>what you have to say, so you complain about OTHER people
>>>having a right to free speech as if it infringes upon your
>>>own? Even globalists, damn their black hearts, have a right
>>>to free speech.
>>
>>
>> Their speech isn't free - it's purchased with campaign contributions.
>
>You're an idiot. Mistaking dual meanings of words is a fundamental
>logical error.
>
I didn't mistake the meanings. I exploited the duality to make my own
different but related point in a somewhat spicy way.
>
>> To give them monopoly ownership in local markets.
>>
>> Not free at all - costs a lot.
>
>Start your own paper and stop your pathetic bitching that
>you can't control and dictate what someone else says in their
>paper.
Nice theory. It lead to a small number of voices.
Presumably for good economic reasons - the number of cities with more
than one paper reaching most folks has steadily declined.
You cited free speech presumably as something valuable - but you seem
not to understand why it is valuable.
We get to the truth, and get better government because of that,
because free speech - in the past - has lead to diversity of ideas.
>
>Your problem is that no one wants to listen to your stupid
>drivel.
>
>Well, stop and contemplate why that might be.
Free speech is an idea premised on a diversity of views.
You're missing the boat to view the new consolidation
Roger
"george landry" <per...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:2390a86a.0306...@posting.google.com...
george landry
for the Congress to turn its powers over to the Executive Branch.
Any "rule" made by these unelected bureaucrats is unconstitutional
and therefore null and void. This has been codified by the Supreme
Court in Marbury vs Madison.
We have a government that is guilty of High Treason and Sedition,
and is trying to turn our Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical
police state. They are stealing our money with impunity, and will
eventually reduce our country to a populace of street people, soup
kitchens, and bread lines; while they live in the lap of luxury with
their ill gotten gains. Welcome to the Luciferian New World Order!
An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any
original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited,
and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the
Constitution was written.
-- Marbury vs. Madison
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having
the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and
ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of
its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An
unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had
never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to
settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow
that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no
power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts
performed under it ....
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An
unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.
Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land,
it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are
bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<BbCCa.18$gD1.1...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
AllYou!
> It is a violation of the Separation of Powers of the Constitution
> for the Congress to turn its powers over to the Executive Branch.
> Any "rule" made by these unelected bureaucrats is unconstitutional
> and therefore null and void. This has been codified by the Supreme
> Court in Marbury vs Madison.
That decision did no such thing. Instead, it established the power of the
USSC to decide the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. Also,
Congress *can* delegate the implementation of some of its powers to the
executive. But because Congress can always rescind that delegation, it
never gave up the power in the first place.
Your argument is flawed and failed.
mellstrrr
"Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:3EDAE09B...@example.net...
Funny--you answered it, didn't you?
Your problem is that you're a small-minded idiot who thinks he's 'smart'.
mellstrr--and those are the worst kinds of idiots...
Stuart Grey
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 05:29:01 GMT, Stuart Grey <us...@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 23:43:01 GMT, Stuart Grey <us...@example.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>george landry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>When it is owned by Globalists?
>>>>
>>>>Start your own newspaper/website. You are completely free to
>>>>do so. Your problem seems to be that no one cares to hear
>>>>what you have to say, so you complain about OTHER people
>>>>having a right to free speech as if it infringes upon your
>>>>own? Even globalists, damn their black hearts, have a right
>>>>to free speech.
>>>
>>>
>>>Their speech isn't free - it's purchased with campaign contributions.
>>
>>You're an idiot. Mistaking dual meanings of words is a fundamental
>>logical error.
>>
>
>
> I didn't mistake the meanings. I exploited the duality to make my own
> different but related point in a somewhat spicy way.
You're an idiot. You screwed up the meaning of "free" (no financial
cost) with "free" (as in having freedom), and now you're a stupid
enough to lie about it.
Not much point in even talking to an idiot and a liar.
Stuart Grey
mellstrrr
> So get your own press.
>
Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
mellstrr
Stuart Grey
mellstrrr wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC0181...@example.net...
>
>>So get your own press.
>>
>
>
> Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
>
Another blithering idiot who can't state a point.
Look, you dumb doofus, the law has been changed so
that it doesn't infringe on the right of individuals
to exercise free speech both with a newspaper and via
radio.
No one is stopping you from free speech. You have
something to say, start your own damned paper or
radio station, or BOTH! No one is stopping you any
more.
You're problem is that you know no one will listen
to or read your drivel if you try and make them pay
for it via a subscription or even advertising.
Stuart Grey
george landry wrote:
> When it is owned by Globalists?
So? Start your own paper. Or start your own radio station.
Now you can start both! This law is a stroke FOR free speech.
> And since when do unelected
> bureaucrats regulate interstate commerce and make the laws?
Since the congress told them too.
> I thought that was the function of Congress.
Yeah. That's why they told the executive branch to do it.
> It appears that
> we no longer have Democracy in America, but a Dictatorship, and
> that our First Amendment right to a free press has been violated.
HA! Now we get down to the real beef Mr. Landry has; he
hates the country and wants to tell thinly veiled lies
against America. We don't restrict people from having
multiple ways to exercise free speech thus, Landry
tells us (and he's serious!) that this INFRINGES upon
free speech.
Let's see; the prior situation was that the government
would tell you that you couldn't own both a newspaper
and a radio station. Now, the government lets you
exercise free speech regardless. Landry foolishly calls
this elimination of the infringement on free speech
a violation of the free press.
I hate the globalist, but an objective person would
see this change as FOR free speech. Unobjective idiots
see it as otherwise.
AllYou!
"mellstrrr" <mell...@spamthis.com> wrote in message
news:bbh2c...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC0181...@example.net...
> > So get your own press.
> >
>
> Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
No, the loonie who has no clue is the one who wrote that only those who own
a press have freedom of the press.
mellstrrr
>
>
> mellstrrr wrote:
> > "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> > news:3EDC0181...@example.net...
> >
> >>So get your own press.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
> >
>
> Another blithering idiot who can't state a point.
>
> Look, you dumb doofus, the law has been changed so
> that it doesn't infringe on the right of individuals
> to exercise free speech both with a newspaper and via
> radio.
The law has been changed to make it easier to control a news market.
How is that in the national interest?
You don't know the answer, I can tell already...
>
> No one is stopping you from free speech. You have
> something to say, start your own damned paper or
> radio station, or BOTH! No one is stopping you any
> more.
>
> You're problem is that you know no one will listen
> to or read your drivel if you try and make them pay
> for it via a subscription or even advertising.
>
Your problem is that YOU missed the point altogether.
Look, chump, I could start a newspaper tomorrow and call it
'TheBe-All-And-End-All News'. No one is stopping me.
It doesn't do me a damn bit of good if I can't get it in peoples' hands.
How can I do that if Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve?
Get a fucking clue.
mellstrr
mellstrrr
"AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
news:vdp19jd...@corp.supernews.com...
I think he needed to work on his syntax. Other than that, he's pretty
dead-on.
In order to have a successful 'press', one needs, among other things,
READERS.
If Rupert Murdoch (for one example, I know there aren't many, but...) has
the market cornered, it's gonna cost me a LOT MORE to get those readers.
Because of the monopolization of the American press, the Average Joe is not
gonna be able to get those readers any time soon.
"Free press"? Hardly. More like "Pressco".
Sorta like the airwaves. Because of the monopolization allowed by the FCC
yesterday, said Average Joe would not be able to do what Ted Turner did 30
years ago.
Anybody who thinks we will continue to have a free, diversified press in
this country is a loonie.
mellstrr--I'm guessing that includes you?
AllYou!
And you say that the other moron needs to work on syntax? Yes, there's no
question that we have freedom of the press. You've not made any case, I
suspect because you know that you can't, that there isn't. The press is
prevalent from so many different sources that there's no way cross-ownership
in given markets represents a reduction of this freedom. There's network
TV, Cable TV, magazines, newspapers, radio, and internet just to name a few.
mellstrrr
> question that we have freedom of the press. You've not made any case, I
> suspect because you know that you can't, that there isn't. The press is
> prevalent from so many different sources that there's no way
cross-ownership
> in given markets represents a reduction of this freedom.
Ya think not, do ya?
Do me a favor. Pick up a big-city daily newspaper and sit in front of the
television set. Find a channel that the owner of the newspaper in your hands
also owns.
Once you do that, compare the two media to see see how 'diverse' the news
you get at that time really is.
You will only get what that owner wants to report.
You will not be getting diverse viewpoints.
You will not get both sides of a given story.
You will see, 99% of the time, the same news in the newspaper, that is on
this television channel that you're watching.
Sure, they can report what they want, making _them_ free.
But they're hardly diverse.
And if I want to report something different, then I better be able to
convince Rupert Murdoch that he needs to report it.
One owner does not equal a free press, no matter how many times you shriek
and cackle otherwise.
>There's network
> TV, Cable TV, magazines, newspapers, radio, and internet just to name a
few.
>
Let me know when you feel like addressing the actual point.
mellstrrr
Andy Carol
<mell...@spamthis.com> wrote:
> Sure, they can report what they want, making _them_ free.
>
> But they're hardly diverse.
>
> And if I want to report something different, then I better be able to
> convince Rupert Murdoch that he needs to report it.
>
> One owner does not equal a free press, no matter how many times you shriek
> and cackle otherwise.
While I would agree a diverse press is good for the country and I would
even agree with you that we don't have one, I can't find any reference
to "diveristy" in the Constitution. I can't even find anything about
any obligation of the media to report anything that's "good" for the
country at all.
The one thing I do know is that to force the press to be diverse, or
report things good for the country, or to have "both sides" would most
certainly make that press no longer "free".
I find it odd that people expect the government of all things to make
the press free. Isn't the government the thing we least want making
rules for the press?
The nice thing is that people who are unhappy about it are perfectly
free to start their own paper.
----- Andy
Roger
- A J Liebling
"mellstrrr" <mell...@spamthis.com> wrote in message
news:bbi8r...@enews1.newsguy.com...
AllYou!
There you go right there. You've set up an example that guarentees your
point but the problem lies in the set-up wherein you say "find a channel".
Your own example clearly indicates that there are a plethera of options.
AllYou!
Ixnei
> Do me a favor. Pick up a big-city daily newspaper and sit in front of
> the television set. Find a channel that the owner of the newspaper in
> your hands also owns.
>
> Once you do that, compare the two media to see see how 'diverse' the
> news you get at that time really is.
>
> You will only get what that owner wants to report.
>
> You will not be getting diverse viewpoints.
>
> You will not get both sides of a given story.
Good argument, but bad argument. B00b t00b oldz and oldzpaper media
*never* give you boths sides of any story. They all sold out quite a long
time ago.
> You will see, 99% of the time, the same news in the newspaper, that is
> on this television channel that you're watching.
Actually, you can compare *any* oldzpaper and any b00b t00b oldz these
daze and you effectively get identical stories and viewpoints. That why I
pretty much rely on those "sources" (if you can even call them that) only
for weather reports (which they still haven't managed to get right, after
all these years and millions spent on "models")...
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority
wrote:
>In article <bbiv1...@enews4.newsguy.com>, mellstrrr
><mell...@spamthis.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure, they can report what they want, making _them_ free.
>>
>> But they're hardly diverse.
>>
>> And if I want to report something different, then I better be able to
>> convince Rupert Murdoch that he needs to report it.
>>
>> One owner does not equal a free press, no matter how many times you shriek
>> and cackle otherwise.
>
>
>While I would agree a diverse press is good for the country and I would
>even agree with you that we don't have one, I can't find any reference
>to "diveristy" in the Constitution. I can't even find anything about
>any obligation of the media to report anything that's "good" for the
>country at all.
Constitution doesn't say anything about the Air Force either, should
we dismantle it ?
>
>The one thing I do know is that to force the press to be diverse, or
>report things good for the country, or to have "both sides" would most
>certainly make that press no longer "free".
Preventing monopolies does not mean forcing the press to be diverse.
Or are you claiming a monopoly equals a free press ?
>I find it odd that people expect the government of all things to make
>the press free. Isn't the government the thing we least want making
>rules for the press?
But allowing a monopoly to make rules for the press is OK.
>The nice thing is that people who are unhappy about it are perfectly
>free to start their own paper.
It nice to know there are people who really don't understand the
concept of a free press.
>----- Andy
mr_antone
Andy Carol
- I voted with the Majority <mr_antone@> wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 13:57:15 -0700, Andy Carol <aac...@aapple.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <bbiv1...@enews4.newsguy.com>, mellstrrr
> ><mell...@spamthis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, they can report what they want, making _them_ free.
> >>
> >> But they're hardly diverse.
> >>
> >> And if I want to report something different, then I better be able to
> >> convince Rupert Murdoch that he needs to report it.
> >>
> >> One owner does not equal a free press, no matter how many times you shriek
> >> and cackle otherwise.
> >
> >
> >While I would agree a diverse press is good for the country and I would
> >even agree with you that we don't have one, I can't find any reference
> >to "diveristy" in the Constitution. I can't even find anything about
> >any obligation of the media to report anything that's "good" for the
> >country at all.
>
> Constitution doesn't say anything about the Air Force either, should
> we dismantle it ?
The difference is the Constitution DOES promise a "free" press. If you
make laws saying they must be fair they no longer have that freedom.
> >
> >The one thing I do know is that to force the press to be diverse, or
> >report things good for the country, or to have "both sides" would most
> >certainly make that press no longer "free".
>
> Preventing monopolies does not mean forcing the press to be diverse.
> Or are you claiming a monopoly equals a free press ?
I am claiming that telling the press they must be "diverse", or
"present both sides", or "be fair" is to make them unfree.
>
> >I find it odd that people expect the government of all things to make
> >the press free. Isn't the government the thing we least want making
> >rules for the press?
>
> But allowing a monopoly to make rules for the press is OK.
The monopoly is not making rules for "the" press, they are making rules
for "their" press.
Freedom of the press is for the guy who OWNS the press.
>
> >The nice thing is that people who are unhappy about it are perfectly
> >free to start their own paper.
>
> It nice to know there are people who really don't understand the
> concept of a free press.
While I happen to like a diverse vibrant press that will investigate
and present both sides, I am not promised that in the Constitution.
But the man who owns the press is guarenteed freedom to use his press.
The promise is to the publisher, not the reader. Don't like it? The
nice thing is you can start your own press and be just as free. You
are not promised customers, but you are free to try.
----- Andy
Stuart Grey
mellstrrr wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC187A...@example.net...
>
>>
>>mellstrrr wrote:
>>
>>>"Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3EDC0181...@example.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>So get your own press.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
>>>
>>
>>Another blithering idiot who can't state a point.
>>
>>Look, you dumb doofus, the law has been changed so
>>that it doesn't infringe on the right of individuals
>>to exercise free speech both with a newspaper and via
>>radio.
>
>
> The law has been changed to make it easier to control a news market.
How so? It says that you can exercise your constitutional right
to a free press even if you own a radio station.
It in NO WAY stops you from starting your own press and printing
your deathless wisdom for your adoring fans.... Oh, wait, they
find what you have to say as silly as I find you.
The right to free speech doesn't mean anyone has to listen
to you!
> How is that in the national interest?
It enables all people to own and operate a free press. Freedom
of speech is in the national interest. We have a marketplace
of ideas. It is totally wrong to characterize this law as
giving certain people "control of a news market". Far from
it! It means that all people can own and operate a newspaper.
> You don't know the answer, I can tell already...
You do a lot of "let's pretend" in your little world,
don't you?
If you had a case, you'd have stated it by now. Tell
us how giving everyone the right to own a newspaper
regardless of the other assets you own limits free speech.
That ought to be a good one.
>>No one is stopping you from free speech. You have
>>something to say, start your own damned paper or
>>radio station, or BOTH! No one is stopping you any
>>more.
>>
>>You're problem is that you know no one will listen
>>to or read your drivel if you try and make them pay
>>for it via a subscription or even advertising.
>>
>
>
> Your problem is that YOU missed the point altogether.
HA! You're problem is that you are trying to defend the
idiot's position that letting all people operate a newspaper
limits free speech, when it does exactly the opposite!
> Look, chump, I could start a newspaper tomorrow and call it
> 'TheBe-All-And-End-All News'. No one is stopping me.
Yep.
> It doesn't do me a damn bit of good if I can't get it in peoples' hands.
People have a right to NOT buy your crap. That's just freedom,
buddy. Competition makes the market that way. It's about having
the choice to read your paper or the paper of the guy with the
radio station. You want to silence the guy with the radio station
and keep him out of the print media. That's anti free speech!
> How can I do that if Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve?
Write. Print. Sell. All without Mr. Murdoch's approval.
Mr. Murdoch, btw, is a left wing, pro-Gore man. He happens
to be greedy, however, and knows there is a market for a
"conservative" view.
> Get a fucking clue.
Got 'em. You want one? He's a freebie -- It's easier to pick
the side that's right, and then argue to support that.
To argue that you are going to advance free speech by shutting
people up is an idiot's argument. Funny you should pick that
to support!
mellstrrr
>
>mellstrr wrote:
>
>
> > How can I do that if Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve?
>
> Write. Print. Sell. All without Mr. Murdoch's approval.
Yes, and anyone who tries to get a foothold in his market is going to be in
for a big surprise.
Get this straight, chump--it has precious little to do with _the product_
and everything to do with _the distribution_. The corporatization of the
American media is the problem.
If you can't get it in people's hands, I don't care what you're writing
about, it ain't gonna go far.
I'm woefully sorry that you are too thick to understand that, but there it
is.
>
> Mr. Murdoch, btw, is a left wing, pro-Gore man. He happens
> to be greedy, however, and knows there is a market for a
> "conservative" view.
Well, finally, the true angle emerges. I already figured I was trying to
debate with a Repug, but that confirms it.
> > Got 'em. You want one? He's a freebie -- It's easier to pick
> the side that's right, and then argue to support that.
Oh, so in other words, you didn't come up with this on your own, you're just
parroting Rush and Hannity.
It figures...
mellstrr--you're on your own, pal, 'cuz there's nothing I can do for you...
Stuart Grey
mellstrrr wrote:
> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:vdp19jd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"mellstrrr" <mell...@spamthis.com> wrote in message
>>news:bbh2c...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>>
>>>"Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
>>>news:3EDC0181...@example.net...
>>>
>>>>So get your own press.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
>>
>>No, the loonie who has no clue is the one who wrote that only those who
>
> own
>
>>a press have freedom of the press.
>
>
> I think he needed to work on his syntax. Other than that, he's pretty
> dead-on.
>
> In order to have a successful 'press', one needs, among other things,
> READERS.
The constitution promises you the right to print your paper.
Who the hell are you to say other people can't print because
then the people won't buy YOUR paper? You have a right to
print, other's have a right to not buy.
> If Rupert Murdoch (for one example, I know there aren't many, but...) has
> the market cornered, it's gonna cost me a LOT MORE to get those readers.
Boo hoo. If you only have stupid crap like you've been posting
here to say, you're not going to have any readers at all! You'll
have to pay them to take your paper.
> Because of the monopolization of the American press, the Average Joe is not
> gonna be able to get those readers any time soon.
>
> "Free press"? Hardly. More like "Pressco".
>
> Sorta like the airwaves. Because of the monopolization allowed by the FCC
> yesterday, said Average Joe would not be able to do what Ted Turner did 30
> years ago.
>
> Anybody who thinks we will continue to have a free, diversified press in
> this country is a loonie.
Try your idea of a free press. Shut the fuck up and see
if that helps the rest of us get our word out. Wazzthat?
Say that infringes on YOUR right! Ah! The liberal can
see things ONLY from his own point of view! "Rights for
me but not you..." seems to be morons philosophy!
Stuart Grey
mellstrrr wrote:
> You will only get what that owner wants to report.
Your buddy Murdoch is a big Al Gore donor.
Murdoch owns Fox news, which does not support
Al Gore.
Wanna try again?
Seems you're a big baby because Murdoch knows
what sells, and liberal pap doesn't sell so
well anymore.
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority
wrote:
And to allow a monopoly would mean the end of any diversity and
fairness.
>
>>
>> >I find it odd that people expect the government of all things to make
>> >the press free. Isn't the government the thing we least want making
>> >rules for the press?
>>
>> But allowing a monopoly to make rules for the press is OK.
>
>The monopoly is not making rules for "the" press, they are making rules
>for "their" press.
>
>Freedom of the press is for the guy who OWNS the press.
>
>>
>> >The nice thing is that people who are unhappy about it are perfectly
>> >free to start their own paper.
>>
>> It nice to know there are people who really don't understand the
>> concept of a free press.
>
>While I happen to like a diverse vibrant press that will investigate
>and present both sides, I am not promised that in the Constitution.
>
>But the man who owns the press is guarenteed freedom to use his press.
>
>The promise is to the publisher, not the reader. Don't like it? The
>nice thing is you can start your own press and be just as free. You
>are not promised customers, but you are free to try.
And to allow a monopoly would make starting a press and succeeding
virtually impossible.
My point here is the best way to assure a diverse press would be to
prevent a monopoly of the press.
>----- Andy
mr_antone
Stuart Grey
mellstrrr wrote:
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDED62F...@example.net...
>
>>mellstrr wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>How can I do that if Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve?
>>
>>Write. Print. Sell. All without Mr. Murdoch's approval.
>
>
> Yes, and anyone who tries to get a foothold in his market is going to be in
> for a big surprise.
So, basically, you're saying that Rupert Murdoch, who donated
some $50,000 to Al Gore's presidential campaign, controls the
media:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/11/27/100803
Thus, we see, you are claiming that the media is controlled
by the left.
Reality, of course, is different from your fevered delusions.
Murdoch, a liberal, recognizes the market for conservative
views, and motivated by greed, appeals to the conservative
market.
When the chips are down, however, Murdoch uses the FNC to
defend liberals.
"Gore has also apparently forgotten that, without Murdoch's Fox News
Channel, George Bush would have likely won the 2000 race in a walk.
It was FNC's Carl Cameron who took an ancient arrest report documenting
Bush's 1976 DUI encounter with Maine police and turned it into a
national scandal just four days before the election, breaking the story
wide open after reporters for the Associated Press and other news
outlets had taken a pass on the information."
No one is stopping you from entering the market for news;
Rush Limbaugh did it, so you can too. Or are you saying you
don't have the talent that Limbaugh has? :-)
This crap about Murdoch not letting you in the market is just
that, crap.
> Get this straight, chump--it has precious little to do with _the product_
> and everything to do with _the distribution_. The corporatization of the
> American media is the problem.
You're a moron. You are your own worst enemy, and you live in
a delusional world.
Limbaugh has his "Limbaugh Letter". So, start your own website
and your own home publishing and get your word out! Your REAL
problem is that no one wants to listen to you because you're
a defeatist nutball loser who has nothing rational to say.
> If you can't get it in people's hands, I don't care what you're writing
> about, it ain't gonna go far.
>
> I'm woefully sorry that you are too thick to understand that, but there it
> is.
What a dumbshit! I have your writing in my hot little hands
even as I type. Your problem is, you're not worth spending
money on to get your idiot views.
Stuart Grey
Roger wrote:
> Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.
> - A J Liebling
And if your posting to the usenet, YOU OWN A PRESS.
Nothing stops you from posting to the usenet.
Nothing stops you from starting a e-zine, mailing list,
or a website with your opinions on it. For not
too much money, you can get started printing
out newsletters and mailing them snail mail, just
like your buddy Limbaugh. Limbaugh (and Reagan, for
that matter...) started out small, and he was successful
because he said things that people wanted to hear.
All this whining about media control is just BS.
Another example of how the left wing perceives itself
as helpless. God knows they are probably right, but
the left is their own enemy; the right isn't doing a
damn thing to 'em.
Stuart Grey
I listen to NPR (Negro, Pervert and Raghead) news,
and then I flip to one of the two conservative radio
stations once I've gone through NPR's "news" line up.
I read the far left local paper, and then I read the
WSJ.
When something hot is happening, I channel surf between
FNC and CNN.
There is no problem with diverse news sources out there.
All you have to do is LOOK for them.
If you're too damn dumb to flip channels or pick up
a different paper, that's your own problem.
Stuart Grey
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:38:41 -0700, Andy Carol <aac...@aapple.com>
> And to allow a monopoly would mean the end of any diversity and
> fairness.
...
> And to allow a monopoly would make starting a press and succeeding
> virtually impossible.
>
> My point here is the best way to assure a diverse press would be to
> prevent a monopoly of the press.
No one said anything about a monopoly. What the rule change is,
IF you own a newspaper in a market, you may NOW own a radio station,
too.
I can have 4 different local papers delivered to my door, and
there is a selection of national papers also.
There are dozens of radio stations I can listen to, some liberal,
some conservative.
There's no "monopoly". That's your straw dog and it doesn't hunt.
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority
wrote:
So you speak for the entire country.
We don't have 4 newspapers.
Only one, even the throw away papers were gobbled up.
The radio station and the TV station are owned by the paper.
Same voice. All the same. No difference. Almost word for word.
All the radios out here are conservative, no liberal voices at all.
Even the national press is in lock step. Same words, same voice.
The FCC change will make it worse.
mr_antone
Stuart Grey
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:14:09 GMT, Stuart Grey <us...@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:38:41 -0700, Andy Carol <aac...@aapple.com>
>>
>>>And to allow a monopoly would mean the end of any diversity and
>>>fairness.
>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>>And to allow a monopoly would make starting a press and succeeding
>>>virtually impossible.
>>>
>>>My point here is the best way to assure a diverse press would be to
>>>prevent a monopoly of the press.
>>
>>No one said anything about a monopoly. What the rule change is,
>>IF you own a newspaper in a market, you may NOW own a radio station,
>>too.
>>
>>I can have 4 different local papers delivered to my door, and
>>there is a selection of national papers also.
>>
>>There are dozens of radio stations I can listen to, some liberal,
>>some conservative.
>>
>>There's no "monopoly". That's your straw dog and it doesn't hunt.
>
>
> So you speak for the entire country.
> We don't have 4 newspapers.
> Only one, even the throw away papers were gobbled up.
Great! This is called "Market Entry". What you do is start
your own paper, and then let the vast, right wing conspiracy
buy your paper from you (i.e. "gobble up") and then start
yet another paper, and then repeat until you have all the
VRWC's money.
Oh, wait, that won't work because they don't have to "gobble
up" left wing liberal rags; the market for left wing liberal
rags is in decline.
Well, there's always left wing NPR and it's funding via
the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. At least you get
some of my dollars to spread liberal, pro-Democrat propaganda.
> The radio station and the TV station are owned by the paper.
> Same voice. All the same. No difference. Almost word for word.
> All the radios out here are conservative, no liberal voices at all.
> Even the national press is in lock step. Same words, same voice.
> The FCC change will make it worse.
So, if you think anyone wants to hear you, start your own.
Or are you staying Limbaugh can do something you can't?
Scott Kuli
Violated would be like what Yassir Arafat did when people applied for
licenses for newspapers in the Palestinian Authority; subverted would
be what happened (or rather didn't) that made David Rockefeller say
"thank you" to the media for being "discreet" about the plans of the
Bilderbergers. THAT is subversion. Of course, if we weren't lax about
how we defend our rights, no one would dare try to infringe upon them
in the way that some have recently.
On 1 Jun 2003 15:15:41 -0700, per...@mailandnews.com (george landry)
wrote:
>When it is owned by Globalists? And since when do unelected
>bureaucrats regulate interstate commerce and make the laws?
>I thought that was the function of Congress. It appears that
>we no longer have Democracy in America, but a Dictatorship, and
>that our First Amendment right to a free press has been violated.
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority
wrote:
As I said, same words, all in lock step.
Your comments prove my point.
Though I forgot to include "shrill".
mr_antone
Andy Carol
- I voted with the Majority <mr_antone@> wrote:
> As I said, same words, all in lock step.
> Your comments prove my point.
> Though I forgot to include "shrill".
They are? NPR and conservative talk radio are in "lock step"?
CBS, CNN and FOX are in lock step? FOX is way further to the right of
CNN. CBS is further to the left of CNN.
There are newspapers ranging from hyper left wingers to hyper
rightwinger.
You are promised that if you have a press you can say whatever you
want. You are not promised that other people's presses will say what
you want.
Don't like it? Take a crowbar to your wallet and start your own paper.
--- Andy
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority
wrote:
>In article <936b6bd38466d6c577c7b48c9c45506b@TeraNews>, Don't Blame Me
>- I voted with the Majority <mr_antone@> wrote:
>
>> As I said, same words, all in lock step.
>> Your comments prove my point.
>> Though I forgot to include "shrill".
>
>They are? NPR and conservative talk radio are in "lock step"?
>
>CBS, CNN and FOX are in lock step? FOX is way further to the right of
>CNN. CBS is further to the left of CNN.
>
>There are newspapers ranging from hyper left wingers to hyper
>rightwinger.
Hyper ? LOL
At a recent Bush press conference, all the questions were submitted to
Bush before the conference, so his crew could go over the answers and
prep Bush. The conference was scripted and the press went along. And
not a peep about it being scripted from any newspaper in this country.
All in lock step.
>You are promised that if you have a press you can say whatever you
>want. You are not promised that other people's presses will say what
>you want.
Never claimed otherwise. But to believe a monopoly is harmless shows
how far this country has dumbed down.
>
>Don't like it? Take a crowbar to your wallet and start your own paper.
Take your "Love it or Leave it" BS somewhere else.
>
>--- Andy
mr_antone
MonkeyPox
news:558495fd41073cc037a766321a6f8a30@TeraNews:
The 1950s called. They want Andy's outmoded way of thinking back.
>>--- Andy
>
> mr_antone
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Can I borrow a feeling?
http://www.mp3.com/gortician
Bass for your anus:
http://www.mp3.com/manticore
http://www.mp3.com/meterversusyard
http://www.mp3.com/highc
http://www.mp3.com/measurerecs.
"[The artwork of Andrew Penland] is REAL...what I mean by "real" is that
it made NEW THOUGHTS occur in my head, which would have never otherwise
occurred." --Full Force Frank
DJ
> bureaucrats regulate interstate commerce and make the laws?
> I thought that was the function of Congress. It appears that
> we no longer have Democracy in America, but a Dictatorship, and
> that our First Amendment right to a free press has been violated.
The national interest is (has become) the almighty dollar.
DJ
--
Andy Carol
- I voted with the Majority <mr_antone@> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:50:10 -0700, Andy Carol <aac...@aapple.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <936b6bd38466d6c577c7b48c9c45506b@TeraNews>, Don't Blame Me
> >- I voted with the Majority <mr_antone@> wrote:
> >
> >> As I said, same words, all in lock step.
> >> Your comments prove my point.
> >> Though I forgot to include "shrill".
> >
> >They are? NPR and conservative talk radio are in "lock step"?
> >
> >CBS, CNN and FOX are in lock step? FOX is way further to the right of
> >CNN. CBS is further to the left of CNN.
> >
> >There are newspapers ranging from hyper left wingers to hyper
> >rightwinger.
>
> Hyper ? LOL
>
> At a recent Bush press conference, all the questions were submitted to
> Bush before the conference, so his crew could go over the answers and
> prep Bush. The conference was scripted and the press went along. And
> not a peep about it being scripted from any newspaper in this country.
> All in lock step.
Really? The Peoples Weekly World just loved his speech?
> >You are promised that if you have a press you can say whatever you
> >want. You are not promised that other people's presses will say what
> >you want.
> Never claimed otherwise. But to believe a monopoly is harmless shows
> how far this country has dumbed down.
>
> >
> >Don't like it? Take a crowbar to your wallet and start your own paper.
>
> Take your "Love it or Leave it" BS somewhere else.
Who told you to leave? I gave you a solution. You keep shrieking and
wanting others to fix the problem but you are clearly unwilling to do
any heavy lifting on your own.
--- Andy
D-
The FCC hearings weren't about "Broadcast Quality, and the Public
Interest, Need, and Necessity."
It was mere meaningless dribble!
The Big Boys got what they wanted and the Public got the shaft, as usual!
--
Empowerment Communications -
Economic and Political Solutions -
Not Terrorism and Wars -
http://www.udarrell.com/my_pages2.htm
Stuart Grey
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 11:50:10 -0700, Andy Carol <aac...@aapple.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <936b6bd38466d6c577c7b48c9c45506b@TeraNews>, Don't Blame Me
>>- I voted with the Majority <mr_antone@> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As I said, same words, all in lock step.
>>>Your comments prove my point.
>>>Though I forgot to include "shrill".
>>
>>They are? NPR and conservative talk radio are in "lock step"?
>>
>>CBS, CNN and FOX are in lock step? FOX is way further to the right of
>>CNN. CBS is further to the left of CNN.
>>
>>There are newspapers ranging from hyper left wingers to hyper
>>rightwinger.
>
>
> Hyper ? LOL
>
> At a recent Bush press conference, all the questions were submitted to
> Bush before the conference, so his crew could go over the answers and
> prep Bush. The conference was scripted and the press went along. And
> not a peep about it being scripted from any newspaper in this country.
> All in lock step.
In the conservative up world, we engage brain before
shooting off mouth. It is good to make sure you have
the right answer.
I am not surprised that you have a game show mentality
and think that policy should be made on the fly with
little thought, but... you're a liberal. It's not
how the grown ups do things.
>>You are promised that if you have a press you can say whatever you
>>want. You are not promised that other people's presses will say what
>>you want.
>
> Never claimed otherwise. But to believe a monopoly is harmless shows
> how far this country has dumbed down.
How does changing the regulation so that more people can
own a radio station equate to monopoly? As I said, if you
think you have something worth saying, start your own radio
program like Limbaugh did.
>>Don't like it? Take a crowbar to your wallet and start your own paper.
>
>
> Take your "Love it or Leave it" BS somewhere else.
In other words, you don't want anyone to expect you to
do anything other than whine and lie. There's no "love it
or leave it" in this. If there is an unmet market niche,
start your own media.
CJS
mellstrrr wrote:
>
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDC187A...@example.net...
> >
> >
> > mellstrrr wrote:
> > > "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3EDC0181...@example.net...
> > >
> > >>So get your own press.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Ah. Another lemming misses the point completely...
> > >
> >
> > Another blithering idiot who can't state a point.
> >
> > Look, you dumb doofus, the law has been changed so
> > that it doesn't infringe on the right of individuals
> > to exercise free speech both with a newspaper and via
> > radio.
>
> The law has been changed to make it easier to control a news market.
But it is not necessarily viable. I'm currently working with a major
media company to figure out the ramifications of these changes, and I
can't make a good business case for them to go on a spending spree. If
these guys are confused about why they would want to expand into other
media, I think this change is going to be a big snoozer.
> How is that in the national interest?
Those laws were written before cable TV and the Internet. Let's not
even talk about the confusion around what a "market" means to
satellites...
> You don't know the answer, I can tell already...
Why do you think they'd merge? I'm not picking a fight, but I have a
decent understanding of the economics of these companies. I don't see
it. Yeah, there are a few situations, like the highly competitive
suburbans in the Philly area that could be a target, but these cases are
few and far between.
> > No one is stopping you from free speech. You have
> > something to say, start your own damned paper or
> > radio station, or BOTH! No one is stopping you any
> > more.
> >
> > You're problem is that you know no one will listen
> > to or read your drivel if you try and make them pay
> > for it via a subscription or even advertising.
> >
>
> Your problem is that YOU missed the point altogether.
>
> Look, chump, I could start a newspaper tomorrow and call it
> 'TheBe-All-And-End-All News'. No one is stopping me.
>
> It doesn't do me a damn bit of good if I can't get it in peoples' hands.
>
> How can I do that if Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve?
Well, most cities have a wide variety of newspapers, from major metros
to suburbans to free alternative weeklies. Do you think the Chicago
Reader gives a flying fuck what Uncle Rupie thinks?
> Get a fucking clue.
Well, that's pretty good advice.
Cheers...Craig
craig(underscore)shields@yahoo.C O M
http://www.vabene.net
---
I'm not dumb. I just have a command of thoroughly useless
information.
- Calvin (and Hobbes)
All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited
power.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people
who annoy me.
- Fred Allen
CJS
mellstrrr wrote:
>
> "Stuart Grey" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:3EDED62F...@example.net...
> >
> >mellstrr wrote:
> >
> >
> > > How can I do that if Rupert Murdoch doesn't approve?
> >
> > Write. Print. Sell. All without Mr. Murdoch's approval.
>
> Yes, and anyone who tries to get a foothold in his market is going to be in
> for a big surprise.
>
> Get this straight, chump--it has precious little to do with _the product_
> and everything to do with _the distribution_.
In what way? Newspapers piggyback delivery off of other papers all the
time. Or there are coin boxes, which are cheap to set up. Or there are
grocery store racks. Or are you talking about printing, in which case
there are plenty of contract printers willing to take the job?
> The corporatization of the
> American media is the problem.
>
> If you can't get it in people's hands, I don't care what you're writing
> about, it ain't gonna go far.
Getting it into their hands is easy, especially if there is demand.
> I'm woefully sorry that you are too thick to understand that, but there it
> is.
Hmmmmm. I've written articles for both the Newspaper Association of
America and the International Newspaper Marketing Association, and I
think you are wrong.
CJS
Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 22:14:09 GMT, Stuart Grey <us...@example.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Don't Blame Me - I voted with the Majority wrote:
> >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 19:38:41 -0700, Andy Carol <aac...@aapple.com>
> >
> >> And to allow a monopoly would mean the end of any diversity and
> >> fairness.
> >
> >...
> >
> >> And to allow a monopoly would make starting a press and succeeding
> >> virtually impossible.
> >>
> >> My point here is the best way to assure a diverse press would be to
> >> prevent a monopoly of the press.
> >
> >No one said anything about a monopoly. What the rule change is,
> >IF you own a newspaper in a market, you may NOW own a radio station,
> >too.
> >
> >I can have 4 different local papers delivered to my door, and
> >there is a selection of national papers also.
> >
> >There are dozens of radio stations I can listen to, some liberal,
> >some conservative.
> >
> >There's no "monopoly". That's your straw dog and it doesn't hunt.
>
> So you speak for the entire country.
> We don't have 4 newspapers.
> Only one, even the throw away papers were gobbled up.
Strange. Are you speaking of the New York Times, the Washington Post,
the USA Today, or the Chicago Tribune? Or the Wall Street Journal?
> The radio station and the TV station are owned by the paper.
Really? Would you care to name some other than WGN TV (a small cable
station) and the Chicago Tribune?
> Same voice. All the same. No difference. Almost word for word.
> All the radios out here are conservative, no liberal voices at all.
> Even the national press is in lock step. Same words, same voice.
> The FCC change will make it worse.
I think you fail to understand the economics of the situation.