Any thoughts - on this. . .

Palomar · 2004-11-09 11:27:58

It's a business decision. Newspaper publishers aren't out to inform the public or provide social commentary, first and foremost they're out to make money. If a segment of the paper's readership wants them to pull Doonesbury, and they're the only ones the publisher hears from, Doonesbury is gone.
A publisher making a business decision isn't censorship, no one is being silenced.

*That's an awfully sudden and rather broad-based "business decision," don't you think?

(That coming from a gal who isn't much into conspiracy theories and who generally isn't paranoid).

Seems you're equating all this with mere coincidence. Something tells me that's not so.

--Cindy

::edit:: I'm referring my comments primarily to the "Cartoonist Coffins" which I linked to (but yes, Doonesbury can definitely be included).

John Creighton · 2004-11-09 11:28:35

A publisher making a business decision isn't censorship, no one is being silenced.

How about censorship by the mob or censorship by the vocal minority or even the tyranny of the majority or corporate propaganda or news speak. I am not familiar with his cartoons so maybe the people had legitimate reason to complain. However, my first inclination is if they don’t like it why can’t they read something else. True freedom of the press is not just freedom from prosecution.

Thought police are thought police wherether they are part of the government populous or business.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-09 11:42:14

Seems you're equating all this with mere coincidence. Something tells me that's not so.

Not at all, in the case of Doonesbury I'm quite certain that pro-Bush people took offense at one strip or another, complained, and if such people represented a significant chunk of the readership the paper pulled it. They're deciding not to run a cartoon for "political" reasons, but no one is making them do so, except the bottom line. They have reason to believe the readers don't want it and they'll lose business if they keep running it, so it's out.

However, my first inclination is if they don’t like it why can’t they read something else.

Which is what I'm saying, the publisher doesn't want them to read something else, so they adapt.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean everyone is entitled to have their viewpoint published. For the most part publishers don't give a damn about free speech, they just print what sells, and conversely stop printing what doesn't.

BWhite · 2004-11-09 11:46:57

Quote
Doonsebury has been discontinued by a lot of various papers because of complaints...

So then they are being silenced.
It's a business decision. Newspaper publishers aren't out to inform the public or provide social commentary, first and foremost they're out to make money. If a segment of the paper's readership wants them to pull Doonesbury, and they're the only ones the publisher hears from, Doonesbury is gone.

Yup. I agree with Cobra on the facts.

As for the meaning and signficance of those facts? Well. . .

Hee! Hee!

Already, folks in Europe are boycotting American brands and Democrats are forming groups to boycott tourism in states that voted for Bush. Sorry Cindy, true Blue-ers ain't going to vacation in New Mexico. (Or maybe thats a good thing in the eyes of NM natives, I don't know.)

Of course, evangelicals have already organized boycotts of Disney because they started granting employee benefits to same sex domestic partners.

John Creighton · 2004-11-09 11:49:19

However, my first inclination is if they don’t like it why can’t they read something else.

Which is what I'm saying, the publisher doesn't want them to read something else, so they adapt.

I meant another article or cartoon not another paper. Who reads a paper cover to cover. If a paper becomes too political then it is not news it is propaganda. What ever happened to a balanced view. So some cartoons are anti bush maybe others will be anti Kerri. Besides aren’t politicians suppose to be made fun of. Where is their sence of hummor .

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-09 11:56:06

What ever happened to a balanced view. So some cartoons are anti bush maybe others will be anti Kerri. Besides aren’t politicians suppose to be made fun of. Where is their sence of hummor .

I'm not defending the mentality of people who complain about political cartoons, merely the response to such complaints by publishers.

John Creighton · 2004-11-09 12:00:02

I'm not defending the mentality of people who complain about political cartoons, merely the response to such complaints by publishers.

Right......when there is a which hunt save you own ass . The Nazis would be proud. Well just wait until the counter lawsuits start. I believe there will be a lawsuit soon launched against fox for unethical news practices.

Now your assignment as part of Hitler’s youth will be to report back any unloalty you observe weather it be your own family or your neighbors. Ever Watch Swig kids?

Palomar · 2004-11-09 12:04:40

Already, folks in Europe are boycotting American brands and Democrats are forming groups to boycott tourism in states that voted for Bush. Sorry Cindy, true Blue-ers ain't going to vacation in New Mexico. (Or maybe thats a good thing in the eyes of NM natives, I don't know.)
Of course, evangelicals have already organized boycotts of Disney because they started granting employee benefits to same sex domestic partners.

*I'm going to boycott EVERYTHING! :angry: -laugh-

Fine with me if tourism in NM decreases (:edit: Let them freeze their rumps off up in Cold Country, bwa-ha-ha-ha! It's warm and sunny here!!). Come to think of it, I wish more folks would STOP moving here as well (although I'm not a native to this state, so I really shouldn't say that).

Maybe then we'll see the jackrabbits, roadrunners, cottontails and coyotes on the edges of town like we used to. Before we started suffering from "sprawl."

Well just so our non-U.S. members know: I'm not boycotting French stuff, and haven't. I purchased something from France the other day, can't remember right now what :hm:

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-09 12:21:13

Now your assignment as part of Hitler’s youth will be to report back any unloalty you observe weather it be your own family or your neighbors. Ever Watch Swig kids?

Okay, before we go any further with this I have to ask this: Do you really want to compare a newspaper deciding to pull a comic strip to Nazi media controls? Really?

In which case, are you then arguing that everyone is entitled to be published? That refusal to do so is a violation of free speech?

BWhite · 2004-11-09 12:26:15

This thread was originally about the draft. Remember?

I just saw this quip on the MSNBC web site:

In the old days, "two-front war" meant fighting simultaneously in Europe and Asia. Now, apparently, it means Fallujah and Sadr City.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-09 12:30:51

In the old days, "two-front war" meant fighting simultaneously in Europe and Asia. Now, apparently, it means Fallujah and Sadr City.

Exactly. No perspective. Judging how a war is going by contrasting it to peacetime is absurd.

clark · 2004-11-09 12:32:07

I for one have an utter contempt for the reasons why such editorial cartoons, or other similar speech is curtailed by the complaints of sanctimonous holier-than-thous.

I don't want goven'ment telling me what i can and cannot read anymore than I want some right wing fanatic with a personal grudge against a point of view.

People get upset by these cartoons and complain. Guess what, they're supposed to get upset. they're supposed to feel. That's the whole f*cking point of any type of art- be it writing or a cartoon.

It goes yet another level deeper with editorial cartoons because they are a form of journalism. Yeah, sure, Ziggy ain't Cronkite, but there are a great deal of comics that serve the public interest by presenting information in a vain that allows a greater audience to become exsposed to it.

Most people read the comics. Most people read the comics first.

Now, I won't begrudge the media empires their right to make a buck, but it's two way street. I give them my eyeballs on the premise that they give me access to some objective news and information that isn't to slanted or biased.

Sh*t like this is a breeak of the obligation that exsists between journalism and the public trust. It's getting worse and most people shrug falling back on the capitalist mantra so clearly stated by Cobra. There is an erosion of expectations, and is it any wonder that journalism is being tansformed into another form of media whorism?

Why do you think there is a disconnect between people here? Why the divide? Because we are increasingly becoming exsposed to slanted news- I read this, you read that. Objectivity and balance is fast fading so we end up with this black-white skewed perception that precludes any type of meaningful dialopue to traverse the distance. :rant: [end rant]

BWhite · 2004-11-09 12:42:42

Such boycotts will only undermine the main stream media and perhaps destroy one of the few remaining links we have as a unified people.

In this last election, newspaper endorsements apparently had less influence than ever before and people are becoming increasingly aware that every news outlet has an inherent bias - - even "fair and balanced' (hic!) Fox News.

There is a word for this: Balkanization.

dickbill · 2004-11-09 20:49:12

Doonsebury has been discontinued by a lot of various papers because of complaints...

He is in the Dallas Morning News everyday and it doesn't give a pro-bushy story. That's funny because the DallasMorningNews has endorsed GWB officialy, although very shortly just before the elections, like 3 weeks ago and in very small letters, in a tiny very discreet statement. Like if they were ashamed to admit it. You could easily missed this statement.
I guess that the journal was afraid to loose liberal readers by doing it in big fanfare from one side and on the other side was also pressured to take position by the Conservatives/Value readers that make the majority in Texas.
But basically only the editorial gives a clear pro-bush music, the rest of the paper is filled with liberal articles.
Every morning I read the front page titles, fast read a couple of articles about the international (they have a nice Science section too) then rush to Doonsebury and the other cartoon guy. That's my morning pleasure.

Doonsbury in the Dallas Morning News front page !

If not, then I switch to the Washington Post !

Do they have good cartoon there ?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-11-10 02:54:26

In the old days, "two-front war" meant fighting simultaneously in Europe and Asia. Now, apparently, it means Fallujah and Sadr City.

In my opinion, a much closer approximation to a "two-front war" would have to be Coalition troops fighting against terrorists in Iraq, while simultaneously fighting against treacherous propaganda by left-wing journalists at home.
As Bill has pointed out repeatedly, we're in Iraq now; the time for being 'Anti-Iraq-War' is long gone. Trying to pull the rug out from under our armed forces by demonising them and publishing things like dubious civilian casualty figures is nothing short of a disgraceful betrayal. As long as our soldiers' lives are on the line, I think scurrilous journalists with their own political agendas should be actively restrained from attempting to demoralise our military.
If you want to call that totalitarian censorship, then go right ahead. 60 years ago, in WWII, we were fighting different forms of fascism and behaviour like that of our present-day leftist journalists would have earned them prison terms for giving comfort to the enemy.
This is absolutely not the time for personal politics - the lives of our own countrymen and the freedom of a nation are at stake! It's too important.
To all those still whining and sulking about the Bush-Kerry election result, I say: Grow up and deal with it like adults.

The figure of 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths has been trumpeted from the rooftops by left-wing journalists, still completely confused as to which side they're on - the side of liberal democracy or theocratic fascism.
The figure is a statistical nonsense, as can be gleaned from http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/]THIS ARTICLE, by Fred Kaplan.
I would normally present a few of the salient features of the article, as a courtesy to those too busy to read it in its entirety. But this one needs to be read right through to get a feel for why the 100,000 figure is so unreliable.
The actual figure is probably somewhere between 15,000 and 25,000.
So, what am I saying here? That a figure of, say, 20,000 civilian deaths is somehow 'better' or 'O.K.'? No, of course not! What I'm pointing out is the unforgiveably palpable glee on the part of some journalists in publishing the figure of 100,000 deaths for purely anti-Coalition sensationalism.
The figure is based on data so shaky as to be meaningless but the media deliberately overlooked that fact in order to publish a number which suited their agenda. Those responsible are not journalists.

And another thing! :rant:
From my vantage point on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, I can see clearly that all this "Divided America" stuff is, surprise surprise, being fuelled by the media. God knows what they're trying to achieve with this one but it looks like unadulterated hype and nonsense from here.
President Bush was just returned to office by the largest number of votes any American president ever had, many of them from black and hispanic voters not expected to vote for him, I'm led to believe. In terms of the popular vote:-
Bush received 59,459,765 votes (according to CNN) beating Kerry by 3,510,358.
In 1976, Jimmy Carter received 40,830,763 votes, beating Gerald Ford by 1,682,790.
In 1968, Richard Nixon received 31,785,480 votes, beating Hubert Humphrey by 510,314.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy received 34,226,731 votes, beating Richard Nixon by only 118,574 !!
(Some sources put the gap at only 113,000 votes and apparently the confusion is understandable ... Diana West of the Washington Times wrote: "Only 113,000 votes, including thousands of demonstrably fraudulent ones, would ultimately separate the two candidates in the popular vote.
The 1960 morning brought a shrinking margin and reports of massive Democratic fraud in Texas and Illinois. But Mr. Nixon went statesman on his political allies and refused to demand a recount.)
I may be wrong but I don't recall as much being written or said about "A Nation Divided" in 1960, 1968, and 1976. If America is divided today, it's quite clear it's no more divided than it's often been in the past. And there's no point in pretending that today's issues are different; the issues in years gone by were just as important to Americans then as the new ones are today.
No, the fact is that America is not divided at all, not in any real or comparatively meaningful sense. But the media obviously see it as important to some politically partisan cause of their own to make it look that way.

I think the same people who see it as politically advantageous to try to undermine the Coalition effort in Iraq, see it as politically advantageous to foment divisiveness at home.
Beware the traitors in your midst! :;):

BWhite · 2004-11-10 05:52:57

Comment deleted. Subject beaten to death already. Time will tell.

clark · 2004-11-10 06:20:58

In my opinion, a much closer approximation to a "two-front war" would have to be Coalition troops fighting against terrorists in Iraq, while simultaneously fighting against treacherous propaganda by left-wing journalists at home.

The pen is mightier than the sword. Fancy that. :laugh:

BWhite · 2004-11-10 08:03:05

In my opinion, a much closer approximation to a "two-front war" would have to be Coalition troops fighting against terrorists in Iraq, while simultaneously fighting against treacherous propaganda by left-wing journalists at home.
The pen is mightier than the sword. Fancy that. :laugh:

Yup. To defend freedom we must burn the First Amendment.

Palomar · 2004-11-10 08:05:10

Shaun:
From my vantage point on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, I can see clearly that all this "Divided America" stuff is, surprise surprise, being fuelled by the media. God knows what they're trying to achieve with this one but it looks like unadulterated hype and nonsense from here.

*Yep, media manipulation. I can watch "Hannity & Colmes", for instance, and see good points both fellows make. Sometimes I disagree with both, of course, or agree with one viewpoint more than another. Seems to me that lots of other people, though, have this seeming overpowering urge to Pick A Side Completely and then cling to it like a life preserver in a shipwreck. :-\ (Which is precisely what both Mr. Hannity and Mr. Colmes are doing) The media is exploiting differences and of course this spills over into everyday life; people focusing on what's different in opinions versus looking for some common ground. It's sad. IMO, this started with the cable news networks, all the media "celebs" it has spawned, the fact that most American homes now have cable, etc., etc.

I don't foresee America "coming together" any time soon. Now it's "Red States vs Blue States" (and nevermind that there were plenty of Democratic voters in the "Red States" and vice versa with Republican voters in the "Blue States").

It's idiotic.

--Cindy

::EDIT::

Bill:
Yup. To defend freedom we must burn the First Amendment.

*Sorry Bill, that seems uncharacteristically unfair of you (and yes, I know that comment was not directed at me). Does the media have "the right" to embellish, distort, manipulate and exaggerate? You're not concerned about ethics in journalism?

clark · 2004-11-10 08:29:20

Does the first amendment protect my right to burn the first amendment?

BWhite · 2004-11-10 10:03:10

Bill:
Yup. To defend freedom we must burn the First Amendment.
*Sorry Bill, that seems uncharacteristically unfair of you (and yes, I know that comment was not directed at me). Does the media have "the right" to embellish, distort, manipulate and exaggerate? You're not concerned about ethics in journalism?

Ethics in journalism died when the GOP purchased their own network - - FOX;

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-10 11:06:37

Ethics in journalism died when the GOP purchased their own network - - FOX;

That recently, eh? All was fine, upstanding objective reporting before then with no slant whatsoever?

:laugh:

clark · 2004-11-10 11:16:12

Nah, it died when FOX copy-writed "fair and balanced".

Or how about when media became more centralized?

SpaceNut · 2004-11-10 11:45:24

The worst part about the red or blue state argument is that it can even carry over into the family household and as cindy noted it can be a very obstinet view of the candidates one of feelings rather than of actual facts.
My other half is pro democrat 100% and can see no good from any republican office even thou I can point out that my current job is of a direct result of a republican office. But on the flip side of that same coin she could argue that it was also because of a republican president that I had lost my last.
So I find it easier in some ways not to argue the feeling but to argue the facts instead. Which sometimes are very hard to decern from the media news reports.

BWhite · 2004-11-10 12:10:49

Ethics in journalism died when the GOP purchased their own network - - FOX;
That recently, eh? All was fine, upstanding objective reporting before then with no slant whatsoever?

:laugh:

True.

What is going on now is the battle for a new consensus to replace the old "so called liberal media"

FOX is only one player. But FOX has the very clear goal of replacing the old eastern seaboard bias with their own.

Personally, I think its better to say EVERYONE has a bias and read the web to get as many differing views as possible.

But the idea that Mr. Colmes truly reflects the "liberal" perspective makes me want to gag. Colmes (of Hannity & Colmes) plays the same role as the old Washington Generals did when playing the Harlem Globetrotters.

= = =

Howard Dean versus Ed GIllepsie. EVERY Sunday morning.

Now we are talking genuine debate.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-11-09 11:27:58

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#27 2004-11-09 11:28:35

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#28 2004-11-09 11:42:14

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#29 2004-11-09 11:46:57

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#30 2004-11-09 11:49:19

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#31 2004-11-09 11:56:06

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#32 2004-11-09 12:00:02

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#33 2004-11-09 12:04:40

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#34 2004-11-09 12:21:13

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#35 2004-11-09 12:26:15

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#36 2004-11-09 12:30:51

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#37 2004-11-09 12:32:07

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#38 2004-11-09 12:42:42

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#39 2004-11-09 20:49:12

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#40 2004-11-10 02:54:26

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#41 2004-11-10 05:52:57

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#42 2004-11-10 06:20:58

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#43 2004-11-10 08:03:05

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#44 2004-11-10 08:05:10

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#45 2004-11-10 08:29:20

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#46 2004-11-10 10:03:10

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#47 2004-11-10 11:06:37

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#48 2004-11-10 11:16:12

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#49 2004-11-10 11:45:24

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

#50 2004-11-10 12:10:49

Re: Any thoughts - on this. . .

Board footer