|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login | |
|
Obama's censorship???? - 9/17/2008 8:03:38 PM
|
|
|
Dancre
Posts: 1264
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Ok, someone help me to understand this one: quote:
DENVER -- Sen. Barack Obama's campaign organized its supporters Wednesday night to confront Tribune-owned WGN-AM in Chicago for having a critic of the Illinois Democrat on its air. (Listen to the interview.) "WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears," Obama's campaign wrote in an e-mail to supporters. "He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers." Kurtz, a conservative writer, recently wrote an article for the National Review that looked at Obama's ties to Ayers, a former 1960s radical who later emerged as a school reform advocate in Chicago. The magazine had been blocked in its initial attempts to obtain records from the University of Illinois at Chicago regarding a school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Obama chaired and Ayers co-founded. Obama critics were quick to suggest that political clout could be involved in seeking to protect Obama from embarrassment. The school later reserved its position and made the records available Tuesday. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/obama_campaign_confronts_wgn_r.html quote:
Chicago radio station WGN-AM is again coming under attack from the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama for offering airtime to a controversial author. It is the second time in recent weeks the station has been the target of an "Obama Action Wire" alert to supporters of the Illinois Democrat. Monday night's target was David Freddoso, who the campaign said was scheduled to be on the station from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. Chicago time. "The author of the latest anti-Barack hit book is appearing on WGN Radio in the Chicagoland market tonight, and your help is urgently needed to make sure his baseless lies don't gain credibility," an e-mail sent Monday evening to Obama supporters reads. "David Freddoso has made a career off dishonest, extreme hate mongering," the message said. "And WGN apparently thinks this card-carrying member of the right-wing smear machine needs a bigger platform for his lies and smears about Barack Obama -- on the public airwaves." http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/wgnam_again_target_of_obama_ca.html Now I'm not for sure if Kurtz or Freddoso are right-wing wackos or not, but they DO have the right to say what they want despite Obama's hurt feelings. Just google Bush and 9/11 and you'll see hundreds and hundreds of websites that claim Bush destroyed the twin towers. Yes, those bloggers are wackos, but they are wackos who have a right to speech and I'll fight for those wackos to put up those blogs anyday. Never once did the Bush campaign write to its supports telling them to shut down those blogs. (And you wackos keep blogging, you have that right.) Now Obama stands up saying nope, sorry, wacko, you can't say anything bad about me. Reminds me a bit of Stalin and Lenin who said the same thing. Don't question my past, don't question my politics, just do what I say. I know what's best for you. So my question, comrades, is why do the wackos get away with accusing Bush of destroying the twin towers, yet Obama encourages his people to attack those who say ill about him?? It seems that if anyone questions Obama, they are instantly labeled as liars and hate mongers. mmmm . . . I hear Sibera is nice this time of the year. Another question: If Obama becomes president, what's to stop him from 'encouraging' his people to email Fritz telling him it would be in his best 'interest' to block those who are Obama's critics from posting on Crosswalk, you know, chase off those liars and hate mongers? Or that it would be in the newspapers reporters' best 'interest' to only write positive things about him? The TV news anchors, bloggers, writers, artists best 'interest'? Where does he draw the line? He reminds me wayyyy to much of Stalin, comrade, so be careful. I'm interested in your comments. Edit: May I also add, this stuff frightens me in a presidential candidate. If he's censoring folks now, what will he will do if he's elected??? kim
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's censorship???? - 9/17/2008 9:04:16 PM
|
|
|
ddave12000
Posts: 77
Joined: 3/7/2006
Status: offline
|
AMEN! This is just a preview of what we'll get if Obama gets elected. Heard of the fairness doctrine?
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's censorship???? - 9/17/2008 11:54:01 PM
|
|
|
rgsoundguy
Posts: 398
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Pottstown, PA
Status: offline
|
It does not sound like he was using the legal system to silence these radio shows, but rather a grass roots effort to jam up the phone lines, seminar callers as Rush Limbaugh would call them. Believe me, the fairness doctrine is wrong, but this does not sound like that.
_____________________________
Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That convinces me that our nation is insane because we continually elect republicans and democrats expecting change and get none.
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's censorship???? - 9/18/2008 4:08:34 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 343
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
No, these tactics do not reflect how people may tend to believe what the Fairness Doctrine is about. It is what the Fairness Doctrine will be about, and what means could be employed for people and groups of a particular persuasion to use to insure that if they are not heard, then the other side will not be heard. On the surface these tactics may seem tame and innocent but if you read what some supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have said and written you may find that they are not merely out to ensure all sides of an issue be heard, but that media empires such as the Tribune company (the Tribune Company in Chicago not only owns WGN radio, but WGN television, and the Chicago Tribune newspaper) be broken up. Why do they want this? Smaller media outlets are easier to intimidate and control. It's funny that the same political party that has spent the last eight years infering how Nazis-like the Bush administration has been can't seem to wait to get in power with their own Nazis-like programs. Granted what Obama supporters seemed to call for seems to be legal and all that, but it still smacks of Naizis-like censorship. If the McCain camp had done the same thing, you can bet Obama and his supporters would be saying that that is what they were actually doing.
|
|
|
|
RE: Obama's censorship???? - 9/18/2008 6:42:46 PM
|
|
|
Dancre
Posts: 1264
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Ok, now you're scaring me. If this is what the fairness doctrine is all about, then I don't want anything to do with it. It seems these folks want me to listen to what they want and believe what they believe. It seems like a pretty slippery slope. :( I wonder what life would be like if Obama was in the office. Censorship, censorship, censorship. I wish Obama's supports would post. I"m interested in what they have to say. Sorry I stole your thread, Earth. :( I checked but must have missed it. Edit. Let me also add that I noticed 44 hits on earth's thread, yet no responses. I guess 44 people don't seem to have a problem with Obama telling radio stations what they can and can't say about him. sigh . . . . quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3 No, these tactics do not reflect how people may tend to believe what the Fairness Doctrine is about. It is what the Fairness Doctrine will be about, and what means could be employed for people and groups of a particular persuasion to use to insure that if they are not heard, then the other side will not be heard. On the surface these tactics may seem tame and innocent but if you read what some supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have said and written you may find that they are not merely out to ensure all sides of an issue be heard, but that media empires such as the Tribune company (the Tribune Company in Chicago not only owns WGN radio, but WGN television, and the Chicago Tribune newspaper) be broken up. Why do they want this? Smaller media outlets are easier to intimidate and control. It's funny that the same political party that has spent the last eight years infering how Nazis-like the Bush administration has been can't seem to wait to get in power with their own Nazis-like programs. Granted what Obama supporters seemed to call for seems to be legal and all that, but it still smacks of Naizis-like censorship. If the McCain camp had done the same thing, you can bet Obama and his supporters would be saying that that is what they were actually doing.
< Message edited by Dancre -- 9/18/2008 7:05:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|