Censorship or Freedom of Choice?

POSTED BY: JCKnife
UPDATED: Saturday, August 28, 2004 05:29
VIEWED: 9305
PAGE 4 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4

MILORADELL

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:56 AM

MASSIVELY OFF-TOPIC

Quote:
Okies this may get me shot and I am not intentionally hijacking this thread hehe. I didn't get a chance to ever watch an episode of Babylon5 and am afraid to go buy the first season. A friend of mine told me I would need to have them all. My bank account would suffer greatly hehe, but now I may have to go buy it LOL

So take them sloooooow. They're very unlike Firefly - I mean, they got 5 ENTIRE seasons and how many "movies"? They'll probably be around for a while, anyways. Maybe they're rentable? I don't know - I hardly ever go into a rental place. I definately think they're worth seeing, though. But yeah - a real hit to the wallet. Not as bad as some other series, though.

Oh - sorry,

count me against. Never could keep step with the "crowd."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:59 AM

E Pluribus Unum.

Paraph:- Out of many people, One Country.

Have your opinions, Allow me mine.
Is that so hard ?

-frem
diefuxdie

JCKNIFE

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 10:13 AM

That's a nice sentiment but the question is, what happens when a public figure espouses opinions that are massively unpopular? Don't the people who support that entertainer have a right to turn their backs on said entertainer in protest?

I think the answer I'm getting is that yes, the people do but "the establishment" is fanning the flame too much. That still seems a little paranoid to me.

RADHIL

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 3:14 PM

A little paranoid? Perhaps, from your perspective, this might be true. I've watched too much news, sifted too much fact from opinion, to think otherwise though.

Well, I'm gonna attempt to get past your paranoia unease here. Give it a shot anyway. Let's start with the Slim Fast thing that you brought up. A businessman, ignoring gray ethics about his decision, makes a purely "good for business" choice by refusing to make waves (or distancing himself from one who did). Take that and extend it. Other businesspeople probably do the same, Whoopi can hardly be a unique example. News editors and writers. TV executives. The cable news networks. Despite the ideal of news integrity, these people are still all about business. Very likely making the same choice - the bottom line of the dollar over anything that might rock the boat. What you now have is a social system that under stress stifles free speech. To get that far, all you have to do is see the pattern of business for what it is. And recent times have been nothing but stressful.

If you'd indulge paranoia in the slightest (and a *little* suspicion is hardly a bad thing), just introduce a factor of government pressure. No grand conspiracy theory, just officials taking advantage of a predisposal and bias that's already there. It's relatively easy to do, and you acquire the effect of censorship without actually censoring anything.

There. Full explanation, sans paranoia, no imagination and no creativity. Make of it what you will.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

JCKNIFE

Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:16 AM

But, whereas business owners fear controversy, newspeople are drawn to it. "If it bleeds, it leads," and worse. Sensationalism. Actually, the media might be HELPING. If we didn't have 24-hour news networks (lots of them) that need to fill all that airtime, would the Whoopi story have even made the news? Hard to say for sure.

RADHIL

Thursday, July 22, 2004 1:41 AM

Don't make the mistake of thinking in absolutes. Newspeople are also businesspeople - one doesn't exclude the other. And for the longest stretch after 9/11, you can't really deny that patriotism was really good for any business. Sensationalism isn't defined by bad news - it's the slanting of any reporting to one extreme or another. Once bad news was less profitable, it became good news that was sensationalized. That's still true, in my opinion, although it seems to be crumbling.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

JCKNIFE

Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:41 PM

An update to one of these stories: it's being reported that the Aladin is changing ownership and the would-be new owners would love to have Ronstadt back and possibly even invite M. Moore to appear on stage with her (no, I'm not making this up). If the new owners can do that and turn a profit, I say more power to them--that's freedom! If people stay away, that's freedom too!

PIRATEJENNY

Saturday, August 28, 2004 5:29 AM

whoopi Goldberg was not ranting on a slim fast commercial....

actually she wasn't even ranting she was telling some jokes ..after all she is a comedian...thats what she does tell jokes..

and she was telling them a private venue...not as a representative of Slim fast and yet she was fired...

thats censorship...that is unamerican..people are intiled to thier opinions...agree or disagree .but this is suppose to be a free country..I just hope Whoopi got a damn good settlement out of Slimfast

I don't buy slimfast..luckily I don't need to but if I did I certainly wouldn't after this

Those people who came to see Linda Ronstadt came to hear her music..they should have respected her opinion...not fired her from her gig for having one that didn't jell with whoever was out there

its a form of intimadation.....to keep people from speaking out ...

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4