The liberal media's version ...

[Alpha1]

OF FREE SPEECH.....you bet...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/08/018302.php

it’s troubling that the Networks appear to be airing messages on issues on a selective basis. Our research indicates that your network has accepted and aired advertisements dealing with controversial issues of national importance in the recent past. For example, the Networks aired an advertisement entitled “Shameless Politicians” sponsored by Move America Forward regarding the war on terror in October 2004. In November 2006, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the American Medical Association entitled “Patient Voice” concerning the controversial issue of access to health care and coverage for the uninsured. During July 2007, the Networks aired advertisements sponsored by the Save Darfur Coalition. Your history of airing other issue advocacy advertisements makes the denial of FW advertisements troubling and raises the issue of whether your denial is based on an editorial disagreement with FW's message.

More positive proof that the MSM is far left....

 

[maineman]

exactly. I know many courts of law that accept op-ed pieces on internet blogs as PROOF without question! Their validity is so sacrosanct that opposing counsel is not even allowed to object!!!

 

[Alpha1]

exactly. I know many courts of law that accept op-ed pieces on internet blogs as PROOF without question! Their validity is so sacrosanct that opposing counsel is not even allowed to object!!!

Your reply is irrelevant..it has nothing to do with the topic at all, which shows the mainstream media sometimes refuses ads that are not in keeping with THEIR political views and agenda.....they have to power to silence any dissent from those that dare try to voice a political opinion that differs from their their own....

If it happens "sometimes" , you can bet that most, if not all, of the newspaper slants what they write to paint their biased view in a favorable light....

Subtle ... but effective....

 

[Larkinn]

A few points.

1) You have no concept of what freedom of speech is, if you think this infringes on it.

2) Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Do you advocate changing that as well?

3) Since when is "save Darfur" a liberal cause? Aren't y'all in favor of pre-emptive war for humanitarian causes???

4) Since you seem to think this is "proof positive" care to give a link to exactly what "research" FW has done in this matter?

 

[Bern80]

exactly. I know many courts of law that accept op-ed pieces on internet blogs as PROOF without question! Their validity is so sacrosanct that opposing counsel is not even allowed to object!!!

missing the point as always.

What the hell does a court of law have to do with anything here?

 

[Bern80]

A few points.

1) You have no concept of what freedom of speech is, if you think this infringes on it.

It doesn't appear as though it was stated, or even implied, that the poster or letter writer constituted this as violation of free speech.

2) Talk radio is overwhelmingly conservative. Do you advocate changing that as well?

opinion vs. news. Are you aware of the difference and why that makes their responsibilites to the public slightly different?

3) Since when is "save Darfur" a liberal cause? Aren't y'all in favor of pre-emptive war for humanitarian causes???

Again something that was never said or implied, that Darfur was a liberal cause.

4) Since you seem to think this is "proof positive" care to give a link to exactly what "research" FW has done in this matter?

Alpha 1 is the one makeing the statement. Not FW, therefore it would technically fall to Alpha 1 to do the research to back it up. Not that he'll have to dig real deep.

Are you MMs clone or something? Neither of you can seem to keep from asserting something was said when it wasn't.