Some quick items on the Sherrod video and free speech

[level_head]

Comments

You're trying too hard

[ext_237031]

You're trying too hard to defend Fox. It's not that you're necessarily saying anything untrue (I didn't check) it's that your willfully skirting around an ocean of context. The video was used in an attempt to discredit a woman and, indirectly but inarguably, a progressive agenda. It misfired badly because the context was misrepresented.

You're not deceiving by what you say, but by what you omit

Re: You're trying too hard

[melvin_udall]

If I understand your post correctly it would appear you've just admitted your complete ignorance then gone on to pass judgment on the entire issue.

The facts don't matter because you already know the heroes and villains going in? That doesn't sit a little wrong with you, somewhere deep down in your conscience?

You're trying too hard to defend Fox.
How? Where?

It's not that you're necessarily saying anything untrue (I didn't check)
More than just a little disturbing.

it's that your willfully skirting around an ocean of context.
Having admitted ignorance of the events, how would you possibly know this to be the case?

The video was used in an attempt to discredit a woman and, indirectly but inarguably, a progressive agenda. Again, you have admitted what would now be obvious ignorance of the original source. level_head addresses that the moral of her story was in the original piece. Reality illustrates the moral of her story was in the original piece. Yet this was an attempt to discredit the woman

Re: You're trying too hard

[jordan179]

You're trying too hard to defend Fox.

And you think that if Fox's license was pulled because the Left didn't like what Fox said, that liberal media would be immune from the same being done to them by the Right, because ...?

(In your no-doubt well-reasoned answer, you will be expected to take into account that the Democrats will hold neither the Presidency nor the Congress forever ...).

Re: You're trying too hard

[jordan179]

The video was used in an attempt to discredit a woman and, indirectly but inarguably, a progressive agenda.

Which is morally wrong, because ...?

(In your no-doubt well-reasoned reply, you will be expected to take into account that there is nothing magical about being a "woman" or "progressive" which should render one immune to the same efforts of "discreditation" that might be directed towards, say, George W. Bush or, for that matter, Condaleeza Rice).

[level_head]

I agree completely.

The response from many on the left, though, is "you don't get the right to say things that are untrue!" But the implication is that posting a two-minute, unedited segment of a speech is "untrue."

Edited to add: Nothing about the First Amendment makes any reference to the truth of speech.

This needs its own post.

===|==============/ Level Head

[melvin_udall]

Well said. You seem to be one of the very few people accurately depicting the events. I find that more than a little distressing.

[jordan179]

And yet "pulling Fox's license" is being advocated by people on the JournoList -- who (you would think) would know better.

The degree of short-sightedness required for highly political journalists to advocate such a thing is astounding. Has it never occurred to them that, once this precedent was set, a Republican Administration could use it against them?

[level_head]

A law professor--hardly appropriate to a defense of ignorance. But others joined in to the conversation.

===|==============/ Level Head

[melvin_udall]

l555l is correct.

That aside, they don't expect to ever again lose power. With fairly good reason.