Twilight Flyer said:

Not especially, no. Child pOrn is not allowed to be published by our "free press" and rightfully so. Not only do I believe that the public has no MORAL right to see it, but obviously.... they have no LEGAL right to see it. This is the law, and I believe in the LAW.

Pictures of crash victims/crime victims HAVE been in newspapers before. But, for the most part, the press has made the "correct choice" and kept them out. I think I DO remember seeing pictures of Bobby Kennedy lying on the floor after being shot... and MLK, too. I think Pretty Boy Floyd's "death shot" was front page. I suppose you don't care about HIS family?

Just recently, I was listening to a newschannel covering an accident and relaying pictures from the helicopter (I was driving and not watching it on T.V.) and heard them say they were going to pull away now because a tarp had been put over the area. So, there you have it. The media gone crazy and out of control!

Yes... THIS would be the insult I referred to.

I don't consider myself EITHER of the things you insinuated.... but, truth is.... yeah.... I just really don't CARE! Oh, and for the record.... so I can keep up with the conversation.... just WHAT "innocent was attacked?" Are you going so far out on this limb that you are claiming that the media/AP ATTACKED the family of the wounded soldier?

Actually.... that is EXACTLY why I got into the discussion. I felt that the REV said something that was indefensible under our legal freedoms and rights. He made it sound (intentionally or not) like we had the "right" to see something ONLY if the government wanted us to. From there... others continued to question or deny the RIGHTS of the public to a free press. I defended those rights and tried to ignore the MORAL rationale being used by the accusers.

That would be what I construed as insult #2.

But, to answer your question.... it's not about MY rights, but yes.... I believe the rights of a SOCIETY trump the rights of an individual. Goes for a free press.... gun restrictions (not bans).... and speed limits!

What YOU are supporting is exactly what you rail against! The "ME ME ME" opinion that an individual's rights trump that of the greater society. But somehow, I believe you are COMPLETELY missing that point.

I believe I covered this earlier. Obviously, you are too young to remember the days when the press posted photos of gangland killings, especially those done by the Untouchables, all over the front pages!

I don't really DRAW a line, T/W! It's not my job to do so. I don't claim the MORAL authority that YOU seem to.... to tell the FREE PRESS how to run their business! I suppose you think that GOD gave you that right, don't you? Prove it. :hellno:

First, I might suggest that they have drugs for this kind of mental disorder. (just joking.)

Second, I might suggest that you are WRONG. The "good ole days" that you seem to cling to, I would say...., might be the 19th Century and early 20th. Let's see.... Medicare? NOPE. Medicaid? NOPE. Americans with Disabilities Act? NOPE. Aid to Farmers Act? NOPE. Family Leave Act? Nope.

Pretty much ALL the programs designed to HELP or CARE about our fellow citizens.... most of which you consider a LIBERAL agenda.... have come about in recent years. The only people AGAINST such helpful programs are you CONSERVATIVES. So.... if you want to see what happened to our society, you only have to look in the mirror.

If you could HEAR what you just said from the rational viewpoint of a Centrist, you might see how we can plug in the word Conservative, and have the SAME feeling of disgust!

That would be insult #3.

Why? Because YOU don't think I do? Or YOU won't "allow" it? Thank GOD I don't have to worship GOD anymore.... because he obviously has died and left YOU in charge! :hellno:

Your "moral indignation" and condescension is matched ONLY by your "air of superiority!"

Note to REV: Sorry if that last part sounded like "finger pointing," but YOU left in the part of HIS post that I consider to be the same thing. And as I said, I have a right to respond to what I consider to be an insult.

 

Thanks again for making my point. :roll: :roll: :roll:

You know, there is a lot I’d really like to say, but in the interest of not descending to your level, I will take the high road. And if you think any of my comments were insults, you really need to get a thicker skin or get off the messageboards. If I wanted to waste my time and insult you on a messageboard, you would know it. Now, regarding your insults towards me in that last post, you’re still in the minor leagues, pal. When you want to uncork one on me, feel free to bring your best shot. I’ll be sure to give it all the attention it deserves. :roll:

As far as this thread goes, people will read through your posts and through mine and others and decide for themselves who really cares and who doesn’t. You do yourself no favors at all, I can promise you that. You have no clue what this family goes through or what Fozzy and Bunny go through and you never will. You have no children to go out and die for this country. They did and their son gave the ultimate sacrifice and they will go on sacrificing every blasted day that you still breath ‘free’ air. I have children myself, but who are not yet old enough to enlist as theirs did. And while I will never claim to ‘know’ what Fozzy and Bunny and this other family are going through, I can at least empathize and understand. And I will do just that and defend them as I see fit. Your callous disregard of their feelings and the feelings, rights, and privileges of this family who is going through this, is sickening to say the least. And as I said, that makes YOU part of the problem.

So you go right on harping about how the rights of ‘society’ trumps the rights of the individual. I remember a dictator back in the 30’s and 40’s, who preached the same thing and millions of Jews were killed because their individual ‘rights’ meant nothing to the rights of his perceived society. The holocaust happened because people jumped on his bandwagon that stated that exact thing. Either that, or they simple turned a blind eye to it. It’s great company to keep, really, and a most obvious correlation. On the sci-fi front, it’s like the Borg. “We will assimilate you and your culture. Freedom is irrelevant. Individuality is irrelevant.” In other words, since you are in the minority (like the individual family vs. the rest of the Free Media prostitutes), then your rights don’t mean jack squat.

And it simply amazes me that you would continue on this line, thinking you can actually defend your ridiculous stand. Did you even read my last post? Did you read Bunny’s? Do you have any clue how far down the decency line you have plummeted? Perhaps it is, as someone else said, that you’re arguing to simply argue. Because while everyone knows you’ve been out in left field before, this time you’ve gone way over the line in terms of basic human decency and common courtesy.

The floor is yours. I’m done wasting my time with you. Go ahead and prattle on and pretend you’re championing such a ‘just’ cause. Most everyone else see you and your cause for just what it is.

 

I'm curious - did you support the Patriot Act? The reason I ask is because those who didn't (mostly liberals) claimed the reason they didn't was because it allegedly had people giving up individual rights in the name of protecting our society and way of life....

 

Antebellum America, 1784-1865


Journalism

By Mark Canada
Professor, University of North Carolina at Pembroke

American journalism experienced dramatic growth and development in the antebellum period. Newspapers had existed in the American colonies since the early part of the 18th century and were fairly common by the time Americans had defeated the British in the American Revolution and were setting up their new nation. In 1800, America had more 200 newspapers, including 24 dailies. In general, however, these publications were primarily mouthpieces for political parties rather than independent, objective entities. The Gazette of the United States, for example, promoted the ideas of Alexander Hamilton and the other Federalists, and the National Gazette spoke for the Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans. The centerpiece of a typical newspaper published between 1784 and 1830 was its political reporting, which often consisted of harsh, satirical, and sometimes false recriminations. "If ever a nation was debauched by a man," Aurora editor Benjamin Franklin Bache wrote of the country's first president, "the American nation has been debauched by Washington" (qtd. in Tebbel 66).

The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 punished some journalists for their bold reporting, but by and large even early American reporters enjoyed the freedom promised by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The number of publications increased in these early decades of independence so that in 1820 America had 512 newspapers.

The nature of the press in America remained much the same, however, until the 1830s. John Tebbel, author of The Compact History of the American Newspaper, explains: "From its use as a revolutionary propaganda machine to its hardly concealed official position as a private organ of a President, it had encompassed the range of partisan expression at the expense of truth and responsibility. As a tool of party and politicians, it had not attained any particular distinction except in the excellence of writing which the best statesmen and editors brought to it" (89).

The most important development of antebellum American journalism came in the 1830s, when New York journalists Benjamin Day and James Gordon Bennett began appealing to mass audiences. As Tebbel notes, immigration and improvements in printing technology, which eventually included a steam-powered cylinder press, both set the stage for this new era, which came to be known as the age of the "penny press." Unlike contemporary papers, which sold for 6 cents, Day's New York Sun and Bennett's New York Herald at first sold for a penny and were peddled in the streets. In addition to the increased circulations, which would reach 77,000 for the Herald shortly before the Civil War, this period was noteworthy for the change in the content of newspapers. Bennett, in particular, was a pioneer in broadening the scope and sharpening the appeal of newspaper reporting. Whereas the early political papers were distinctive in their lively denunciations of opponents, the highlight of the Herald was its sensationalistic coverage of crime and other lurid subject matter. Meanwhile, women's magazines also had huge audiences, including some 150,000 subscribers for Godey's Lady's Book, published in Philadelphia. In another important development of this period, reporters such as Joseph B. McCullagh gave newspaper readers intimate accounts of the Civil War. Indeed, in American Journalism: A History: 1690-1960, Frank Luther Mott writes: "Probably no great war has ever been so thoroughly covered by eye-witness correspondents as the American Civil War" (329).

Works Cited

• Mott, Frank Luther. American Journalism: A History: 1690-1960. New York: Macmillan, 1962.
• Tebbel, John. The Com

The bottom line is...the bottom line. Legal rights and morality are irrelevant. People VOTE with their money. They buy the publications, or broadcasts, that support their own convictions, beliefs and/or tastes. Always have, always will.

 

What a callous way of looking at the world. The almighty dollar rules, no matter the cost. How sad.

 

Sad, but true!

The media is what it is, a business. And that is exactly how they view it. The public needs to understand that the only way they can change it is to STOP subsidizing it. As long as crap like that picture sells papers and air time it will continue. What's that old saying..."If you aren't a part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

 

"Free Market Capitalism 101".... required course for every Right Wing Conservative.

Until.... they become offended by the stench of their own creation... at which point they ALL become "bleeding heart Liberals!" :hellno:

 

Ah, but you miss my point. Capitalism can only exist because of CONSUMERS. Capitalists give the consumer what they ask for. So where is the real problem? And the solution?

 

I didn't "miss" your point at all. As you'll note, I was responding to the Rev's commentary on a sad life.

Actually, tho.... I don't entirely agree with your point.... or more TO the point.... I don't believe it was relevant. YOU are assuming the same thing that the others on this thread have... that the AP was just "trying to sell papers." That is not true, IMHO.

BUT.... IF it WERE true, then what I said goes. All the right wing "moralists" on this thread have shown they have a double standard.

 

Of course they do! So do you! Still waiting for a reply from you re: the Patriot Act.