Hi David,
If mainstream news is not provided as a commercial entity, how do you suggest
it gets funded? I don't think anybody would deny that people should have free
access to any sort of information, but you aren't making your view clear as
to who should fund the nightly news, USA Today, and The Wallstreet Journal.
Certainly mass media is dumbed down for public consumption and is aware of
the constraints of advertisers as well as the audience and the perspectives
of management at the organization. What exactly are you suggesting?
As for the bias, all I could find was that 89% of journalists and media
polled reported that they voted for Clinton. I just saw a chart last week
that had statistics on voting, but I couldn't find it today... sorry. And I
made the same point about Fox's intentional bias in my original response to
Marco on this thread. Personally, I am fine with the choices available to me
to get news from various sources.
I agree that O'Reilly is hilarious, and that terrorist detainees are
deserving of proper treatment. BUT THAT WASN'T THE POINT. The point was
clearly whether the Constitution protects terrorists at war with the US. And
based upon your comment that "they are entitled to due process and have not
yet
been convicted of any crime. Geography and citizenship in irrelevant to these
rights," it is obvious that you miss the point yourself. Our courts and
rights are specifically designed to protect us from threats, not to defend
foriegn attackers that are at war with us.
But then again, maybe you are onto something -- perhaps we should have just
sued the Nazis? (Just kidding!)
Roger wrote...
The Constitution is full of rights to protect citizens from government. It
is not intended to protect the rights of terrorists to destroy the society.
They are two very, very different things. I am certainly no apologist for
O'Reilly, but I must concede that his point seems both valid and
non-threatening to tourists.
DMB replied...
Really? It seems like you are his apologist, at least in this case. It sure
sounds like you presume the guilt of the detainees as well. I hope that's
not really what you mean to say. You don't think we ought to suspend human
rights based on our fear or their nationality, do you? To give up on these
rights in the name of security is to put social values over intellectual
values, is it not? Fundamentalist wackos have rights too, you know? Like it
or not, for these rights to have any meaning they must be extended to those
we like the least
ROG...
Agreement makes me an apologist? I would never advocate treating people
immorally, nor am I aware that they have been treated immorally. Please do
not twist the discussion to something that I would never say. But, foriegners
at war with one's country are not given Constitutional protection, are they?
Different rules apply to foriegn agents at war as opposed to citizens that
the government is tasked to protect ...right? (I might even be wrong, my US
constitution law is getting rusty. The point is, stick to the point
please!!!)
Also, let's try to avoid demonizing each other's position with
racist/nationalist innuendos, as it probably won't help with the discussion.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:52 BST