Say Anything Blog

Those who have watched Al Jazeera on air will benefit from its strong global perspective on international news and affairs.

Ah yes.  We could all benefit from the “strong global perspective” of Islamic extremists.

I thought you liberals hated religious worldviews, especially those which skew one’s “global perspective” of current events? 

Apparantly not as much as you hate Americans who view extremist propoganda as dangerous. 

By the way, just because the market doesn’t want what Al jezeera is selling, doesn’t mean conservatives oppose free speech.  Nobody is closing down Al Jezeera here.  Free speech doesn’t guarantee an audience.

Sparkie, a failure to cite relevant distinctions which make a great deal of difference is conflation.

HG
If you don’t offer something, its hard to tell who’ll buy it.

Just because I have a right to speak doesn’t guarantee me a television audience.  No right is violated by not getting an audience, especially a television audience that would rather not hear Al Jazeera.  Forcing a product on the consumer is not “offering” it.

Just because I have a right to speak doesn’t guarantee me a television audience.  No right is violated by not getting an audience, especially a television audience that would rather not hear Al Jazeera.  Forcing a product on the consumer is not “offering” it.

How are they forcing you to watch it?

Forcing a product on the consumer is not “offering” it.

Yawn.

Do you have anything substantial here? i.e. not strawman crap?

Since when do you pay for each channel, one at a time?

How many channels are forced on you?

How are they forcing you to watch it?

They are not.  But that still doesn’t argue this is a free speech issue.  They are however providing a product that the buyer doesn’t want to pay for and would rather have a different channel.  If I was as offended as some here seem to be, then get dish network instead.  A company without consumers will not be “offering” Al Jazeera for long… free speech doesn’t guarantee a profit either.

Sparkie,

Forcing in the sense that the consumer doesn’t want it, but is provided with it at the expense of another more favorable channel.

If it doesn’t generate ad revenue it will soon enough be off.  A vocal busybody minority should not be able to decide what everybody should be offered just because it offends them.  Al Jazeera is a well respected journalistic network and there is no good reason it should be censored.  This is just bigotry.

HG, have you ever watched the network?

Hawk
“If it doesn’t generate ad revenue it will soon enough be off”
.
.
Given the fact that Obama has already recieved in excess of $200 million in foreign contributions, I wouldn’t bet on the need for ad revenue.

have you ever watched the network?

No, and I’m not a protesting customer either.

My point is simple.  The protest against Al Jazeera is free speech, not the the channels presence in the cable guide. Capeesh?

Given the fact that Obama has already recieved in excess of $200 million in foreign contributions, I wouldn’t bet on the need for ad revenue.
RebTex on July 9, 2008 at 03:20 pm

Sources? Links? Money trail? Where?

My point is simple.  The protest against Al Jazeera is free speech, not the the channels presence in the cable guide. Capeesh?

If Al Jazeera meets the standards everybody else does, the city government can’t keep them off because it actually would be a free speech violation.  Capeesh?

ellinas
I thought you’d NEVER ask!
THis:
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/35782/

is from PowerLine.
There’s a link there direct to Maureen Dowd, who was the originator

ignorance is bliss

ignorance is bliss

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Wrong Hawk, the cable business is not city government nor are cable companies confused by your efforts to bastardize free speech.  Just because the city owns Burlington telecom doesn’t mean that all cable channels which meet some criteria you claim knowledge of, must be “offered” in its lineup.  Surely you know better than this?

The lengths you libs will go to… ridiculous!

Just because I have a right to speak doesn’t guarantee me a television audience.  No right is violated by not getting an audience, especially a television audience that would rather not hear Al Jazeera.  Forcing a product on the consumer is not “offering” it.

Totally subjective statement. Lots of people think NBC, FOX, CNN, all of them, are forced on them. The truth is the market will decide and those with the $$ to put it on the air will either win or lose. Thats how it should work anyway. Why is the market always right, unless you dont like what its selling, then its wrong? Why would anyone be scared of hearing what our enemies think? This is the kind of thing you would seein the middle east. They are scared of what we say because we are right alot ofthe time. Whats your excuse?

RebTex. That is a proven hoax/lie.  Maureen Dowd never wrote it. And you claim “fact”?
Do you have anything more substantial?
Come on! you can do better than this.

The truth is the market will decide and those with the $$ to put it on the air will either win or lose.

Again, my point exactly.  It is a free market issue, not a free speech issue.  However, the residents protest is a free speech issue and if enough of them don’t want is then the cable company would do well to listen or face the lost revenues. 

Why would anyone be scared of hearing what our enemies think?

Scared and offended are not the same thing.  Fear isn’t the point of this post, free speech is. 

It’s kind of silly the way those of you who can’t convincingly argue free speech for a cable channel resort to changing the subject in hope of finding something to resemble a point.

If the city owns the cable company than they cannot keep the channel off based on the content of the speech.  They also cannot discriminate against them based on their religion.  They can have requirements that Al Jazeera must meet to get on the air, but if Al Jazeera meets those requirements than the city cannot keep them off.

Maybe this is why cities shouldn’t own cable companies.

Scared and offended are not the same thing.  Fear isn’t the point of this post, free speech is.

They might as well be the same. Thats a non answer.

Again, my point exactly.  It is a free market issue, not a free speech issue.  However, the residents protest is a free speech issue and if enough of them don’t want is then the cable company would do well to listen or face the lost revenues.

The cable company might do well to listen, but they mostly listen with the bottom line. If they lose $$ it will go away, if not it will stay.

I think the people who want to protest should protest. I also think just because they are scared or offended and want to protest has no bearing whatsoever on whether the channel stays on the system. People who want to see it dont go out and protest, they just watch and learn what else is being said out there. Thats alot smarter than claiming offense and trying to stop everyone else from hearing something that makes them uncomfortable.

Sure thing, ellinas.
& Gore never took monies from the Chinese, either.....right?

Here’s a contributor of Obama’s that was an Iraqi electricity minister
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62996

SUMMARY: Blogs and chain e-mails are spreading a Maureen Dowd column that claims the Obama campaign got suspicious contributions from Iran, Saudi Arabia and China. But the column is a fake.

At first glance, the chain e-mail looks like an authentic column by Maureen Dowd, the Pulitzer-winning New York Times columnist. It has her byline and a headline that says “OBAMA’S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING.” Some versions even have Dowd’s picture.

But the column is a fake, the latest weapon in the growing arsenal of chain e-mailers who are spreading false information about the presidential candidates.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Here’s a contributor of Obama’s that was an Iraqi electricity minister

Ok, but what about the other $199,997,700.00?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

If you read the article,Obama gave $2300 to charity.
We don’t factually KNOW how much this guy sent Obama.
THey’re just concieding that it was at least the maximum legal amount.

Remember the millions of “bundled donations” that came from cooked-up addresses?
THe reporters went to the addresses & found that the folks living in the various places would be hard pressed to contribute the maximum legal amount.
If memory serves me ( and I’ll dig out the original articles) many of the “contributors were minimum or low wage workers.
Of course, it quickly was forgotten....

I’m sorry, I just noticed that the article was from WorldNutDaily.

Hey, did you know that Bill Clinton killed a bunch of people?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Gang, here you go. Everyone in this thread, paste this into whatever news agregator you use and spend 3 days going through their frontpage. Come back here Sunday and tell me what is wrong with Al Jazeera.

As for the actual subject of this post, what the hell gives Burlington government the right to operate a TV distribution system in direct violation of FCC and state regulations? Are commercial broadcast operators allowed to drop or ban programing merely because a portion of their subscribers complain about it? Oh! Yes! Thats right. They can and do. Publicly held providers can not. Just look at PBS and NPR.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Just look at PBS and NPR.

Hey, at least somebody is showing stuff that doesn’t sell.

To ellinas & reality based bob:
Regretably, I used a link & info that was bogus.
I appologize for that.
I came for honest debate & should have double vetted the info.
It won’t happen again.

Ok, what else ya got?

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

uummmm....Sorry I called you a poo-poo head.....

Sometimes I deserve it.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob