Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/02/2006 4:25:33 AM PST by infocats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: infocats

From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon.


2 posted on 01/02/2006 4:28:06 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
Let the Freedom of the New Media Reign!

It's long been said, "You can't believe everything you read in the paper." I view the internet news and blogs like any other source of information. What is so different in a blog as opposed the the homeless guy selling his paper on the street corner? Each has something to say and a right to be heard.

They don't like the bloggers 'cause it questions their integrity? Perhaps shouldn't be doing things in such a manner as their integrity can be questioned?
5 posted on 01/02/2006 4:43:27 AM PST by EBH (Never give-up, Never give-in, and Never Forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats

The good news is that even if the Govt. and media succeed in censoring the Internet, technology will provide a way around it.

The truth will always come out in the end. McCain and his 'Act', the media whining, the concern of all politicians who cannot control the message - nothing will prevent it.


6 posted on 01/02/2006 4:44:14 AM PST by wvobiwan (It's OUR Net! If you don't like it keep your stanky routers off it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
"This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

That's what MSM reporters do every day -- but they get upset when ordinary people turn the tables and do the same thing to them.

12 posted on 01/02/2006 6:12:52 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon, said the traditional skills of sifting through information and presenting it in context were especially vital now because there were so many other sources of information.

"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said. "I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

CNN is widely reviled by the military -- I hate to read quotes from one of their reporters telling me what a great job CNN is doing.

13 posted on 01/02/2006 6:18:59 AM PST by 68skylark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats; Timesink; martin_fierro; reformed_democrat; Loyalist; =Intervention=; PianoMan; GOPJ; ...
Media Schadenfreude alert.

Seelye:

..."Here's your chance to go behind the scenes with the gatekeepers of the national media to see how they screen out viewpoints and information that don't fit their stereotypes," Rob Crowther, the institute's spokesman, wrote on the Web site...

..."All these developments have forced journalists to respond in a variety of ways, including becoming more open about their methods and techniques and perhaps more conscious of how they filter information."

14 posted on 01/02/2006 6:21:13 AM PST by an amused spectator (Bush Runner! The Donkey is after you! Bush Runner! When he catches you, you're through!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel

Don't tick off a guy who buys his pixels by the Terabyte.

15 posted on 01/02/2006 6:23:52 AM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
Jamie McIntyre, CNN's senior correspondent at the Pentagon..... It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

If that isn't a glaring example of the need for the internet, I don't know what is.

18 posted on 01/02/2006 6:30:50 AM PST by mollynme (cogito, ergo freepum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
Read more at nytimes.com ...

NYT will get my money some time after Hell freezes over. They'll get my clicks on the Web some time after that.

Old Media needs to be reminded of the FULL First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will not concede that my freedom of speech is in any way inferior to the NYT's freedom of the press.
22 posted on 01/02/2006 6:47:08 AM PST by filbert (More filbert at http://www.medary.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats

This article seemed to be uniquely fair. I think the author was trying to insinuate that now the world is free to see the process, that the end product will be somewhat deficient because the interviewers are now subject to scrutiny. Of course, the converse is true because they are no longer allowed to cherry pick their info in order to push their thinly veiled agendas.


24 posted on 01/02/2006 7:09:05 AM PST by kerryusama04 (The Bill of Rights is not occupation specific.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats; Liz; martin_fierro; Ernest_at_the_Beach; devolve; PhilDragoo; BOBTHENAILER

I posted this thread yesterday. 2005 was not a good year stock price wise for the electronic MSM, and 2005 was more of a disaster for most of the big fishwraps.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550250/posts

Media stocks flat; majors down for `05 Big newspaper publishers' valuations slumped
Market Watch ^ | 12/30/2005 | William Spain


Posted on 01/01/2006 10:15:30 AM PST by Grampa Dave


WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Media stocks ended the last day of 2005 trading pretty much flat as shares of all the big conglomerates stalled.

NWSNWS16.61, -0.06, -0.4%) , Disney (DIS: Walt Disney Company (The) (Holding Company) News, chart, profile Last: 23.97-0.20-0.83%

DISDIS23.97, -0.20, -0.8%) and Time Warner (TWX: time warner inc com News, chart, profile Last: 17.44-0.04-0.23%

TWXTWX17.44, -0.04, -0.2%) ended down less than 1%, while Viacom (VIA: viacom inc cl a News, chart, profile Last: 32.76+0.34+1.05%

VIAVIA32.76, +0.34, +1.0%) was up slightly.

The four will end the year lower than where they started it. Time Warner is down 10.3% over the past 52 weeks; Viacom is off 11.7%; News Corp. is down 13.5%; and Disney has given up 13.8%.

But that isn't a patch on the valuation drops at some big newspaper companies:

The New York Times (NYT: New York Times Company News, chart, profile Last: 26.45+0.01+0.04%

NYT abd TRB have surrendered 35.2% and 28.42, respectively, since the end of 2004.

Dow Jones, (DJ: dow jones & co inc com), parent of MarketWatch, the publisher of this report, is off 17.6%

In an interview with the Times of London, Martin Sorrell the chief executive of advertising agency holding company WPP warned that while global ad spending should be up in 2006 with the help of worldwide sporting events and U.S. midterm elections, it could be a tough year for the industry in some spots.

Shares of WPP Group (UK:WPP: news, chart, profile) were down in London as were those of both its American rivals, Omnicom (OMC: and Interpublic (IPG:

William Spain is a MarketWatch staff writer in Chicago.


26 posted on 01/02/2006 7:24:30 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The NY Slimes has been committing treason and sedition for decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
"It's now O.K. to demonize the messenger," he said. "This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."

Awwwwwwwwwww! In other words, they're caught, and they know it!

With reporters conducting interviews more frequently by e-mail, he said, "You have to start thinking a couple of moves ahead because you're leaving a paper trail. And the truth squad mentality of some bloggers means you are apt to have your own questions thrown back at you."

"Truth Squad" mentality? My, they're upset at being exposed!

"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said.

And that's different from what you do, how?

27 posted on 01/02/2006 7:27:15 AM PST by BlessedBeGod (Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: infocats
"...We've pretended to be like priests turning water to wine, like it's a secret process. Those days are gone."

Amen!

37 posted on 01/02/2006 2:04:52 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson