Please cite references for your outlandish claims- ie, define the universe and give two examples. you have 30 mins.

otherwse it's just Nixonian paranoid doublespeak.

a free press should be free to ask questions of all siides and then after corroboration of facts and figures, make an assessment. Unlike Fox news.
( well Ok Chris Wallace does try and lets his guests answer rather than answer his own biased questions- the other clowns, not so much)

They make up for it, however, with their exhuberant support of the second!

It is hard to argue that Repubicans are the ones who want to do away with the First Amendment when it is the Democrats who want to…

Both parties, when in their interests, want to limit transparency and/or knowledge amongst the electorate in order to further those interests. It isn't exclusive to either, and is a well-known and historied tactic. The individual methods may vary as much as the interests themselves, but the underlying theme remains universal.

Public officials – which includes every government position from local street cleaner to President – sometimes forget that such jobs are meant to serve the people's interest of the district that empowered them. Freedom of speech, of the press, and expression comes in waves depending on how solid those officials believe their job security and grasp of “power.”

Is it any surprise that both major parties court the growing independent voting “bloc” as much as they currently strive? Again, the methods may vary, but the goal between the two parties remains the same: re-/establish their authority over said electorate.

Tune in Monday – September 8, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. (CDT) to the internet radio show “Change Of Venue” as host Zena Crenshaw talks with Florida attorney and activist Mark Adams on whether the media is an effective monitor of the courts or more like a sleeping watchdog. The Media As Judicial Monitor: A Sleeping Watchdog?
Attorney Adams points out that “even obvious conflicts of interest for financial reasons draw little media attention, and something like exclusion of relevant evidence, personal bias, and ignoring the law and the facts in violation of fundamental due process draws even less”. Don't miss this important interview! CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE
If link doesn't work, try the website http://www.njcdlp.org/Change_of_Venue.html

Sarah Palin has a degree in journalism…. if she can read the mood of the “people” and what they want to know and how urgently this might help explain why she flip flops on issues she supported, only to turn against them because the public didn't like her positions. Not a bad trait for politicians…. however given the mischaracterizations and lies she has been involved in she will tell any story to the public (and make up “facts” as necessary) so she can sell herself and manipulate the public into giving her what she wants….

Seems so Rovian…

In the real world, the nanny state in incombatible with free speech, free press, and free assembly.

Shocker..

That's why I like TMV, and NPR and foreign news-outlets. Not because they are socialist or anti-american or liberal-left…but because they allow a wider range on the menu of information in order to make informed choices.

I listen to their polar opposite: CNN and Fox as well..both de facto GOP limited-information-dispensing outlets. I do so mainly to keep an eye on the angle of the latest spin on “truth”. Fair and balanced my kiester. But occasionally truth does inadvertantly escape from there. I especially like the tactic of cutting off reports just as the opposition (to the GOP) begins to make a point with “well, we're all out of time folks..” They fall back on that one constantly.

I love Colbert's (with a hard “t”…lol..) 'truthiness”.

I don't try at self-deception, in believing that the Internet will become the saviour of news reporting. It has become, however, an exceedingly potent tool in taking the established media to task or pooling human resources together in volunteer ways which only large corporations were able to before. Imagine, if you would, a ham-radio operator gaining media credentials in the 80's or even 90's, and it has certain parallels to what is being achieved today.

Due to the nature of the Internet, people are actively searching for answers. I believe this trend is increasing, albeit slowly. Many people have grown up in “trusting” the voices of the television (and even radio) media, where answers are fed to them without much effort. Now, if they have a question about something, they at least are starting to search for that base truth again.

Would you mind spelling out what these obvious and clear rules are, because I don't really see how such clear rules could even exist. Perhaps it doesn't help that I'm a linguist who realizes that the rules of English are also far from black and white. Indeed they are muddied, variable, and enforced my social codes and aspirations. That aside, I'd love to get a couple paragraphs about these rules that everyone learns in journalism school. You'd at least cure the illiteracy of a couple hundred TMV readers….

:applause:

nail, meet head.