Before he was assassinated, Robert F. Kennedy declared that “hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard.” That does not appear to be the view of ABC News, which censored his son who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination. ABC objected to Kennedy’s views on COVID-19 vaccines, so it simply announced that it was preventing viewers from hearing those views to protect them from dangerous ideas.
ABC’s Linsey Davis began the interview by introducing Kennedy as “one of the biggest voices pushing anti-vaccine rhetoric, regularly distributing misinformation and disinformation about vaccines, which scientific and medical experts overwhelmingly say are safe and effective based on rigorous scientific studies.”
That apparently was not enough. After telling viewers that this is one of his most famous stances (and its own disagreement), it then censored those views.
After airing the interview, Davis announced “[w]e should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines. We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview.”
Kennedy tweeted that “47 USC 315 makes it illegal for TV networks to censor Presidential candidates but Thursday, ABC showed its contempt for the law, democracy, and its audience by cutting most of the content of my interview with host Linsey Davis leaving only cherry-picked snippets and a defamatory disclaimer.”
The provision is designed to guarantee equal time for presidential candidates and does add “such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast.” However, that does not mean that a candidate is given carte blanche and cannot be edited. In this case, however, ABC is affirmatively stating that it censored his remarks because it disagreed with them.
Putting aside the federal law, this is wrong. ABC can challenge such views, but it is actively seeking to prevent voters from hearing a presidential candidate on an issue of great public interest and debate.
It is particularly troubling after prior media censorship has been shown to have been wrong in silencing dissenting scientific views.
We have seen various journalistic and scientific figures banned for expressing skepticism over pandemic claims from the origins of the virus to the efficacy of certain treatments. For example, when many people raised the possibility that the virus may have been released from the nearby Chinese virology lab (rather than the “wet market” theory), they were denounced as virtually a lunatic fringe. Even objections to the bias of authors of a report dismissing the lab theory were ridiculed. The New York Times reporter covering the area called it “racist” and implausible. Now, even W.H.O. admits that the lab theory is possible and Biden officials are admitting that it is indeed plausible.
The same is true with the debate over the efficacy of masks. For over a year, some argued that the commonly used masks are ineffective to protect against the virus. Now, the CDC is warning that the masks do not appear to block these variants and even CNN’s experts are calling the cloth masks “little more than facial decorations.”
Yet, the W.H.O. head is now embracing censorship as a means of combating the “infodemic.” There are also calls, including from the White House, for Spotify to ban or curtail Joe Rogan’s show for allowing dissenting views to be aired on Covid or its treatment.
If there had not been such extensive censorship of dissenting viewpoints, there might have been more discussion on the costs and science behind the lockdowns. Instead, there was a chilling effect on such dissenting voices and those expressing doubts were labeled extremists or conspiracy theorists. Recently, for example, scientists have come forward to admit that they also suspected the Wuhan lab was the origin of virus but were silenced by the backlash at the CDC and universities.
It is also not clear where ABC draws the line. Joe Biden has made so many false statements that the Washington Post gave him a “bottomless Pinocchio.” Likewise, many view contested claims over climate change and transgender issues to be dangerous. Will ABC now be censoring these other candidates or positions?
As noted by ABC, the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion still disagrees with Kennedy. That is fair to note. However, ABC is now claiming the right to censor presidential candidates to protect the public from harmful thoughts or disinformation, including major issues behind a campaign. It is wrong for both the country and for journalism.
We do not have to be protected from dangerous thoughts by the media. A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship.
There is no time in history where the people who were censoring speech were the good guys. Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Prove him wrong.
With all this being said and agreeing that what ABC did was wrong, it looks like the law states ABC can do this without repercussions. So what is the answer to reaching the mass majority? A considerable part of the population does not and will not research for further facts than whatever T.V. channel they are watching.
sandsgrandmother: “A considerable part of the population does not and will not research for further facts than whatever T.V. channel they are watching.”
That is a very important statement you made.
“As noted by ABC, the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion still disagrees with Kennedy.”
+++
At one time the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion disagreed with Copernicus.
Young, I fear you Just Made Stuff Up.
David,
As for your fear, I think they have a pill for that. I didn’t know you were a snowflake.
Copernicus delayed publication until after his death because he reasonably feared the consequences of going against the prevailing Ptolemaic model.
For a long while the Copernican approach was accepted simply for ease of calculation, a sort of shortcut, rather than being fundamentally correct. It was thought a convenient fiction.
Ultimately both he and Galileo missed the mark because, in part, they were entranced with perfect circles. It took Kepler to set it straight.
Copernicus wasn’t entirely original. He mentioned Aristarchos in his notes and then tried to remove the name.
“He mentioned Aristarchos in his notes and then tried to remove the name.”
Strangely, he deleted from the ms he submitted for publication the two pages that refer to A and other Greeks. Yet he kept those two pages in his personal copy of the ms.
Have you read anything about his motivation for doing that?
No. His motivation wasn’t mentioned in the biography I read. Desire to claim originality was my guess but tempered by a love of truth. It’s interesting but I suppose we will never know.
Sam and Young,
Thank you for the interesting history lesson.
I will add the Copernicus biography to my reading list but might not be till next winter till I can get to it. Still have a few books to read.
Y: Here’s an interesting explanation, by Own Gingerich, Harvard emeritus, History of Science:
“In order to examine . . . motivation . . .” (Start at P 2, par. 2) It’s a brief piece, accessible to a layman.
The tricky part about such analyses is to distinguish between what G knew about A’s system, versus what later scholars discovered about A’s ideas.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985JHA….16…37G
Sam,
The link didn’t work for me but I will try to find it. It occurred to me that Copernicus may have conceived the idea thinking it was original only to discover later that it had been thought of by the Greeks. All of us have independently thought of some new idea only to discover others have had the same notion. Appolonius reportedly thought ellipses would answer the orbital discrepancies about a millennium before Kepler’s brilliant success.
Y: Search “gingerich aristarchus.” Second link, under Harvard University. Click “next article page” (lower right) to read through. The article’s free.
Thanks! I will look for it.
I just read Gingrich’s “Copernicus: A very Short Inroduction” and he mentions that Copernicus originally used a Latin quote that mentioned Aristarchos and then replaced it with essentially the same quote that left out Aristarchos. Doesn’t feel like an oversight though.
Sam,
Just read it and it is a great article. Thank you for the citation!
Y: You’re welcome. And thank you for an engaging discussion.
Young, “the overwhelming weight” didn’t disagree. See Wikipedia regarding his introduction to his book.
David,
And yet Galileo’s life was threatened and he was put under house arrest for supporting the heliocentric theory. I think Cardinal Bellarmine’s opinion matters more. Whatever Copernicus may have said in his introduction his act in deferring publication until he was safely dead speaks for itself.
Why do you think Kuhn thought Copernicus’ work was a prime example of one of his Paradigm Shifts? Why is it called the Copernican Revolution?
Quite apart from that, I am surprised you think that science advances by popular vote.
Overwhelming weight of opinion can be overwhelmingly wrong.
Do you still think the Earth stands still while the Universe turns around us?
Do you still believe in witches?
At one time nearly everyone believed in both and as to the latter particularly you risked your life by expressing doubt.
Young, work on publication had begun several years before his death, as the Popes at the time were favorable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus
That was not the case for Galileo.
As for Terra standing still, why not? It just makes for a really complicated mathematics to explain it. Kepler, Newton and Einstein are much simpler.
It had occurred to me that one could view the Earth as motionless and the center of everything. But that necessarily puts the other planets in relative motion to us, each other, and the Sun. Comparing solar objects our planet is more nearly described by other planets whose motion is accepted as a given. Unless we allow our descriptions to become nonsensical we, like other planets accepted to be in motion, are also in motion.
David: “As for Terra standing still, why not? It just makes for a really complicated mathematics to explain it.”
+++
On second though I am not sure that can work. Don’t you think the remotest galaxies in the universe would have to be moving rather fast to make it all the way around the Earth every 24 hours?
Young — Well. we threw out Einstein, so no problem!
David,
Yes, you would have to give Einstein a vacation to have most of the Universe whipping around us at superluminal speeds. Fun to think about though.
“Whatever Copernicus may have said in his introduction . . .”
Are you referring to the anonymous, *unauthorized* introduction? If so, that was not his.
Sam, no. Copernicus dedicated the work to the Pope in his own introduction.
David,
I think you are too focused on the religious aspect of the issue. Even Cardinal Belarmine respected Galileo enough to offer an accomodation which Galileo rejected.
Among those who could grasp the issue the principal objection to the heliocentric model was not scriptural but the evidence of one’s senses and the enormous authority of Ptolemy.
Υουng:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
David, I didn’t say that Galileo’s dispute with the Church was not genuine. I said that the informed opposition to Copernicus was based on the Ptolemaic Model. If you actually read some of the sources you cite, including this one, you would see that even the Church adopted the Ptolemaic interpretation.
To restate the original part of this discussion, there was an overwhelming weight of informed opinion [Ptolemaic] that Copernicus was almost alone in contradicting.
You have been saying that isn’t true but even the Wikipedia articles you link confirm that it is. You are citing against yourself. You are making stuff up. And you are wrong.
Again to the start, the fact that the overwhelming weight of opinion did not agree with Kennedy on the ‘vaccine’ means nothing.
He shows his reasoning while the ‘experts’ rely on ex cathedra declarations and that is not good enough against facts.
I think he was referring to the unauthorized introduction. He sometimes misses things when he latches on to anything that he thinks supports his position. The same Wikipedia article is pretty clear in saying that the system of Ptolemy was dominant at the time.
Revisiting this subject and the role of the ancients I can’t help but think that they lived in an era of men with almost godlike intelligence. The same seems true reading of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton and Leibniz among many others. Today I worry not so much that our schools are not teaching much–they are not–but they are somehow destroying curiosity.
“Today I worry not so much that our schools are not teaching much–they are not–but they are somehow destroying curiosity.” Nor are critical-thinking skills being taught, Young.
“. . . but they are somehow destroying curiosity.”
Tragically true. It’s because they are not teaching important ideas, and are not motivating students to believe that ideas are important.
Ugrads used to tell me that when they were in high school, they were excited about going to college. That they would be taught epochal issues by the world’s best professors. Now in college, they lamented, they were mostly just bored.
And Galileo, and Barry Marshall and Robin Warren,..and Bernie Fisher…..and…….
Overwhelming scientific opinion of those who agree with ABC disagrees with Kennedy. The facts and data do not disagree.
I’ll continue to follow the silenced. It saved me from a sudden death.
Jane Snow, you didn’t die when you vaccinated as a child so you could go to school:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3340474/
David, I know 3 family members who were apparently injured by the ‘vaccine’, one of them killed, and I know about 20 people not vaccinated who began to recover within 24 hours of the first dose of Ivermectin, one of those being myself. When the experts say the sky is orange and I can look up and see that it is blue I go with what I personally know.
An apparent exception to that practice is when the senses tell you the Earth isn’t moving but Copernicus tells you that it is. The difference is that Copernicus explains why he reached that conclusion while, on the other hand, our Covid ‘experts’ have been hiding information and censoring debate, and punishing dissenters, rather like the Inquisition.
Free speech is cleansing.
Young, stated otherwise, being basically heathy the *ivermectin did’t kill you and you, in any case, recovered quickly from your bout of Covid-19.
I don’t observe any hidden information or censored debate, just insanity on the part of the ignoranti.
David– ” I don’t observe any hidden information or censored debate, just insanity on the part of the ignoranti.”
++
No, you wouldn’t.
At times you remind me of the clerics who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to see the moons of Jupiter.
You don’t need or want actual evidence when you can rely on faith and authority and insulting those who disagree with you.
You might have a look at Phil Harper’s substack, The Digger, if you actually care, which increasingly seems unlikely. Letting go of smug ignorance is hard. He will take you by the hand and lead you through, step by step, to see what is happening.
Failing that, watch the short Rumble video of ‘A letter to Dr Andrew Hill” by Tess Lawrie, a co-researcher of his.
https://rumble.com/vwfia3-a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie-oracle-films.html
You may find one of your ignoranti in the mirror.
There is nothing facile about immunology.
Unless people are willing to dig deep into the molecular and genetic mechanisms of how a virus is sensed by immune cells, cardiomyocytes, arteries, platelets, pulmonary tissues, and the brain parenchyma, and the ensuing cascade of responses, quoting one to half a dozen studies / publications proves nothing. Medicine is built on a wealth of published studies in reliable journals that demonstrate original research, not to be confused with review articles. If you want to convince your audience of anything on this topic, no matter which side of the aisle they stand, you have to throw evidenced based data by the truck load. Search for “PubMed” and “Web of Science” on the internet, they are excellent resources in this regard.
There is no such thing as monolithic thinking in medicine. Never has. Never will.
“Medicine is built on a wealth of published studies in reliable journals that demonstrate original research, not to be confused with review articles.”
Well said, Estovir. Neither medicine nor ‘science’ can claim ‘truth’ based on one or two company-funded studies with nothing more than “me too”s glomming on. Consensus is not Science. Coercion is not Consent. Even reliable journals are becoming less so, unfortunately. While the article below isn’t recent, the sentiment is just as relevant, today. This, coming from what one can hardly call a right-wing publication.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
I can’t find, “…power to be heard…” in the Constitution.
I should clarify, ABC is wrong to editorialize away comments it disagrees with. They, like the rest of Legacy Media have already lost the trust of their viewers. This decision will not increase their ratings.
Having said that – Mr. Kennedy, these folks are on ‘your’ side. Surely you should have seen the censorship bus barreling down the the Left side of the road, by directly in the path of your own free speech.
ABC news is Disney after all. I’ll be Orwellian. Was ABC’s censoring because they disagreed with Mr Kennedy or because maybe they want him to be successful and eliminate the Dead Hand that presently runs the country. Censoring Mr Kennedy could be a means of preventing him from looking like a fool with his total advocacy of no vaccines, or maybe this was just their automatic reflex to censor anyone who takes a stance against the Dead Hand. Maybe there are 2 democratic cabals in ABC, one promoting the Dead Hand and one wanting to see the Dead Hand gone. Maybe the Dead Hand cabal actually won this time. Or not. Flip a coin. Or take a complaint to the FEC.
Just remember you simple MAGA loving rubes censorship by entities such as ABC and social media is for your own good. We need elites to control public discourse in order to protect the public.
And if you disagree, you are a ‘nazi’ and that includes you JT despite your otherwise impeccable liberal credentials.
And let’s include RFK, Jr. for questioning the sacred “vaccine” narrative.
antonio
“ABC’s Linsey Davis began the interview by introducing Kennedy as “one of the biggest voices pushing anti-vaccine rhetoric, regularly distributing misinformation and disinformation about vaccines, which scientific and medical experts overwhelmingly say are safe and effective based on rigorous scientific studies.”
That apparently was not enough.”
It was not enough for Turley. What Turley does not want to admit is that even though ABC decided not to air the portions of the interview that they deemed false claims about the vaccines. His ideas are still being able to be expressed and have been expressed enough that virtually everyone knows what his ideas and positions are. ABC made a choice that Turley doesn’t like. I get that. Unfortunately ABC is not a government agency and is not really obligated to publish everything in the interview. Fox News does this all the time. It’s called bias. The great thing about freedom of speech in this country is that it’s not limited to just using the networks. The internet is also available and so are his own campaign rallies. \
If a network chooses not to cover a campaign rally is it exercising censorship? What about when they cut off midway through a speech as they have done with trump on a few occasions? Isn’t that a form of censorship or editing?
Duh, readin’ n stuff iz hard. “However, that does not mean that a candidate is given carte blanche and cannot be edited. In this case, however, ABC is affirmatively stating that it censored his remarks because it disagreed with them.”
In their servitude to the federal governing bureaucracy, the corporate statists who own and run ABC will do what they will to serve the medical-industrial complex’s propaganda. If the complex says the science is settled, then it’s settled. If the complex says a vaccine is safe, then it’s safe. And when the complex says it is too few who suffer medical adversities to warrant concern and that everyone should accept it and just move on, then most do faithfully oblige and just move on.
For some time now Kennedy has been sharing the rest of the science for the benefit of those interested in knowing all of the science. Kennedy will surely keep on sharing what he knows, but for ABC at least it appears his sharing has been enough. Time to shut it down so not to risk losing any further hold on its dutiful and unwavering base.
“For some time now Kennedy has been sharing the rest of the science for the benefit of those interested in knowing all of the science.”
And as you say, he will continue to do so freely through other platforms and media organizations. Which means his ‘censorship’ at ABC is not a serious threat to his ability to keep saying what he wants to say. There is no risk of losing influence on his part. He can spout his views endlessly as he always has.
We both agree that ABC is within its right to do what it has done, but do you agree with what it has done?
ABC has made it so that Kennedy has indeed lost influence with any objective and reasonable ABC viewers who may wish to hear them. But judging from your cavalier comment that he can “spout” and do it “endlessly” elsewhere, clearly suggests you’re not one of ABC’s objective and reasonable ABC viewers so that it matters nothing to you one way or the other.
“We both agree that ABC is within its right to do what it has done, but do you agree with what it has done?”
Honestly, don’t know if I would agree with what they did. All I can say is that it’s not going to change anything regarding Kennedy’s views. If ABC chooses not to air the parts they deem false claims it’s their prerogative. I
ABC deems parts false, but would anyone else without the benefit of hearing it? It is discouraging that you don’t know if you would agree with what they did. Having an open mind should mean that one certainly doesn’t agree with what they did.
Linsey Davis is a good little obedient Schill for ABC News. She wants to keep her job. Just claim that anything the Democrats disagree with is “disinformation” and censor away. This is the Democrat’s 2024 presidential strategy. MAGA Republicans, Disinformation, and keep Lunch Box Joe in the basement in Delaware. It’s a winning formula.
SkyRaider1717,
Yep.
And “81 million” Americans will “vote” for the president campaigning from the basement . . . again.
47 USC 315 makes it illegal for TV networks to censor Presidential candidates…
RFK’s first mistake was assumming he was being interviewed on a TV network. His second mistake was assuming the law was going to be enforced by Biden’s Justice department.
ABC and other so called news media outlets that blatantly censor presidential candidates should immediately forfeit all media legal protections and be banned from hosting presidential debates.
Is Kennedy really being censored? The thing is, his views on the COVID vaccine are already well known. He’s already been able to express his opinion on the matter multiple times by multiple outlets including ABC before. It’s not like people don’t know what he’s talking about. ABC’s decision may be an editorial choice, but is it really censorship when his views and ideas about vaccines are well known. All he would be doing is repeating what he has already said.
Fox News stopped airing Trump’s voter fraud claims or refused to address them when they were being sued. Were they censoring those who kept making those claims? The voter fraud claims were a skeptical as the idea of COVID’s origins or the efficacy of vaccines.
ABC is not the only media outlet available to Kennedy. He has other options, Fox News, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NewsMax, OAN, even the internet. Facebook, Twitter, various newspapers, etc, etc. When there are plenty of options and avenues to express those ideas one media company is not going to be barrier against Kennedy’s views and ideas. Their choice to omit certain parts of the interview may certainly be construed as a bad idea, but it’s not necessarily the harbinger of mass censorship Turley loves to portray.
“We do not have to be protected from dangerous thoughts by the media. A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship.”
There’s quite a bit of irony in that statement, because Turley does not practice what he preaches. He’s right that we do not have to be protected from dangerous thoughts or even extremely offensive ones. If that were true, his civility rules shouldn’t include the censorship of openly racist comments or vulgarity. Racist comments can include dangerous thoughts and Turley bans those comments from his forum. He IS a media platform. Turley does not practice what he preaches.
Svelaz,
There is quite a pungent odor emanating from that pile of unethical rationalization trying to justify ABC’s censorship. What ABC did was wrong and you trying to oppose what Turley wrote and justify ABC’s actions is signature significant of totalitarian hive-minded illiberal fool.
Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.
Svelaz wrote, “He [Turley] IS a media platform.”
You’re a bald-faced liar.
This is an opinion blog, not a media outlet.
Witherspoon says,
“Svelaz wrote, “He [Turley] IS a media platform.”
You’re a bald-faced liar.
This is an opinion blog, not a media outlet.”
Media; 1.
the main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the internet).
Turley’s blog has GASP!! 60,000,000 views. Does that qualify as “mass communication”? Yes.
YOUR own blog is also media. Turley constantly PUBLISHES his columns on his blog which IS a media platform.
It seems you’re the bald faced liar. Since you live posting definitions of words maybe you should have looked up the definition of “media” first before commenting.
The fact that you didn’t post anything of substance and just blathered on as usual attacking the post without thinking.
I only pointed out that Kennedy’s views are already well known. His views and ideas about vaccines have already been expressed freely and any act of ‘censoring’ it now is literally useless. ABC chose not to air what is already known by many. His free speech rights are intact and he’s still free to express his disappointment about the interview on social media or another network. ABC made a choice, a poor one? Perhaps, but it’s still a choice it CAN make. That doesn’t mean the end of the world. Turley loves to paint such a picture because it feeds YOUR rage about “liberal media”. One thing is for sure, Turley knows how to exploit your emotions and biases.
Svelaz: I’m amused. Indeed, YOUR opinions, views, and criticisms of this blog’s host are very, very, very well-known on this blog site, e.g., “Turley is hypocritical;” “Turley is a liar,” (and my favorite, “Turley is disingenuous,”), etc. Your lectures to other commenters about the applicable law (although you are neither a lawyer nor an educator) are also well known. (Indeed, you have attempted to correct the good professor on the law….)
Despite my amusement, I must ask: so why are you here every morning? Why do you repeat the same mantra, ad nauseam? After all, YOU, -just like Kennedy, “have other options…” Your own advice, verbatim, is: “When there are plenty of options and avenues to express those ideas one media company is not going to be barrier against Kennedy’s views and ideas.”
So please tell us, where else on this broad landscape of Internet platforms, have you taken your message for exposure?
Is it because Turley’s blog is the only place that will accept and tolerate you? Should Professor Turley censor you for misinformation/disinformation, because everyone already knows what you are all about?
Please tell us why you persist to infiltrate this blog each day from your “research” room? This is sincere; I am genuinely asking. Yours truly, lin.
Lin, Svelaz won’t “change the channel” because he wants to ruin the channel and ultimately make the comments section disappear.
Hullboby, you know you can also change the channel, right? Nobody is forcing you to just use Turley’s blog. That’s the unfortunate reality that is this whole free speech issue. It involves not just speech you would prefer, also speech that you don’t agree with. I don’t agree with a lot of your ideas and views and I can point out to you why I don’t. Just as you do with me. Crazy, right?
“Despite my amusement, I must ask: so why are you here every morning? Why do you repeat the same mantra, ad nauseam? After all, YOU, -just like Kennedy, “have other options…” Your own advice, verbatim, is: “When there are plenty of options and avenues to express those ideas one media company is not going to be barrier against Kennedy’s views and ideas.”
Lin, you really don’t get why some repeat the same points? Could it be that it is the position they hold perhaps. At least it’s consistent, no? Why I am here every morning, is the same reason why everyone else is here every morning. I do post in other sites and I have no problem expressing my views elsewhere. I do what I “preach” and I know that my free speech rights are not “in danger” as Turley often likes to portray free speech rights as being “under attack”. Just as Kennedy’s ideas are already available for anyone to read, and see on other sites and networks. ABC choosing not to air the part of the interview which they deem to be false claims is perfectly within their prerogative. Just like Turley chooses to delete openly racist comments on his blog despite being a “free speech absolutist” simply because he doesn’t like them. It’s his prerogative. Right? Why shouldn’t ABC which is a private broadcasting company.
I post on here because I can. It’s as simple as that. How is any other poster different? There are a lot of regulars here who post and even troll constantly, every day. George posts more than I and you don’t question his daily rants? Why is that? Why can’t I be the “devils advocate” to Turley’s opinions and views? Isn’t that the whole point of free speech and the open and free sharing of ideas and perspectives? Even truly offensive and insulting ones?
I do share my ideas on other platforms and I have no problem when one ends up “banning” me or “revoking posting privileges” when I can simply go to another. A lot of right leaning forums ban folks who they don’t agree with all the time and that’s just fine.
Turley is a hypocrite and is disingenuous most of the time. And he’s fair game when it comes to criticism as anyone else is. Right?
Svelaz: Thanks for responding. Apparently, “you really don’t get why” I sincerely asked you a question.
As you know, I have never questioned your right to make comments here. I simply question your motive, especially for your very redundant themes. Sorry that went over your head. Thanks anyway, go ahead as usual and get the last word in, for others’ (and your) sake. I’m good.
Lin,
You are a very classy lady!
Good take down of Sleezevez!
Svelaz,
By the definition you provided you are technically correct. News is considered to be part of the media but not all (in fact very little) of the media is considered to be the news, as in journalism, like ABC. I was wrong to correlate the two, as many people inadvertently do, and I retract what I wrote. I also apologize for falsely saying you were a liar in this particular instance.
Replace my above statement “This is an opinion blog, not a media outlet.” with this statement which is technically correct, “This is an opinion blog, not a news outlet.”
Now let’s briefly address context and social correlation.
The major context delivered in Turley’s blog post was about censorship by ABC, a news outlet, not a non-news media outlet. There was only a dishonorable mention of the “media” in general. The news is supposed to have a higher standard of journalistic ethics and professionalism than the media in general. The overall theme of Turley’s blog was specifically that “A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship” and that kind of intentional lying by omission censorship (that’s what ABC did) simply doesn’t exist on Turley’s blog, in fact your regular comments attacking Turley are a good example that it simply doesn’t exist here. Your comparison of ABC’s (a national news outlet) censorship to the few hit-n-run uncivil internet trolls that don’t follow the rules and get their comments deleted on this opinion blog is absurd. Your implication of censorship hypocrisy is unfounded and quite illogical.
The social correlation between “the media” and “the news” has gotten so terribly blurred because of the use of pure advocate journalism in the 21st century that there are loads of people out there that think the advocacy journalism, delivered by what used to be ethical news outlets, is actually journalist news and not the pure propaganda that it truly is. The shifting of “the news” to becoming pure propaganda media is almost complete.
Furthermore…
Svelaz wrote, “The fact that you didn’t post anything of substance…”
That’s false.
Actually Svelaz, like it or not, this statement was substantive and spoke directly about what you wrote…
What you wrote was full of unethical rationalizations.
By the way Svelaz, your blind assumption that everyone knows what Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s opinions are about vaccines is false, and I’m proof of that fact. I have absolutely no idea what Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s opinions on vaccines are in the same way that I don’t know what your opinions are or the opinions of the other 331.9 million people in the USA. Your claim is absurd and unsupportable.
By the way Svelaz, you wrote, “He IS a media platform”, this is literally a false statement. “He IS” a person, not a “media platform”. What you should have written is “His blog is a media platform”.
HA, based on this I was technically correct before but for a different reason. Details, details. 😉
Hmmm, should I retract my retraction? Naaaaa, the retraction stands because it was about a different error.
Witherspoon, LOL, picky, picky, we both know what we meant. I will still respect your honest apology though.
it wasn’t an apology. It was a CONTEXTUAL acknowledgment, we know how you love contextual comprehension.
Witherspoon, I accept your apology and thank you for the acknowledgment of your error. That is a hard thing to do and I respect that.
“Turley’s blog was specifically that “A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship” and that kind of intentional lying by omission censorship (that’s what ABC did) simply doesn’t exist on Turley’s blog, in fact your regular comments attacking Turley are a good example that it simply doesn’t exist here.”
I will have to disagree. Turley also practices “censorship” by omission. His columns are rife with them. Dennis McIntyre is always pointing them out with great clarity.
The conflation of news with ‘media’ is a product of the right. “Left-wing media”, “mainstream media”, “liberal media” etc. all were conflating the term ‘media’ to mean anything news or information related. Media is simply the platform used for disseminating the news, information, opinions, etc. TV is one form of media, the internet is another, radio, cassette tapes, USB drives, hard drives, etc. etc. I’m sure you get the picture.
“By the way Svelaz, your blind assumption that everyone knows what Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s opinions are about vaccines is false, and I’m proof of that fact.”
It’s not an assumption. Just because you didn’t know about it does not mean everyone else who isn’t aware means nobody does.
BTW, what I wrote was a different perspective. That you believe is an “unethical rationalization” is merely you own opinion.
Svelaz wrote, “That is a hard thing to do and I respect that.”
It’s really not a hard thing to do for people with integrity. I learned long ago to swallow my pride, do what’s right and let the chips fall where they may.
Svelaz wrote, “I will have to disagree. Turley also practices “censorship” by omission. His columns are rife with them.”
Please site relevant instances where Turley actually lied by omission.
Svelaz wrote, “The conflation of news with ‘media’ is a product of the right. “Left-wing media”, “mainstream media”, “liberal media” etc. all were conflating the term ‘media’ to mean anything news or information related. Media is simply the platform used for disseminating the news, information, opinions…”
You either missed or ignored this really important context, “there are loads of people out there that think the advocacy journalism, delivered by what used to be ethical news outlets, is actually journalist news and not the pure propaganda that it truly is.”
Svelaz wrote, “It’s not an assumption. Just because you didn’t know about it does not mean everyone else who isn’t aware means nobody does.”
Reread what I wrote and then reply without effectively putting words in my mouth. I did not say or imply that “nobody does”, you literally extrapolated what I wrote to absurdity.
You stating that his views are “well known” IS most definitely an assumption on your part and not supportable with facts. Maybe the people in his home state know his views well, heck maybe even the wackadoodle anti-vaxers know his views well, but the fact is that there are people out there, likely lots of them, that do not know his views on topics, including vaccines, and ABC censoring his views and replacing it with their biased opinion was wrong. They should have presented his views so the people that don’t know his views could be properly informed with the facts, but no, instead they spewed their biased advocacy journalism opinions about his views and expect people to just swallow that as fact. Biased advocacy journalism from a major news outlet, like this, is unacceptable.
Svelaz wrote, “BTW, what I wrote was a different perspective. That you believe is an “unethical rationalization” is merely you own opinion.”
It may be a different perspective, aka your opinion, but it was still full of unethical rationalizations. Read the list I linked to and maybe you can get a better understanding of what I’m talking about, that’s why I shared the link.
The news reports and news products should be objective as possible. Mostly they cover up important information by not reporting.
This is beyond stupid. So why are they not censoring everything Biden repeats?
Also, Fox didn’t censor a presidentail candidate.
They stopped giving him a platform to spew his false claims when the got sued. He was being censored or not?
“but is it really censorship when his views and ideas about vaccines are well known. All he would be doing is repeating what he has already said.”
Yes, pinhead, it is censorship. Listen to your conflicting views on censorship when you accuse Turley of censoring foul language that everyone knows about. That you can’t remember your argument from one day to the next demonstrates how your arguments are meaningless and demonstrate a lack of intellect.
What you are doing is listing arguments without understanding what they mean or how the argument pertains to what you are talking about. This is almost like AI where responses don’t match the questions.
“Fox News stopped airing Trump’s voter fraud claims or refused to address them when they were being sued. “
Think of the circumstances, and don’t forget that there is a law preventing the editing of a Presidential candidate’s statements. Trump was not running for president, Kennedy is. In any event, the left-wing press has been censoring continuously.
“Turley does not practice what he preaches.”
Freedom of speech does not provide the freedom to curse or groom. That steps on your toes so you get angry, but this blog is about as free as it gets. Curse and groom elsewhere.
S. Meyer says, “Think of the circumstances, and don’t forget that there is a law preventing the editing of a Presidential candidate’s statements.”
What law is that S. Meyer? You should post it so everyone is informed. Please do.
“Freedom of speech does not provide the freedom to curse or groom.”
Freedom of speech does provide the freedom to curse. Groom? MMMM…don’t know about that one. I don’ think grooming is speech. Cursing is protected speech. You didn’t know that? You can cuss out a cop to his face and not be arrested. You can’t post openly racist comments on this blog which racist views and ideas are protected speech too. This blog does not support the ideals that the free speech absolutist who owns it claims to be for.
Nuance is not your strong suit obviously. But carry on S. Meyer. Carry on.
While I agree generally with your position, obscenity law does not provide a 100% “freedom to curse.” Cohen v. California famously protected “F*** the draft” and gave us Justice Harlan’s line: “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” it did not render unconstitutional any prohibitions on profanity. It just clarified that profane words, by themselves, cannot be banned under the First Amendment.
That is why some states still criminalize profanity in certain contexts, like Georgia, which prohibits profanity in the presence of a child under 14 years old: https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-11-39.html
The real problem here is Professor Turley omitting (I am not sure it is a “lie” by omission but certainly not ideal) that the cited statute requires the network to “operate in the public interest.” This means if RFK Jr. said something that caused a panic (like yelling fire in a crowded theater), then censorship is not only allowed, it may be REQUIRED by law during a news broadcast. The quoted language is below:
Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/315
“What law is that S. Meyer?”
47 USC 315
Learn to read what you are responding to.
“Freedom of speech does provide the freedom to curse.”
I guess you remain ignorant of the definition of free speech despite being provided the definition before.
Free speech definition: “speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution”
A groomer generally uses speech unless you are mute. I limit the term as a reflection on you and not on combing hair.
“Cursing is protected speech. You didn’t know that?”
You are dumber than a bag of bricks. Some cursing can be protected speech, but not all. Try going before a judge and curse him out. See what happens.
Svelaz, you asked for the law and I gave it to you. Then you disappeared. It demonstrates why one shouldn’t deal with your type of pinhead. You will repeat the same error in a later post. Nothing can be done with such stupidity.
Is Kennedy really being censored?
The law is written in plain language. It has been pasted into comments. What part of editing out part of the interview, don’t you understand?
ABC does not have to fret over being prosecuted for this by the Merrick Garland DOJ do they?
Now had FOX done something similar….like censor Joe Biden’s comments about the same issue….you could bet the farm the DOJ/FEC and FCC would be all over it.
That is why Obama was exactly right about one thing……Elections have consequences.
If you are a Republican you better be active and demand your County Republican Party is gearing up for the coming election and doing everything possible to turn out the vote….as sheer numbers determine State and Federal Offices.
Why would they be prosecuted? What law criminalizes ABC’s decision not to air certain portions of the interview?
In one of his shows Russell Brand ran a montage of the sponsors of the newsy shows on the major networks – i.e., the short segment where the announcer says, “This show is brought to you by . . .” In the montage it was all pharmaceutical companies doing the sponsoring. My gut tells me ABC’s decision to censor RFK Jr. was all about money.
oldmanfromkansas: I am just now going through the pages of comments and come across yours. I did not see it when I just posted (@ three hours after yours) a link regarding Pfizer’s sponsoring of news on ABC and others. I apologize, not knowing that you had already brought this up. Good for you.
Lin – thank you but really no need to apologize. I don’t expect every commenter to know the content of all previous comments. Plus, I’m glad to have someone else make the same point and even magnify it by providing a link the montage, so good work with that.
Yours,
Uncle Henry
“We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview.”
Who needs government censorship when you have media self-censorship.
Psychologically, those self-censors are driven by a desire to be accepted by the “in” crowd — by their political and social clique. So here we have a psychopathology swamping the media’s basic responsibility: to report.
I wish it was so basic, but the reality, as the twitter files are showing, is that these “news” outlets are simply government-run propaganda machines.
How the people involved participate is frankly unconscionable. Sociopaths.
So are you fools going to steal another election for a pedo president with dementia?
Your the bigger fool if you think Biden got 81 million votes.
The National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party is taking us to War. Which will come first WWIII or Civil War?
700 million guns Say When.
My best guess they will take Bobby Jr for a ride in the Boston harbor before he gets near the Presidency.
Jonathan Turley wrote, “We do not have to be protected from dangerous thoughts by the media. A far greater danger lurks in the indoctrination and orthodoxy that comes from censorship.”
Indoctrination and orthodoxy is the purpose of 21st century advocacy journalism.
Advocacy journalism is an enemy of the people.
We have already entered in to an absurd Orwellian styled totalitarian society and our form of government will follow in these steps if we the people do nothing to stop it.
I’m going to have to report you.
“We have already entered in to an absurd Orwellian styled totalitarian society and our form of government will follow in these steps if we the people do nothing to stop it.”
No, you have succumbed to your own delusional paranoia about what you think is going on. That’s what happens when people spend too long considering conspiracy theories and have no way to discern reality from fiction.
Anonymous wrote, “No, you have succumbed to your own delusional paranoia about what you think is going on. That’s what happens when people spend too long considering conspiracy theories and have no way to discern reality from fiction.”
Based on that comment; it appears that you may be in a perpetual state of either delusion or outright denial. Maybe you should spend some time reading my blog to help lift that veil of propaganda brainwashing that’s blocking your view of actual reality.
Witherspoon, no thanks. I’ve seen your blog. It’s a cornucopia of conspiracy theory-ridden crap. It explains a a lot about your paranoia
Anonymous wrote, “Witherspoon, no thanks. I’ve seen your blog. It’s a cornucopia of conspiracy theory-ridden crap. It explains a a lot about your paranoia”
I know, I know, it would be a terrible thing to confuse you with differing opinions that contain actual facts. It must be weird living your life while looking at the world around you through industrial-strength weapons-grade thickened ideological blinders. I hope you’re really comfortable in your bubble because someday these wacko social justice “woke” totalitarians are going to bust it wide open and you’re gonna wonder what the heck happened to the world around you; until then, sleep well my friend.
Just the other day I saw someone driving alone in his car wearing a mask. Is science telling us that the virus can penetrate through the solid surface of your windshield, then to be stopped by the porous surface of a face mask?
The discussion on vaccines, lockdowns, etc is not a scientific but a political one. And news organizations have become political institutions. I have not worn a mask from the very beginning of the manmade pandemic unless I had no choice (in some stores). The vaccines were presented to prevent infection and transmission, both promises proved to be false. Side effects of the vaccines were belittled or simply denied. I did not take the vaccine after a risk/benefit analysis. I respect it when others make a different assessment but have no tolerance for being disrespected for mine.
What really is needed is a rigorous, uncensored public debate about the deliberate distribution of misinformation by the governments all over the globe and how we can prevent that from happening again. Our tax money funds dangerous gain of function research and pays for government health agencies that simply lie about the effectiveness of vaccines and lockdowns. We need to defund these agencies as well as the obsolete United Nations.
Written as if people actually watch the crap.
BMan wrote, “Written as if people actually watch the crap.”
According to ABC News themself, they are the most watched TV News cast in America. I know they make this claim because I’ve heard it at the beginning of every national evening news cast for at least two years. I’ve watched ABC as my primary TV national evening news for many decades. That said; they are not my only sources for national news.
The big $ ruling against FOX is a very bit skirt to hide under. Easy to claim in court the media is just practicing due diligence.
iowan2 wrote, “The big $ ruling against FOX…”
What did I miss while I was away?
What “ruling against FOX”?
Consensus ≠ Science.
Rick Kaullen wrote, “Consensus ≠ Science.”
The “settled science” people are going to be after you now, especially the climate change settled science cabal trying to ram electric vehicles down the throats of the people with their so-called “science” which is actually just pure propaganda.
Anyone know when Air Force One and all other transportation needs of the president go no-petrol, all-electric?
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. Michael Crichton
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/
I try to leave comments here on the Turkey blog and get censored.
Well, when all you do is post trolling ad hominems and nothing of content related to the blog, like you just did, then it seems to me like you’re intentionally trying to get censored, so tell me Pietro, why shouldn’t they oblige your obvious efforts?
I’m sure you try a great many things that don’t work out the way they should.
That’s the point of being a libtard, isn’t it? Hey, let’s start the fed department of education…hey let’s decriminalize crime…hey let’s ensure democracy via censorship…hey let’s spend our way out of another recession…hey, let’s fix that Gold King mine issue…hey, let’s no longer be racist by basing everything on race…hey, let’s put ignorant apparatchiks in charge of EPA,…hey, let’s cower to the teacher unions…
Trying and failing and profiteering is what dems do. Succeeding is unfortunately not what they do, unless you count profiting from failure as success.
Your comments in the past have violated the Civility code.
Stop playing the victim.