Did you know there was a huge demonstration on Wall Street?

[Klingsor]

i expect the news services found out about it by reading it here on lpsg

I know that's how I get all of *my* news.

 

[spoon]

i expect the news services found out about it by reading it here on lpsg

leading news source: lpsg.org :approve:


uttahere: off to lurk and stalk!

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

Nobody has yet given the slightest reason to believe that the government bears the slightest responsibility for the supposed neglect of this story (which, by the way, I have lately noticed being reported all over the place).

All that anyone has shown to have occurred is that a political demonstration has not attracted the news coverage that some deem it to deserve. To call that "censorship" is hysterical claptrap. Those who insist on applying that word to this occurrence are not only contributing to the supply of bullshit, obscurantism, confusion, and intellectual dishonesty in the world; they are also bringing discredit upon their own political position. Any political claim that has any merit whatever can be made in truthful language. If you can't do without misrepresentation, your claim is worthless.

there is little left that one can do when someone believes the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary.

please do post more nude photos of yourself online, you only have 107, your public awaits. it's a great hobby for someone of your intellectual stature and refined manners. the bookmark one is good, no doubt taken during a prolific reading session on truth, justice and the american way!

 

[helgaleena]

there is little left that one can do when someone believes the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary.

He's still beating that 'censorship is only done by governments' dead horse.

 

[Calboner]

there is little left that one can do when someone believes the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary.
please do post more nude photos of yourself online, you only have 107, your public awaits. it's a great hobby for someone of your intellectual stature and refined manners. more with the mirror please.

You have no argument, so you resort to personal attack. Very classy.

He's still beating that 'censorship is only done by governments' dead horse.

It was the position taken by Offroad in the materials that he cited. Some "dead horse."

As yet, I have received personal invective, but no effective counter-argument.

 

[midlifebear]

Dearest Cal o' de Boners:

I have noticed there is a sit in demonstration on Wall Street. Honest. I have. But every "news outlet" -- even the mouth of Rachael Maddow -- has broadcast different numbers of protestors and that the NYPD has cut the protest off at the path by preventing them from interfering with Wall Street's business as usual.

And it's quite obvious those slinging personal invectives at you are dumb as a bucket of hammers. Fuck 'em.

Per chance the following YouTube link may be of interest to your detractors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzVAw9DvMVA&feature=player_embedded

 

[helgaleena]

Thank you Wonder Woman Bear !

How many of these people equal one Lindsey Lohan or Michelle Bachman in 'newsworthy-ness' on the corporate-controlled network scale?

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

You have no argument, so you resort to personal attack. Very classy.

It was the position taken by Offroad in the materials that he cited. Some "dead horse."

As yet, I have received personal invective, but no effective counter-argument.

hey, cal. you're too classy for me. i'm off this site again.. i just came back to lpsg last night to finish up a thread on DADT and got
sidetracked with this lunacy.

some of us had the guts to stand up and make a change (for the better) in the world by helping to end DADT, instead of putting coins on our dicks, or hovering our big dicks over really small dinner plates. oh, it takes real class to do that.

dumb? me? hardly. i would have expected more from midlife bear.

 

[midlifebear]

offroad8x6:

My fine fellow. Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my blanket assessment of some. I'm of the opinion that you, in particular, are not one to be distracted by shiny objects.

But censorship by omission is a long-standing tradition in 'Mericuhn media.

 

[helgaleena]

7 protesters arrested at Wall St. demonstration - WSJ.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ars-Greek-debt-default.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Adbusters Accuses Yahoo Of Censoring Occupy Wall Street Emails: Gothamist

Oh, and the Wall Street Journal, except that it has a Facebook app now....

 

[helgaleena]

Interesting that the 'anonymous' protest plesence has been masked, and the law from 1845 making masked protest illegal is being used. Keeps away the KKK but what about the burqas??? This was a big kerfluffle in France, the legality of appearing with covered face in public. Just a side note.

 

[midlifebear]

Some days it's just easier for me to throw on a burkha before I venture outside. Bad hair days and all that.

 

[helgaleena]

The call to occupy Wall Street resonates around the world | Micah White and Kalle Lasn | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

 

[Mensch1351]

there is little left that one can do when someone believes the world is flat, despite all evidence to the contrary.

please do post more nude photos of yourself online, you only have 107, your public awaits. it's a great hobby for someone of your intellectual stature and refined manners. the bookmark one is good, no doubt taken during a prolific reading session on truth, justice and the american way!

............why is it that a lot of "these people" never put down where they're located, what gender they are or their sexual orientation?? Rush -- is that YOU???

 

[lurker37160]

It is also possible that this event has been staged by the GOP to discredit the current administration's handling of the economy.

Nothing has to be staged for that. It's obvious that the current administration hasn't a clue about handling the current economy. :smile:

 

[EagleCowboy]

How is the neglect of a story by the news media "censorship"?

Do you seriously believe that news companies neglect a story because "the government doesn't want you to know" about it? Yep. There's too much evidence around that supports exactly that. You think that the major newspapers and news broadcasting companies take their orders from "the government"? Yes and no. They take their orders from the rich and insane like Rupert Murdock and others that buy our elected officials.

They neglect a story when they judge that they can't make money out of it. Simple as that. No censorship, no government control needed.

Ok. I'll bite on the moneymaking story part. This was the big news ALL weekend. And it was on ALL media outlets. Front page for 3 days! Pumpkin Found Hanging In Pear Tree In Iowa (VIDEO) Explain to me how they're making money off of that??

Occupy Wall Street was planned less than a month ago. This wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. All the major news media was informed well in advance of when, where and what. On purpose. So it's not like they didn't know in advance. There were WELL over 50,000+ people there, and none was prevented or restricted to specific areas by police from protesting on Wall Street.

MSNBC called it "invasion", trying to demonize it, but it's public property so it can't be an "invasion". Why would they do that?? Hmmmm.

The liberal media is blaming the GOP and calling it a "failure". The GOP/conservatives had nothing to do with it.

Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh are calling it a "failure" and blaming the liberals. The liberals had nothing to do with it.

The Tea Party had nothing to do with it.

It was by people who know what the real problem is and exactly who is causing it. It was liberals/conservatives/centers/libertarians/tea partiers--all of them that were there protesting.

Other media is downplaying it like there was really only 500 people there.

So, yeah, it was a blatant media blackout.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Interesting that the 'anonymous' protest plesence has been masked, and the law from 1845 making masked protest illegal is being used. Keeps away the KKK but what about the burqas??? This was a big kerfluffle in France, the legality of appearing with covered face in public. Just a side note.

There are women in NYC, especially my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, who wear abayas without issue - I saw several during protests in support of Park 51. The U.S. allows public religious displays, whereas the French have secular values that limit what is acceptable in terms of public behavior. Without a similar set of secular laws there's no current legal standard that could apply to hijab women.

The call to occupy Wall Street resonates around the world | Micah White and Kalle Lasn | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

It was a global protest and I took part in it. Unfortunately, I do not think the United States is ready for such a movement.

 

[Calboner]

So, yeah, it was a blatant media blackout.

I don't have a problem with calling it a news-media blackout: it could be that (I'm not sure of the exact meaning of the term). My point is that it's bullshit to cry "censorship" when the news media don't give some event the attention that some think it deserves. To neglect to report a protest is not to suppress or interfere with anyone's expression of opinion in any way, and therefore is not censorship. I have seen a lot of blustering and irrelevant personal invective in response to this point, but no one has offered the slightest reason to doubt it; and I don't see how any reasonable person could doubt it.

People who call the non-reporting or under-reporting of this event "censorship" seem to operate on the assumption that the right to free expression of opinion includes a right to get one's expressions of opinion broadcast in the news media. It doesn't.

 

[Klingsor]

I don't have a problem with calling it a news-media blackout: it could be that (I'm not sure of the exact meaning of the term). My point is that it's bullshit to cry "censorship" when the news media don't give some event the attention that some think it deserves. To neglect to report a protest is not to suppress or interfere with anyone's expression of opinion in any way, and therefore is not censorship. I have seen a lot of blustering and irrelevant personal invective in response to this point, but no one has offered the slightest reason to doubt it; and I don't see how any reasonable person could doubt it.

People who call the non-reporting or under-reporting of this event "censorship" seem to operate on the assumption that the right to free expression of opinion includes a right to get one's expressions of opinion broadcast in the news media. It doesn't.

But is it quite that simple? Staging a protest doesn't guarantee you the right to have it reported. But if your protest is large and vocal enough, there is certainly a reasonable expectation that the news media will pick it up as a matter of course. If they have time for pumpkins in a pear tree, surely they are obliged to report something more momentous.

The question then becomes whether these protests were large enough to warrant such attention. I can't answer that, but the number of people in this thread who feel that the event was distinctly under-reported does make me wonder. It may not be "censorship" in strict, imposed-from-above terms. But the choices made by the news media, even if not coerced, are still questionable.

 

[dandelion]

To neglect to report a protest is not to suppress or interfere with anyone's expression of opinion in any way, and therefore is not censorship.

Oh I think it is! Suppose that all media decided they would only carry favourble pieces about republican candidates and would neglect to report anything said by democrats? It may not be government censorship, but who is doing it is beside the point. The reason there is so much fuss about who owns the media is precisely because they are able to set policies of what will be reported and what will not.

People who call the non-reporting or under-reporting of this event "censorship" seem to operate on the assumption that the right to free expression of opinion includes a right to get one's expressions of opinion broadcast in the news media. It doesn't.

The fact that there is no right to be heard does not say anything about whether some sort of reporting boycot counts as censorship. I am not up on rulings of the US supreme court, but I would suspect that they would take a view, or propably already have taken a view, that freedom of speech includes a right to be heard. Otherwise it is meaningless.