First Amendment Protection For MSM But No One Else
Funny how the MSM drapes itself in the First Amendment and rightfully so when defending their freedom of speech, but they have a different read on the First Amendment when a journalist of a non-liberal view enacts the same freedom of expression protection.
Tulsa Blogger Michael Bates was threatened with legal action by his home town newspaper the "Tulsa World". Seems that Bates on his blog http://www.batesline.com/ exposed an incestuous relationship between the Tulsa World and the city government of Tulsa.
One of the sited issues that the Tulsa News had was that Bates was using links to the Tulsa News website. Huh? A newspaper having an issue with another organization or party sending viewers or customers their way? They don't have a legal leg to stand on and there is overwhelming precedent and legal opinion on the side of the blogger. That's really not the point here.
Bates contention is that in the one news paper town of Tulsa, the city government and the Tulsa World are part of an organized coalition to discuss and decide public agendas behind closed doors and will stand in a united prescribed front for the decisions they reach. Really scary stuff that would be the absolute worst place a newspaper could find itself at.
I can certainly see some of the same parallels at work in St Louis with the Post and the heavily democratic city government. Sure seems that they are all on the same page and speak line to me, sort of the like the Rathergate memo, the MSM story line and how it fit so well with the DNC story line at the same point in time. I'm going to have to spend some time looking deeper at this issue right here in St. Louis.
The funny thing about the Tulsa World legal threat is that it does not mention the content of the story, rather the link to the newspaper. If the story was wrong or had no legs don't you think that would be the focus of the legal threat? Even if it was not true, Bates has his right to opinion and the right to express it unless he crosses the line into defamation which he clearly has not done.
I had never heard of Bates or his blog before this story. Ironically the Tulsa World has made Bates and his blog and put it on a national and international scale now from their ironic and inconsistent action regarding free speech. Now thousands of additional people will be focused in on this issue and covering it. Ironic how that works out in a platform that is truly about freedom of speech and open to all not just those who tow the ultra-liberal MSM party line.
Bates is being defended by Media Bloggers Association and they have made it very clear that the Tulsa World had better back off or the fury of hell is going to come down on them like a banshee from hell. The press alone that would be generated by a MSM member trying to suppress free speech would be so damning that the fact the legal precedent is 150% on the bloggers side seems somewhat secondary.
What a great story and illustration of how far we have come in so few years related to freedom of expression and providing an alternative news outlet to the biased MSM. They are scared but instead of moving to the middle they stay ultra-left and prostitute the bedrock of their existence and legitimacy. Sad but true, the Tulsa World has fallen into the depths of irrelevance and lack of trust that the MSM culture breeds and reinforces.
Maybe the Post will send me a threatening letter or sue me and send me to the same international exposure that the Tulsa World sent Bates and his blog. Ms Christine Bertelson ( Editor of the Post Dispatched ), what do you think? Want to send me a letter?
Tulsa Blogger Michael Bates was threatened with legal action by his home town newspaper the "Tulsa World". Seems that Bates on his blog http://www.batesline.com/ exposed an incestuous relationship between the Tulsa World and the city government of Tulsa.
One of the sited issues that the Tulsa News had was that Bates was using links to the Tulsa News website. Huh? A newspaper having an issue with another organization or party sending viewers or customers their way? They don't have a legal leg to stand on and there is overwhelming precedent and legal opinion on the side of the blogger. That's really not the point here.
Bates contention is that in the one news paper town of Tulsa, the city government and the Tulsa World are part of an organized coalition to discuss and decide public agendas behind closed doors and will stand in a united prescribed front for the decisions they reach. Really scary stuff that would be the absolute worst place a newspaper could find itself at.
I can certainly see some of the same parallels at work in St Louis with the Post and the heavily democratic city government. Sure seems that they are all on the same page and speak line to me, sort of the like the Rathergate memo, the MSM story line and how it fit so well with the DNC story line at the same point in time. I'm going to have to spend some time looking deeper at this issue right here in St. Louis.
The funny thing about the Tulsa World legal threat is that it does not mention the content of the story, rather the link to the newspaper. If the story was wrong or had no legs don't you think that would be the focus of the legal threat? Even if it was not true, Bates has his right to opinion and the right to express it unless he crosses the line into defamation which he clearly has not done.
I had never heard of Bates or his blog before this story. Ironically the Tulsa World has made Bates and his blog and put it on a national and international scale now from their ironic and inconsistent action regarding free speech. Now thousands of additional people will be focused in on this issue and covering it. Ironic how that works out in a platform that is truly about freedom of speech and open to all not just those who tow the ultra-liberal MSM party line.
Bates is being defended by Media Bloggers Association and they have made it very clear that the Tulsa World had better back off or the fury of hell is going to come down on them like a banshee from hell. The press alone that would be generated by a MSM member trying to suppress free speech would be so damning that the fact the legal precedent is 150% on the bloggers side seems somewhat secondary.
What a great story and illustration of how far we have come in so few years related to freedom of expression and providing an alternative news outlet to the biased MSM. They are scared but instead of moving to the middle they stay ultra-left and prostitute the bedrock of their existence and legitimacy. Sad but true, the Tulsa World has fallen into the depths of irrelevance and lack of trust that the MSM culture breeds and reinforces.
Maybe the Post will send me a threatening letter or sue me and send me to the same international exposure that the Tulsa World sent Bates and his blog. Ms Christine Bertelson ( Editor of the Post Dispatched ), what do you think? Want to send me a letter?
posted by Steve at 7:04 PM
