Shooting Survivor: CNN Gave Me "Scripted Question", Denied my Question about Armed Guards

[whatbogsends]

Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones' YouTube channel

In and of itself, not too suspicious, but realize they'd already alerted their followers about flagging InfoWars videos in a nudge nudge wink wink sort of way:

InfoWars' main YouTube channel is two strikes away from being banned - CNN

I really don't want to click a BB link, so I'm just going to assume Breitbart is encouraging it, which is absolutely wrong, and that you don't have a problem with non-competitor groups doing this.

I'm certain that I've seen you link to Breitbart in the past, although, i'm also fairly certain that if I used something that used in the past to contradict a claim you made about your posting habits, you'd accuse me of "going to such lengths, I must be obsessed".

...
Here's a link to breitbart discussing this.
Journalist Tim Pool: Fusion Told Me to Side with Young Liberals 'Regardless of the Facts' - Breitbart

...

​

When you are doing it to your competitors, yes, it becomes a bit unethical.

You seem to consistently champion free speech. Unless that speech is from CNN, in which case their free speech - whish is not dishonest or slander, just bringing attention to the content of another media outlet to their sponsors - then, apparently, that free speech is unethical.

One media outlet attacking another? Totally unheard of. Something only the sinister CNN would do.

I know, I don't. You don't like to click a YouTube link...​

​

I'm not a part of the Obama White House, so I have no idea why you would think I had that mindset.

Because in this instance, CNN is acting as a "whistleblower" (i.e. calling attention to something), and your problem is with them placing this public information in the hands of people that are impacted. If the content Infowards is providing is fine, then their advertisers wouldn't drop them for having that content brought to their attention. Competitors attack each other regularly in the marketplace, often more subtly, but when the action is clearly legal, i'm not sure why they are the bad guys here.


Again, if they used disinformation to attack Infowars, that would be unethical and illegal, and I would readily condemn such action.

 

[Rion]

You seem to consistently champion free speech. Unless that speech is from CNN, in which case their free speech - whish is not dishonest or slander, just bringing attention to the content of another media outlet to their sponsors - then, apparently, that free speech is unethical.

Let's try this again.

A government attempting to control other's freedom of speech is a bad thing.
A corporation attempting to control other's freedom of speech is a bad thing.
They're both bad things, and are both attempts at censorship.
That is different than criticizing.
Are we clear yet?

 

[whatbogsends]

Let's try this again.

A government attempting to control other's freedom of speech is a bad thing.
A corporation attempting to control other's freedom of speech is a bad thing.
They're both bad things, and are both attempts at censorship.
That is different than criticizing.

They aren't placing a control over Infowars' freedom of speech. Infowars can continue to say whatever they want. They are attempting to bring the attention of that speech to people who financially support that speech. What those people who see that information do is up to them. Sponsors fleeing because of the actions of a company isn't limiting free speech either. "impacting the monetization of speech" is not the same as "not allowing speech", especially if what is impacting the monetization of speech is simply showing that speech to those who would monetize it.

Are we clear yet?

Your selective outrage is clear.

 

[Rion]

They aren't placing a control over Infowars' freedom of speech. Infowars can continue to say whatever they want. They are attempting to bring the attention of that speech to people who financially support that speech. What those people who see that information do is up to them. Sponsors fleeing because of the actions of a company isn't limiting free speech either. "impacting the monetization of speech" is not the same as "not allowing speech", especially if what is impacting the monetization of speech is simply showing that speech to those who would monetize it.



Your selective outrage is clear.

Putting pressure on their sponsors and encouraging strikes against them is attempts at censorship.

Look, I don't like InfoWars, and I don't like Alex Jones. If Hannity had actually attempted to get companies to stop advertising on CNN and tried to get their site or offices shut down, I'd be against that too. Not being selectively outraged like you requires me to defend everyone's right to make a fool of themselves.

 

[whatbogsends]

Putting pressure on their sponsors and encouraging strikes against them is attempts at censorship.

Look, I don't like InfoWars, and I don't like Alex Jones. If Hannity had actually attempted to get companies to stop advertising on CNN and tried to get their site or offices shut down, I'd be against that too. Not being selectively outraged like you requires me to defend everyone's right to make a fool of themselves.

What's causing InfoWars to have videos taken from YouTube and sponsors leaving them is the content of their own videos.

Attempting to stop people from speaking (you know criminalizing or otherwise punishing speech) is limiting free speech. Bringing the content of one's speech to the attention of someone who is paying (directly or indirectly) for that speech is not limiting free speech.

Infowars is still free to say what they want. Free speech doesn't mean you don't have consequences (such as loss of ad revenue) if people don't like what you're saying.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Let's try this again.

A government attempting to control other's freedom of speech is a bad thing.
A corporation attempting to control other's freedom of speech is a bad thing.
They're both bad things, and are both attempts at censorship.
That is different than criticizing.
Are we clear yet?

Ah, but haven't you heard, Rion? Corporations are people.

If a person goes to some television show or network's sponsor and says, "look, this is what you're paying for; are you sure you want to be a part of this?" Is that a bad thing?

 

[iluvatar5150]

When you are doing it to your competitors, yes, it becomes a bit unethical.

CNN is not in competition with InfoWars. Yes, they're both produce video content about current events, but the tone of their content and their target audiences are rather different. It's like saying that McDonald's is in competition with the French Laundry. Yes, they both serve food, but....

(no, CNN isn't as good as The French Laundry, but neither is McDonald's as horrible as InfoWars)

 

[Rion]

CNN is not in competition with InfoWars. Yes, they're both produce video content about current events, but the tone of their content and their target audiences are rather different. It's like saying that McDonald's is in competition with the French Laundry. Yes, they both serve food, but....

(no, CNN isn't as good as The French Laundry, but neither is McDonald's as horrible as InfoWars)

They're both media corporations. One is much larger, much more trusted, and slightly less crazy, but they're both the same type of company. Nor do I think that they'd stop there if they are successful. It's like hate speech laws where people act like if we get rid of extremist's right to offend people it'll just stop there.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They're both media corporations. One is much larger, much more trusted, and slightly less crazy, but they're both the same type of company. Nor do I think that they'd stop there if they are successful. It's like hate speech laws where people act like if we get rid of extremist's right to offend people it'll just stop there.

Then what's the solution, Rion?

 

[iluvatar5150]

They're both media corporations. One is much larger, much more trusted, and slightly less crazy, but they're both the same type of company.

How do you define that "type of company"?

 

[Rion]

Then what's the solution, Rion?

Always be upfront about your possible conflicts of interests, such as being butthurt over not being included in Youtube TV, and never drift from journalism into activism.

How do you define that "type of company"?

Um...

They're both media corporations.

 

[whatbogsends]

They're both media corporations. One is much larger, much more trusted, and slightly less crazy, but they're both the same type of company. Nor do I think that they'd stop there if they are successful. It's like hate speech laws where people act like if we get rid of extremist's right to offend people it'll just stop there.

Infowars and other extremists still have the right to offend people. We also have the right to bring their offensive message to the attention of those that are financially sponsoring the offensive message and let them decide if they want to keep sponsoring in light of knowing about the offensive message.

Why do you keep on falsely equating "ability to speak" with "ability to profit off speech"? No one, including CNN, is impeding Infowars freedom of speech.

 

[Rion]

Infowars and other extremists still have the right to offend people. We also have the right to bring their offensive message to the attention of those that are financially sponsoring the offensive message and let them decide if they want to keep sponsoring in light of knowing about the offensive message.

Why do you keep on falsely equating "ability to speak" with "ability to profit off speech"? No one, including CNN, is impeding Infowars freedom of speech.

Why do you keep ignoring the part where I said they're promoting how to get them thrown off Youtube via the strike system?

 

[NightHawkeye]

How do you define that "type of company"?

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

 

[Rion]

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

What's funny is that CNN, etc. most likely don't actually giving one wet fart about what InfoWars says, they only care that Youtube and the people who have risen to stardom using it, such as Alex Jones, is a threat to their livelihood.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Always be upfront about your possible conflicts of interests, such as being butthurt over not being included in Youtube TV, and never drift from journalism into activism.

Sounds an awful lot like only practice their own First Amendment rights up to the limits you set.

And who are you, again?

 

[Rion]

Sounds an awful lot like only practice their own First Amendment rights up to the limits you set.

Or, you know, someone who wants journalists to follow their own code of ethics.

And who are you, again?

Me? I'm just some guy on the internet who likes to laugh at stupid crap, but keeps finding himself having to explain why censorship is a bad thing to authoritarians.

 

[whatbogsends]

Why do you keep ignoring the part where I said they're promoting how to get them thrown off Youtube via the strike system?

Shouldn't CNN be allowed to have their freedom of speech?

Is Inforwars in violation of Youtube's terms of service?

If Inforwars stands by their content, they should be happy that CNN recirculates their content.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Um...

Right, and my point is that "media company" is so general as to be meaningless. That's why I used the McDonald's vs French Laundry analogy - yes, they're both restaurants, but they serve different products to different markets. They don't compete with each other. Likewise, CNN and InfoWars serve different products to different audiences.

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

Not sure what your point is here, but I do think it's odd that you'd post this while also complaining about net neutrality.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Not sure what your point is here, but I do think it's odd that you'd post this while also complaining about net neutrality.

Focus, Iluvatar.

We won't solve net neutrality in this thread.