But I am not sure that Thomas Shapley realizes it.
Now the radio ramblers at KVI claim they can't say anything about I-912 for fear of exceeding the in-kind campaign contribution limits, thanks to an earlier court ruling that their flagrant flogging of the gas-tax-repeal measure and their proponents' role in it amounted to a campaign contribution. Guys, you don't have to shut up; you just have to be, well, fair and balanced.
And the Seattle PI has been "fair and balanced" on this issue?.
The PI's editorials have been just as much campaign contributions as the talk of Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson. Thomas Shapley's political speech should not be limited. Neither should Kirby Wilbur's or John Carlson's. And neither should anyone else's, regardless of whether they are officially journalists. Once, believe it or not, many newspapers supported that simple principle from our First Amendment. This example shows, once again, why all of us should.
In general, talk radio programs are much better at telling both sides than our "mainstream" newspapers. Most hosts like to have callers from the other side because it creates controversy that draws listeners. Some hosts, notably Michael Medved, seek out leftist guests regularly. Newspapers are far less open to a range of opinions.
(I should add that I have a generally good opinion of Shapley and think him more open to conflicting ideas than most of our local journalists.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 22, 2005 09:16 AM | Email ThisJust what part of “make no law” does Shapley not understand? Has he even read the First Amendment? His comments indicate he has neither knowledge or understanding.
Any wonder why to Least Intelligence is going into the tank.
Posted by: JCM on October 22, 2005 09:26 AMFascist!
Posted by: ScottM on October 22, 2005 09:29 AMWould be confident this ruling will be reversed in a higher court, execpt this is Washington so it's kinda scary.
Posted by: dl on October 22, 2005 09:53 AMThis also strikes me as being a concrete example of the blogger objection to McCain-Feingold (BCRA).
Posted by: Dishman on October 22, 2005 10:30 AMTo imply that Carlson and Wilbur are fair and balanced while the Seattle Times is biased to the left, or "Fascist!" as Scott puts it, is to reveal your own media bias. You will believe anything as long as it fits your own view of reality and reject anything that does not.
I guess that's why there is such a high correlation between conservatives and "people of faith." Unfortunately, reality so often intrudes with unpleasant results.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on October 22, 2005 10:30 AMPosted by: GS on October 22, 2005 10:31 AM
Uncle...we ALL listen more often to those who agree with our point of view. But if MSM was less biased their readership would be increasing instead of decreasing. People are searching for alternatives, BECAUSE MSM bias is so blatent, not because it doesn't exist.
And the unconstitutional action of squelching free speach on any side of the debate...it's appallng and unamerican (that's the facism Uncle).
Posted by: dl on October 22, 2005 11:14 AMThe only restriction is that Sound Politics is Stefan's (printing) press, KVI belongs to Fisher Comm, and the Seattle PI belongs to whoever owns them. If one of them grants you permission to use their press, they have a right to set the terms of that permission. If you don't like them, you can make your own at the price of some time in the library with Blogger.
Posted by: Dishman on October 22, 2005 11:19 AMUnkl, you are missing the point entirely. No one is implying impartiality by KVI, just that there is a double standard being applied here. At least John and Kirby admit that the KVI coverage has been decidedly pro 912. And while the MSM coverage has been just the opposite (and often shamefully subtly but purposely so) they will not admit as much. Since good journalism outside of editorial pages should at least attempt to be objective I think that they are even a better candidate to pay as in-kind contributors if we are going to go down that road. And John and Kirby are essentially editorialist so why does not the in-kind decision apply to other editorial content?
I mean come on, the TNT recently posted a piece against 912 that was written by the owner of a local construction/paving company. At least the writer made that clear, but given that it makes it hard to digest his reasoning when his own profit motive clouds his judgement in my book.
Posted by: Gary P on October 22, 2005 11:24 AMThe judge in this case has a long history of inventing the law to meet and serve his own agenda and interest groups.
When Rep Brendan Williams shells out campaign contributions for a judge- you can be sure its for a purebreed activist.
The fact that it hasn't been appealed to a higher court is almost as absurd as the ruling itself.
Since you've failed every single reading test. Let's try this one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What part of "make no law" and "abridging the freedom of speech" do you not understand?
Are you really so ignorant that the founders meant the 1st Amendment especially for political speech.
What Constitutional basis can you justify forcing a any media outlet to proscribe content to meet anyones definition of "fair and balanced."
Where is "fair and balanced" mentioned in the 1st Amendment? Or any where in the Constitution, founding documents?
I find it appalling that someone, anyone claiming to be an American, from McCain, to the PI to you would even suggest limiting political speech. One of shared idea that make America is the free marketplace of ideas.
If you are against (the tenor of your post suggest so) free exchange of ideas, you are against the very underlying idea of American.
Posted by: JCM on October 22, 2005 12:15 PMor abridging the freedom of speech
or of the press;
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It violates three separate clauses of the First.
Posted by: Al on October 22, 2005 03:04 PMYou have zero credibility here half-witz.
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 22, 2005 03:41 PMThey are appealing the ruling, and apparently the hearing is being moved up to this week.
Witz -
KVI is "fair and balanced" in that they're open about they're biases and take many callers and invite guests who disagree frequently to discuss what ever the issue of the day is. That's more than can be said about the PI. Nearly every other paper in this state (including the Times) at least has the intelectual honesty to support KVI in this, even though they disagree with Carlson and Wilbur's position on I-912.
Posted by: Mike H on October 22, 2005 04:03 PMReading comprehension is our friend.
Posted by: ScottM on October 22, 2005 05:32 PMI have determined Witz has a reading deficency, we given him tons of links to source documents, disproving virtually everything he has ever stated around here.
He knows so many things that just are not so.
Posted by: JCM on October 22, 2005 05:39 PMThis attempt to stifle pro-I 912 talk is going to backfire on the anti's.
People are just lumping the Democrat's oppression of property rights, freedom of speech, etc..together. The Democrats are going to be in huge trouble in November. The citizens just didn't fall for the liberal legislature's bogus *emergency* clause to take our money! We are losing our rights and our money and Democrats are to blame. Simple as that.
People just aren't that stupid anymore.
Posted by: Deborah on October 22, 2005 08:08 PMI mean, anyone can make an idiotic mistake, but failing to admit it and apologize pretty much marks you as a lying scumbag.
Posted by: ScottM on October 22, 2005 09:20 PMYou remain intentionally ignorant, that make you worse than dumb.
Since you're so into non-sequiturs how about McDermott raising money to pay off his fines and penalties for his little felony tape transfer so he can "bring peace" to Iraq. Who would be dumb enough to donate money to an admitted felon (where is the dems outrage over corruption) to pay off fines and penalties.
Oh and since I know you'll toss Delay back at me, remember that law Delay was charged under was enacted 2 years after the fund raising in question, you can't charge someone retroactively for a crime when it was legal at the time the activity took place. Then the other charge "conspiracy" how can you conspire illegally to commit a legal act?
Posted by: JCM on October 22, 2005 10:41 PMThe PI is objectively reporting on the issues, didn't you get the memo?
Liberal dictionary:
Objective -- stories, reporting and opinion that agrees with the leftist agenda.
1st amendment -- applies to only speech that promotes the leftist agenda.
Opposition -- right wing hate mongers.
No worries, we will be socialist soon and then they can take all our money and provide everything we need. Remember we aren't smart enough to use our money, plan for the future, or know what the elite's are doing for us.