Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newspaper Endorses the Candidate It's Suing Over Copyright

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the sometimes-the-other-guy-is-worse dept.

The Courts 166

An anonymous reader writes "Remember Righthaven? The copyright troll owned by the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal? You may remember, then, that Righthaven had sued Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle for posting LVRJ stories on her site. At the same time, LVRJ has been having its execs talk about how copyright infringement is no different than garden variety theft. So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd that the LVRJ is endorsing the very same candidate that it sued for such 'theft'?"

cancel ×

166 comments

*toot* (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827708)

*giggle* I just tooted *giggle*

Re:*toot* (3, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828560)

Did you get sued for it? Maybe you should think about running for office.

"The fart party: we promise to break the political gridlock in washington and also promise to break wind."

Maybe democrats should look into this as a method of getting past fillibustering everything: there's probably not a rule against farting in the face of the speaker to make him pass out (thus breaking the fillibuster). It's also not like that would be beneath the dignity of the senate.

Welcome, (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827752)

...to politics!

Re:Welcome, (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827814)

What do niglets get for Christmas? Your bike.

What do you call a nigger sitting in a tree with a suit and briefcase? The Branch Manager.

Why do niggers hate aspirin? It's white, it works, and they're too proud to pick the cotton out the bottle.

If my great-great grandpappy knew things would turn out this way, he'd have picked his own fuckin' cotton.

Re:Welcome, (1)

atfrase (879806) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827894)

"Crime and politics, little girl. Situation is always... fluid." --Badger

Re:Welcome, (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828762)

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Sharon Angle stole some words.You can argue if that's theft or not. Harry Reid stole our money, stole our future. That's a fact and no one can diusagree with it.

Re:Welcome, (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828788)

Please state when he did this. I would disagree with your claim that this is a fact until you provide some evidence.

Re:Welcome, (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827990)

Love your sig

slightly better version (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828158)

I see your point, but "in Soviet America, the companies control the government"

~KingAlanI

It has to be this way! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828090)

Politics is about greed, corruption, power, influence, and nepotism.

And there is never anything we, the people can do about it, right?

It is just too bad we have to sit here and take it like serfs/slaves/peasants/rabble while our betters scheme and do the mysterious things they do in their castles.

If only there were a better way. [metagovernment.org]

Oh well.

Corporations (5, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827772)

. So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd

Corporations aren't just immortals, they're schizophrenic immortals. With 'human' rights.

Try to keep this straight.

Re:Corporations (4, Informative)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828114)

    Nope, I'd bet it was more of a calculated decision. Put yourself in their position.

    You are a local media mogul, and have a political candidate over a barrel. They've committed a violation of law.

    There are two options. Well, two main ones. There are of course others.

    1) They can fight you in court, but they'll get torn up both publicly in the media (which you own) and in court. They won't win their campaign.

    2) You promise to forget about their little transgression, but in exchange you may ask for "favors" in the future. Additionally, you will support them in your media, adding to the stack of redeemable "favors".

    Option 1 costs a lot of money, and no one wins.

    Option 2 doesn't cost a lot, and it's advantageous to both parties involved. It's dirty, but that's the game of both business and politics.

    Any good business person will go for option 2. Any responsible business person will go for option 1. Responsibility goes out the window when you can have a politician in your pocket.

Re:Corporations (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828394)

I like your reasoning.

Yet we have a copyright-abuser local newspaper worried that others might usurp them by having a sued candidate for govenor getting in bed with Fox News http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009220018 [mediamatters.org] instead of them.

Politics makes such odd bedfellows.

Re:Corporations (1)

GiveBenADollar (1722738) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828662)

More likely they just placed a vote against the other guy. You don't always support the person you like, sometimes you support the person you hate less.

Re:Corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828184)

Its nothing personal we just want your money.... we are sure you will be a fine candidate.

Re:Corporations (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828252)

No, they're sociopathic schizophrenic immortals.

Re:Corporations (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828440)

You left out psychopathic and narcissistic.

Re:Corporations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828970)

. So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd

Corporations aren't just immortals, they're schizophrenic immortals. With 'human' rights.

Try to keep this straight.

Of course they're schizophrenic - they're endorsing Obtuse Angle. Crazees gotta stick together, ya know?

Sooo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827810)

The right half of the brain doesn't know what the left half is doing?

Re:Sooo... (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828124)

...brain...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nothing odd about it (5, Insightful)

matt4077 (581118) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827844)

That's not odd, that's how it's supposed to work. The editorial staff should be independent from the business side of the business. It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.

It's also possible that the owner is - shock! - able to disagree with someone on one issue but agrees on others. Or maybe he doesn't put his own interest ahead of what he thinks is good for society. OF course if you want to be cynical, maybe he wants the candidate to win so she can pay whatever he's suing for.

Re:Nothing odd about it (4, Insightful)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828006)

. It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.

Randolph Hearst predates him by a century, Ben Franklin when he was publishing stuck his nose into things and every other newspaper owner before them.

Re:Nothing odd about it (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#33829144)

But don't you realize that Murdoch is "right wing extremism" and that is bad, but people like Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr are okay because he's left wing?

When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left. Which is why people should get the news raw and and unfiltered.

And the internet provides a very broad voice for news accounts of important events and stories. Some are slanted left, others right, and somewhere there is the truth. It is out there, you just have to learn to filter out the bias.

Re:Nothing odd about it (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828028)

It's also possible the paper is owned and published by flaming hypocrites.

Re:Nothing odd about it (3, Interesting)

Crippere (1825560) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828102)

It's also possible for a newspaper to care to endorse a white-collar thief precisely because that's the kind of morality that the newspaper wants to see in office.

Re:Nothing odd about it (3, Insightful)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 3 years ago | (#33829100)

It's also possible that for whatever deficiencies Sharron Angle exhibits, they see her as a vastly superior choice to the execrable Harry Reid.

Re:Nothing odd about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828066)

But its the same issue.

Re:Nothing odd about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828424)

Or maybe the news paper shouldn't endorse anyone since it is supposed to be factual and unbiased.

Re:Nothing odd about it (1)

gorzek (647352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828838)

Newspapers are still businesses and as such have financial interests that are affected by public policy.

Re:Nothing odd about it (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828478)

It does mean, however that either the owner things a thief is a perfectly viable representative or that the editorial staff believes the owner is wrong about the copying being theft.

It does provide interesting insight into the organization.

Ideally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827850)

Ideally, the newspaper ought to be endorsing the candidate they think is best for the citizens, not best for the paper.

Re:Ideally (1, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828172)

Ideally, the newspaper should be reporting the news and not endorsing anybody.

Re:Ideally (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828274)

Ideally, the newspaper should be reporting the news and not endorsing anybody.

Except when it's in the editorial section where this endorsement happens?

Re:Ideally (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828370)

As long as the staff of the paper is not doing the endorsing, that is fine. Many times the editor uses the editorial section to endorse a candidate which is just as bad.

Newspaper staff shouldn't be using the newspaper as a vehicle to spread their endorsements.

Re:Ideally (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828602)

Well, that's an interesting idea, but runs counter to how newspapers have been run since there were newspapers.

Re:Ideally (1)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828314)

Why?

A paper is a business, and businesses endorse candidates all the time. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Re:Ideally (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828408)

Because I'd like to be able to trust a news reporter. If they are obviously partial, then that calls their reporting into suspicion.

Re:Ideally (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828646)

As opposed to when their partiality is more subtle? You just take their news at face value then?
Always be suspicious of the reporting. Always. It's all done by partial observers. All of it.

Re:Ideally (1)

aliddell (1716018) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828676)

You probably ought to get it out of your head that this Platonic ideal - the impartial reporter - ever existed at all.

Re:Ideally (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828178)

So they think a thieve as themselves called him is the best candidate for the citizens?

politics makes strange bedfellows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827858)

anybody will sleep with anybody

if the price is right, evidently

Not Odd (3, Insightful)

doomicon (5310) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827864)

Just a statement on how bad the opposing candidate is.

Re:Not Odd (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827958)

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but are you aware that the opposing candidate is Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader?

Re:Not Odd (5, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828094)

Yeah, and he thinks that losing "only" 36,000 jobs in one day is good. He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure. He made prejudiced statements about President Obama. That's just the nonpartisan stuff, because obviously his voting record is debatable based on whatever your opinions are.

Re:Not Odd (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828344)

I said I didn't disagree with the idea that the opposing candidate was that bad. I just wanted to make sure that people knew who that candidate was, the man who the Democrats in the Senate believe is the best man to lead them (If he's bad, what does that say about the rest of them?).

Re:Not Odd (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828698)

Senate/House leaders are chosen on the basis of seniority and the unlikelihood of them being defeated in an election (or "safety", as they put it) and not for actual leadership qualities. This is true of both parties.

Re:Not Odd (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828564)

"He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure."

The war was lost, and is lost. We achieved none of our goals we had in starting the war, unless you think turning Iraq into a satellite of Iran was the whole point of the war, in which case, Mission Accomplished!

Also, there were no WMD. Democracy in Iraq is a sham. We enabled ethnic cleansing of the Sunni by the Shia. Shall I go on?

Also too the surge was a failure, except as a PR exercise to get the MSM to stop talking about Iraq. The surge has not cured the endemic violence and chaos in Iraq. Levels of violence went down BEFORE the surge, thanks to the simple expedient of paying the Sunni insurgents not to fight us - a simple bribe that could have saved a lot of lives had we taken that course in 2004 instead of waiting three long and bloody years - and also cooperating with them against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which the Sunni insurgents had wanted to do back in 2004 but were rebuffed by the Bush administration neo-cons who preferred to force the Iraqis to fight us, rather than compromise and work with them. Levels of violence also went down because there were no more people to ethnically cleanse - the Sunni populations had already been driven out of Shia areas before the Surge; the Surge did not prevent this ethnic cleansing, but the Bush administration cynically credited resulting lower levels of violence to the surge and the MSM went along with the lie.

"He made prejudiced statements about President Obama."

Boo-f-ing-hoo. On war, foreign policy, torture, civil liberties, etc., Obama is no different than Bush.

Re:Not Odd (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828712)

Yeah, and he thinks that losing "only" 36,000 jobs in one day is good

I don't see how his outlook on that would have changed anything. Surely you're not suggesting the US economy had problems because Harry Reid wasn't optimistic enough.

He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure.

Yep. He doesn't have a crystal ball and is clearly unfit for office. As far as losing the war, that was stupid to say for a politician. I'm not a politician, so I can say we lost the war when we confused Iraq with al qaeda.

He made prejudiced statements about President Obama.

So? Are we going to pretend most people in congress are not at least a little prejudiced? I'm taking it as a given that we're pretending that everyone isn't at least a little prejudiced (though we all are.) Or are we going to pretend that a politician who has gaffes is unfit in some way?

And keep in mind we're talking about Reid vs Sharon Angle, who is campaigning against those evil, evil immigrants. [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Not Odd (2, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828134)

    Maybe Senator Reid hasn't been playing ball with them lately.

Re:Not Odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828146)

Exactly. Harry Reid is a nightmare.

Re:Not Odd (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828420)

HAHAHahaha, Way to stick up for what you believe in AC.

Re:Not Odd (1)

MrLint (519792) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828896)

So one might argue that Sharon Angle is Nightmare on Elm Street?

Legal department vs. Editorial board (1)

Brannon (221550) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827878)

nothing to see here.

The same people that complain when a newspaper's editorial board is not sufficiently distanced from its straight news department will complain when the two departments are at odds with one another. Some people just like to complain.

Where does this sound familiar? (3, Interesting)

kaoshin (110328) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827880)

This reminds me of Fox News accusing Fox news co-owner of terror funding [thedailyshow.com] .

Re:Where does this sound familiar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828582)

This shit again?

Apparently you don't realize that in a free society, when you place shares into the free market, anyone can buy them. There's nothing you can do to stop them - it's a free country.

However, who you choose to donate money to is definitely a choice, and you have to wonder about the real motives behind those who want to place a "victory" mosque next to Ground Zero.

Re:Where does this sound familiar? (2, Informative)

chris mazuc (8017) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828918)

Apparently you don't realize that in a free society, when you place shares into the free market, anyone can buy them. There's nothing you can do to stop them - it's a free country.

It doesn't look like Rupert was telling him to sell his shares in this photo. [mideast-times.com]

HRH Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, Chairman of Kingdom Holding Company (KHC) met with Mr. Rupert Murdoch Chairman and CEO of News Corporation (News Corp.) at the company's headquarters in New York on Thursday 14th January, 2010.

The meeting began as Prince Alwaleed and Mr. Murdoch discussed economic and investment issues especially in the media sector and the two discussed Rotana and LBCSAT 90% owned by HRH. Moreover, the meetings touched upon future potential alliance with News Corp.

and you have to wonder about the real motives behind those who want to place a "victory" mosque next to Ground Zero.

And I wonder about the motives of those who deliberately distort language to further a bigoted political agenda.

Communication breakdown (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827888)

Partly because it's a newspaper, partly because it's such a big discordance, this makes the news, but it's not unusual for there to be disagreements and differing agendas within companies. And I suppose with lawyers involved, as I suppose there are in this case (didn't RTFA of course!), all bets are off.

welcome to modern politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827902)

Perhaps we truly are living in a time when "endorse" no longer means "I like this guy more" but "this guy over here sucks less"

Re:welcome to modern politics (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828062)

In this case it's "we'd rather have a different candidate fronting for the party that's going to vote for our corporate interests, but we got this one and we still want our tax cuts despite the fact that it will deepen the recession".

Re:welcome to modern politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828302)

In this case it's "we'd rather have a different candidate fronting for the party that's going to vote for our corporate interests, but we got this one and we still want our tax cuts despite the fact that it will deepen the recession".

What fucking universe do you live in?

If "tax cuts...will deepen the recession", why the fuck are Reid/Pelosi/Obama so damn scared of letting the Bush tax rates expire? Hell, they all would have at least two years (Reid would have SIX) before having to face voters again, so if raising taxes are the right thing two do and would end the recession - the clear implication of your post - then they should be HAPPY to raise them.

Maybe because they're more concerned about the POWER they get from high taxes, and no so concerned with the people?

And I hope this makes your head explode. Guess what high taxes pay for:

Gitmo
"Illegal" wiretaps
War in Iraq

Oh, yeah, your high-tax champion the Obamessiah will stop all those, won't he? Yeah, right. Are you still holding your breath after two years?

Get this: without high taxes, the US goverment couldn't afford to do any of that.

HAA HAA. I truly hope that makes you head explode. Because you deserve it. But please don't use your brains as gunpowder for that explosion - there's not enough there to blow your nose, much less make your 3-inch-thick, rock-hard, impenetrable skull explode.

Because you deserve it. You're stupid enough to think higher taxes result in improved economic conditions despite an utter lack of evidence to support that, and you appear to have a rather quaint and naive belief that "your side" won't use higher taxes against the taxpayers - another position contrary to all available evidence.

So, given your utter disconnect from reality, I'll ask again: what universe do you live in?

Re:welcome to modern politics (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828720)

I live in the universe where I've read your post twice and you're still talking nonsense.

Bush's tax cuts did nothing to improve the economy and a lot to make things worse for all but the richest in America.

And he's the one who instituted Gitmo, illegal wiretaps, and the war in Iraq.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea why Obama has to keep Gitmo open, no clue why he has to defend the nation against the legal trouble that the illegal wiretaps caused, and probably haven't heard that he's ending the war in Iraq.

So, really, you should be asking yourself if you're in this universe, because your view of it is a lot like how it would look if you were on the outside viewing it through a crystal ball.

Re:welcome to modern politics (1, Insightful)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828452)

What recession? If you're one of the rich people funding this "Tea Party" astroturf campaign you couldn't be happier: your company is making record profits, and sinking the country into a deflationary death spiral will make the billions you sucked off the government teat over the past decade worth even more than it already is. Sure, you'll have to move to Austrailia or Canada when the Republican's 2011 budget causes unemployment to jump to 15 percent, just like when they passed an austerity measure in 1937, but that doesn't really matter because none of your money is invested in the US economy anyway.

Re:welcome to modern politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33829068)

LOL!

Newspapers? Pshaw. (2, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827912)

I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.

About twenty years ago when my children were small and we lived in a bad neighborhood, there was a gang war right down the street. Probably more than 50 rounds were fired; it sounded similar to strings of firecrackers going off (the timbre was different, of course). An innocent bystander was shot and crippled as he tried to get his kids inside. I watched a police car go airborne as it crossed the railroad tracks ate a very high rate of speed. Two days later the crack house the gangsters lived in "mysteriously" burned to the ground.

Not a word of this made the paper, [sj-r.com] although "news" of petty vandalism and burglaries and so forth were.

A few weeks ago a school bus carrying fifteen kids ran a red light and was hit by an SUV, and missed being hit by inches by another vehicle. This happened less than two minutes before I walked into the bar at that intersection. Several police cars showed up, then another school bus came by, parked in the biker bar's* [google.com] parking lot and the kids got on it and left. There were no injuries, but the SUV's air bags deployed and it was damaged pretty severely.

The next day's paper carried stories about fender benders, petty vandalism, and residential burglaries. Not a word about the school bus wreck or the school bus driver running a red light with kids on board.

And they wonder why their circulation continues to drop.

* Google maps is out of date; the place is called "Scooter's" now.

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1, Insightful)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828034)

why do you guys use "rate of speed" when "speed" would suffice ? to sound more seriouser ?

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828126)

what's the problem? It's a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828476)

I would argue that the rate of speed would really describe the acceleration, so using "rate of speed" to mean km/h is wrong.

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (2, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828042)

I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.

So you are frequenting slashdot for its journalistic excellence, lack of absurdity, and total adherence to the truth.

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828932)

Actually it's because believe it or not, sometimes I actually learn something in the comments. I know of no other site where there are real scientists commenting on their field (even though there are some comments as ignorant as others are enlightening). And some of the comments are hilarious.

Journalism has nothing to do with it.

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828282)

Scouring the street view to catch a glimpse of McGrew heading for the bar now... :-P

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828652)

    There are reasons exciting news doesn't always make it to the paper. The biggest one would be, no reporter or photographers got to the scene. They may have been following bigger stories, or weren't even dispatched to it. A lot of times, they find out about events when citizens call them in. The police don't generally bring journalists along with them. They usually won't even call, unless there's some reason they want it to be leaked.

    Just like you shouldn't say a word to a cop unless you want it to be used against you in court, you shouldn't say a word to the press. Even if the journalist you're talking to is a honorable and reputable person, before you know it your sound bite or quote fragment makes you look like a serial killing pedophile.

    I've worked at several places, where talking to either one is grounds for immediate termination, and could result in legal action. It's not to keep the actions of the company secret (generally), but it's so a quote fragment isn't used to make both you and the company look bad.

    The bus accident doesn't sound like a big deal. No one was hurt. Some repairs will need to be done. In most areas, if they ran a story on every accident report, there wouldn't exactly be enough room for anything else. In the local section of one paper, they'd run the crime sheet. It was just one liners (traffic accident at xx and yy; assult at zz; etc). It took several pages. Most of it was nothing reports of nothing.

    If you're a witness to a story, call it in to the local media. Be standing there when they arrive and give them your statement. Even if they show up to a scene, but can't get any information from anyone and the story isn't obvious, it's a non-story, and will be trashed in favor of "Jaycees open haunted house tonight at fairgrounds" (from the front page of your paper).

Re:Newspapers? Pshaw. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33829034)

The biggest one would be, no reporter or photographers got to the scene.

The one a few weeks ago had several people taking pictures that I'm sure would love to sell to the paper. There are police scanners, which if I were running a newspaper someone would be paid to monitor.

Even if the journalist you're talking to is a honorable and reputable person, before you know it your sound bite or quote fragment makes you look like a serial killing pedophile.

I found that out speaking at a neighborhood meeting that the local TV station covered quite a while ago. The sound bite they filmed of me had little to do with the point I was making. I was just lucky they didn't make me look like a fool.

I've worked at several places, where talking to either one is grounds for immediate termination

No way would I EVER discuss my employer with a journalist.

The bus accident doesn't sound like a big deal.

The fact that the bus ran a red light made it a big deal in my mind. Had it been the SUV that had run the light I'd have agreed with you. If a trash truck rather than an SUV had been coming through the intersection it would have been really bad.

Actually, "Jaycees open haunted house tonight at fairgrounds" is something I agree is "news" (unlike Paris Hilton shenanigans), as it will actually matter to some people.

It's simple survival tactics... (2, Informative)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 3 years ago | (#33827944)

Endorsing Sharron Angle is simply just a survival tactic for the newspapers. The gaffes, foibles, unfounded and inaccurate claims she makes almost every time she opens her mouth guarantees that the newspaper will be in business for at least the next 6 years.

"We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." --Sharron Angle, during an interview with Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2010
Spoken like a true statesperson.

Re:It's simple survival tactics... (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828402)

She'd just like to have what Harry Reid has-- the media in his pocket.

Re:It's simple survival tactics... (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828572)

Right, because Harry Reid gets so much positive press.

Re:It's simple survival tactics... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828622)

At least she is honest about it. That's more than you can say for most politicians, who won't ever tell you that they WANT the news to spin things certain ways and want them to ask questions they want to answer.

Can you blame them? Dingy Harry Reid sucks ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33827980)

Go, Sharron, go! Angle 2010!

2010: The Year American says GTFO to Liberal Fascists.

It's obvious (1, Insightful)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828020)

The alternative would be to endorse Harry Reid. Given those choices, it doesn't matter what Angle stole, she still looks like the better candidate.

Re:It's obvious (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828334)

huh? Were both talking about the same moron with crazed lunatic with ideas like no abortion for even rape or incest because it's against "god's plan"? Even Palin could do better than this woman. Reed has his issues, but Angle is positively batshit. Bout the only thing I have heard her say that sounded to have some kind of sanity to it was not fluorinating tap water.

Re:It's obvious (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828576)

Abortion for non-life of the mother issues like rape and incest is clearly equivalent to murder, if you believe a fetus is a human being. At least in life-of-the-mother you are trading one life against another, not just taking a life.

Re:It's obvious (2, Funny)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828580)

Bout the only thing I have heard her say that sounded to have some kind of sanity to it was not fluorinating tap water.

$irony++;

Appropriate headline (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828080)

"Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses garden-variety thief for office!"

Don't call it ironic! (1)

qoncept (599709) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828120)

Before anyone goes and calls this "ironic," please remember the definition of the word [google.com] . Thank you, Alanis Morissette.

Someone is supposed to say that, right? Whenever a textbook example of irony comes up? Someone idiot to act like everyone else is stupid?

Re:Don't call it ironic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828502)

Server Error
The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.

If the problem persists, please mail error@google.com and mention this error message and the query that caused it.

Well, that was... unexpected.

Re:Don't call it ironic! (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828520)

How is it used incorrectly? When an action is the opposite of what would be expected, it is ironic. The newspaper is suing someone, so the last thing I would expect would be then to support them for public office.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony [reference.com]
5: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

Re:Don't call it ironic! (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828708)

Ironically, I would have expected you to agree with his assessment.

so, what is the message here? (1)

RapmasterT (787426) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828148)

By posting this story in a tone of mild outrage, what are we trying to say? People should never support a candidate they have a disagreement with, no matter how much they disagree with the OTHER candidate? People should never sue someone of their own political party, no matter how much they are affronted? Seriously, why does this story exist? How childish does your though process have to be to see this as anything other than mildly ironic.

Re:so, what is the message here? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828534)

No one should endorse a candidate that they consider to be a thief. Mere disagreement in other matters is not such a big deal.

irrational candidate vs irrational endorsement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828238)

Angle is a verbally-spastic nutball, with little logic, even less grasp of facts, and nothing to recommend her other than a knowing look while she spews phrases that lack any connection to reality.

This editorial endorsement is illogical, based on misrepresentation of facts, and printed with ink and dead trees to give the impression of a wise and knowing directive to voters, despite disconnection from rationality.

Seems perfectly congruent to me....

Re:irrational candidate vs irrational endorsement? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828410)

Angle is a verbally-spastic nutball, with little logic, even less grasp of facts, and nothing to recommend her other than a knowing look while she spews phrases that lack any connection to reality.

You left out that she is not Harry Reid. I believe that most of those who plan on voting for her consider that to be her greatest asset.

Why? (1, Troll)

bytesex (112972) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828250)

Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33829164)

Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?

Possibly so. Thank goodness you're here to explain it to us.

Making blanket statements about other nationalities, however, is a concept we're very familiar with.

Moreover... (0, Troll)

Trip6 (1184883) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828294)

The LVRJ has just de facto said that:
            It opposes abortions even in the case of rape or incest
            The Department of Education is unconstitutional
            The United States should withdraw from the United Nations
            A flat tax should replace the income tax
            A free-market alternative should be established to cut social security

Not to politicize this discussion but she is a right wing freak.

It's a Trap!! (4, Funny)

rlp (11898) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828354)

They're trying to get her to repost the endorsement so they can file an additional lawsuit.

investment (1)

SpudNYC (650333) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828414)

Maybe if she gets the job she'll earn more cash for them to take in the suit?

multiple explanations (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828542)

Most probable: the left hand isn't watching the right
Also likely: editorial staff cares more about other issues that differentiate the candidates (copyright is a very low priority for pretty much everyone except the AAs)

Leverage (2, Insightful)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828606)

Their lawsuit gives them leverage over her.

If she wins, she gets power.

It's good for business to have leverage over people in power.

Its OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33828846)

They are Republicans/Corporations - they lie from the depth of what would be their souls. It's what they do.

doesn't it seem a bit odd blah blah blah (1)

KharmaWidow (1504025) | more than 3 years ago | (#33828884)

Not at all. People who act professionally or who run business understand the meaning of "dont burn bridges." In this case, once the lawsuit is completed and all debts are settled everyone acts like adults and moves on.

Doesn't It Seem a Bit Odd? (2, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 3 years ago | (#33829122)

No, not really. Everything associated with Sharron Angle is somewhere between Odd and Just Plain Fucking Nuts.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...