Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Firefox, Adblocker, NoScript. invest.
You're up to 3?
You're like Wile E. Coyote without the rocket skates...
In areas where Comcast has a monopoly, it wouldn’t work to run ads asking consumers to seek other cable companies, but it might work in areas where there are viable competitors. Might be worth looking into. I would donate to such an effort.
Under Pennsylvania law, a false allegation of criminal wrongdoing is considered to be defamation per se.
Under Alabama law, defamation was assumed regardless of falsity, and damages presumed. Then came N.Y. Times v. Sullivan.
The standard is "actual malice", not falsity.
And that's just the most glaring error.
Cheers,
Comcast's refusal to run critical comment diverts the money to other outlets and makes the underlying message more powerful. Do Americans want to provide statutory protection to a company that thumbs its nose at the public interest?
People, donate now to ActBlue and spread the word.
Thank you, Glenn. Until recently, Comcast was the only non-dish option for cable TV and internet in my area. This latest news fits perfectly with everything I have come to know about this grasping, rapacious company that seems almost to take pride in disregarding the concerns of the public or even its own customers. Norman Solomon captured it perfectly when he described Comcast as a "voracious media conglomerate with scant interest in the public interest."
Now that Verizon has moved into the area, I have eagerly used this new competitor as leverage against the permanently opportunistic Comcast, with their obnoxious, ubiquitous, overly loud commercials. This update regarding the campaign against Carney has given me even more incentive to finally switch, although I can't be sure that Verizon would be any better on the legal/ethical front.
Comcast's refusal to air the Carney ad is so naked, so shameless, and so transparently self-serving, it sets a new low bar for corporate amorality and disregard for the public and the consumers.
Editorial, Chicago Sun Times, June 9, 2008
When the history of the Bush presidency is written, he will be excoriated for two great offenses to the American people: Twisting the truth to rally us into an unnecessary war and playing on fear to savage our civil liberties.
The first job of the next president will be to end that war without abandoning Iraq to an even bloodier civil war. But equally pressing will be the job of restoring America's commitment to civil liberties and human rights -- values that have made this country a beacon of freedom for more than 200 years.
Where do Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama stand on civil liberties? At one time, we thought we knew. But no longer.
Until three days ago, we were under the impression that McCain believed in strict limits on presidential powers, even in matters of national security. That has been McCain's message for months: even in the fight against terrorism he would obey statutory restrictions.
But on Friday, the New York Times reported that a McCain adviser says the senator would take a more sweeping view of executive authority, specifically condoning the wiretapping of international phone calls by Americans without a court warrant.
Now we're not sure where McCain stands, although we know where we stand: Four-square in defense of civil liberties, our American birthright, even in dangerous times -- especially in dangerous times. If we become our enemies to defeat our enemies, they win.
When McCain and Obama meet in townhall meetings and debates, among the first issues they should thrash out are civil liberties and human rights.
Where do the two candidates stand on the vile practice of torture, including waterboarding? Do they stand with the Geneva Convention and most civilized nations? Or with the tyrants?
Where do they stand on the vile practice of extraordinary rendition, in which the CIA flies terrorism suspects to secret prisons in foreign lands, where the suspects can be tortured free of American law?
Where do they stand on the vile practice of holding terrorism suspects without charge for years, not even allowing them to go before a judge to challenge their detention?
America needs a president who is guided by principles, not fear.
We have seen many cases in the past where a corporation has tried to shut down criticism only to find that the story about their attempts to suppress the story receive more media attention than the original story would have. Are the local media in Carney's district picking up this story of Comcast's "cover-up"? They should, and it may blow up in Comcast's and Carney's face.
As a complete aside, it should no longer be called the "straight talk express" or the "just talk express." It should be called the Double Talk Express, and each time McCain throws out one of these flip-flops or inaccurate statements Obama should come back with "Oh, here comes that Double Talk Express again."
Yes - for that reason, Glenn's reasons, and even more, Comcast's excuse for not airing the spot borders on frivolous. It's a pathetic sop designed for public consumption, to sound official and deflect common scrutiny.
[Just as I was typing this, one of Comcast's incredibly loud and irritating commercials came on. No doubt they are listening through my cable box and trying to disrupt my thoughts!]
that the broadcast and cable networks and individual stations have been highhandedly refusing to run ads they don't like, calling them "controversial" or failing to meet standards or unlawful or whatever, for many a year now. There's been a lot of howling about it, but very few if any of the ads they've refused have ever been run.
While it's always useful to make a stink when these things happen, there is a more general policy issue, isn't there?
It seems to me that Glenn is arguing that Comcast -- and cable outfits generally -- should and do have the right to refuse any ad at any time for any reason.
They have refused the Carney ads, as is their right per Glenn's own argument. Glenn is now making a stink about it, which is his right. This stink will continue until such time as it doesn't matter any more.
And then the whole process will start over again, in some other location, over some other ad.
But at no time will there be any question of 1) Comcast's right to refuse any ad at all for any reason or no reason; 2) Glenn's right or anyone else's right to raise hell over it.
But wait. How about correcting the problem itself? What gives Comcast the right (which Glenn doesn't dispute) to refuse ads like this, and why is that right tolerated? Isn't Comcast, generally speaking, a monopoly or near monopoly in most markets; isn't it operating under quasi-official authority?
Cannot the rules under which it operates be changed?
Just asking.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
