Press Democrat Censored by its new owners!!

[Stuart]

Did you know the new owners of the PD have ordered it to NOT make any political endorsements?

And they have demanded the same from their 20 something stable of papers, mostly in the South.
Can you tell me pls if there is any difference between the mid east rioters and Halifax Media Group, the new owners?

The result either way is no freedom of the press.
In this day of "news" controlled by corporate media, our local flagship newspaper is now being censored. We have fought wars, many have died for this basic freedom and now it is hitting home. HERE and NOW.
Halifax has not returned my calls or emails, one of their officers a former fox CEO.
The PD obviously can't slam their owners and censors, but I would encourage them to tell Halifax to shove it and make the endorsements.
But they won't.

So, what can you do? The same as me, cancel the subscription and call/write email the PD and say you are NOT GOING TO PAY FOR CENSORSHIP.
You are NOT paying the PD, you ARE paying Halifax, the censors.

Pls pass this information around, and take action.
After 13 yrs, I am no longer going to pay for my subscription to the PD. When it expires, that's it. I can figure out a new morning walk for my dog instead of getting the paper.
Good riddance Halifax.
Thomas Paine has approved this message. And Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and others who have fought and died for this freedom.
Do something!

[Stuart]

The PD CANNOT endorse ANY candidates, only issues, i.e. Prop whatever number.
Steve Jaxson (sp?) on radio station KSRO, The Drive, AM 1350 in the afternoons, who talks about local issues mostly, said it is "outrageous."
I agree.
You call the radio station, 636-1350, and express your opinion
Contact Halifax Media Group.
Or, contact the PD.
But, remember, if you buy the paper or renew your subscription, YOU ARE PAYING MONEY TO HALIFAX TO CENSOR THE PD.
Freedom of the press is the foundation of a free society, Halifax has now become a censor of the news WE receive.
Most people whine about the political mess, you now have a very real option to participate in democracy with your wallet.
Cheers
Stuart

[Stuart]

PS
Someone just asked me for my "source"
Three sources:
-The PD Sunday editorial from a week or two ago
-PD guest on the Steve Jaxson show, Steve corrected me on my call when I said no presidential endorsements, telling me and the listeners that PD is not permitted to endorse ANYONE. Only issues.
-Phone conversation today with a PD editorial writer, I asked "PD cannot endorse people, only issues?" And he replied, that is correct.

I would further suggest that readers of this post who do not want corporate censorship, to ask the PD ADVERTISERS to make a statement against the censorship by Halifax. Why support businesses that endorse a censor ????

[Feed The Birds]

Good! The Press Democrat usually had their "head" so far up their their patoot when making recommendations anyway!!

PS
Someone just asked me for my "source"
Three sources:
-The PD Sunday editorial from a week or two ago
-PD guest on the Steve Jaxson show, Steve corrected me on my call when I said no presidential endorsements, telling me and the listeners that PD is not permitted to endorse ANYONE. Only issues.
-Phone conversation today with a PD editorial writer, I asked "PD cannot endorse people, only issues?" And he replied, that is correct.

I would further suggest that readers of this post who do not want corporate censorship, to ask the PD ADVERTISERS to make a statement against the censorship by Halifax. Why support businesses that endorse a censor ????

[Stuart]

That's not the point, don't you think they should have the freedom to make choices you may not like, and often I did not prefer either?
Their freedom of speech is restricted. Because you did not have the same views, you think they should be muzzled by a corporate entity?
What if your views were not permitted to be aired?
Pretty ignorant remark on your part, i.e.,".... good, censor them because I did not like them..."

[Feed The Birds]

That's not the point, don't you think they should have the freedom to make choices you may not like, and often I did not prefer either?
Their freedom of speech is restricted. Because you did not have the same views, you think they should be muzzled by a corporate entity?
What if your views were not permitted to be aired?
Pretty ignorant remark on your part, i.e.,".... good, censor them because I did not like them..."

That is not what I said.

[sambacat]

That is perfectly fine with me. The PD almost always endorses corporate-friendly candidates whenever they have the chance. They'll still have plenty of influence by way of editorials and editorializing news stories. Hopefully, this will motivate people to listen to debates, attend candidate speeches and do research for themselves re the issues that are important to them. Personally, I cancelled my PD subscription after its continued endorsement of Paul Kelley, the anti-environment County Supervisor, a while back.

[Stuart]

Your response echoes one of the others who replied pretty much the same:" ....who cares if they are being censored because I did not like their endorsements anyway"
How absolutely closed minded and ignorant.

Are you missing the point?

The point is NOT that you disagree with their editorials, I do as well quite often, but that THEY HAVE BEEN MUZZLED TO EVEN EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS!! ...which you may not agree with.

I find it unfathomable that censorship is accepted because one disagrees with a certain viewpoint.
The issue is CENSORSHIP, not your opinion of their editorials.
Good on you for canceling your PD, that is your freedom, I am going to do the same, but my basis is not editorial disagreement, rather, a conservative media company controlling the editorial choices of our local papers and 34 others.

[Imagery]

Your response echoes one of the others who replied pretty much the same:" ....who cares if they are being censored because I did not like their endorsements anyway"
How absolutely closed minded and ignorant.

Are you missing the point?...

...and perhaps you're missing the point that the other members are entitled to have opinions of their own regarding the issue of "censorship" by the corporate media. Perhaps there are people like me who don't like being told who to vote for, because I prefer to do some research to find the person I believe is best qualified for the job.
My wife will tell you that I choose to vote for what I believe for the most part. Becoming educated is NOT popular in this day and age, but it's the only way to bring about change.

IMHO, I don't care if the Press-Democrat endorses candidates or not. I will do the research needed to give myself enough information to vote for who I believe is the best person for the job. What they are doing, also ONLY in my opinion, is trying to become more fair and balanced - not such a bad thing if you ask me.

[Stuart]

You mention education, how can LESS information be helpful?

The mantra in support of censorship is either:
1) I don't like their endorsements, so no big deal, or,
2) newspapers shouldn't make choices, so who cares if they are censored.

I am defending the right and obligation of FREE SPEECH.
1)You don't like the endorsements, tough crap.
2)You don't like that newspapers make endorsements, too bad

Do not confuse the two above dislikes for the issue of this post:
Freedom of Speech is being deprived by corporate owners.

The public does not have the choice to disagree or disregard the endorsements, or not like that they are being made.
Our two local biggest newspapers are being censored.

What is the difference in results between the religious rioters preventing any discussion of their prophet and Halifax, the 15th largest newspaper publisher in the US, censoring all the papers?
None.
The result is no freedom of the press.
Why you want to defend censorship is beyond me.

[Stuart]

PS
you say "fair and balanced," correct?
Wow, can you name the tv network that uses the very same phrase?
And certainly and definitely is not.
And spews hate, lies and propaganda?
Steve Jobs asked Robert Murdoch why he continued to push negativity, or something to that effect, can't recall the exact wording, but intention was clear: why push hate?