in strictly legal terms, i agree with you.  however, i still think it's
a bad thing.  there are fewer and fewer channels as mega corporations
grab them up (particularly since the FCC changed their rules, which were
made specifically so that no one company had too much control over the
media in a given area or the country).  however, i think it's a bad
thing for a democracy/representitive country.  voices are being
squelched, and that hurts every one, even those who disagree.  it's good
to know what the other views are and why people hold those views, and
just to know that they do exist and that not every one is onboard with
whatever view the owners like.

the case where they can't run enough ads is not the point, obviously
they can only run so many ads, but that doesn't mean they have to turn
away paying customers when they have the ad space or that they should
insist on only selling it to some people while freezing others out.

most people don't read multiple news papers, most people really don't
have the time even if they wanted to.  for many people, tv and radio is
their window on the world, when that window is consistently tinted
perception becomes tinted as well even in people who might agree with
the unpopular view if only they were made aware of the arguments.

yes, it's perfectly legal, and a fine case where what is legal is not
necessarily right or fair, and fairness and rightness are the whole
point when citizens are to have power over government and industry
rather than it being only the other way around.

Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>=20
> Jay replied already, and as far as the general issue is concerned, I ag=
ree
> with him completely. Follow some additional comments.
>=20
> > having said that, i still agree that google should be allowed to say =
what
> > they want, but advertising is NOT them saying something, it is them
> > allowing someone to buy access to others to say what they want.  by n=
ot
> > letting people of some views have that same access, they are impeding
> > free speech in an unreasonable way.
---------

--=20
Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.=20
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Jew.=20
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist.=20
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
Protestant.=20
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Martin Niem=F6ller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist