Re: Not always joking, it seems

Mike Schilling wrote:
> DougL wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 8:59 am, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
> >> pullo wrote:
> >>
> >>> How about the China option? I'm no expert on the thechnical issues
> >>> but my understanding is that China has at least made inroads into
> >>> controlling the most uncontrollable form of information
> >>> dissemination: the internet.
> >>
> >> Hera's an excellent description of what they
> >> do:http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/chinese-firewall
> >>
> >> The fascinating/discouraging thing is that they don't find it
> >> necessary to make information impossible to access: making it
> >> inconvenient suffices. Cf. the TV station in Alabama that pretended
> >> to have "technical difficulties" playing an embarrassing 60 Minutes
> >> re****t at its scheduled time and replayed it opposite the Oscars
> >> instead.
> >
> > You have ANY evidence at all that WHNT faked it? I'm well aware that
> > it's all over the internet that they did. Including the dramatic
> > claim
> > that they had a working transmitter. A piece of amazingly irrelevant
> > information since the claims I've heard were all that the problem
> > was
> > with their feed not the transmitter.
>
> How coincidental is it that the outage began and end with that one
> segment?  Why did WHNT originally say that it was CBS's problem and
> then recant?  Why did they originally say "We'd love to rebroadcast it
> but CBS won't let us?"
>
> They couldn't have acted more suspicious if they'd tried.

Sure they could have. They could have simply NOT RUN ANY LOCAL
PUBLICITY for the piece and substituted something else for that
episode of 60 minutes. Which they have DONE when they don't like
something CBS sends out. They know how to censor CBS.

We KNOW how WHNT censors stuff, and it's far more effective than this.

Instead they ran lots of local publicity prior to the peice and
managed to get the first rebroadcast within a day and the second
within a week and the peice up on their website. For that matter the
owner owns multiple CBS affiliates, if censoring why didn't he do it
at all of them.

The Huntsville Times, a longtime Siegleman sup****ter has said this
theory is full of holes.

It's non-sense, and claims that they couldn't have acted more
suspiciously are OBVIOUS non-sense.

DougL