On Feb 28, 1:23=A0pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> "DougL" <lampert.d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:1363f9c6-4708-47ec-921f-da81287efb81@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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? =A0Why did WHNT originally say that it was CBS's problem and
> >> then recant? =A0Why did they originally say "We'd love to rebroadcast
i=
t
> >> 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.
>
> So they didn't want to appear to be censoring the piece.
Why is this different from other peices.
> > 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.
>
> That is, when it turned into a giant embarrassment, they backed down.
It turned into a giant embarrasement in how many hours?
Besides the Huntsville Times had to FIRST explain that there WAS any
belief that they'd done it deliberately prior to explaining why they
hadn't.
It's NOT AN ISSUE locally. No news outlet other than WHNT and the
Times has covered it that I know of.
And you still haven't explained why they ran MORE local publicity for
this peice than for a typical one.
> > For that matter the
> > owner owns multiple CBS affiliates, if censoring why didn't he do it
> > at all of them.
>
> Are any of the others in Alabama?
IIRC the times article correctly YES, two of them.
> > The Huntsville Times, a longtime Siegleman sup****ter has said this
> > theory is full of holes.
>
> Unless one of us has first-hand knowledge (which I don't, anyway), we're
> both just speculating. =A0But if the outage was a coincidence, it was an
> amazing one.
I have first hand knowledge of their normal pattern of behavior. Which
INCLUDES broadcasting peices suggesting that the Siegleman
prossecution was a political attack job.
I have first hand knowledge that they DON'T normally rebroadcast
things they mess up.
And I have first hand knowledge of how they DO normally censor stuff
they don't like.
And I have first hand knowledge that the massive outrage you alledge
to have forced their hand was notable for its non-existance. They get
more when they openly censor a peice, that DOES get coverage on other
networks and has NEVER made anyone back down.
Broadly my first hand knowledge strikes me as more than adequate to
class you with 9/11 truthers on this one as an insane and STUPID
conspiracy theorist.
DougL
|
