Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts United States Politics Your Rights Online

Newspaper Endorses the Candidate It's Suing Over Copyright 166

Posted by timothy
from the sometimes-the-other-guy-is-worse dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Remember Righthaven? The copyright troll owned by the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal? You may remember, then, that Righthaven had sued Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle for posting LVRJ stories on her site. At the same time, LVRJ has been having its execs talk about how copyright infringement is no different than garden variety theft. So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd that the LVRJ is endorsing the very same candidate that it sued for such 'theft'?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newspaper Endorses the Candidate It's Suing Over Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • ...to politics!
  • Corporations (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:37PM (#33827772) Homepage Journal

    . So ... doesn't it seem a bit odd

    Corporations aren't just immortals, they're schizophrenic immortals. With 'human' rights.

    Try to keep this straight.

    • Re:Corporations (Score:5, Informative)

      by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmythe AT jwsmythe DOT com> on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:02PM (#33828114) Homepage Journal

          Nope, I'd bet it was more of a calculated decision. Put yourself in their position.

          You are a local media mogul, and have a political candidate over a barrel. They've committed a violation of law.

          There are two options. Well, two main ones. There are of course others.

          1) They can fight you in court, but they'll get torn up both publicly in the media (which you own) and in court. They won't win their campaign.

          2) You promise to forget about their little transgression, but in exchange you may ask for "favors" in the future. Additionally, you will support them in your media, adding to the stack of redeemable "favors".

          Option 1 costs a lot of money, and no one wins.

          Option 2 doesn't cost a lot, and it's advantageous to both parties involved. It's dirty, but that's the game of both business and politics.

          Any good business person will go for option 2. Any responsible business person will go for option 1. Responsibility goes out the window when you can have a politician in your pocket.

      • I like your reasoning.

        Yet we have a copyright-abuser local newspaper worried that others might usurp them by having a sued candidate for govenor getting in bed with Fox News http://mediamatters.org/blog/201009220018 [mediamatters.org] instead of them.

        Politics makes such odd bedfellows.

      • More likely they just placed a vote against the other guy. You don't always support the person you like, sometimes you support the person you hate less.
        • It's both. The Review-Journal is extremely Republican in all things. It would never, ever endorse a Democrat. It will always endorse a Republican. Nothing matters beyond political affiliation.
      • by trb (8509)
        Another option - a corporation is suing a politician. If the politician loses the lawsuit, the politician's ability to pay the penalty may be contingent on his being gainfully employed (as a politician). Therefore it is in the plaintiff's interest that the defendant remains employed. So the plaintiff (the newspaper) endorses the defendant (the politician).
        • by JWSmythe (446288)

              Could be, but I kinda doubt it. Well, I assume they're suing the campaign, right? So if the campaign gets more money, then the campaign has something to pay with. But that's a dangerous prospect. They may accidentally put someone in power who has a grudge against them.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      No, they're sociopathic schizophrenic immortals.

    • by sjames (1099)

      You left out psychopathic and narcissistic.

  • by matt4077 (581118) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:44PM (#33827844) Homepage

    That's not odd, that's how it's supposed to work. The editorial staff should be independent from the business side of the business. It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.

    It's also possible that the owner is - shock! - able to disagree with someone on one issue but agrees on others. Or maybe he doesn't put his own interest ahead of what he thinks is good for society. OF course if you want to be cynical, maybe he wants the candidate to win so she can pay whatever he's suing for.

    • by AnonymousClown (1788472) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:54PM (#33828006)

      . It's only after being exposed to Murdoch-media for too long that you think the owner should be the only one deciding the newspaper's opinions.

      Randolph Hearst predates him by a century, Ben Franklin when he was publishing stuck his nose into things and every other newspaper owner before them.

      • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @03:27PM (#33829144) Journal

        But don't you realize that Murdoch is "right wing extremism" and that is bad, but people like Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr are okay because he's left wing?

        When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left. Which is why people should get the news raw and and unfiltered.

        And the internet provides a very broad voice for news accounts of important events and stories. Some are slanted left, others right, and somewhere there is the truth. It is out there, you just have to learn to filter out the bias.

        • by ShakaUVM (157947) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @06:54PM (#33831414) Homepage Journal

          >>When people troll on about "Faux News" and Murdock I simply point to the problems with other "news" organizations that don't report certain news stories because it doesn't fit the narrative of the left. Which is why people should get the news raw and and unfiltered.

          Shush! Next you'll be asking people to think for themselves!

          I honestly think the best way to read news is to read *everything*, from Mother Jones to The Blaze, from NPR to Fox News, and when you find points of disagreement in their narratives, dig into it and figure it out for yourself. Too much work for most people, but if you just listen to one news source, due to the gatekeeper effect, you'll have a very biased idea of what is happening in our world.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AK Marc (707885)
          The issue I have with Faux News is that they claim to be a news channel, but have more editorials than news, and the editorials are not labeled as such.

          Take the newspaper. They have editorials. They are labeled as such and only two pages out of 50. But a news channel with more editorial than news and nothing differentiating them isn't a news channel. When even their name is lying to me, it's hard to be a fan.

          And no, "the other guys do it too" doesn't excuse unethical behavior. If everyone else in you
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bogjobber (880402)

          This is not a partisan issue. Murdoch isn't worse than Sulzberger because he's conservative and Sulzberger is liberal. Murdoch is worse than Sulzberger because he doesn't care about journalism. Not one little bit.

          Other than the various business news organizations News Corp. owns (also probably a lot of local papers which I'm not familiar with) most of his newspapers and TV channels are complete tabloid trash. Fox News devotes 7 hours a day to news (even being generous and counting Shephard Smith and Mat

    • by blair1q (305137)

      It's also possible the paper is owned and published by flaming hypocrites.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Crippere (1825560)
        It's also possible for a newspaper to care to endorse a white-collar thief precisely because that's the kind of morality that the newspaper wants to see in office.
        • by OakDragon (885217) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @03:23PM (#33829100) Journal
          It's also possible that for whatever deficiencies Sharron Angle exhibits, they see her as a vastly superior choice to the execrable Harry Reid.
          • by winwar (114053)

            "It's also possible that for whatever deficiencies Sharron Angle exhibits, they see her as a vastly superior choice..."

            Which is really fucking scary. Many people believe that Reid is a crappy Senator. Many of those are in his own party. But anyone who seriously believes that Angle would be an improvement is someone who is deficient in critical reasoning, thinking and logic skills.

    • by sjames (1099)

      It does mean, however that either the owner things a thief is a perfectly viable representative or that the editorial staff believes the owner is wrong about the copying being theft.

      It does provide interesting insight into the organization.

  • Not Odd (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doomicon (5310) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:45PM (#33827864) Homepage Journal

    Just a statement on how bad the opposing candidate is.

    • Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but are you aware that the opposing candidate is Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader?
      • Re:Not Odd (Score:5, Insightful)

        by operagost (62405) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:00PM (#33828094) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, and he thinks that losing "only" 36,000 jobs in one day is good. He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure. He made prejudiced statements about President Obama. That's just the nonpartisan stuff, because obviously his voting record is debatable based on whatever your opinions are.
        • I said I didn't disagree with the idea that the opposing candidate was that bad. I just wanted to make sure that people knew who that candidate was, the man who the Democrats in the Senate believe is the best man to lead them (If he's bad, what does that say about the rest of them?).
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Senate/House leaders are chosen on the basis of seniority and the unlikelihood of them being defeated in an election (or "safety", as they put it) and not for actual leadership qualities. This is true of both parties.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by interkin3tic (1469267)

          Yeah, and he thinks that losing "only" 36,000 jobs in one day is good

          I don't see how his outlook on that would have changed anything. Surely you're not suggesting the US economy had problems because Harry Reid wasn't optimistic enough.

          He declared the Iraq war "lost" in 2007, and that the surge would be a failure.

          Yep. He doesn't have a crystal ball and is clearly unfit for office. As far as losing the war, that was stupid to say for a politician. I'm not a politician, so I can say we lost the war when we confused Iraq with al qaeda.

          He made prejudiced statements about President Obama.

          So? Are we going to pretend most people in congress are not at least a little prejudiced? I'm taking it as a given th

          • by Grishnakh (216268)

            I hate to say it, but the Reps are kinda right about the DREAM Act providing preferred tuition. The problem is that it treats illegals as in-state residents, which they're not; they're illegal immigrants and not valid residents of any state.

            Of course, throwing out a bunch of people who were brought into the country when they were small children and never even grew up in Mexico (or elsewhere; not all illegals are from Mexico, many are from Guatamala and other Central/South American countries), and might not

          • I wonder how charitable you'd be if all those things were ... say ... GWB? or some "right wing" candidate?

            And by the look of the link you provided I can see you're not. I've not seen the ad by Angle, but I suppose it shows illegal immigrants flowing over the southern border and Gasp, HORROR they're all "brown", must be racism. It can't be anything else that Racist White People scared of brown people! Those Racist Teabaggers.

            (never mind Rubio of Florida completely breaks the case that Tea Partiers hating "br

            • I wonder how charitable you'd be if all those things were ... say ... GWB? or some "right wing" candidate?

              I might find those gaffes funnier if it were coming from a republican, true, but it's not what Bush and the right wingers say that I have problems with, it's what they do.

              I'd think you all would be past the "racist" thing by now, but you're losing so it is time to break out the old favorite card of the left.

              Operagost brought up the race card about Reid. I only talked about it to point out that the pot is calling the kettle black.

              Meanwhile I see that you aren't past pulling out the "pulling out the race card" card ;)

              • Well, when the race card is played, it is like crying "child molester". You can deny it all you want, but the stench of "racist" or "child molester" never goes away.

                Which is why it is hurled in the first place. It makes for a nice boogieman, and everything else becomes irrelevant.

                t's not what Bush and the right wingers say that I have problems with,it's what they do.

                When you can say the same thing about the shenanigans of the (D) you'll have proper outlook. There is no difference between the (D) and the (R)

                • Well, when the race card is played, it is like crying "child molester". You can deny it all you want, but the stench of "racist" or "child molester" never goes away.

                  That might be why operagost threw it at Reid.

                  When you can say the same thing about the shenanigans of the (D) you'll have proper outlook. There is no difference between the (D) and the (R) parties in regards to how despicable the things they do are. It is called Politics.

                  So much for "draining the swamp". It is clear that the only way to "drain the swamp" is for us, the voters, to do it.

                  That second part is what I'm talking about: democrats get no points from me when they said they were going to drain the swamp. They would have gotten points only had they done it.

                  As far as the first part, I see no evidence to back that up. Recently an effort to get 9/11 responders free healthcare coverage failed because it would have closed a tax loophole for large corporations, and some republicans said illegal immigrants could be covered. I blame democrats f

                  • Recently an effort to get 9/11 responders free healthcare coverage failed because it would have closed a tax loophole for large corporations, and some republicans said illegal immigrants could be covered.

                    Quite frankly, isn't everyone going to get all the healthcare they need with ObamaCare? ;)

                    Okay, I jest. But seriously, if the bill was about doing just ONE THING, creating a healthcare fund for GZ cleanup and first responders, the (D) could have done it with Broad Bi-partisan support.

                    I'm sorry, the (D) are

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JWSmythe (446288)

            Maybe Senator Reid hasn't been playing ball with them lately.

  • by kaoshin (110328) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:46PM (#33827880)
    This reminds me of Fox News accusing Fox news co-owner of terror funding [thedailyshow.com].
  • Partly because it's a newspaper, partly because it's such a big discordance, this makes the news, but it's not unusual for there to be disagreements and differing agendas within companies. And I suppose with lawyers involved, as I suppose there are in this case (didn't RTFA of course!), all bets are off.
  • Newspapers? Pshaw. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:48PM (#33827912) Homepage Journal

    I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.

    About twenty years ago when my children were small and we lived in a bad neighborhood, there was a gang war right down the street. Probably more than 50 rounds were fired; it sounded similar to strings of firecrackers going off (the timbre was different, of course). An innocent bystander was shot and crippled as he tried to get his kids inside. I watched a police car go airborne as it crossed the railroad tracks ate a very high rate of speed. Two days later the crack house the gangsters lived in "mysteriously" burned to the ground.

    Not a word of this made the paper, [sj-r.com] although "news" of petty vandalism and burglaries and so forth were.

    A few weeks ago a school bus carrying fifteen kids ran a red light and was hit by an SUV, and missed being hit by inches by another vehicle. This happened less than two minutes before I walked into the bar at that intersection. Several police cars showed up, then another school bus came by, parked in the biker bar's* [google.com] parking lot and the kids got on it and left. There were no injuries, but the SUV's air bags deployed and it was damaged pretty severely.

    The next day's paper carried stories about fender benders, petty vandalism, and residential burglaries. Not a word about the school bus wreck or the school bus driver running a red light with kids on board.

    And they wonder why their circulation continues to drop.

    * Google maps is out of date; the place is called "Scooter's" now.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by obarthelemy (160321)

      why do you guys use "rate of speed" when "speed" would suffice ? to sound more seriouser ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Ukab the Great (87152)

      I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.

      So you are frequenting slashdot for its journalistic excellence, lack of absurdity, and total adherence to the truth.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        Actually it's because believe it or not, sometimes I actually learn something in the comments. I know of no other site where there are real scientists commenting on their field (even though there are some comments as ignorant as others are enlightening). And some of the comments are hilarious.

        Journalism has nothing to do with it.

      • by Grishnakh (216268)

        Like all modern journalism sources, Slashdot isn't very useful for the official writing in the articles, what's useful is the comments (which of course you have to wade through to find interesting info).

        It's like that for my own hometown paper, the Arizona Repugnant [azcentral.com]. The articles are horribly biased, missing obviously-needed information, etc., but it's worth reading the website (not the paper version) for the comments, where you'll sometimes find the real story.

      • I only read newspapers for the hilarity of their inaccuracy and the absurdity of what they leave in and what they leave out.

        So you are frequenting slashdot for its journalistic excellence, lack of absurdity, and total adherence to the truth.

        Maybe the GP reads Slashdot for the same reason as he/she reads newspapers.

    • by JWSmythe (446288)

      There are reasons exciting news doesn't always make it to the paper. The biggest one would be, no reporter or photographers got to the scene. They may have been following bigger stories, or weren't even dispatched to it. A lot of times, they find out about events when citizens call them in. The police don't generally bring journalists along with them. They usually won't even call, unless there's some reason they want it to be leaked.

      Just like you shouldn't say a word to a

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        The biggest one would be, no reporter or photographers got to the scene.

        The one a few weeks ago had several people taking pictures that I'm sure would love to sell to the paper. There are police scanners, which if I were running a newspaper someone would be paid to monitor.

        Even if the journalist you're talking to is a honorable and reputable person, before you know it your sound bite or quote fragment makes you look like a serial killing pedophile.

        I found that out speaking at a neighborhood meeting that the

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

          The one a few weeks ago had several people taking pictures that I'm sure would love to sell to the paper. There are police scanners, which if I were running a newspaper someone would be paid to monitor.

          Newspapers are usually more than happy to buy pictures too. But...

          If they never go to the paper with the shot, and/or they wanted too much money, or they don't have any information other than the picture, then it's worthless. You have to have text to put with it, or you just ha

  • Endorsing Sharron Angle is simply just a survival tactic for the newspapers. The gaffes, foibles, unfounded and inaccurate claims she makes almost every time she opens her mouth guarantees that the newspaper will be in business for at least the next 6 years.

    "We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." --Sharron Angle, during an interview with Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2
    • At least she is honest about it. That's more than you can say for most politicians, who won't ever tell you that they WANT the news to spin things certain ways and want them to ask questions they want to answer.

  • It's obvious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by CajunArson (465943)

    The alternative would be to endorse Harry Reid. Given those choices, it doesn't matter what Angle stole, she still looks like the better candidate.

    • huh? Were both talking about the same moron with crazed lunatic with ideas like no abortion for even rape or incest because it's against "god's plan"? Even Palin could do better than this woman. Reed has his issues, but Angle is positively batshit. Bout the only thing I have heard her say that sounded to have some kind of sanity to it was not fluorinating tap water.
      • by Surt (22457)

        Abortion for non-life of the mother issues like rape and incest is clearly equivalent to murder, if you believe a fetus is a human being. At least in life-of-the-mother you are trading one life against another, not just taking a life.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ceejayoz (567949)

        Bout the only thing I have heard her say that sounded to have some kind of sanity to it was not fluorinating tap water.

        $irony++;

    • by riverat1 (1048260)

      Wait, isn't Sharron Angle the person who suggested we pay our doctor bill with chickens?!!

  • "Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses garden-variety thief for office!"

  • Before anyone goes and calls this "ironic," please remember the definition of the word [google.com]. Thank you, Alanis Morissette.

    Someone is supposed to say that, right? Whenever a textbook example of irony comes up? Someone idiot to act like everyone else is stupid?
    • How is it used incorrectly? When an action is the opposite of what would be expected, it is ironic. The newspaper is suing someone, so the last thing I would expect would be then to support them for public office.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony [reference.com]
      5: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

  • By posting this story in a tone of mild outrage, what are we trying to say? People should never support a candidate they have a disagreement with, no matter how much they disagree with the OTHER candidate? People should never sue someone of their own political party, no matter how much they are affronted? Seriously, why does this story exist? How childish does your though process have to be to see this as anything other than mildly ironic.
    • by sjames (1099)

      No one should endorse a candidate that they consider to be a thief. Mere disagreement in other matters is not such a big deal.

      • by nedlohs (1335013)

        Maybe you consider the other guy to be a child molestor. Maybe you consider the other guy to be a bigger thief. Maybe you consider the other guy to be equally thiefy and this guy better in other aspects.

        Maybe you don't think being thief is such a bad thing in the first place?

        • by sjames (1099)

          To actually endorse a candidate I would think you must approve of thievery. Otherwise, the "endorsement" would be of the form "B is a child molester, hold your nose and vote for A".

  • Why? (Score:2, Troll)

    by bytesex (112972)

    Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Is editorial independence such a foreign concept to you 'mericans ?

      Possibly so. Thank goodness you're here to explain it to us.

      Making blanket statements about other nationalities, however, is a concept we're very familiar with.

  • by rlp (11898) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:24PM (#33828354)

    They're trying to get her to repost the endorsement so they can file an additional lawsuit.

  • Most probable: the left hand isn't watching the right
    Also likely: editorial staff cares more about other issues that differentiate the candidates (copyright is a very low priority for pretty much everyone except the AAs)

  • Leverage (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WarwickRyan (780794) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:44PM (#33828606)

    Their lawsuit gives them leverage over her.

    If she wins, she gets power.

    It's good for business to have leverage over people in power.

  • by Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @03:24PM (#33829122)
    No, not really. Everything associated with Sharron Angle is somewhere between Odd and Just Plain Fucking Nuts.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...