Tool Time: HuffPo Censors TYT

[Joanne98]

Run time: 02:19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0jD6bApVCQ   Posted on YouTube: January 13, 2011 By YouTube Member: TheAlyonaShow Views on YouTube: 485   Posted on DU: January 13, 2011 By DU Member: Joanne98 Views on DU: 1124

 
The Huffington Post took down a post by Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, contributor to MSNBC and a frequent guest here on our show. The post was titled "Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?" In it, he argued that it was a psychotic act driven by political beliefs.

[digitaln3rd]

1. Huffington Post isn't a government organization.

They're free to put up and take down whatever they want. No censorship involved.

[stevenleser]

3. You beat me to it by a few seconds! :-) n/t

[ihavenobias]

4. Of course they have the right.

That is absolutely true. The issue is why they removed it and if you agree with http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/huffpo-takes-down-cenk-uygur-blog-post_b20345|their reasoning> (in the context of what is normally posted there and what others posted there about Loughner).

Here's the blog: http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2011/1/11/121621/205|Was Jared Loughner's Act Political?>

PS---Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO9JajhZf2g|Cenk Respond To Critics Of His Blog>

[guruoo]

6. And likewise, people are free to call their hand on it. nt

[EFerrari]

7. When they arbitrarily censor a post that is inconvenient for them,

yes, that is censorship.

[SkyDaddy7]

10. I also find it quite funny that RT is criticizing HP for censorship...

Considering RT is one of Putin's political machines...Look what they do to reporters in Russia who report on issues the government (Putin) disagrees with! They end up full of bullet holes in alley or dead some other way.

[stevenleser]

2. That is not considered censorship, it is considered editorial discretion.

If the government made the Huffington Post take down the article, THAT would be censorship.

[ihavenobias]

5. See # 4

The larger issue is unfortunately getting lost in a squabble over semantics. You can argue it's a poor choice of words in this case (censors/censorship) but ultimately a distraction here.

[EFerrari]

8. The word choice is fine. Censorship in the vernacular is used in this way.

And HuffPo richly deserves the award.

[stevenleser]

9. You are both wrong. That word has a very specific meaning.

It is not "used in the vernacular this way" it has repeatedly been used INCORRECTLY this way and thus some of you think it is OK. It is not.

Lets not become like the Repugs and alter the meaning of words to make political points. Censorship should not go the way of "Appeasement" and "Socialism"

[ihavenobias]

11. "You are both wrong".

Do tell. I stand by what I wrote, the real point of this is if it makes sense to remove the post based on the content. Yes, they had every right to do it, but was it a good decision that made sense based on their explanation and the context of the situation.

[EFerrari]

12. I think I'll go with Oxford and not with this derailing bs, thanks:

Pronunciation:/ˈsensərˌSHip, ˈsɛnsərˌʃɪp/
noun

*
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts:details of the visit were subject to military censorship

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1231640#m_en_us1231640

[DonCoquixote]

13. No, it was not goverment censorship

But for a paper that claims to be the last bastion of journalism, it was, at the VERY LEAST, a cheap weak move.

[EFerrari]

14. No one claimed it was government censorship. n/t