onenote
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-14-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 7. here's a response from the reality phone |
|
MSNBC is a private entity. So for that mattter are NBC and GE. The fact that they're a public corporation is irrelevant. The NY TImes is a public corporation and I don't think a court can tell the NY Times how much coverage they have to give DK or anyone else. You can call "news" a public service, but that's pretty meaningless too, unless you are prepared to say the government should regulate the news. And the event isn't public. Its a privately sponsored debate being cablecast on a cable channel, not a broadcast channel.
That being said, it was wrong for NBC to change its criteria to exclude DK late in the game. And my guess is that the basis for the court's decision has nothing to do with anything in your post, but is based on a simple contract theory (which DK raised in his complaint).
|
| -On What Grounds Can a Court Force MSNBC To Include Kucinich in Their Debate? |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 06:57 PM |
#0 |
 -
on what grounds do they exclude him? because Harry Reid says so? |
ursi |
Jan-14-08 06:59 PM |
#1 |
  -
Its their debate, they should be able to include or exclude whoever they want. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 06:59 PM |
#2 |
| -
His complaint raised a breach of contract claim |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:00 PM |
#3 |
| -
I heard that the debate sponsors originally told Kucinich he could participate |
JDPriestly |
Jan-14-08 07:44 PM |
#40 |
| -
PDF OF LAWSUIT: |
mikelgb |
Jan-14-08 07:01 PM |
#4 |
| -
Breach of Contract. They invited he accepted. Relief: Specific Performance of Contract. |
rug |
Jan-14-08 07:09 PM |
#14 |
| -
I cannot believe he cites online polls in trying to prove he's a serious candidate. |
slick8790 |
Jan-14-08 08:55 PM |
#52 |
| -
Here's a message from the cluephone: |
Jim Sagle |
Jan-14-08 07:01 PM |
#5 |
| -
No. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 07:04 PM |
#6 |
| -
The airwaves ARE public |
no name no slogan |
Jan-14-08 07:06 PM |
#8 |
| -
Yes, you are correct, the broadcast airwaves are public. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 07:07 PM |
#10 |
| -
And you approve of that sentiment and call yourself a Democrat? n/t |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:15 PM |
#27 |
| -
Its reality. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 07:18 PM |
#28 |
| -
But, they are not just spending the cable fees... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:25 PM |
#32 |
| -
actually, I do want to live in a country with a press that isnt dictated to by the government |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:27 PM |
#33 |
| -
I want to live in a country where the electorate isn't dictated to by five media corps... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:32 PM |
#36 |
| -
most communities have only one newspaper |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:42 PM |
#39 |
| -
And that one paper will be owned by the same entity that owns all the other media... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:57 PM |
#44 |
| -
sorry, but you're wrong about cable franchises and about newspapers |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 10:45 PM |
#60 |
| -
The cable companies, however, usually broadcast a public interest |
JDPriestly |
Jan-14-08 07:45 PM |
#43 |
| -
And most don't do jack shit for the public interest. |
WHEN CRABS ROAR |
Jan-14-08 07:19 PM |
#29 |
| -
Cable/Satellite is not considered public airwaves . . . |
wndycty |
Jan-14-08 07:07 PM |
#11 |
| -
Cable doesn't use the airwaves. |
mycritters2 |
Jan-14-08 07:09 PM |
#15 |
| -
You must have been born after Reagan repealed Equal Time... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:08 PM |
#13 |
| -
In the cable arena, yes, I think they can do whatever the hell they want. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 07:09 PM |
#17 |
| -
That's like regulating AM radio (which is Lowest Common Denom. crap)... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 08:25 PM |
#49 |
| -
shouting "fire in a crowded theater"? Give me a break |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 10:55 PM |
#62 |
| -
Your post is a non-sequitur to your title... |
arendt |
Jan-15-08 07:39 AM |
#68 |
| -
Let me try again. |
onenote |
Jan-15-08 03:14 PM |
#78 |
| -
actually the "equal time" rules haven't be repealed |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:12 PM |
#23 |
| -
Except when they deem the ads "inappropriate" or some other such excuse... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 08:20 PM |
#47 |
| -
if arnold's candidates didn't file complaints, its their fault |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 10:58 PM |
#63 |
| -
I would not just call this news coverage. |
FREEWILL56 |
Jan-15-08 12:01 PM |
#73 |
| -
i agree that its problematic for news organizations to sponsor the debates |
onenote |
Jan-15-08 03:21 PM |
#79 |
| -
Sorry, but the cable companies are getting it from the satellites |
FREEWILL56 |
Jan-16-08 08:40 AM |
#86 |
| -
1) No one said we are ALL entitled to appear - just all Democratic candidates. |
Jim Sagle |
Jan-14-08 08:48 PM |
#50 |
| -
How many people have properly filed to be Democratic candidates in NV? |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 09:01 PM |
#54 |
| -
I found the list, there are 14 official candidates |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 09:11 PM |
#58 |
| -
So how do you think the cable companies get that wonderful MSNBC |
FREEWILL56 |
Jan-14-08 09:11 PM |
#56 |
| -
self delete |
FREEWILL56 |
Jan-14-08 09:11 PM |
#57 |
| -
here's a response from the reality phone |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:05 PM |
#7 |
| -
The airwaves ARE public |
no name no slogan |
Jan-14-08 07:07 PM |
#9 |
| -
Sorry, but the courts have held that cable channels are not subject to the same |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:08 PM |
#12 |
| -
MSNBC does not broadcast over the public airways n/t |
cali |
Jan-14-08 07:09 PM |
#16 |
| -
See no. 15 above. nt |
mycritters2 |
Jan-14-08 07:10 PM |
#19 |
| -
I don't understand why you don't get this |
tkmorris |
Jan-14-08 07:11 PM |
#22 |
| -
It is a private entity that has usurped a public function - i.e., retail politics |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:14 PM |
#25 |
| -
rant away. it doesn't change what the law is. |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:14 PM |
#26 |
| -
The original question was answered almost immediately. I am responding to... |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:19 PM |
#30 |
| -
y'know, most newspapers are corporations too |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:25 PM |
#31 |
| -
The first amendment protects speech. This incident is the stifling of speech. |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:28 PM |
#34 |
| -
In the strictest legal sense, your latter scenario describes reality. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 07:30 PM |
#35 |
| -
Freedom of speech for everyone who can afford a cable subscription is reality? that's sick. n/t |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 07:34 PM |
#37 |
| -
Free speech means MSNBC gets to decide who they want in their debate. |
tritsofme |
Jan-14-08 07:37 PM |
#38 |
| -
"Freedom of the press for anyone who owns a press" is an old, sick joke. |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 08:05 PM |
#45 |
| -
Makes one wonder how many actual Democrats are here, doesn't it? |
Jim Sagle |
Jan-14-08 09:03 PM |
#55 |
| -
There's no first amendment issue here |
MonkeyFunk |
Jan-14-08 07:44 PM |
#41 |
| -
You are correct. I was responding to the misuse of the newspaper analogy and further misused it. n/t |
arendt |
Jan-14-08 08:10 PM |
#46 |
| -
No they are NOT a private entity, they are PUBLIC. |
Jim Sagle |
Jan-14-08 08:54 PM |
#51 |
| -
so in your dictionary, what is a "private" entity |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 11:00 PM |
#64 |
| -
Your home is private. Your business is not. |
Jim Sagle |
Jan-14-08 11:46 PM |
#65 |
| -
Why isn't my business "private"? |
Hobarticus |
Jan-14-08 11:48 PM |
#66 |
| -
Because it operates in the public domain. |
Jim Sagle |
Jan-15-08 12:55 AM |
#67 |
| -
I doubt this would hold up on appeal, but it doesn't have to |
calmblueocean |
Jan-14-08 07:09 PM |
#18 |
| -
I think its more likely that the judge ruled in DK's favor on his contract claim |
onenote |
Jan-14-08 07:14 PM |
#24 |
| -
Video of the judge ruling here |
calmblueocean |
Jan-14-08 07:45 PM |
#42 |
| -
on the grounds of sticking it to anti-kucinich cranks |
Algorem |
Jan-14-08 07:11 PM |
#20 |
| -
Breach of contract? Seems to me they invited him, he accepted |
hlthe2b |
Jan-14-08 07:11 PM |
#21 |
| -
contracts are not enforceable like this... |
mckeown1128 |
Jan-15-08 08:02 AM |
#70 |
| -
Injunction that cancels the debate; contempt charges if they ignore |
hlthe2b |
Jan-15-08 06:29 PM |
#83 |
| -
How about we are a Democracy which depends upon an informed populace? |
Bonobo |
Jan-14-08 08:22 PM |
#48 |
| -
Effectively it is a in-kind political contrution of air time. |
Perky |
Jan-14-08 09:00 PM |
#53 |
| -
Section III, Paragraph 1 of the McGillicutty Clause. n/t |
tabasco |
Jan-14-08 10:00 PM |
#59 |
| -
Here's another question: do they HAVE to ask him anything? |
Hobarticus |
Jan-14-08 10:51 PM |
#61 |
| -
Corporatist Judges Require NOOO Legal Rationale For ANY Decisions They Make |
DaLittle Kitty |
Jan-15-08 07:49 AM |
#69 |
| -
PRIVATE FUNCTION???!!!!!?????? |
JTFrog |
Jan-15-08 08:08 AM |
#71 |
| -
The government isn't running it. |
tritsofme |
Jan-15-08 02:45 PM |
#75 |
| -
Don't like it, change it. Better than your snotty answer. n/t |
JTFrog |
Jan-15-08 08:40 PM |
#84 |
| -
of course its private |
onenote |
Jan-15-08 03:31 PM |
#80 |
| -
breach of contract? |
LanternWaste |
Jan-15-08 09:25 AM |
#72 |
| -
Suppose the board of MSNBC decided they JUST didn't like HRC, and excluded her -- |
cloudythescribbler |
Jan-15-08 01:32 PM |
#74 |
| -
Are candidates compelled to show up? |
MGKrebs |
Jan-15-08 03:46 PM |
#82 |
| -
On the grounds that a judge's opinion matters more than a weapons manufacturer's? |
StefanX |
Jan-15-08 02:50 PM |
#76 |
| -
its a perfectly legitmate question |
onenote |
Jan-15-08 02:55 PM |
#77 |
| -
Breach of contract? They agreed he'd be there, based on their criteria - then reneged. |
robbedvoter |
Jan-15-08 03:32 PM |
#81 |
| -
private entities . . . private functions |
elleng |
Jan-15-08 09:01 PM |
#85 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread