Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Randi Rhodes thinks KO's thing is contract-related. We'll see. nt

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:06 PM
Original message
Randi Rhodes thinks KO's thing is contract-related. We'll see. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. So does Malloy
and this afternoon Norman Goldman pointed out that there were some things that stunk to hell
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hlthe2b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. How so?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Malloy went into his own experience
with the media and Norman mentioned the inconsistencies in the treatment of different on air personalities. He also said he'd advise KO to lawyer up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. For being so old, I sure am naive - I usually believe things at their face value.
I'll probably learn my lesson on my death bed.

Anyway, they're insiders so I'm certainly not discounting their opinions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I've had my own, shall we say adventures. with two very small
publishing companies.

My experience, they will take advantage every day of the week and twice on sunday. That is the way they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matariki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. I'll bet it's a personality clash issue.
At least as opposed to his political leanings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liquorice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-05-10 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. It seems like some sort of stunt to me. It sure is getting them a lot of attention. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
8. Maybe
Edited on Sat Nov-06-10 12:16 AM by glinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-06-10 01:11 AM
Response to Original message
9. It is contract-related as I understand it.
The question remains: is an employment contract that requires a person to relinquish the basic right of free speech enforceable or is it against such an important public policy that it is not legal and therefore is not enforceable?

Again, here is the problem: if corporations have a First Amendment right to donate money and also the right to deprive their employees of the employees' First Amendment rights via the employment contract, where are we?

What is to stop other employers from restricting the First Amendment rights of their employees through a sentence in an employment manual or a contract? Our entire democracy could be brought to a standstill if Keith cannot have the right to exercise his First Amendment right to donate money. At least that is how I see it.

Could Target do the same thing with its employees? How about Home Depot?

MSNBC could argue that Keith is a newscaster. But what difference does that make? Can newscasters be required to give up their First Amendment rights? Why should that be permitted? If a newscaster can be required to give up the First Amendment right to donate money to candidates in elections, can't the newscaster also be required to give up all other First Amendment rights? What good is a newscaster who simply vocalizes the political views of his corporate employer?

Shouldn't newscasters, more than any other voters, have the right to speak from and donate from their consciences?

Or is the news simply another corporate ad?

We know that the actors in advertisement videos are just speaking a script, and we know that newscasters for the most part just read a script. But shouldn't the newscasters have some right to speak their personal minds? How can we trust them if they are just corporate mouthpieces? At the point that a newscaster is a corporate mouthpiece, he has no social value.

That's my opinion, MSNBC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 29th 2014, 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC