So, I'm stuck at work on Sun. and I find THIS posted outside a cube...

http://www.afa.net/activism/

snip-"Within 24 hours, ABC and NBC quickly diminished their reporting of
the barbaric death of Nick Berg, just as they did with the atrocious
crimes against other Americans.

Gary Bauer, chairman of Campaign for Working Families, points out
the media's pre-occupation with pushing anti-war rhetoric. "The
press wants us to see every photo from the prison, but they try to
hide the handiwork of our enemy."

A study by Media Research Center (MRC) indicates networks like
ABC, CBS, and NBC will completely bury the Berg story soon to
refocus on efforts to oust Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In
fact, on Monday, NBC made a conscious effort to belittle Rumsfeld
by airing a comparison of him to Adolf Hitler. -snip

Ok, now...normally I would just roll my eyes and ignore it, but this is from a HUGE anti-gay organization, citing the biased and incrredulous MRC, and generally wrong about everything the media is doing about both stories. This is in a building whose company has a proud tradition of non-discrimination when it concerns gay people.

Meanwhile, I see on CNN that Ralph Nader is on Wolfie's show YET AGAIN! How many more times has he been on than John Kerry? All I hear from those on the right/middle/not paying attention/a few on DU are "Kerry has no message", "He's only bashing Bush", "he doesn't have any ideas on what to do in Iraq", ...Welll, tell me, how are we ever supposed to find out just how Kerry stands on these issues if the Networks constantly have Nader on, instead of a man that can actually win this election?

Sorry, I'm pissed today.:grr:

It would be interesting to see how many times each has been on a certain show for comparison. Nader isn't a serious candidate, so one would think he wouldn't be on as much as Kerry (or Bush if we want to be fair).

We should look at how often the networks invite people to be on and how often people say yes or no. The assumption that Kerry is not on because the networks won't let him be on strikes me as unwarranted, but who knows. Maybe Kerry is asking to be on and the networks are turning him down. Anyone know for sure about this?

It would strike me as a small, cable news ratings coup of sorts to have both Kerry and Nader on together. And while Nader may not be a "serious" candidate in your eyes I think he has a lot of good things to say on a lot of important issues and, given his history and work, he's a good person to have on.

Besides, I like it when people correct Wolf and point out that Bush wasn't elected. For that alone it's worth having Nader on.

and ask if the workplace is really an appropriate venue to post it

It was against company policy to place political material on any walls, boards, doors, dividers, cubicles. etc ....

NO blatant political attacks against any groups or individuals were allowed ... They presumed that employees had PLENTY of time to do that outside of the plant ...

But...Recently, all posters in the common aisles had to be removed. The building trying to get more depts. to come here. They used the CorporateSpeak "Curb Appeal" to get their point across.:eyes:

Anyhow, about a month and a half ago, they forced me to remove all my anti-Bush, anti-invasion articles/cartoons from outside my desk (some of which was removed much earlier by some knuckledragger who had a problem with freedom of speech, especially that one where Washington is giving Chimpy rabbit ears, and Jefferson and Roosevelt are smirking at him)...then this piece of trash shows up. So wheres the "Curb Appeal" rule now?

to detract from Kerry. IMO

Fine with me. It'll take more away from bush.

vote for nader. They will donate and promote him to take votes away from Kerry. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.

The prisoner abuse story continues to dominate the news because it is an ongoing story with many unanswered questions about the actions of our military and our government--questions of direct relevance to our democratic system. And information keeps dribbling out. Congress is given access to unreleased photos, and various politicians hold press conferences--news is generated. Trials are about to commence, the defendants and their attorneys give contradictory statements to the media--more news. See how that works? The Nick Berg story, by contrast, has been covered thoroughly, and we're all horrified by it--but there's just not much more there for the media to report at this point.
-----------------------
above from This Modern World (by cartoonist Tom Tomorrow)

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_05_09.html#001539

print that explanation and put it underneath the posting you read

there is the media *problem* with Nick Berg's father being vehemently anti-Bush.

where the press has been easy on bush after 9/11 the loss of free speech adn press not being tough cause of repercussions and hang it next to that article.

i like. do it., please please

If so, tear the thing down.

Me and a lesbian. I don't think she'd have a problem if I did.:evilgrin:

he's just waiting for bush's big ego to screw him over, which looks like it's already starting

be devoid of such postings.

that after 100 years in business, there is one constant. People will be people, and they cannot just shut off who they are and what they believe just because they enter the trunstiles. To try and make them mindless automatons while in the business place, makes them less productive, and thus less profitable.

I would much rather put up with this polemic, and fight back with the truth, than have rules forbidding political speech.

There are behavior rules, but for politics, as long as it doesn't get personal and offensive (I can't post printouts of EvilGOPbastards.com here), then it's not necessarily endorsed, but it's not suppressed either.