http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282173,00.html
I sure do love open minded liberals who are so accepting of different views except of course conservative, Christian, Jewish, or anyone who disagrees with them.
2007-06-14 07:51:32 · 36 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Doesn't 1 liberal catch it ironic a movie called Freedom of Press and she wants to limit it or doesn't want certain sources?
Can't 1 of you put aside your hate for Fox News to see the problem with this?
2007-06-14 11:46:03 · update #1
First politicians, now celebs FEAR Fox News.
2007-06-14 09:48:18 · answer #1 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
is there a conservative who has a clue about what "freedom of the press" actually means and the point behind it?
it's freedom from the GOVERNMENT for the press...
individuals also have the freedom not to talk to the press, if they don't want to? or set up any regulations on the speech to the press that they may want too?
it's sad that an ENTIRE NEWS STATION doesn't even understand this basic principle?
and that "news" story alone shows Fox's bias better than I could have ever hoped for... it's little more than opinion with a few facts sprinkled in...
2007-06-14 07:59:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
Uh, she's not trying to crush a free press (which she hasn't any power or authority to do anyway).
Things that are none of your business are none of your business.
She has the right to not answer every question perverts want to ask her, and the right to not be harrassed for that decision.
How is this clamping down on free press?
Would YOU want to be coerces to blab every personal detail of your life to be splattered all over the airwaves and press?
She's trying to protect her young.
Since when is that wrong?
Oh, right, you love the Fox-flavored Kool Aide network -- you don't CARE about right and wrong.
2007-06-14 08:54:24 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Jesus...Just like freedom of speech, freedom of the press regards GOVERNMENT interference regarding the press. Now, I'm no Jolie fan, but let's not misrepresent this issue. This is no more a freedom of the press issue than the Imus thing was a freedom of speech issue.
It's called private enterprise. Conservatives should be aware of the difference in circumstances, here.
2007-06-14 08:01:03 · answer #4 · answered by Athena 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Lol She's a Hollywood actress who everybody knows her name. She is Hollywood and everybody knows what happens to stars that live in Hollywood to long. They do tend to lose sight of reality. I mean look at Lohan, Spears, Cruise, Michael Jackson and the list goes on. But who cares she is being paid more then most people do to get in a lifetime. I would say the 3rd most paying job in Hollywood other then Plastic surgeon and star would be psychiatrist.
2007-06-14 09:07:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Jolie doesn't want to talk to the press except under certain conditions, that's her privilege (freedom of speech) If a journalist doesn't want to agrre, that's his/her privilege-but the press does not have an unlimited right of access.
In short, there's no "freedom of the press" issue here.
2007-06-14 08:17:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, freedom of the press is not violated in the case. It is not the government coming along and saying what can and cannot be said about Angelina Jolie. It is Angelina Jolie. She is perfectly within her right to withhold interviews to people who do not accept to her terms of interview.
What you are suggesting is that she cannot withhold interviews. By that reasoning then a reporter can force anyone to talk. That is not something freedom of the press allows. Freedom of the press means that the government cannot prohibit the press or censor them.
2007-06-14 07:56:51 · answer #7 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 9⤊ 2⤋
Sorry, but, as much as I can't stand Jolie and her ilk, that is not a freedom of the press issue.
Freedom of the press means freedom from government intrusion or censorship of media. Jolie was simply protecting her image, distasteful as her actions may be.
2007-06-14 08:16:52 · answer #8 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Did her wanting to keep the interview subject matter only about the film hurt your feelings?
You cons mimmick everything Fox says
I'd be willing to bet BIG money Bill O'Rielly would be the same
especially if the reporters wanted to morph the interview into his sexual harrassment issues.
2007-06-14 08:25:30 · answer #9 · answered by Deidre K 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know several people who have adopted more children than Jolie. She's big lips, little nose, big teeth, big eyes, little acting talent and self centered. Of course the important thing to 99 percent of her "fans" is big lips, little nose. It's hard to see what all the fuss is about. If the tabloid readers wouldn't clamor after every tidbit of information about their heros she would fade from the limelight. She's the darling of low culture. Five years down the road it'll be big nose, thin lips. Go figure.
2007-06-14 08:15:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
So what???? actually it is her personal freedom refuse to talk to people she does not want to. Is it wrong to have an open mind??? or to actually mirror some of the closed-mined views that seem so popular in your group?
2007-06-14 08:46:31 · answer #11 · answered by drdrt2 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋