finknottle Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The Yale student newspaper published the names of the five faculty members who donated to McCain, but didn't name the Obama donators among the faculty (Obama outraised there 20-1). Does this trouble anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The Yale student newspaper published the names of the five faculty members who donated to McCain, but didn't name the Obama donators among the faculty (Obama outraised there 20-1). Does this trouble anyone else? No. It's all online. Donordata.org Anyone who wants to know can just look it up themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 No. It's all online. Donordata.org Anyone who wants to know can just look it up themselves. Of course it's all online, that's where they got it! But are you telling me you don't find it the least bit troubling that a student newspaper would go out of their way to publish only the names of the professors donating to the candidate they don't like? Ostracization by the media is ok with you? How about if they also published other publically available information at the same time, like the home addresses of the professors donating to McCain? If the rest of the country shares your views on what's acceptable in the media we are in for a very dark period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Of course it's all online, that's where they got it! But are you telling me you don't find it the least bit troubling that a student newspaper would go out of their way to publish only the names of the professors donating to the candidate they don't like? Ostracization by the media is ok with you? How about if they also published other publically available information at the same time, like the home addresses of the professors donating to McCain? If the rest of the country shares your views on what's acceptable in the media we are in for a very dark period. You're hyperventillating over nothing. The information is in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 You're hyperventillating over nothing. The information is in the public domain. So I take it you see no problem with a newspaper publishing the home addresses of people (and only those people) whose politics they oppose? Those whose addresses are in the telephone book, that is - you know, public domain. The issue isn't the content of what they've published, it is the singling out. How is this different from voter intimidation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 You're hyperventillating over nothing. The information is in the public domain.You aren't this thick. Why would the newspaper do this? Answer that question honestly if you are able to admit what this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 The Yale student newspaper published the names of the five faculty members who donated to McCain, but didn't name the Obama donators among the faculty (Obama outraised there 20-1). Does this trouble anyone else? Yes, it is extremely troubling. Once again, there is a double standard here. Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? They should suing the newspaper today. We all should have the freedom to support who we want without being unfairly highlighted for it in the media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So I take it you see no problem with a newspaper publishing the home addresses of people (and only those people) whose politics they oppose? Those whose addresses are in the telephone book, that is - you know, public domain. The issue isn't the content of what they've published, it is the singling out. How is this different from voter intimidation? Donating to a campaign is a transparent process. People who donate know this. The information is out there for anyone to get if they want to. It's not intimidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Yes, it is extremely troubling. Once again, there is a double standard here. Where is the American Civil Liberties Union? They should suing the newspaper today. We all should have the freedom to support who we want without being unfairly highlighted for it in the media. And what would be the merits of their case? That the Yale newspaper reported information that is in the public domain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So I take it you see no problem with a newspaper publishing the home addresses of people (and only those people) whose politics they oppose? Those whose addresses are in the telephone book, that is - you know, public domain. The issue isn't the content of what they've published, it is the singling out. How is this different from voter intimidation? http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/08/graem...er-child-abuse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Donating to a campaign is a transparent process. People who donate know this. The information is out there for anyone to get if they want to. It's not intimidation. Of course is intimidation. Why else highlight only them? The newspaper is pointing out the minority. Is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 And what would be the merits of their case? That the Yale newspaper reported information that is in the public domain? Sam sex marriages, where they are legal, is also pubilc domain. Would it be OK if a newspaper decided to start printing just those and didn't print the traditional marriages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Of course is intimidation. Why else highlight only them? The newspaper is pointing out the minority. Is that fair? Waaaaaa it isn't fair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 If true, I think it's in extremely poor taste and is a great example of what we don't need right now in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Of course is intimidation. Why else highlight only them? The newspaper is pointing out the minority. Is that fair? finknottle claims the numbers are 20-1. So, without even a link to the article we only have his word. But if the numbers are that skewed (and if he has this info then its either in the article or someone else gave it too him...because the names are in the public domain) it wouldn't take a genius to assume that the majority of the faculty not named in the list donated to Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Sam sex marriages, where they are legal, is also pubilc domain. Would it be OK if a newspaper decided to start printing just those and didn't print the traditional marriages? I can see that this debate is going to be a complete waste of my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Sam sex marriages, where they are legal, is also pubilc domain. Would it be OK if a newspaper decided to start printing just those and didn't print the traditional marriages? You should be kinder to the media if you expect them to promote that awesome march on Washington that you are planning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Hedd Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Of course it's all online, that's where they got it!But are you telling me you don't find it the least bit troubling that a student newspaper would go out of their way to publish only the names of the professors donating to the candidate they don't like? Ostracization by the media is ok with you? How about if they also published other publically available information at the same time, like the home addresses of the professors donating to McCain?If the rest of the country shares your views on what's acceptable in the media we are in for a very dark period.Wah! Whatsa matter finky boo boo? Drink a case of bitterness last night? At least eryntheplumber has the cover of being developmentally slow, what is your excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_intimid...on_and_coercion Why isn't publishing information that is part of the public domain listed here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 So I take it you see no problem with a newspaper publishing the home addresses of people (and only those people) whose politics they oppose? Those whose addresses are in the telephone book, that is - you know, public domain. The issue isn't the content of what they've published, it is the singling out. How is this different from voter intimidation? And this somehow is Obama's fault? Maybe the list of Obama donors was TOO BIG to publish whereas the handful of McCain supporters filled up some empty space. Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts