Deb emailed a response regarding my blog post. She wanted me to let everyone know that the proper credit for my quoted text should go to Human Events. However, she did include some words of her own:

Of course any business has the right to free speech to make its position known. It's no coincidence that things like the September 11 attacks, the capture and beheading of American civilians by terrorists, and the threat of terrorism generally are blocked out by CBS, while pieces on the benefits of socialized medicine and gun control or the assumed evils of our current president are long and full of emotional appeals.

There is a clear political slant that no rational examination can deny. Some news outlets, like CBS or the New York Times, lean liberal; others, like Fox News or the Washington Times, lean conservative. Claiming either to be completely "fair and balanced" is ludicrous. Yet, I can't help but believe that the news business, because it claims to report facts, has a responsibility to do so -- otherwise, it violates every law ever created to prevent false advertising.

I don't particularly agree with the assertion that truth is a subjective matter, though as a journalist myself I recognize the difficulty that sometimes exists in giving a full picture of an issue in a few hundred words or a minute and a half. Even so, facts are facts, only subjective in how they are analyzed and used.

When CBS chooses to report certain facts -- that a majority of members of a third-grade class polled in Massachusetts believe that the war in iraq is bad (editorializing that we should oppose the war and the president) -- and ignore other facts -- namely a long list of horrendous acts of terrorism committed against our people and others (with no editorial becuase it is being ignored) -- the packagers of news are intentionally, through their choices, setting up a skewed picture of reality for mass-consumption, under the guise of a full and factual news report. It is the most basic form of deception: claiming one thing while doing another.

As an independent-minded person who assesses things for myself (for example, I like some of the president's policies and detest others), I am quite disturbed by such gigantic attempts by the "news" networks to change public opinion not through rational argument, but through omission of the news. I will gladly stand to face any challenge of logic, of reason, of principle -- but instead of presenting such a challenge, the cowards at CBS and other news outlets instead try to win their cause by circumventing logic, by presenting things that you cannot argue with becuase they are not mentioned or becuase they contain not a single grain of disputable fact.

The trouble with CBS is not what it is saying, but what it's not saying; it's not that the network owners have an opinion, but that they are using their great power to restrict and prevent the transmission of facts in order to benefit what they see as the appropriate political ends. In so doing, they are not stating an opinion, not using their free speech but, by blocking certain parts of the news from public view, preventing people from the formation of well-informed opinions, even as they claim to inform. The issue here is not free speech, but rather large-scale deception.

Deb, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have a somewhat unpopular stance on the issue, but first, here is the email that you sent to all of us loyal CR'ers so that our readers can get up to speed:

A non-partisan group scheduled air-time to promote a terrorism related conference, only to have the ad rejected by CBS because "Too many people might be emotionally affected by the subject matter -- it's too controversial to be aired at this time."

We are at war and people around the world (over 100 in Iraq this last weekend) are dying because of the barbaric acts of terrorists, but incredibly, the liberal media is afraid a radio ad would be too emotional!?

As a news corporation that is privately owned, they have a business to run first, and a social conscious to maintain second. If they feel that certain advertisements will hurt their brand name or disenfranchise viewers, then by all means it is also their right to accept/decline those advertisements as they see fit. It looks and smells of censorship on the surface, but it isn't because CBS is not set up in the public interest. If you think that they are, then they have done a most excellent job of providing you with an illusory vision to attach yourself to.

The smoke and mirrors of our supposed "freedoms" and "liberties" are revealed by situations like this. Yes, we're the freest people in the world, but no we're not nearly as free as we think we are because things like this happen all the time without our noticing. Personally, I think CBS should have let the advertisement run, but that's because the War on Terror is something I fully support.

If the advertisment had been for Viagra or a baby-fetus fetish support network, then I would obviously support CBS if they censored those things because I would agree with them. So then maybe, this IS an example of us being as free as we think we are. CBS, as a legal entity independent of the people and things that comprise it, made a decision that I, as a legal entity independent of the people and things I interact with, disagreed with. That, however, is the very definition of freedom. It's friction, it's discontent, it's hard; but we live with it, because the alternatives are even more haunting and altogether dispicable.

Sorry, couldn't refuse the Dixie Chick / Darrell Scott reference in the title. It fit too perfectly. But it has been too long since I tickled the keyboard over in this here part of the web. Thanks for the email, Brian, reminding me to blog it up Carolina Review style. I was actually just making the comment to Liz the other day that for a bunch of Poli Sci / Journalism majors, we don't write politicky or newsish stuff in the CR blog very often. So let's see what we can whip out, shall we?

I agree on all points that Bush, as a conservative, furthermore a conservative whom I voted for, should have the right to nominate a conservative Justice to the Supreme Court. A Justice who will, in theory, uphold the values that I as an American citizen endorsed when I voted conservatively. However, the Democrats, sore losers that they are, will not likely take this sitting down. They like to be heard too, and in some ways I guess it's their right. All I'm saying is, folks, dig in. This has the potential to become all kinds of nasty. Filibusters in the Senate? Please. Baby you ain't seen nothing yet. Before it's all said and done that Constitution we love so dearly might wind up in bottom of a wastebasket, having been shredded to tiny bits and pieces. Bipartisanship, cooperation, acquiescence--these are all words to which politicians no longer know the meanings. I say let Judge Judy take the bench. It'll do wonders for her ratings, and who knows, maybe the US Gov will make a little coin too.

In other news, those wiley Brits won the bid for the Summer Games in 2012. Fear not my adopted New York brethren. All other European cities will be, for all intents and purposes, out of the running in 2016 because the IOC doesn't want to appear biased by selecting two cities from the same geographical region to hold the Olympics in subsequent terms. But maybe next time we try a little harder and make sure the Mayor doesn't block the plans to build a new spectacular Olympic-sized stadium in the prime real estate of Manhattan? I'm pretty sure the IOC passing on NYC had a lot to due with the jeopardized state of the plans for downtown renovation. Who wants to take the subway from the village to the stadium? Not me. It smells down there.

Keeping with the sports theme, Lance Armstrong, American bicyclist extraordinare, is in the lead of the Tour de France. David Zabriskie crashed yesterday, relinquishing his lead to Armstrong. As an act of sportsmanship, Lance decided not to wear the yellow jersey that riders don to signify their status as leader because it "didn't feel right to start in that jersey on somebody else's misfortune." However, the French officials refused to allow it and forced Armstrong to dress like a banana. Apparently, sportsmanship is not high up on the list of values taught over in France. Unfounded criticism, on the other hand, is. I keep waiting for the accusations to begin again that Lance is on chemicals. To borrow a joke from Robin Williams, it's called chemotherapy you imbeciles. Something else to note: This is the earliest stage that Lance has ever taken the lead and this would also be his seventh consecutive victory, breaking his own record of six (four others are tied for second with five a piece).

I would comment about the journalist from The Times being thrown into jail after refusing to reveal their confidential source, but I think all journalists, amateur and professional alike, stand solidly behind the position that you can't have free press if Big Brother watches over our shoulders all the time.