Ethel talks about CNN censorship
October 24, 2000 12:03 PM Subscribe
Ethel talks about CNN censorship of Crossfire with Larry Flynt and Donna Rice Hughes. The transcript is MIA from the site.
Wow, I really hope the smoking gun folks are helping Flynt on this one. It would be amazing if it were true.
posted by mathowie at 4:40 PM on October 24, 2000
posted by mathowie at 4:40 PM on October 24, 2000
This post could’ve used a much better headline.
This is hot people! Why aren’t we talking about this? Why isn’t this making the rounds instead of Nader-the-spoiler?
The media isn’t liberal. It’s corporate and it kowtows to big money.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:24 AM on October 25, 2000
This is hot people! Why aren’t we talking about this? Why isn’t this making the rounds instead of Nader-the-spoiler?
The media isn’t liberal. It’s corporate and it kowtows to big money.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 2:24 AM on October 25, 2000
From a mailing list I'm on:
"Bernie Ward, KGO radio, called Larry Flynt and asked him about what happened when he was on Crossfire and what does Flynt know and what can he prove. This is what Flynt had to say: Flynt said he could hear them screaming in his ear piece "there is nothing we can do about it, we are live." After the show Flynt went on to another interview I think in So. Calif. He then heard that the powers that be said no tape was to be released, no transcripts to be let out. He learned that CNN deleted the transcripts and then they decided that didn't look good so they deleted everything. Flynt said his 3 investigators had been investigating for 8 months. In 1970 George W. Bush was working for his father in his campaign in Texas. He got a girl
pregnant and he got her an abortion. His fathers campaign manager arranged for the abortion. Four of her friends knew about the affair, knew about the pregnancy and knew about the abortion. The only thing Flynt is lacking is
the girl to say yes to telling her story. He has affidavits from the 4 girls. Flynt said he went to the mainstream media and said you do not have to ask about the story just ask if it happened. They won't touch it. The girlfriend says she does not have anything bad to say about George W.Bush.
When she was asked if she was mad because George did not come to the hospital she got upset and cried. Abortions were not legal then, it was before Roe VS. Wade. Flynt's question is "how is it ok for George W. Bush and not everyone else." Bernie asked him about Bob Livingston and was it true he had more information on him then he gave to the press. He said he had lots on Livingston that he never told, but his wife called Flynt and asked him to not tell the details. Flynt agreed since Livingston resigned.
Flynt said he talked to the BBC today and they are considering going with the story, they know all about it. They are not under the same constraints they say. London Times knows about the story also. He said the mainstream
media is scared to death of the story. Flynt wondered why people are concerned about Al Gore's credibility, but they will not turn the tables on Bush. He said Bushes spin machine in Texas makes Clintons look antiquated.
Bush is going to be on Larry King next week, so Bernie wondered if Flynt would call King and have him ask Bush some questions. Flynt didn't know Bush was going to be on the show but he would try to call King."
posted by owillis at 7:23 AM on October 25, 2000
"Bernie Ward, KGO radio, called Larry Flynt and asked him about what happened when he was on Crossfire and what does Flynt know and what can he prove. This is what Flynt had to say: Flynt said he could hear them screaming in his ear piece "there is nothing we can do about it, we are live." After the show Flynt went on to another interview I think in So. Calif. He then heard that the powers that be said no tape was to be released, no transcripts to be let out. He learned that CNN deleted the transcripts and then they decided that didn't look good so they deleted everything. Flynt said his 3 investigators had been investigating for 8 months. In 1970 George W. Bush was working for his father in his campaign in Texas. He got a girl
pregnant and he got her an abortion. His fathers campaign manager arranged for the abortion. Four of her friends knew about the affair, knew about the pregnancy and knew about the abortion. The only thing Flynt is lacking is
the girl to say yes to telling her story. He has affidavits from the 4 girls. Flynt said he went to the mainstream media and said you do not have to ask about the story just ask if it happened. They won't touch it. The girlfriend says she does not have anything bad to say about George W.Bush.
When she was asked if she was mad because George did not come to the hospital she got upset and cried. Abortions were not legal then, it was before Roe VS. Wade. Flynt's question is "how is it ok for George W. Bush and not everyone else." Bernie asked him about Bob Livingston and was it true he had more information on him then he gave to the press. He said he had lots on Livingston that he never told, but his wife called Flynt and asked him to not tell the details. Flynt agreed since Livingston resigned.
Flynt said he talked to the BBC today and they are considering going with the story, they know all about it. They are not under the same constraints they say. London Times knows about the story also. He said the mainstream
media is scared to death of the story. Flynt wondered why people are concerned about Al Gore's credibility, but they will not turn the tables on Bush. He said Bushes spin machine in Texas makes Clintons look antiquated.
Bush is going to be on Larry King next week, so Bernie wondered if Flynt would call King and have him ask Bush some questions. Flynt didn't know Bush was going to be on the show but he would try to call King."
posted by owillis at 7:23 AM on October 25, 2000
Liberal media my ass. He's getting such a free pass on this it's ridiculous.
posted by dhartung at 9:08 AM on October 25, 2000
posted by dhartung at 9:08 AM on October 25, 2000
no kidding! considering how much the clinton/gore admin. was investigated and the massive amounts of money that were spent to find ANYTHING they had done wrong and not to mention the massive amount of press coverage given to the clinton "scandals"....gwb can get away with anything.
i read an article (it might have been on msnbc, not sure) but saying that the press is sick of covering the same people for the past 8 years and want to bring in gwb so they have some new material to cover. don't know if its true or not, but interesting to think about.
posted by saralovering at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2000
i read an article (it might have been on msnbc, not sure) but saying that the press is sick of covering the same people for the past 8 years and want to bring in gwb so they have some new material to cover. don't know if its true or not, but interesting to think about.
posted by saralovering at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2000
The London media could run it, though the libel laws here may make it trickier (the burden of proof is on the accusors). I say it's one for Salon or Slate: this is something for the online media to blow open.
posted by holgate at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2000
posted by holgate at 10:05 AM on October 25, 2000
I'll be walking the streets and banging my gong on this one. Remember this is man leading the party that tried to nullify an election.
posted by owillis at 11:07 AM on October 25, 2000
posted by owillis at 11:07 AM on October 25, 2000
Since politicians don't have ethics anymore, despite what self-righteous people may say, what the real problem is with Clinton, with Gore, is not a matter of pure ethics but one of their legal obligations. According to what was reported in the media Clinton lied under oath, and Gore had questionable campaigning either unintentionally, or not I have no idea. You can't dictate ethics or morality but you can enforce law. As I recall the US Constitution states that you can't be deprived of life without due process of the law. And what I don't understand is where people get off taking the right of an incedental 3rd party so that they can experience some convenience or greater liberty.
When it comes to deciding who I vote for, I'd say it boils down to: how consistently the individual has represented his constituency within the bounds of the law, their consistency and reinforcement of our legal (Constitutional) and national (military and sovereign) identity, and the balance between/value placed upon personal responsibility versus personal rights.
Based on my observations neither candidate is an individual I hold in high regard, but Bush seems to be more consistent with my 3 criteria (generally disregarding the hearsay a/b the abortion).
Weird how you guys get all excited about finger pointing and accusations that have no evidence. Or did I miss that part of the big picture? Doesn't Tort law make it virtually impossible to sue when publishing unless it's proven that it was intended to mislead by the periodical?
posted by greyscale at 8:34 PM on November 1, 2000
When it comes to deciding who I vote for, I'd say it boils down to: how consistently the individual has represented his constituency within the bounds of the law, their consistency and reinforcement of our legal (Constitutional) and national (military and sovereign) identity, and the balance between/value placed upon personal responsibility versus personal rights.
Based on my observations neither candidate is an individual I hold in high regard, but Bush seems to be more consistent with my 3 criteria (generally disregarding the hearsay a/b the abortion).
Weird how you guys get all excited about finger pointing and accusations that have no evidence. Or did I miss that part of the big picture? Doesn't Tort law make it virtually impossible to sue when publishing unless it's proven that it was intended to mislead by the periodical?
posted by greyscale at 8:34 PM on November 1, 2000
« Older Journalism profs are soliciting Internet users'... | Internet recording history
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by owillis at 1:42 PM on October 24, 2000