Comments on: Setting the Agenda: Media Disinterest in SOPA

By: Framing the Trayvon Martin Case: A Tale of Two Narratives; Tolerating Americans « Welcome to the Doctor's Office

Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:20:08 +0000

[…] about what stories news organizations put their resources behind; in other words, what motivates media agenda? And how do news organizations decide which of these two narratives or frames should be used in […]

By: cheap bras

cheap bras — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 02:47:00 +0000

Amazing write-up! This could aid plenty of people find out more about this particular issue. Are you keen to integrate video clips coupled with these? It would absolutely help out. Your conclusion was spot on and thanks to you; I probably won’t have to describe everything to my pals. I can simply direct them here!

By: ahimsa

ahimsa — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:10:00 +0000

Actually, if you look at my comment you’ll see that I did add the phrase “and various news web sites.” My point was that I avoid TV news.

My local newspaper actually has had one or two articles about SOPA but not many. There’s much better coverage online.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:59:00 +0000

Yes, the news stations may be owned by SOPA supporters and have a huge
impact on public opinion, but when websites, such as Wikipedia and
Google, start flexing their power, it cannot go unnoticed

Good thing we had the Citizens United decision, then. Otherwise we’d have the law that only people who own news stations can broadcast political opinions, not any old corporation (or in the case of Citizens United, any old nonprofit that wants to make its own documentary and sell it to willing viewers.)

The cure for bad speech is more speech. But all the “money is isn’t speech, corporations aren’t people, Freedom of the Press is only for bona fide media corporations” people would have had it so that only pro SOPA/PIPA voices could have been heard.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:56:00 +0000

And interestingly, all the people who oppose Citizens United think that *those* media corporations, and *only* those corporations, should have First Amendment rights. They didn’t support SOPA/PIPA because of their owners; they supported SOPA/PIPA because the special interest in the case of SOPA/PIPA *is* the media.

In the anti-Citizens United world, Reddit, Google, the Wikimedia Foundation, and all the corporations that protested SOPA/PIPA should have been banned from electioneering. Only the professional media organizations, who all supported it, would be allowed to comment.

Seems like a bad idea.

By: Yrro Simyarin

Yrro Simyarin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:52:00 +0000

Government run, as in run by people beholden to the legislators who sponsored the bill?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:03:00 +0000

It warms my heart to know that the internet did not let this slide under the radar and that thousands of websites and people stood together to send a message to people who otherwise probably wouldn’t have known or critically thought about what SOPA/PIPA are. Yes, the news stations may be owned by SOPA supporters and have a huge impact on public opinion, but when websites, such as Wikipedia and Google, start flexing their power, it cannot go unnoticed.

This graphic pretty nicely illustrates the overall effect of the SOPA blackout:
http://sopastrike.com/numbers/

By: JohnMWhite

JohnMWhite — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:50:00 +0000

That’s not how reporting works. Did the Juan Williams/NPR scandal only get play on the radio? Did Julian Assange and Wikileaks only get mentioned on Fox and CNN’s websites? Discussion of SOPA is pretty much all over the Internet *now* because huge sites like Reddit and Wikipedia forced it into discussion. Before that it was largely tech blogs and gaming sites talking about it, and the news networks didn’t really have anything about it on their websites either.

By: JohnMWhite

JohnMWhite — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:46:00 +0000

How many newspapers and radio stations covered SOPA and PIPA?

By: JohnMWhite

JohnMWhite — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:42:00 +0000

I’m claiming dictionary usage of the word. It’s not unusual for a word to have more than one definition. It is codified in several dictionaries as meaning both ‘lacking in personal investment’ and ‘indifference or apathy’.

Ugh, why must conversations about important things always get bogged down in needless pedantry?

By: JohnMWhite

JohnMWhite — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:39:00 +0000

PBS, but they are part-sponsored by large corporations these days and not many people tend to watch them. I’m not sure if they did cover it or not, but if they had, who would have seen it?

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:23:00 +0000

Certainly “disinterest” is the wrong word. I would change your suggested title by substituting “deliberate” for “malicious.”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:34:00 +0000

Is there not a government-run/owned broadcaster?

By: Gilbert Pinfold

Gilbert Pinfold — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:28:00 +0000

Discrimination is the essence of education. That’s why everyone tries to outdo each other with their refined understanding of language, including the self-proclaimed champions of the common people.

But for some reason I still find it true that more people can grasp the general point about common usage (a la Humpty Dumpty, that words these days mean whatever most people think they mean) than can grasp the distinction between disinterested and uninterested.

By: Amadi

Amadi — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:29:00 +0000

CNN is owned by Time/Warner. Time/Warner was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.

ABC is owned by Disney. Disney was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.

CBS is owned by Viacom. Viacom was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.

NBC/MSNBC are a part of the NBC Universal conglomerate. NBC Universal was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.

Fox News is a part of Newscorp. Newscorp was a top level corporate supporter of SOPA/PIPA.

So what major US television media was going to actually cover this?