{"id":184,"date":"2007-06-29T20:51:33","date_gmt":"2007-06-30T01:51:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/weeklyrob.dreamhosters.com\/?p=184"},"modified":"2007-06-29T20:51:33","modified_gmt":"2007-06-30T01:51:33","slug":"fcc-you","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/?p=184","title":{"rendered":"FCC You!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve <a href=\"http:\/\/weeklyrob.dreamhosters.com\/?p=130\">posted earlier<\/a> about whether words like &#8220;fuck&#8221; should be allowed on TV. I won&#8217;t repost that one, but I will note that the Second Circuit seems to be reading weeklyrob, because they ruled as I would <a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.com\/jsp\/article.jsp?id=1180947934428\">against the FCC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, The Week magazine has just violated my two strike rule, and I&#8217;ll be canceling my subscription. I love The Week, but this is the second time that I&#8217;ve read their condensed version of an article only to find that they make stuff up.<\/p>\n<p>Once again (<a href=\"http:\/\/weeklyrob.dreamhosters.com\/?p=97\">as last time<\/a>), they make up an entire angle completely different from what the original author wrote or implied. And not just an angle, but they put words in his mouth to make points that just weren&#8217;t really there. I won&#8217;t even bother getting specific, but if anyone has the July 29th The Week, compare the Henninger condensed article (pg. 12) with the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.opinionjournal.com\/columnists\/dhenninger\/?id=110010208\">original here<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Like last time, they make more of a controversy than there really is, and they use inflammatory language and accusations that are nowhere to be found in the original.<\/p>\n<p>I&#8217;m finished with them. Their whole raison d&#8217;etre is to bring the articles to me so that I don&#8217;t have to go to all the sources to find them. But if they can&#8217;t be trusted to present them honestly, then what&#8217;s the point? Sigh.<\/p>\n<p>In other news: I&#8217;ll be out of town on vacation for a week, so weeklyrob will be even quieter than usual. See you when I get back.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve posted earlier about whether words like &#8220;fuck&#8221; should be allowed on TV. I won&#8217;t repost that one, but I will note that the Second Circuit seems to be reading weeklyrob, because they ruled as I would against the FCC. Meanwhile, The Week magazine has just violated my two strike rule, and I&#8217;ll be canceling [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-184","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-miscellany"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/weeklyrob.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}