Red Alert!
Posted by BrianAs of 5:52 AM on 28 Feb., 2008 WHNT’s website is not up. Obviously they knew I would be visiting their site this morning and have intentionally unplugged their routers to deny me access. I demand an investigation!
I am joking of course, but there are still crazy people who think WHNT intentionally blacked out a portion of the “60 Minutes” special on Don Siegelman. I haven’t dedicated a full post to the “blackout,” but you can read my thoughts in this comment thread if you are so inclined. Here’s the synopsis:
If WHNT wanted to deny access to the segment, which would be the goal of a blackout, why turn it back on with a few minutes left? Why rebroadcast it twice during convenient times? Even if they did want to blackout the segment they had to know they effort was in vain. Idiots have compared WHNT’ technical glitch to what happens in Russia. This is ridiculous because the segment was available for public viewing on the internet, which means WHNT’s attempted blackout wouldn’t accomplish it’s goal. I doubt that when Russia blacks out a media outlet for political reasons that they allow the same content to be widely available on a major website.
It was a technical problem. They happen. Was it a huge coincidence? Yes. When it happened I turned to my wife and commented on how all the free-Don nuts were going to be all over it. Thank you for proving me right.
It’s 6:04 AM and the WHNT website is down. Now I know something nefarious is happening.
Related content:
February 28th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Brian, the last thing I want is to be lumped in with the tinfoil topknots, but I fear my curiousity and questions will have you dismiss me as such.
I don’t believe there was a conspiracy. I believe that the vast majority of employees at WHNT abhor the thought of censorship, regardless of their leanings.
Now here’s my latest question: As a responsible journalist, would’nt you ascertain the actual source of the failure before making a blanket assumption that it was an “act of God”? After all, it takes only one misguided individual with an adequate index finger to switch the channel on IRD 3 and interrupt the video feed on IRD 1. Why not just investigate the actual cause before making claims that make you look bad when they are proven wrong? So far EVERY mouthpiece at WHNT has declared that the very notion of tampering is out of the question, when that can’t possibly know that for sure. As responsible journalists (as opposed to station mouthpieces)why couldn’t they just say that the cause of the problem is under investigation? If, as unlikely as it is, an investigation finds out the feed was interrupted by, lets say, a Siegelman supporter or disgruntled employee trying to make the station look bad, then the claims that it WAS’NT a conspiracy will be drowned out by an even greater din. I know everyone at the station is going beserk trying to tamp down this flame, but if the cause is discovered to be even remotely suspicious they’re going to have an inferno on their hands.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Speaking as someone who is interested in seeing the Siegelman story have a larger audience, I’d like to say “Thank you” to WHNT and leave it at that.
February 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
[...] Update Brian over at Flashpoint vehemently takes to task anyone who thinks that the technical difficulties could have been anything but. I’m certainly [...]
February 28th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Red Alert - great game
February 28th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The calls for a government-led investigation of WHNT are absurd, in my opinion. As a CBS affiliate, I assume that WHNT may be under some sort of contractual obligation to broadcast a certain amount of network programming; however, since WHNT and CBS are both private media enterprises, I don’t see how that is any of the federal government’s business.
Even if this minor PR disaster had resulted from an intentional act on WHNT’s part to suppress the Siegelman story, neither Congress nor the FCC have any power whatsoever to force any TV station to carry a program it chooses not to carry. Freedom of the press necessarily entails the freedom to self-censor.
The viewing public has every right to complain, though, and it has done so - rather loudly and even obnoxiously in some cases. That is a very appropriate way to handle situations like this one.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I meant to make that same point, Lee.
February 28th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Good point Lee. Censorship of free speech by the government is expressly prohibited by the First Amendment, but self censorship by private enterprises, however unethical, is perfectly legal, as Fox news demonstrates 24/7.
February 29th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Jack,
Self-censorship is not unethical when it based on good judgment; it’s entirely necessary. And it would be a more pleasant world if more people in the media would practice it from time to time.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
[...] WHNT’s broadcast of the Don Siegelman segment on 60 Minutes suffered technical problems that resulted in the bulk of the story not being seen many assumed that it was an intentional act [...]