KY - Rowan County clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt, 2015

[sonjay]

My journalism professor told us "The news is what people want and need to know." (Then we memorized a list to see if what we wanted to talk about met the criteria.) Unfortunately a lot of media corps and journalists care more about pushing agendas, bottom line, and celebrity than they do about reporting news, so viewers who want to stay informed are stuck with limited options and have to triple-check everything.

Very slick of him. Notice the word "need" in there? Who decides what we "need" to know? Why, the media, of course!

 

[Donjeta]

http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/kim-davis-memes1.jpg

 

[sonjay]

http://reverbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/kim-davis-memes1.jpg

LOL. When my daughter was little, she never wanted to dress warmly enough in cold weather. She would insist she wasn't cold. My fallback was, "I'm cold, so you have to wear a sweater."

That's fine for a parent of a young child, but not for an elected official.

 

[Donjeta]

Sometimes a later Supreme Court does.

Plessy vs. Ferguson was a SCOTUS decision.

Brown vs. Board of Education overruled it.

Oh it would be a huge can of worms if people had been getting married for a while and everything it legally entails, then Scotus 2 said, nope, not legal

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

BBM if that were true, then why are we not seeing news coverage of EVERY county clerk in the country that is not in compliance with the Supreme Court decision? Last I heard, there were 13 counties across the country that are not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples or to any couples. If MSM is driving the outrage then I would think by your logic that they would be covering all of the counties where this is occurring.

The reason Kim Davis is being reported on is that she was the one who had a lawsuit filed against her. I have no doubt that if/when lawsuits are filled against the other clerks, they too will get their 15 minutes of fame.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Donjeta]

And when Huckabee decides to take up and demonstrate with them.

 

[sonjay]

Oh it would be a huge can of worms if people had been getting married for a while and everything it legally entails, then Scotus 2 said, nope, not legal

Some years ago, there was some non-mainstream weird fundie church -- I think it might have been in Tennessee -- that ended up losing their status as a church. Anyway, marriages performed by that church were determined to be invalid. Even after the couples had had children together. Yeah, it was a real can of worms. Sorry, I just don't remember details.

I seriously doubt that a future S.C. will reverse this decision. I was just pointing out that it has happened.

 

[bwt42]

In some cases,yes. Fox news would be a prime example. But again it goes back to what their viewers and readers want. For instance not many liberals follow Fox so they play to their main audience in their coverage. IMO

I was going to mention MSNBC in my statement but didn't want to raise any hackles.

 

[kimlynn]

I was going to mention MSNBC in my statement but didn't want to raise any hackles.

I was expecting that or Huff Po. They do cater to a certain mindset which goes back to my take on media reporting what most interests their readers or watchers.
I'm wondering if we should move away from discussing the media. I would like us to be able to continue discussing this case as it could either fade away or get more important to all as time goes on.
IMO

 

[bwt42]

I was expecting that or Huff Po. They do cater to a certain mindset which goes back to my take on media reporting what most interests their readers or watchers.
I'm wondering if we should move away from discussing the media. I would like us to be able to continue discussing this case as it could either fade away or get more important to all as time goes on.
IMO

I think we all know how this is going to end. Have not seen a single post that supports her position. So, should this thread be about who can vilify her the most?

 

[Montjoy]

With respect, journalism, as a profession and as an academic discipline, has changed considerably in recent years. Because professional media providers (read: MSM) have to compete with so many amateur media providers (read: blogs, social media, thematic websites), professional media have much less power to push an agenda or to make something a story despite a lack of public interest. The media now have to be much more responsive to public tastes and interests, lest they miss a story with legs that amateur media are covering. As a result, I think it's fair to say, perhaps indisputable, that professional media (with respect to news and current events -- I'm not talking about media like cartoons and movies) have been increasingly forced to respond to public tastes rather than to attempt to shape them.

 

[kimlynn]

I think we all know how this is going to end. Have not seen a single post that supports her position. So, should this thread be about who can vilify her the most?

I think this case could have ramifications for us all down the road. Not likely but possible. I don't know about vilifying her. I see concern and anger,which I think is a normal response. IMO

 

[bwt42]

With respect, journalism, as a profession and as an academic discipline, has changed considerably in recent years. Because professional media providers (read: MSM) have to complete with so many amateur media providers (read: blogs, social media, thematic websites), professional media have much less power to push an agenda or to make something a story despite a lack of public interest. The media now have to be much more responsive to public tastes and interests, lest they miss a story with legs that amateur media are covering. As a result, I think it's fair to say, perhaps indisputable, that professional media (with respect to news and current events -- I'm not talking about media like cartoons and movies) have been increasingly forced to respond to public tastes rather than to attempt to shape them.

Wish I could agree with you. I have followed the Alfred Wright case & the Kendrick Johnson case ( I know you have too). MSM has manipulated the stories to make them more entertaining. Not balanced. I don't know how people that don't follow these stories on Websleuths will ever get the true story or at least both sides.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

I think we all know how this is going to end. Have not seen a single post that supports her position. So, should this thread be about who can vilify her the most?

Really, I think it already has ended. She's going to file a few nuisance lawsuits which will be quickly thrown out, and coverage will dwindle away.

There may be a lawsuit or two in other counties, but those will go fast as the courts have already ruled.

Wyle E Nostrodamas.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[LinasK]

I think we all know how this is going to end. Have not seen a single post that supports her position. So, should this thread be about who can vilify her the most?

Because it isn't a defensible position. Hatred and bigotry have no place in an elected position. Kim Davis doesn't get to decide the law of the land. If she doesn't like the law and won't do her job, she can quit her job, it's that simple. She can keep her bigoted/religious beliefs on her own time! This woman is trying to have her cake and eat it too, and force her beliefs on the rest of the nation because she doesn't want to give up her $80,000/year position!!!

 

[Hope4More]

I think this case could have ramifications for us all down the road. Not likely but possible. I don't know about vilifying her. I see concern and anger,which I think is a normal response. IMO

I agree that it may have ramifications down the road, but if the issues raised hadn't been brought to the fore by Davis in KY it would have been by a Smith in Alabama or a Jones in Texas.

Reality is that a not insignificant number of our fellow Americans are increasingly of the opinion that they are justified in disobeying Supreme Court decisions if they don't agree with them, and further, in denying that the Supreme Court even has the authority to make those decisions.

That is radical and really worrisome, IMO. And it is exactly why the KY Governor should NOT make any special arrangements to accommodate Davis' illegal behavior or objections to carrying out her duties. Carve out an exception and what you've provided is legitimacy to law-flaunting Court-deniers.

Liberty Counsel has salivated for a Davis and will piggyback off her defiance as far as they can get away with. They are a genuinely scary group, IMO, on record as advocating that states break off from the Court-abiding Union and declare whatever they want as constitutional.

We go very far down that path and we can all kiss our democracy goodbye.

 

[kimlynn]

I agree that it may have ramifications down the road, but if the issues raised hadn't been brought to the fore by Davis in KY it would have been by a Smith in Alabama or a Jones in Texas.

Reality is that a not insignificant number of our fellow Americans are increasingly of the opinion that they are justified in disobeying Supreme Court decisions if they don't agree with Court rulings, and further, in denying that the Supreme Court even has the authority to make those decisions.

That is radical and really worrisome, IMO. And it is exactly why the KY Governor should NOT make any special arrangements to accommodate Davis' illegal behavior or objections to carrying out her duties. Carve out an exception and what you've provided is legitimacy to law-flaunting Court-deniers.

Liberty Counsel has salivated for a Davis and will piggyback off her defiance as far as they can get away with. They are a genuinely group, IMO, on record as advocating that states break off from the Court-abiding Union and declare whatever they want as constitutional.

We go very far down that path and we can all kiss our democracy goodbye.

Indeed. Never underestimate the power of a rabid vocal group. The upcoming elections are very important as they always are. IMO

 

[bluesneakers]

Very slick of him. Notice the word "need" in there? Who decides what we "need" to know? Why, the media, of course!

He wasn't being slick at all. Need was addressed with the criteria I mentioned. Like if it's snowing in your city, you need to know. If the president has been assassinated, you need to know. If there's a food recall, you need to know. If the county clerk is turning away people asking for marriage licenses, depending on your location, you need to know.

 

[bluesneakers]

In some cases,yes. Fox news would be a prime example. But again it goes back to what their viewers and readers want. For instance not many liberals follow Fox so they play to their main audience in their coverage. IMO

FOX is the premium example. It's dated now, but Fair and Balanced, My *advertiser censored*!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality of Fox News is a fun and informative (if aggravating) read. They are masters at what they do and their audience eats it up.

 

[Frigga]

Because it isn't a defensible position. Hatred and bigotry have no place in an elected position. Kim Davis doesn't get to decide the law of the land. If she doesn't like the law and won't do her job, she can quit her job, it's that simple. She can keep her bigoted/religious beliefs on her own time! This woman is trying to have her cake and eat it too, and force her beliefs on the rest of the nation because she doesn't want to give up her $80,000/year position!!!

BBM ... and honestly that is what this IS really all about for KD, IMO. I think she wants her $80k salary and a big winfall in law suits.