The PR machine would like us to believe that "accurate" and "neutral" are the same thing.
Clearly, an article can be biased and misleading, even if any factual content is entirely accurate. Being selective about what's included is the key - and PR folks are experts at this (well let's face it - this is what their job is)
Ha ha, yes indeed. its been hilarious here in London listening to everyone blaming this that and the other technology for everything!
Thankfully there was at least one sensible police officer on the TV last night pointing out how, rather than blaming twitter etc. for the violence we should actually be embracing it as a tool for the police to track movements and criminal activity.
This actually happened also over here in the UK - Boris Johnson was elected as the joke candidate for Mayor of London!
In all seriousness I'm actually one of Boris's biggest supporters, mainly because he annoys self-righteous types who like to deride him. I think we may see more and more 'alternative' candidates finding electoral success in the coming years. Either as a protest, a backlash or through utter disillusionment. Or, as I do, just for the humour of it in the messed up world we live in. Politicians who take themselves seriously tend to have an inflated view of their own ability, and as such do the most damage (Gordon Brown etc...).
I was under the understanding that non-compete clauses were almost always unenforceable throughout the developed world, (except where very limited restrictions are deemed reasonable) as here in the UK.
We dont have to go back to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum for historical comparison. Just look at how popular hard rock videos became in the 1980s when MTV bowed to pressure to remove supposedly "inappropriate content" from their channel.
Once it was reavealed that a video had been banned, its popularity shot up. Pretty soon, the worst thing for a rock band was to not have had their video banned from MTV!