Press Goes Nuts Over Bieber Baby, But Ignores Bieber's Concerns With Regulating The Internet

from the priorities,-people dept

As pointed out by Harold Feld, it seems pretty messed up that our news media is going absolutely nuts over the story of the potential "Bieber baby," but has all but ignored the story of how the lack of clarity in the proposed SOPA law might mean Justin Bieber would go to jail for his performances of other people's works on YouTube -- something Bieber himself has spoken out against. Let's take a look. A basic Google News search on "bieber baby" turns up... 3,770 news stories:
And then let's do a search on "bieber sopa." For that... we get... a grand total of 15 news stories (including one from Techdirt):
Which story is actually more important? The one in which the government makes massive regulatory changes to the internet that will create felons out of ordinary people? Or the story about a baby that a pop star may or may not have fathered?

Filed Under: e-parasite, journalism, justin bieber, priorities, protect ip, sopa


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Nov 2011 @ 10:37pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Saying "I know a bunch of lawyers" isn't an answer.


    Nor is it what I said. Misrepresenting people who disagree with you is a pretty weak cop out.

    Bieber won't face felony charges.


    Right. Because you say so. Others disagree. Well, no one disagrees that Bieber himself won't -- because he's too big. But, as others have pointed out, some of us worry about the next Bieber.

    I didn't mock anyone. I didn't position myself as final arbiter. I offered my opinion, and I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by that.

    An opinion is "based on these reasons, I don't believe SOPA will impact Bieber." Positioning yourself as the final arbiter is making a statement of fact, as you did with: "Mike, Justin Bieber isn't going to jail."

    And, trust me, my feelings are not hurt by that. I just think you look foolish.

    I know, freedom of speech and constitutional rights, who needs them, right? Sorry, I think these are important. I'll keep hammering on them, come hell or high water.

    WTF, Terry? Who said anything about free speech or constitutional rights? My point was that you do so in the most misleading of manners, and yet you act as if you are presenting objective information. Your willingness to strip context from the quotes, ignore that many of the predictions were actually accurate is really quite ridiculous to many of us who have watched how the expansion of copyright has done so much harm.

    Ha ha ha! Thanks big brother. I must have missed the rules you laid down. I don't see them in the FAQ either. Is this a bootable offense? Cause I always thought 'crassness' was something the crowd would take care of.

    Just letting you know how people feel. Thought you might want to know.

    I'm sorry your feelings were hurt by that.


    Again, Terry, nothing you could do would ever hurt my feelings.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.