Association vs. Responsibility

Free speech: How much is there, if people who want to get their perspective out, have to sacrifice their principles by association with a host to get on the air while those who control the airwaves use free speech to be less responsible for the sake of their principle of the bottom line?

On The Most, a good exchange just occurred that reinforces my earlier joke.

I will close with this commentary/humor: It seems that "the left" is often guilty by association, while "the right" is excused by lack of association with much reality or just passing the buck.

Actually, I guess that "reality" is too harsh, responsibility is what I was stretching for. Also in regards to my definition of "whores" in the earlier post, principles should be called into question. I wonder if generosity or charity by someone who is raking it in is really any way to determine if someone is a "good person"? It is probably something even Imus may be calling into question.

Another comment: What is the attraction of Don Imus, the personality? I am not a regular viewer of any cable shows, but MSNBC seems to have had a better impression than the other cable networks. But I have not been impressed with his casual mumbling approach whose attraction may be that anyone could seem to do his job. His added attraction may be the adolescent attitude that many may wish to have in their 60's.

No Hold's Maher-ed is a very interesting clip. While I agree with some of Maher's comments, I disagree with certain premises. He ackowledges a valid double standard in terms of which race is using which words, but in terms of jobs there is also a valid double standard. I think that Maher and Scarborough should switch jobs. Then the likes* of Scarborough and Imus could use their "free speech" and be guests and face a host who is more up front and humorous about their perspectives.

* the likes: I hope is more sensitive than Scarborough's "people like you" to Joan Walsh. This clip "reflects" that he is on the wrong side of the desk...