Bill Maher And Huffpo Correction

I have been asked by the editors to retract the following from my last post or they will banish me from this blog:

"I suspect that Maher is engaged in the very censorship that got him fired from his last gig. He must be very thin skinned to have been influential in pulling that post."

Since I have no proof that Maher was involved in pulling that post, my comment is only speculative in nature and not based on any direct knowledge. However, as the founder of Air America Radio and Nova M Radio, I am baffled at the Huffpo's position on 9/11 Commission criticisms. Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy have talked about the deficiencies of the 9/11 Commission and not once have I censored them in the way that the editors of Huffpo have done to me. I am mystified that a liberal blog like Huffpo would have more censorship about this subject than our radio networks that are under FCC regulatory scrutiny and even the FCC has never registered any complaint about Malloy or Rhodes.

Comments

[Halsey]

Hey...some­one tell me...what was pulled? I need to find it!..any links?...w­hat did Maher do...I'm in the dark here.

[dexxjones]

i think its that they are afriad of what the neocons will say. typical. i, for one, look forward to your posts and am a BIG fan of novaM (and all incarnations of air america)

TEAM SHELLY!

[condieshoes]

You know, it's not like there are a bunch of crazy tin foil hatters who question this commission and the "facts" the administration gives out as truth.

There are Scientists for 911 Truth, pilots for 911 Truth, 8 retired CIA agents that do not believe the commission and have formed an informational site, there are architects that have formed a 911 Truth site and that's just a few.

Sure, there are nuts, but then there are these people who know for a fact from their professional training that this story is nonsense. Just the facts look at the facts.

And please don't give me the Popular Mechanics article that debunks the people who question the Commission's report. The person who did the research on that article is Benjamin Chertoff. Yes, there is a family connection there. Uncle, nephew...

The media is making sure that everyone who questions is made out to be insane. Why? Why would they care so frigging much? Why can't they answer REAL QUESTIONS UNDER OATH?

[Meldrethx1138]

Mr.Drobny,­I agree that the MSM are trying to "snuff out" ANY discussion about 9/11.
I will never believe that the planes alone brought down the towers.Nor will I ever believe that planes can crash and leave practically no wreckage like in the case of the Pentagon and in Shanksville Pa.This reeks of BULLSHIT.
I like Bill Maher,but he loses me on this issue.I can't believe that someone as intelligent as Maher and as insightful as he is,not pick up on the discrepancies in these stories.
I think that the lack of interest in discussing these issues OPENLY only ads to the"conspiracy" thing.What are they afraid of getting shot by a"magic bullet"?

[charon]

I don't know the basis for Huffpo staff wanting you to retract that statement, but it does appear that you jump from a possible condition ("I suspect that Maher...") to a concrete condition which is condemnatory ("He must be very thin-skinned to have been influential in pulling that post.") Concluding that "he must be very thin-skinned" seems unfounded based on a suspicion of his involvement in getting it pulled.

Even if you knew for certain he did get it pulled, it seems the best you can reasonably conclude is that he might have done it because he is thin-skinned. Maybe he had another motive, had he done it.

Lacking that knowledge, it seems overreaching to conclude in any way that he was thin-skinned or otherwise personally lacking based on what you know of what happened.

[Nommo]

Take the banishing. The loss is theirs.

[nancytheragingliberal]

Sheldon, Oh well, do as they say and you will have the honor of writing here. Sometimes we all have to hold our noses and do as we are told.

[larry278]

It is a retraction. But the rest reminds me of one of W's signing statement when W signs some bills. Enthusisam & sinceraty are lacking in both cases.

[Lon]

I made this point under your other thread, but my guess is that they see this as one of the issues that some on the left pushes that makes the left look bad. And since the idea of Huffpost is to support the left, they prefer to have the site associated with off the wall conspiracy theories.

It seems to be a reasonable position to not ones site to be something which makes ones own site look bad. Of course an alternate view would be to see oneself as simply a forum for various people on the left to express their views with the understanding that what they say is their own and not the sites.

I think there may not be any right answer to which is the better approach. Huffpost is not as freewheeling as some liberal sites. And that is something with both advantages and disadvantages.