THERE THEY GO AGAIN! The SD Media Lies for Hunter!

      Don't be fooled by The San Diego media. Once again they'll do their best Pravda imitation, acting to protect their major party patrons, by refusing to acknowledge Joe Ryan's existence in the race for the 52nd District seat.
      If you read an article concerning the 52nd District Candidates and Joe Ryan's name is not mentioned with the other candidates, it's not because Joseph Ryan has died or left politics, it's because SD media members are just doing what they do best: Lie to the public and cover up crimes committed by contributors and other 'movers and shakers' connected to the two major parties.
      Joe Ryan cannot be bribed, bought or intimidated by the criminals running both major parties. The fact that Joe Ryan is considered a pariah by the San Diego Union and the patrons of the Democrat and Republican parties is a sure indicator that Joe Ryan would be the best representative for the 52nd District. Joe Ryan is beholden to no one! That's why the SD media will act collectively to try and veto his candidacy. Over-ride their veto by voting for Joe Ryan in the general election this November.

* There are some honest members of the SD Press who want to cover the race with integrity, but Joe Ryan will not mention their names here. Otherwise they may be regulated to being pariahs within the media profession, and they may lose their jobs.

* Don't Support the SDPravda. There's nothing in the Union-Tribune of any value that can't be found online for free. Go to the link below if you want the gory details regarding how the SD Media Protects and coddles Duncan Hunter

CONTENT BASED CENCORSHIP?

        There are many reasons why a media-outlet might not cover a candidate. Some outlets only publish once a month, some don't have resources to cover candidates, etc. But sometimes a media outlet makes a decision to not cover a candidate, because they simply disagree with the candidates message.
        Private media outlets can do what they want; they are not required by any law to treat candidates equally, as a government institution would be. Nonetheless, when analyzing censorship issues, it's useful to look at principals that guide government sponsored conduct. The government may censor a message where circumstances and time restraints render the censorship reasonable (reasonably related to a legitimate government interest); however the government may not censor speech where the censorship is based upon the content of the speech (the speaker's message).
       Basically, we acknowledge that time and place based restraints on speech are fine where necessary; but we consider content based restraint of speech to be un-American. Which brings me back to private media. The laws may not apply to private media, but the principals of free speech do. When a newspaper refuses to cover a candidate or acknowledge their candidacy, most claim they did so for a 'time, and place' based reason. In other words, they say, 'we didn't have time or the resources to cover the candidacy'.
      In line with free speech principals, nobody would think anything less of a newspaper that really couldn't cover a particular candidate for a good, legitimate reason. Stuff happens. However, where a media outlet picks out one particular candidate, and where they effectively hide the candidate from the public by pretending to provide 'comprehensive' election coverage, without acknowledging the candidate's existence in the race, that would not be considered fair or moral, and in fact, most persons would consider such behavior to be dishonest, deceitful, and un-American. Read on

BEST EXCUSE CONTEST :

We have a Winner!!!!!

KPBS Wins!
      'These days with Tom Fudge' producer, Natalie Walsh, told Joe Ryan that she would not include him in the congressional debate debate held on KPBS (a station that receives government funding support) because 'he was not one of the top two vote getters in the primary held June 3rd'. Note: Independent candidates don't run in primaries.