Matt Welch Discusses Reason's Gag Order on CNN's Reliable Sources
CNN's long-running program about the news media, Reliable Sources, interviewed me on June 26 about Reason's free-speech tangle with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Breaking news during the program's June 28 and July 5 broadcasts bumped my segment, so the producers have now posted it online:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I read that as "interviewed me on June 26 about Reason's free-speech tangle with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York."
I thought that would have been the best interview ever.
Get the hat, Matt.
Only two comments? Tell me speech hasn't been chilled.
Hurly-burly? Well, I never!
I do have to say that I dig the NASA engineer look. It makes you look smarter than the other talking heads.
Actually, that requires a white shirt, buzz cut, dark tie, and a pocket protector. A tie clip helps too.
The Poindexter glasses is all he's going by.
He has a point, though. I call it, "the 1957 Young Republican", which is damn close to 1960s NASA engineer.
Haven't seen the vid. Somebody fill me in:
Does Welch do the Ritual Denunciation of the Commentariat (Postrel Be Upon Him), or does he say "Fuck that. Whether I approve or not of someone, or of their speech, is completely irrelevant to whether US Attorney Preet whateverhisname his should be putting on his shiniest jackboots to come after us."
The latter. For the most part. Mild denunciation, but lacking in the vigor that the rest of the media enjoyed.