Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Broadcasting corporations themselves do not have the same free speech rights as individuals and never have. If they did, as you seem to propose, you can be sure there would be plenty more sex and violence on television than there already is.

Let’s not confuse corporations with human beings.

Yes. Free speech as long as it doesn’t hurt your side.
Why are the Kerry people so concerned about the program dealing with his anti-war stance in his younger years?
He was proud of it then.
He never talks about it now and he is supposed to be the ‘anti-war candidate’. Why do they think it will hurt him?
Kerry was asked to appear and talk about the issue but won’t. Why not?
Kerry is the one who should talk because he is the one it is about.
It is his history. He chose to use Vietnam. There is nothing wrong with hearing the other side of the story, other side of Kerry.
I especially liked it when Kerry’s rep said that Sinclair better watch out if Kerry gets into office. The audience booed him and then he had to try and explain it away.

Is this really different than protesting the anti-Reagan movie earlier this year? It is hard to be consistent, isn’t it?

Exactly, Alejo, this is a corporation, not an individual. I don’t care what Rush Limbaugh says, this is an abuse of power. And don’t tell me it’s “newsworthy” when the interviews are opinion and not substatiated facts.

“Michael Copps, one of the four FCC commissioners, said Sinclair’s action is ‘an abuse of the public trust.’”

“‘It is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology — whether liberal or conservative,’ Copps said in a statement obtained by CNN/Money.”

From CNN, Sinclair under fire for Kerry film

Oh and let’s not forget that this is the same company that blocked the broadcasting of the names of soldiers who were killed in action.

Oops. Substantiated.

This is the same Sinclair Broadcasting that refused to air the episode of Nightline in which the names of soldiers who died in Iraq were read. Their reason was because the episode was “nothing more than a political statement.” I guess the rules change when they agree with the political statement.

Also, more food for thought relating to Sinclair’s decisions to air this show from the financial section of USA Today:

“Sinclair’s shares, which have lost about half their value in 2004, closed Monday at $7.38, down 12 cents. That’s about as low as they’ve been since 1995..”

”..Sinclair hopes to change that by solidifying its hold on local markets by controlling, for example, two stations in more cities and sharing operating and news-gathering costs. But it needs the federal government to relax several media ownership restrictions.”

But particpatory citizens cannot publicly advocate for or against a government official, or a wanna-be government official!?

What Alejo said. Where is the participatory citizen in this case? Just because Sinclair gives money to both major parties (97% Republican, 3% Democrat) doesn’t make it a participatory citizen. It will never be able to vote.

How could anyone think this is anything but free (and mandatory) pro-Bush propaganda? They’re trying to pass the show off as news! That should make it obvious that they realize it’s borderline illegal and are trying to protect themselves.

Change the channel.
People who are interested will CHOOSE to watch.
It’s not like it will be the only available program on the airwaves.
It’s not in my market so I won’t even have the choice.

If Moore can state his opinions, then why can’t these POW’s?
Other than the fact that Moore stole the ideas for his movie, I was happy that he made it. I am also happy to see these POW’s are able to voice their opinions also.

The obligations of TV station’s, on publicly regulated broadcast airwaves, are different to those of individuals and movie theatres.

There will be few topics debated on this blog as clear cut as this. What Sinclair Broadcasting is doing inexcusable and is a clear abuse of the public trust.

So it will be quite revealing to see who attempts to justify this.

Michael Moore isn’t trying broadcast his film days before the election. Moore also charged addmission to his film.
This just sounds like an anti Kerry, pro-Bush infomercial.
I don’t dispute Sinclair’s right to air the piece.
I do question the motives behind the airing.

Theaters are regulated also. They cannot show certain types of movies without permission. Why was it wrong for some theaters to decline to show moores movie?
In this movie, the POW’s are stating their opinions of kerry, it is not an abuse of public trust unless they outright lie.
jackson and sharpton can go on every TV station and voice their lies about Bush, but POW’s shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinions about kerry and what he did. That just doesn’t sound fair to me.

Rocky
I agree that this is just an anti-kerry deal and I also question the motives.
Have you also heard though, that moore is trying to get TV networks to air his stolen movie, right before the election?
Then it will be the rights turn to cry foul.

Moore is trying to air his show on pay-per-view, not network affiliates.

Whether or not it abuses the public trust is beside the point. The point is it’s illegal.

An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable or satellite communication that fulfills each of the following conditions:

1. The communication refers to a clearly identified candidate;
2. The communication is publicly distributed shortly before an election for the office that candidate is seeking; and
3. The communication is targeted to the relevant electorate (U.S. House and Senate candidates only).

There is talk about Michael Moore making his movie available on pay per view the night before the election.
Though it wouldn’t be free and people would have the choice to pay for it, it may become available.
Michael Moore could make his film free to watch and you can be sure some broadcast corporation would snatch it up and air it. Claiming it does not represent their view.
You can bet the Democrats wouldn’t be filing complaints to keep it off the air.
It would be turned around and the Democrats would be asking the Republicans what they are complaining about. They’d say people can choose not to watch.

How effective would the Sinclair piece have been if they would have aired it, say, last month.
Again, I personally don’t object to them airing it.

I still question the Timing.

If Moore can state his opinions, then why can’t these POW’s?

… because Michael Moore didn’t broadcast F9/11 on the public frequencies leased to broadcasting corporations by We The People.

Oh, give me a break. “If the Democrats could, they would.” How exactly do you know that? There’s plenty of dirt on Bush — his drinking and drug problems, his DUI — that hardly anyone ever even talks about, let alone airs on television with character witnesses against him. Bush’s policies are discussed on television and some on the right see that as a personal attack. Why? For the same reason they can’t distinguish between a private citizen and a multimillion-dollar corporation.

Okay, Wordsmiths, I need your help: I’m looking for a term that describes someone who uses an argument to further his cause even though he doesn’t actually believe it himself. There are words that come close, like “opportunist” and “cynic” and “hypocrite,” but none of them is exactly it. Any ideas, Bloggers?

Your right, it is all about the timing.

… because Michael Moore didn’t broadcast F9/11 on the public frequencies leased to broadcasting corporations by We The People.
Not yet! All his slanderous movies make it to TV sooner or later. Will it be ok then?
Also, jackson and sharpton use these “public frequencies” to air their lies about the right, is that wrong also?

I’m no Michael Moore apologist or fan. But there IS a difference bewteen a movie people pay to see and a program that’s presented as a news show and then forced upon network affiliates — especially when it’s weeks before the election. Even so, I thought releasing Fahrenheit 911 was questionable and tasteless.

Alejo, I think the words you suggested will all do nicely but here’s some more I unearthed before heading home, I think most are applicable….

disingenuous, artful, cunning, deceitful, designing, dishonest, duplicitous, false, feigned, foxy, guileful, indirect, insidious, left-handed(!?!?), oblique, shifty, sly, tricky, two-faced, uncandid, underhanded, unfair, unfrank, wily, calculating, canny, cunning, slippery, double-dealing, duplicitous, fallacious……

According to its website, Sinclair is still working on the project. They have invited Senator Kerry to appear and comment on the statements made by the Vietnam POWs (a group that includes two Medal of Honor recipients). Obviously that isn’t going to happen, but so far nobody from the Kerry campaign has offered to do anything but threaten them with pay-back after Kerry wins the election, and of course whine to the FCC.

Michael Moore’s pay-per-view showing of his [presumed Oscar nominee as Best Picture, formerly described as a documentary] is only about publicity. If he allowed it to be shown on network television, then I could give him at least some credit for being sincere in his misguided beliefs and would likely watch it. If Stolen Honor is shown on network television in this area, I will likely watch it also. But of course, as always, Moore is simply using politics as a wealth builder. He can’t even be truthful about that as evidenced by presentation of “truth” to the masses, but only those willing to pay for it.

Alejo,
Sophistry.

Maybe the real problem is that WE THE PEOPLE can’t even figure out when the government should stick it’s big fat nose into things.
When we have a law on our side we tell the other side to get over it and stop whining.
When we are against something we scream at the top of our lungs and tell the other side we’re right and your wrong.
We want things to be our way and it doesn’t seem to matter how anybody else feels as long as we get what we want.
What we need are more rules and regulations in this country and more people getting their way no matter how someone else feels about it.

That will solve everything.

I heard an interview from a former P.O.W. that said Kerry’s name was never mentioned to him or used against him. It may be in this so called ‘documentary’. Would that make it alright to air it?
The whole project hasn’t even been completed and some are already trying to get it stopped.

NOTOTH —

You’re right, Michael Moore is a self-serving clown and everyone knows it. So let’s not draw parallels between him and what’s supposed to be a news source.

Don —

Thanks. That’s as close to what I mean as anything else. Now I can say, “I hate sophistry!”

Matthew,
While I persoally think Sinclair and the other five owners of our media should be charged with violations of anti-trust laws due to them blocking reform that would allow others into the markets. I realize that Sinclair is in clear violation of his responsiblility to the American peoples airwaves. Check your FCC Laws and you find that: 1) The show is not news. The issue has been around and talked about since 1973.
2) The show is not a documentary because it does not contain the historical facts of the time.
3) By exploiting or running an end around the political laws, it does not serve the public interests since it brings up a time in which our country almost had a civil war.

Without breaking out the US Code of Rules and Regulations, these three reasons are enough to say that Sinclair and company is in clear violation of the law. Now, I am all for free speech as long as that speech is the truth, yet I will not support any business leader who wants to use their position to influence the outcome of an election.

For this is the reason, I am reluctant to bring up the debate over how this administration is running the country much like the Nixon’s administration. Just because all the players of the Nixon administration is now in Bush’s administration, does that give me a right to air a movie which points this out and than add my spin on the facts?

Kent State and the actions of ALL AMERICANS at that time changed the war, not Kerry, not Nixon. Although they played a roll in the outcome of the war, actions taken by our military before that date in Viet Nam played into the problems faced by some of our POW’s. Think about this; if Sinclair airs this show is he not given aid to Al Qaeda by bringing up the fact that our military used tactics and methods that did not conform to the laws of war? History shows us that our military leaders did have first hand knowledge of 15 minute Lts., torture, and other crimes against humanity.

As far as the Swift Boats/Honor org. saying it was all Kerry’s fault, I refer you to Nixon’s own words about the difference in bombing Hanoi in 1969 and 1972 where he said that if he knew that the bombing would of brought the North Viet Nam to the peace table in ‘69 he would of kept bombing instead of giving into the demands of Russia and China.

No, Sinclair is trying to use his wealth to buy our government and that in itself is wrong. If Moore was trying to do the same thing with our public airwaves I be bashing him as well. So if Sinclair thinks that his message is that damn important that it just has to be aired let him spend the money like Moore and put it out in the B rated threaters.

Bugcrazy, “Yes. Free speech as long as it doesn’t hurt your side.”

Let’s also remember the Moveon.org ad that wasn’t aired during the Super Bowl.

Over-the-air transmissions are regulated by FCC. Move this to cable/sat, pay per view, or in a theatre and there is no argument.

It’s the same with Janet’s mammory gland. People tend to forget that there’s a difference between over-the-air and the others because, to them, CBS is just another of 100’s of networks on the DirecTV line up. But there is a big difference. Sinclair should not run this on local broadcast stations.

And CBS should have their Campaign Finance Reform press exemption taken from them, at least for the rest of the year. But that’s another debate….

Henry,
You don’t support what Sinclair is doing but it is his right to break rules, pay fines, etc., if he chooses to do so.
I’m sure there will be enough said about it, before it is aired, that people will know it is up to them to decide how to process the information.

This just highlights the left’s new first amendment platform:

Broadcasting corporations themselves do not have the same free speech rights as individuals and never have.

Hmm. That’s odd. So this network has no right to air ‘Stolen Honor’ because it has a political message or slant? That reminds me… what ever happened to Dan Rather and that whole… what was it… um… oh yeah— blatant attempt to smear a sitting President with forged documents scandal?

CBS News is a corporation isn’t it? For that matter doesn’t just about every journalist work for a corporation? Hmm. I see some possibilities with this new liberal doctrine of depriving free speech rights to corporations.

I need to give Karl Rove a call.

I’m sorry, I think when POW’s wish to talk about what it was like to be held captive, that is news.
Why should we censor what war heroes (living breathing heroes who have first-hand knowledge of what really happened)have to say? But yet defend CBS, when they knowingly put information based on fake documents and assumptions, on the public airways?
And moore does use his wealth to try and buy our govt. also.

Alejo: I agree with your posts, only I believe this “is” news.
If what CBS aired, based on info. they knew was false, can be accepted and defended as the truth and aired as news, then what these war heroes have to say can be to.

bugcrazy:

“You don’t support what Sinclair is doing but it is his right to break rules, pay fines, etc., if he chooses to do so.”

Uh, nope. Saying it’s your “right” to break the rules implies that the rules are wrong. The reason fines are levied is because someone has exceeded their own rights and infringed on someone else’s. Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean it’s your right.

“I’m sure there will be enough said about it, before it is aired, that people will know it is up to them to decide how to process the information.”

Again, nope. People like you and me, who pay attention to the news and all that goes on around us gather enough information to make informed choices. Stunts like this one aren’t aimed at you, who are already convinced, or me, who cannot be convinced. They’re aimed at the people who heard “something” about a show about how Kerry lied and caused soldiers in Vietnam to be killed. It’s aimed at the people who think reality TV is real. To say that people like that will be able to discriminate between a piece of propaganda disguised as a news show and a real news show is very idealistic at the very least.

And who is defending CBS, anyhow? Not I!

1) The show is not news. The issue has been around and talked about since 1973. 2) The show is not a documentary because it does not contain the historical facts of the time. 3) By exploiting or running an end around the political laws, it does not serve the public interests since it brings up a time in which our country almost had a civil war. Posted by Henry Schlatman at October 13, 2004 01:31 PM

1) No, it isn’t news. It’s being presented as a documentary.

2) …does not contain the historical facts of the time? All I know is what I’ve seen in previews at their website, but I’m wondering which omitted historical facts you’re referring to.

3) Sorry, but I can’t make any sense out of this one. So if they wanted to show a documentary on the Battle of Bull Run, they should be prohibited from showing it?

Now for the record, I’ll agree that this appears to be a blatantly political move on the part of Sinclair. However, I have no doubt as to the truthfulness or sincerity of those who appear in the documentary — at least the parts of it that I’ve seen so far — and I’m not at all convinced that this is a clear-cut FCC violation.

By the way, according to a recent poll described in The Washington Post, the military population prefers Bush to Kerry by about a 70/30 ratio. Since this group isn’t normally picked up in most polls, even the experts were stunned by the level of anti-Kerry sentiment in this group. They may have to serve under a President Kerry but they sure won’t much like it, not that it makes any difference.

Alejo: My post was not suggesting you are defending CBS, but more of the good for the goose, good for the gander type thing.
I know you posted to BCrazy, but after re-reading my post, it sounded like I was suggesting that also. I was not.

kctim —

Airing the experiences of POWs is appropriate, although I’m not sure I’d call it “news” when it happened 30 years ago. If that’s what this program is really about I won’t have any problem with it, but from the sounds of it the program will be more of what a terrible person John Kerry is, and that is NOT news.

I’m troubled by this comparison to CBS. I don’t recall reading any posts here defending CBS for airing inaccurate information, and although my memory may be faulty about what other people posted I know that I for one did not champion CBS. They screwed up royally, probably intentionally, and they deserve whatever the FCC levies or can levy against them. I don’t apply my principles selectively, and those who read my posts know that.

The argument that “he did it, so I can too” is childish. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Cliche? Yes, but true.

NOTOTH,

It is my experience that the military is historically Republican. I don’t think that 70/30 statistic is that suprising.

I don’t think you can frame this as “news” over “politically slanted editorial” when the author of the movie, Carlton Sherwood, is a former reporter for the Washington Times (The ultra-conservative Rev. Moon run paper) and author of a book about Rev. Moon which was equally biased and full of innacuracies.

I also like the quote from Sinclair’s VP of Corporate Relations, Mark Hymen on yesterday’s CNN American Morning. Mark Hyman claimed that if Sinclair’s plan to preempt regular programming and broadcast a documentary film (Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal) attacking Senator John Kerry amounts to “an in-kind contribution to George [W.] Bush — if you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be considered an in-kind contribution to John Kerry.” Hyman also said networks that have chosen to ignore the anti-Kerry film “are acting like Holocaust deniers.”

CER: Very childish if you ask me.
Personally, I would like to see both shows aired before the election, for all to see, free. But that won’t happen.
The point which I was trying to get at, but obviously did poorly on, was on whether it is news or not. I lost my way and typed in circles or something. Sorry about that.

NOTOTH, I heard yesterday on NPR that Sinclair was purporting this show was news. If they have since changed their stance, it’s understandable since the assertion is so absurd.

peezee:

Mark Hyman claimed that if Sinclair’s plan to preempt regular programming and broadcast a documentary film (Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal) attacking Senator John Kerry amounts to “an in-kind contribution to George [W.] Bush — if you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be considered an in-kind contribution to John Kerry.”

I heard the same thing. Crazy. But this…

Hyman also said networks that have chosen to ignore the anti-Kerry film “are acting like Holocaust deniers.”

…is verging on maniacal.

bugcrazy,
The funny thing about most laws is that we can not charge someone for what they are thinking of doing in most cases, YET!

That statement about news from Iraq being an in-kind contribution to the Kerry campaign is also very telling as to why they blocked that Nightline broadcast. If they consider news about chaos in Iraq as in-kind contributions to Kerry then maybe they should blame Bush.

NOTOTH, I heard yesterday on NPR that Sinclair was purporting this show was news. If they have since changed their stance, it’s understandable since the assertion is so absurd.

Posted by Joseph Briggs at October 13, 2004 02:35 PM

All I know is that the Stolen Valor website refers to it as a documentary. It doesn’t matter really, since I expect to see one of two things happen: 1) It isn’t shown at all, or 2) Snippets of it are shown, with some sort of “bipolar” panel to argue over what it all means.

The rest of us will just show up at the ballot box on November 2nd and then get on with our lives.

Joseph —

The vehemence of the statements from Sinclair’s rep certainly does make one wonder how concerned they are for the truth. Even more ridiculous than Rather’s arrogance in defending bogus documents, and that’s saying something.

You know, I agree that Sinclair should be blocked from airing this program, but nevertheless I’d like to see it, if for no other reason than to know to avoid ever looking to their outlets for news.

How can anyone say this isn’t news, when its been on the news channels for a week? Sounds like news to me.

Unlike the “rathergate” CBS stuff, (that they claim they spent 4yrs. investagating, and blogers debunked in 30 min.’s after airing),I think all the people behind the swiftvet/stolen valor stuff, put their names on it. It don’t seem like they are hiding or useing un-named scorces.

If they are lieing it is defamation and they can be sued for that(Kerry has enough money to sue them), but they welcome the debate, why is that ?
It is close to the election, but this has been out there for several months, Kerry could have released ALL his records long ago and put an end to it if he’s right. If they are right, what is Kerry hiding?, perhaps nothing, I don’t know, nethier do you.

I’m not a Kerry supporter, but its for other reasons than this. I really try to put partisanship in a bucket outside, to evaluate opposing points of view, but I ask you; If kerry supporters had privately questioned their leadership about this, would it be comming out now, or put to rest long ago?

Is it my fault, or yours ?

NOTOTH, every little bit helps. I think the regulations are in place to prevent this very kind of thing from happening. Sinclair is trying to skirt the regulations by claiming it’s a news program, while at the same time covering their butts from the more realistic assessment of the show by inviting Kerry. If they are going to force this show to be aired just before the election in swing states then it certainly can have an effect.

Beagle:

“If they are lieing it is defamation and they can be sued for that(Kerry has enough money to sue them), but they welcome the debate, why is that ?”

You answered your own question by pointing out how close it is to the election. Sure, it could be challenged, legally or otherwise, but it would be moot. Besides, no one has accused anyone of lying.

“Is it my fault, or yours ?”

Neither, unless you work for Sinclair Broadcasting Corp.

BTW —

Inviting Kerry to appear on the broadcast is not a gesture of fairness, especially if it’s not live. Editors can have political agendas too.

Alejo:

The vehemence of the statements from Sinclair’s rep certainly does make one wonder how concerned they are for the truth. Even more ridiculous than Rather’s arrogance in defending bogus documents, and that’s saying something.

I was incensed by that CBS crapola but the whole incident still had some semblance of plausibility (that CBS was just duped). This is just ridiculous.

NOTOTH,
While Stolen Valor may be trying to pass it off as a documentary, they do not make the connection between the facts that was going on in the world at the time. Nor do they connect it like most documenties to The US vs. America. It does; however, clearly represent the debate of the WAR/Anti-War debate of the time. This documentary shows how some POW’s were treated by our enemy at a time like those we are seeing in Iraq over the prisoner abuse scandal which leads America down a slippery slope I don’t think we need to go down again. Therefore, the documentary clearly falls under “The Public Interest Laws” of FCC.

This FCC">http://search.fcc.gov/query.html?col=fccall&col=edocs&col=digest&ht=0&qp=&qt=public+air+waves+public+interest&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&rq=0&si=0/link”>FCC Web Site list 96,045 results to public air waves public interest for your reading pleasure. Basically, our public airwaves our to be utilized to promote the general welfare and safety of this country. Based on the cultural divide currently in this country lends to support that idea that in the way Sinclair is airing the program and “Kerry’s Answer Session” that it would only imflame the divide instead of adding to the debate.

Now, if Sinclair thinks that it is so important and necessary to show this program to the American public than let him air it on November 3, 2004. Otherwise the program and the point of view it supports has to be considered a stunt instead of a real concern of those POW’s who really where mistreated by the North Viet Nam government and the unwillingness of our government not to listen and air the problems that cause them.

Any documentary on the “Battle of Bull Run” wouldn’t have any reference to Kerry in it.
I would not suggest that Sinclair be banned from running the piece. I would wonder if the piece would be as important if it was aired on Nov. 3rd.

Sorry, heres the web Site: http://search.fcc.gov/query.html?col=fccall&col=edocs&col=digest&ht=0&qp=&qt=public+air+waves+public+interest&qs=&qc=&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&rq=0&si=0

If anyone is interested in reading the entire US Code 47 they are welcome to it.

Alejo,
The point wouldn’t be “moot” if it had been challenged several months ago with plenty of time to respond or go to court.

Because this is a “heated” issue, I did put partisianship “in a bucket outside”., I enjoy debating with my lib./dem./ind. friends, but I was beind honest and will stand by my post in the context I posted it.

more technical reading:

Federal Election Commission Regulations for Electioneering Communications

FCC Rules on Political Broadcasting

Beagle —

What exactly do you mean when you say, “It’s been out there?” From what I understand the “documentary” isn’t about whether Kerry wounded himself with a grenade or whether his Swiftboat was under fire, but about how Kerry’s statements at the Congressional hearing were used by the VC to demoralize POW’s. Now, aside from the fact that it’s ludicrous to say that someone who called for an end to war could be responsible for lengthening a war, how exactly would Kerry challenge this accusation?

“No, the VC did not use statements, made by me, under oath, to break the will of prisoners.”

One cannot defend oneself for another’s actions, and the producers of this program know that. That’s exactly why they’ve invited him to appear on the show and exactly why he’s declined to do so. It’s a no-win situation.

NOTOTH,
On the military vote, it has always been strong republican since before I was born. It seems like our troops like to play with big toys. However, it is funny that the right stood so hard against Clinton when he forced down their throats the new weapon systems we are seeing now used by our troops and the ones coming on line in the next few years.

Oh! Oh! I forgot; Bush had all those new weapons in his the back of his jacket. Sorry, I could not resist that one.

Alejo,

“One cannot defend oneself for another’s actions, and the producers of this program know that. That’s exactly why they’ve invited him to appear on the show and exactly why he’s declined to do so. It’s a no-win situation.”

If I was defamed I would defend myself, wouldn’t you ?

while reading countless debates here about the show airing or why it shouldn’t be, one thing is for sure whether it is aired or not i still go with Kerry, for one it doesn’t matter what he did when he was at war, we all make mistakes at least he’s trying to do something about the war situation, and i bet that when he was at war it wasn’t for oil. When i seen the F9-11 movie there were plenty of soilders on there that where commenting on how they first felt when killing all those people however a change in there minds was clearly stated, as i remember one soilder was questioning what am i doing here what are we here for?? And while kerry was at war MR.BUSH was doing bussiness with the arabs so what diffrence does it make???? They own about 7% of the U.S. i can’t help to think what will be of the Great U.S.of A. will we be ruled by another countrie in about 30 years??? Will they determine what i will wear or my children will i be free to do as we please?I may not know much about this political thing but one thing is for sure somthing doesn’t seem right in the picture, and Kerry doing what he had to do at war (as the soilders are doing today)is not the issue with all that has happened in the last 4 years i think that something has to be done with our system running on money is power.

Yahaira
If you think F9/11 is good, you should watch the movie that moore stole all his ideas from:
“9/11 The Road to Tyranny” by Alex Jones
You can find it here- www.infowars.com

Beagle, the point Alejo was making (I’m pretty sure) is that if the VC did use Kerry’s words to the dismay American POWs, Kerry can’t defend himself against that. Kerry was doing what he thought was his duty as a conscientious citizen. The VC may or may not have used his statements to demoralize POWs but this says more of the character of the VC than it does of Kerry. The funniest thing I heard from the video was a line like, “Kerry’s words demoralized me and prolonged the war.” I think it’s funny because wasn’t it Kissinger that prolonged the war?

Yahaira
Also, the newest anti-kerry piece is not about what he did “during” the war, it is about what he did “after” the war and what he said about the troops over there.
What will the country be like in 30 years? Keep voting for the kerry’s of the country and someone else “will” be determining what you and your children are allowed to do and what you will wear.

I personally feel that choices are already being made for me as to what college i can attend better yet afford, what type of job i apply to (if there’s any out there) there’s many things that bush has limited to the not so wealthy people. The rich just never see that because it’s no change in the way of their living conditions.

I’m no expert, but I believe that in exchange for their licenses to use the airways, broadcasters agree to certain rules about political ads, Janet Jackson’s nipples, libel, and etc. In other words, this sort of public speech is effectively restricted. (Historically, an absolute right to free speech isn’t really supported by anyone, except maybe the libertarians.) Sinclair is apparently pushing the legal envelope on this one, and it’s certainly fair for the DNC, as an interested party, to complain, and make sure the existing law is properly enforced and interpreted.

Does anyone think the RNC would *not* complain if local stations were being forced by a big Democrat-owned organization to air Farenheit 911 just before the election? Come on now, really?

kctim,
You state Kerry will not stand up for the rights of the people of this country. Do you really want to bet the ranch on that statement?

FYI: Kerry and countless other Vets stood up to the Nixon Administration over the killing of our own citizens by our troops in ‘71 and the senseless loss of troops of a war the administration gave up winning. These facts are in the history books.

Bush has proved that although he relishes the idea of being a war president, he lacks the logic and tactical thinking to accomplish the mission and complete the tasks. Saying Bring it On to your enemy and running away is not the move of a good chess player.

ok…im confused….

kctim says: “What will the country be like in 30 years? Keep voting for the kerry’s of the country and someone else “will” be determining what you and your children are allowed to do and what you will wear.”

to me…that sounds like a very un-liberal, very conservative, ultra-radical christian thing…..not a liberal thing at all…

i thought it was the right that wanted us to pray to one god, not look at porno, not have sex until marriage (oh, how i laugh at that one), not be different, not be gay, not dissent, not question authority, not question our president, obey obey obey….

funny…guess i had it wrong….

man i hate people.

The laws do not allow public broadcasters to become open propagandists in a partisan fashion. If it’s not news, some sort of balance must be kept.

Sinclair corp is pushing a forty minute SwiftVet (yes, SwiftVet, they merged with that group) commercial. They’ve essentially yielded what is meant to be a public resource to one political party’s interests. The Laws, justifiably prevent this. I’d be sadder if a Democratic leaning show had to be yanked, but I’d be telling you the same thing.

This movie is no different than the Frontline that just aired regarding John Kerry and George Bush. That is our tax dollars at work. Kerry the Brillinat War Hero, Bush the Yahoo/Drunk/Freeloader/Imbecile.

I understand that Public Television, like Public Radio, is virtually 100% leftist, but I don’t hear any of the left that is crowing about Sinclair look at themselves and PBS over Frontline. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Interesting, Sinclair is now saying they may not broadcast it. Maybe they read their FCC license requirements.

(Welcome Back, Eric)

So Eric, you propose a corporation has the same rights as an individual?

Is America responsible for sutainence of corporations that fall on hard times? Should we let people simply starve in the streets? Or should we bail out failing companies?

This is exactly the problem with our form of capitalism. Ford and Firestone recently killed people through negligence. Why is the corporation not incarcerated for manslaughter?

Or is it that you only believe corporations have rights without responsibilities?

I don’t believe Sinclair should be censored. They however should be held accountable for the use of public airwaves and should be held accountable for balance and FEC regulation…or lose their license.

Your position sounds more like facism or socialism to me, Eric.

I also find it odd that the Republicans are saying Kerry caused prisoners to be tortured.

Don’t the North Vetnamese have any responsibility here? Perhaps Kerry should have sought guidance from the UN before expressing his opinion. Is that what the Repulicans here are advocating? Why are they giving aid and comfort to an old enemy by shifting the blame from them to Kerry?

Matthew,
Why do you want to censor the DNC from filing a complaint? Don’t they have that right?

The NAMBLA thing…. that’s just kinda out there. Makes me wonder where you’re mind wanders to. NAMBLA is a broadcaster? News to me. I have no idea what your trying to do there other than associate NAMBLA with Kerry? Shame on you. That simply reveals the twists in your own thinking.
That’s kinda like saying Bush is pro rape.

So Matthew, i presume you believe that anyone or any corporation with money should simply be able to buy the politician they choose?

This movie is no different than the Frontline that just aired regarding John Kerry and George Bush. That is our tax dollars at work. Kerry the Brillinat War Hero, Bush the Yahoo/Drunk/Freeloader/Imbecile.

I understand that Public Television, like Public Radio, is virtually 100% leftist, but I don’t hear any of the left that is crowing about Sinclair look at themselves and PBS over Frontline. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.

Public Television was long the home of Firing Line, and currently (on my local PBS station) runs an Opinion Journal show headlined by Paul Gigot, along with a show hosted by Tucker Carlson. Additionally, it runs The MacLaughlin Group, where half the panel is composed of deeply, strongly conservative individuals. Hell, Patrick Buchanan is there just about every show! Sometimes even MacLaughlin leans a little right.

Public Television isn’t so much Republican or Democrat, but instead Progressive. Educational material, Public Affairs, Political programming and opinion, and Tough hard-hitting investigative journalism have found a place there where they haven’t elsewhere.

As far as Frontline goes, Its always tough. If you think it’s tough on Bush, you’re right. But similar toughness is present in their Analysis of Waco, Rwanda, and other issues from the Clinton Administration. I just think your people are not use to having a news program out there that don’t pull their punches.

Several landed hard on Kerry during that Frontline. there were moments where I had second thoughts as to having recommended people watch the program. But the show balanced it’s portrayal, and contextualized even some of Bush’s statements.

And no, I don’t think the SwiftVet/Stolen Honor Group’s movie is just the same. These are people who aren’t having to play by the rules of Journalism, but people who put what they put out in terms of opinion, really no different than Michael Moore or George Butler. Except there’s no media company taking either of those two works of Op-Ed propaganda for Kerry and against Bush, and broadcasting them on the public airwaves. That changes the equation. I had to choose to find a copy of George Butler’s Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry by private means. I had to ride my bike several miles to reach a theatre playing Farenheit 9/11 and pay six bucks on matinee to watch it- again, private means.

These SwiftVet-associated Stolen Honor POWs are being given, free of charge, public resources to distribute propaganda. Resources that are given under license to the station owners on certain conditons. Among those conditions is that the public airwaves will not become a partisan propaganda outlet.

Now you look at Frontline, but Frontline is journalism. It is sometimes essential to our public welfare that some things that may hurt one candidate or another be revealed. This political power is given on the condition that the accounts are truthful (Thus the Documents controversy) and that some kind of balance is sought. Frontline, in many ways, is actually more balanced. In Cyberwar!, for example, Richard Clarke is a man portrayed as ahead of his time. In Ghosts of Rwanda questions are raised as to how he handled the issue of the Genocidal war there. That’s fair and balanced Credit where credit is due, blame where it’s appropriate.

I think it’s harmful to come at this first from an ideological vantage point. I think we should start from the facts, and then decide our interpretation, not start from an interpretation and reject those who disagree with it.

I have no problem with it as long as they let Coalition Soldiers in Iraq describe life there. There used to be dozens of Blogs made by US Troops in Iraq before it was shut down by the Pentagon. Make a documentary featuring THEM just before the election!!! I particulary like the Blog that described Marines almost shooting a 10 year old girl and that cluster bomb that blew up while children were playing with it. Any chance that would happen?

Aldous.

rob —

“i thought it was the right that wanted us to pray to one god, not look at porno, not have sex until marriage (oh, how i laugh at that one), not be different, not be gay, not dissent, not question authority, not question our president, obey obey obey….”

I hate to say it but the left has its own form of societal controls, seen most obviously in the political correctness movement. Telling people they can’t say, write, or do anything that might possibly offend anyone is just as heinous an act of censorship as anything Bush proposes.

However, I don’t agree with kctim that electing Kerry will take our rights away. I think the danger this election is from the incumbent.

N.Vietnamese were at fault for abusing P.O.W.’s and not Kerry but it is Bush’s fault for 9/11 and terrorism and not UBL???
P.O.W.’s want people to hear their side of the story but it might hurt Kerry. We should only allow good opinions to be said about Kerry? Anything goes on Bush?
The mass graves are aweful and Saddam shouldn’t have done that to those people BUT that was a long time ago. What is the statute of limitations on mass murder in the world view?

A guy has a machine gun and is headed into a school but I shouldn’t do anything because he hasn’t killed anybody yet. Right now he is only carrying a weapon and I don’t know what he is thinking. He could be taking it in for his kid’s ‘show and tell’.

Alejo,
I knew after I posted it that saying he had the ‘right’ was not the way to put that. I figured people would either know what I meant or would blast me for it. It is his choice.
There are people in history that broke laws. That is how some of our bad laws got changed. Like drinking out of ‘White’s Only’ drinking fountains and not going to the back of the bus.

I think Henry knew what I meant.

I tend to agree with rob, sometimes.

bugcrazy —

“N.Vietnamese were at fault for abusing P.O.W.’s and not Kerry but it is Bush’s fault for 9/11 and terrorism and not UBL???”

Says who? I don’t recall ever hearing a single soul saying anything like that.

“P.O.W.’s want people to hear their side of the story but it might hurt Kerry. We should only allow good opinions to be said about Kerry? Anything goes on Bush?”

I think you know better than that. There’s been plenty of Kerry bashing as well as Bush bashing. The point is not that it’s negative. The point is that a multimillion-dollar corporation is trying to use its assets to influence an election. Is that REALLY okay with you?

“A guy has a machine gun and is headed into a school but I shouldn’t do anything because he hasn’t killed anybody yet. Right now he is only carrying a weapon and I don’t know what he is thinking. He could be taking it in for his kid’s ‘show and tell’.”

Don’t know where you’re going with this. Is this an Iraq reference? If so, the analogy falls apart because after we tackled the guy and beat the piss out of him for a year or so before noticing he didn’t HAVE a machine gun. (Yeah, I know, I know: “But he COULD have.” Whatever.)

“There are people in history that broke laws. That is how some of our bad laws got changed. Like drinking out of ‘White’s Only’ drinking fountains and not going to the back of the bus.”

Yes, a corporation’s fight to be able to influence an election is very much like the fight for racial equality.

I’m sorry for the sarcasm, but I find it very hard to believe you actually mean some of the things you say.

Henry
Yes, I am willing to bet the ranch on my statement. Liberals have proven to be very anti personal rights in the last 10 or so years. They want to decide for the people, not with the people. Tell people what they should or should not eat, tell them they cannot smoke, will take away property and are very anti 2nd Amendment. Their hypocritical view of religion is also something to cause alarm in many people.
Your FYI is something I have seen before and I believe kerry has every right to do or say what he did. I respect kerry for going to Nam, but not for what he said when he returned. The only thing I hold against kerry is his record while in the senate, not other peoples opinions of him.
I am not a Bush supporter either, I agree with you on your last paragraph.

Rob
I would hardly consider myself as being on the “right”
I am an atheist, so your labeling me as ultra christian or whatever is not accurate. I am also pro-choice, anti-patriot acts, for gay marriage, for free speech and tend to vote democrat, when a true democrat is running that is. What Alejo just posted sums it up for me pretty well, only I believe that as long as kerry or Bush types continue to get elected, we will continue to lose our rights. But from what I have seen lately, the liberal way will be faster.

SD: “Public Television isn’t so much Republican or Democrat, but instead Progressive.”
Very well put, which explains why the rights whines about it being too liberal. Good call!

Also, since I have either missed it or nobody else will touch it, I believe you will give me your honest assessment SD:
jesse jackson and sharpton, their speeches, lies and opinions, all are able to be presented as news when they speak. They speak only about their hypocritical views of Bush and the right and openly support kerry and all Dems and will continue to get public air-time up to election day. Why can’t these POW’s state their opinions and experiences also?

Alejo,

Greg said:”I also find it odd that the Republicans are saying Kerry caused prisoners to be tortured.

Don’t the North Vetnamese have any responsibility here? Perhaps Kerry should have sought guidance from the UN before expressing his opinion. Is that what the Repulicans here are advocating? Why are they giving aid and comfort to an old enemy by shifting the blame from them to Kerry?”

…and people own corporations. Corporations don’t own themselves.
If a statement is made that goes something like this …
“The following program is not the opinion of Sinclair Broadcasting. It is the opinion of the owners of the station ,however, that these P.O.W.’s have the right to express their opinion and we have given them the ability to do so. We asked Senator Kerry to come talk to everyone but he declined the invitation.”
… would that make it okay?

The U.N. would have had no reason to keep the sanctions in place if it was known the WMD’s were not there. Saying he may acquire them someday wouldn’t have meant any more in that respect.
What was the choice?
Removing the threat or letting him become a bigger one by removing sanctions.
Everything goes back to faulty intelligence. I don’t know why people think the intelligence would have been any better if Saddam was left alone.

bugcrazy —

Is that quote from Greg supposed to show that Kerry had nothing to worry about? Sure, when people who think critically watch it they’ll know better, but this kind of advertising is aimed at the people who will say, “Man, that Kerry. He helped the VC torture people.”

People own corporations. So what? I’m not suggesting that corporations are self-aware or that they have motives. Should the people who own the corporations have more political power than you and me?

The disclaimer would be worthless since it’s so obviously a lie. You don’t force your affiliates to show a program because it isn’t your opinion.

You do realize that the sanctions were in place because Saddam invaded Kuwait and not because of his WMD’s, right? Not allowing him to have WMD’s was simply part of the sanctions. The choice? Allow the UN inspectors to determine there were no WMD’s, as they were in the process of doing, and avoid a war based on an intelligence failure.

Has anyone even seen this “documentary”? Why do things that are available or put out there, have to be tailor-made to what we believe. Just because something is true/untrue or does not suit what our beliefs are, doesn’t mean it should be condemned or banned from public showing. So what if Sinclair BG is forcing it down the throats of their stations. Make your choice not to watch. Use the channel up, channel down or even the power button. Will the showing have any affect? I doubt it. I remember whe the Passion was getting all of the hype about the manner in which it accused the Jews of killing JC. All of this was to cause some huge uprising and hatred towards the Jews. What happened, a few people who felt guilty about crimes that had committed turned themselves in. But the effect was minimal.

I believe this whole deal is much ado about nothing.

Alejo,

Let me get this straight.
You don’t want the ‘documentary’ run because people might believe Kerry caused torture.
Kerry saying why he was in an anti-war campaign in the 70’s won’t help people to understand where he is coming from.
AND Television Corporations that choose to show someone’s opinion have more political power than I have.

Are you telling me that this particular corporation has only shown good things about Bush and bad things about Kerry on their affiliate stations?
Now that would be a problem.

Even the UN inspectors say Saddam was jerking them around and they couldn’t get substantial proof either way.

Callmecrazy,
I agree with you.

Excellent points callmecrazy.

Mostly it works to Sinclair’s benefit to raise their ratings by creating controversy. That’s entertainment!

Boop boop se do!

Don’t forget it can work for in the negative manner for them also. Apparently this has generated enough stink, and from other reports and accusations, they are ailing financially. I could care less about the insinuation of “well, they are going bankrupt and they really need Bush in office, to help lax the limits of ownership”. Government to corporation hand-outs and favortism happens every day. For me, it is this in a nutshell, I don’t want anyone telling what I can watch and not watch. Show it, if I catch it, great. If I don’t, oh well, I guess I can check out a long list of blogs and newspapers on how it was mis-leading and untrue. I support those who want to protest, just as I support those who want to provide the viewing. But when you go as far as to call for it not being available I have a problem. Just because you do not agree with the premise of something you have heard about, does not mean it should be made unavailable. That would be kinda of like, me saying make abortion illegal. I don’t care if you have a mind of your own, and that it really doesn’t affect me. I am morally opposed to it. So if I don’t want it, you can’t have it.

bugcrazy:

No, I’m saying that a broadcasting corporation that has agreed to broadcasting rules in order to have a license to transmit a video signal to most of America should abide by those rules. I’m also saying that I don’t believe for a second that the company’s desire to show the program has one single thing to do with the Truth or the feelings of POW’s. I’m saying this is a move fully intended to change the course of the Presidential election and I have a problem with that.

You can talk about how it’s news, how it’s just people’s opinions, how people deserve to know, but as someone pointed out, it’s all in the timing. Say, for instance, CNN decided to air a show two days before the election about how George Bush snorted coke with someone who then went out and committed murder. Bush didn’t commit the murder, didn’t endorse it, but was connected to it in some tenuous way. Would that be okay with you? If you say yes, then fine, you and I are on different sides of the issue of broadcasting responsibilties and I’ll let it go.

The fact is that I would oppose a program like that just like I oppose this one.

You can talk about how it’s news, how it’s just people’s opinions, how people deserve to know,….

It is not about people deserving to know, it is about people’s right to be heard. Right or wrong, agree or disagree.

Say, for instance, CNN decided to air a show two days before the election about how George Bush snorted coke with someone who then went out and committed murder.

Only if it was followed by the story of How T. Kennedy got drunk, drove a car and killed a girl and walked away, didn’t go to jail, ran for office and became a lifetime senator.

CallMeCrazy:

And timing has NOTHING to do with it. Of course.

You say that as though you believe I endorsed Chappaquidick and Ted Kennedy. I wasn’t trying to make it more partisan, I was trying to make it less so. This should not be a partisan issue.

Although it seems partisan, that was not the intention. In all honesty, Political beliefs put me in the middle-column on the front page, so I don’t support either. But what I do support is the right for people to be heard. I rarely agreed with M Moore in F9/11, but I support his right to have it released if someone was willing to do so. The way our political system exists makes it hard to not be (or seem) partisan. Labels are assigned and lines are drawn. If you are on one-side you are this, if you are on the other you are this. If you are middle of the road, you would like to call yourself a moderate. But are you a moderate Elephant or Donkey. When you register to vote, you have to declare a party. The whole system is partisan, so when we talk about it, it by nature is going to be partisan. Even this website is partisan. There are sections to match your beliefs.

Okay Alejo,

The timing of it…
But you cannot say that other things won’t come out days before the election to hurt either side.
Things that people were not forewarned about.
Things that should probably cause networks to be fined for, but probably won’t.

The makers of the ‘documentary’ that hasn’t even been shown yet have said that when(if) it is finished and aired it will probably not be one sided.

People jumped all over this out of the fear that it would make Kerry look bad.
Nobody ever gave a definite date that it would air.

I am not concerned with the timing either. Like I said, the impact will be minimal. If I am wrong, then you can blame all of the organizations that are spreading the “get out and vote, who cares if you even know what the issues are”. If those people, who have not already registered to vote, don’t already have time or will to go do it on their own, then I can only believe that we would be better off without them voting in the first place. I mean if they can’t take the time to go fill out a voter registration card on their own, what makes us think they will have spent the time educating themselves on what the issues are and where the candidates sit, and vote accordingly, rather than voting Dem/Rep bc I registered to vote at a Dem/Rep sponsored event.

I think some are mistaken about what all these vets are saying. If you do a little reaserch into what they are charging, it goes FAR beyond Kerry’s words being used against POW’s in nam.
Please don’t ask for all the links, some of it was swiftvets, some stolen valor groups, ect.
But what they presented were offical documents(many from Kerry’s own website) that show some really oddball dates on his records, some of which Kerry has removed from his site.
One showed Kerry’s “Honorable” discharge as dated 2000 or 2001, whats up with that ? They contend that Kerry’s origional discharge was something less than honorable, and his records were changed under Carter and again under Clinton,
A type of pardon thing ? They claim to have inside information into whats really hidden in Kerry’s records but can’t (by law) disclose it untill Kerry signs “form 180”.

I don’t know if any of this stuff is true, but if it is, some of it might preclude Kerry, not only from the office of President, but ANY elected office! I do know that if its a smear type of thing, or made-up BS, they could, AND SHOULD, be sued for slander.

However, the fact that they swear to it, and put their name to it, should give someone pause.

If I were “still” a Democrate voter, I would be truly pissed at the leadership if this is true and was covered up untill its to late to nominiate someone else.

Just my opinion…fire away

bugcrazy and callmecrazy:

Are you both crazy? Just kidding.

If the networks air things before the election, anti-Bush or anti-Kerry, that are illegal, I think they should be fined. Period. You break the rules, you pay the price. I’m not speaking for either party here, but for fairness in broadcasting. As I said before, I would be just as opposed to this if it were an illegal attack on Bush.

It’s not about whether it’s true or whether people are offering their honest opinions. It’s not about the interviewees intent at all, but about the broadcaster’s intent. Now, it may be true that all Sinclair is doing is showing news that’s relevant to all of us. If that’s so, let’s hope the FCC allows the program to be aired, because that will be right and just.

And as for the idea that there are no undecided registered voters, it does seem hard to imagine such people exisiting in a polarized climate like this, but the polls show that they do exist. And Sinclair Broadcasting (and the Bush campaign) might be hoping that this program is the one that knocks them off the fence.

I guess I missed the whole illegal part. I would disagree to say that airing the doc would be illegal. I mean, the Sinclair BG, and many other broadcasting groups, always have an intent behind what they show. Every single newscast, local or national, has an intent behind everything they show. News directors are ordered to follow certain guidelines on how to represent news stories by the group that owns them. What would the intent have to be? Everyone knows supposedly what the intent is behind this doc. I don’t think that they are fooling anyone by doing this. But again, so what. Why are tv stations and radio stations held to a different set of standards and expectations? Their are no standards by the FCC regulating newspapers and magazines, are there?(I really don’t know, I am assuming none) The only thing that keeps them in check, sometimes, is the threat of civil action. There are really no standards as far as movies are concerned. The only thing that really rules them is the MPAA. If the people behind the doc, took out enough space in NYT and reproduced a transript, would it be governed by intent. Was CBS fined for Dan’s comments and story about Bushie’s ANG record? I don’t believe so. There was intent there was there not?

Oh, well. If it shows, it shows. If it doesn’t,it doesn’t. I just think this is a perfect example of how corrupt and morally bankrupt our system really is. I could really careless, what the hell these two idiots were doing 30 some odd years ago. It has absolutely nor bearing on what they do today.(see Bush and born-again).

(Clearly I have nothing better to do with my time….)

Beagle —

If that’s really what the program is about then it really should be blocked. Because if it WERE true, don’t you think the RNC would have brought it to light six months ago? Clearly the reason they want to air it right before the vote is because by the time it’s proven to be completely false it will be far too late to matter.

Clearly I have nothing better to do with my time….)

Same here, woke up sick, went to work not wanting to do any, wondered what I could do to pass the day. I think I found it.

Callmecrazy —

Yeah, but I’m supposed to be working. (Shhh!)

As for newspapers and magazines — yes, they are also subject to FCC regulations. All mass media is, with the possible exception of the internet. Trust me, if those rules weren’t in place you would notice a difference in a hurry. You may think the press is biased now, but without the FCC you’d be hard-pressed to even guess what the truth was.

Sorry Alejo, I don’t buy that.

Slander and Liability laws are what keep the press semi accurate, not the FCC.

Truth is a lot slippier. A good old movie about that is Absence of Malice.

Yellow Journalism is an old profession..not new.

( I’m working at home, so screw the boss!)

Hey, you crazy leftists, what about Dan Rather’s forgeries? Are you saying it is OK for Dan, a partisan Democrat (When did he interview John ONeil?), to produce editorials about the election but citizens who fought in a war for this country cannot?

ROFLMAO

And you think you will be taken seriously?

Greg —

Yes, slander and (I think you mean) libel laws are checks on the press too. But those won’t do a bit of good until after it’s too late, will they?

You’re right, Yellow journalism has been around for a very long time. If people think the media is biased now, they should read a paper from fifty years ago!

Bruce —

We’ve been over that. Dan should reap the bitter fruits of his folly.

Alejo,
What you say might be true, IF? , the RNC was behind it.
I don’t know, but if its true, it will make “rathergate” and “watergate” seem like small potatos in political history.
The people presenting this swear its not a RNC thing, they sign their name to it.
I agree its likely funded by RNC supporters, but, would any thinking person belive that Kerry supporters would fund it, even if true??

If its a lie, sue them to finacial ruin, if its true and the DNC covered it up, wouldn’t you be pissed ?

Beagle —

What I’m saying is, don’t you think the RNC dug as deep into Kerry’s past as they could, looking for any dirt they could find? (As I’m sure the DNC did to Bush too.) I’m not saying the RNC is behind the program, but if the information in the program were true I think we would have heard about it already because the RNC would know it.

The problem is, if it’s a lie, sure, you can sue the broadcaster and the maker, but the damage will already have been done to Kerry and it will be too late to do anything about it.

Would I be pissed if it turned out to be true? Of course I would. No one likes being lied to. But I’ll bet you a case of Blatz that it turns out to be, if not total BS, then some carefully spun innuendo.

Alejo-
The FCC only regulates telecommunications. What regulates publications are privacy and libel laws.

The right-wingers-
Your definitions of what counts as an editorial are so vague, they’d include any speech that affects political fortunes. This is what the Right has to learn to live with: media criticism. If you can’t stand that heat, stay out of the political kitchen. You live in a democracy, people have the right to ask you to do your duty and do it right. At the time, Dan Rather thought he had evidence. In a way he still does, in the form of Lt. Com. Killian’s personal secretary, who says the documents reflect her boss’s feelings and events that happened on base, including (and she explicitly made this point) Bush being ordered to take the Physical. The Right-Wingers and the media are so focused on the documents and the scandal that Rather was hoodwinked by them, that they forgot all about the meat of the story. They have still not challenged what she said. Why?

Because they want Rather. My father recalls Rather being one of the first people to bring Watergate into the television news. So, I guess the Right wants their revenge. Never mind if the charges against Nixon were true. Truth doesn’t seem to matter to the GOP right not, not in war, not in economy or fiscal responsibility, not even in the character of their candidate.

The Airmen bringing charges against Kerry have every right to do what they do, legally speaking. I don’t have to like that, and they don’t have to like me in that I don’t like that. But what they and everybody else has to do is follow the law. The law gave the segments of the TV spectrum to the Sinclair group not to serve the interests of one party or another, not to serve as their personal propaganda engine for whatevre cause they choose, but to serve the public good.

The law is explicit on this: political material of this kind cannot be broadcast, at least not without giving equal time to the political opponent, which Sinclair will not do. Because Sinclair broadcasts on a limited public resource, they must abide by certain restrictions on content and political speech.

Well, the whole “legality” argument has just been overcome by events.

NOTOTH,
Good catch, but I wonder what the other five media owners and those that advertise on Sinclair airwaves are going to say about the fall out. As Congress will surely take up this debate over the next few years. Could we wittness the breakup of media as we know it?

We had the CBS fiasco, lots of 527 groups putting out stuff. We even had Michael Moore’s movie as well. Just show the movie. If Kerry’s side wants to comment, then I believe they have been given all that anyone can ask of Sinclair Broadcasting.

I am really curious to the what was meant by the threats given to Sinclair Broadcasting , If they continue to air this program.

Lets get on with it. I believe as many of you do that George W. Bush will be the one that the people want to be the Commander and Chief.
We just have to wait and see.

Jim-
Do you want this principle turned back on your people. How long would you tolerate liberal broadcasters pumping in their open propaganda on your television channels?

We exclude such uses of the spectrum for a reason: We are never going to allow a state or party run broadcaster to develop.

Besides, if tonight’s Nightline is any indication, John O’Neill and his people, who are running this little show now, they don’t care about anything but being hatchet men against Kerry. The Vets they show are all Air force vets and former Navy Aviators, and with all due respect, their experience of the war and Kerry’s did not have the same context. These men took off from bases and carriers, for the most part remained free of the political and military mess the Swiftboats and infantry were going through, and Kerry in particular. They didn’t experience events on the ground until they were captured. Kerry did.

Alejo:

When I read your latest post, and then remembered some earlier posts, I am speculating that you recently had a party and no one drank the Blatz beer that you bought. Now you are just trying to pawn it off by betting it, in hopes that by losing an argument, you might win by disposing of bad beer. What an ingenious idea!!

I hereby make a bet with France: I will bet you the use of one John Kerry for the next four years unless I can show you that banning head scarves is a good idea. (He he, since I know I can’t do that, I think I’m gonna lose this bet—oh darn.)

jbod —

I don’t know what you’re talking about. My Blatz wager is a clear sign of my earnestness. I don’t shell out $2.46 for just any old thing, you know.

Check out Sinclairs stock prices over the last week Going Down

Talk about backing a losing horse.

This is also rather interesting. It’s all about the veterans, huh?

Stephen Daughtery..

With all due respect. The swift boat kerry was on for a whopping 4 months is and was nothing compared to those people serving 2-3 COMPLETE TOURS in nam. Also you lump the swift boat officers with the foot soldiers in real combat?

His wounds did not put him into the deferment to come home 8 months early. His questionable purple hearts did. If most people knew what it takes to get that award, well lets just say they would most certainly question it. As most vets do.

As for thew subject at hand… who cares if they air it or not? Both sides are doing it constantly… all you have to do is turn the channel if you dont want to see it. I havent heard one person in here complain about the accuracy of the news being reported in Iraq. My husband spent 13 months there and wont even watch a news piece because it is entirely inaccurate. Was the same thing when I spent 11 months in Desert Storm and 6 in Somolia… you see what is happening at ground zero during a deployment and you come back home and the media is distorted, trying to make money off the lies they feel people want to hear not the facts…Its done every day folks, in the news, why make a big deal out of this documentary….

Kerry has constantly and consistently refused to release his entire 201 file. If he was indeed discharged from the military for any other reason than Honorable, every six months you can put in an appeal, a packet to request it be changed to honorable, BUT that will be put into your 201 file, as well as everything you did in your career to include marriage counceling, abortions, awards, total medical and personal issues, yes even endebtness, military disciplinary actions. Food for thought… All truths lie within Kerrys 201 file which he continually refuses to release.

I served 12 years active duty army as a combat medic. Did my tours to Saudi, Somolia, and Bosnia. My husband did his in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo. My dad Nam. My father in law Nam. Many friends and family members are vets.

The reason the military is normally pro republican, is because republicans take care of soldiers, democrats seem to find us lacking and ignorant. Yes most support Bush in the military… that support comes from registered republicans, democrats and independents, not just republican voters.

Its insulting to hear people say we like to “play with big toys” which is why we support republicans being in office. It has Nothing to do with “Big Toys” and has everything to do with “decent pay, better benefits, money to train properly, and less politics.”