TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election by JaynezTown

To make things fair, Fahrenheit 9/11 should play on TV too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 11, 2004 8:45 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

Ok, you can get some info on

thedailystar , morons dot org, and voice of America news have it

The Sinclair Broadcast Group is going to force other sations to show an anti-Kerry video calling the democrats Traitors .
Sinclair has ordered its 62 stations to air the program just a few days before the real election day - on November 2.

"No one has ever lost votes by lying to the American people!" In the ultimate Orwellian convolution, the draft dodger (Bush) has become the war hero, and the genuine war hero (Kerry) has become a war criminal! In the recently concluded Republican Convention at New York, the name of Osama Bin Laden, the real criminal, and Al Qaeda, the real criminal den were not mentioned even once. The message of the carefully choreographed convention was simple: Osama and Al Qaeda had morphed into a new enemy: Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry! Bush and the Republicans' rallying cry was: forget Osama and Al Qaeda, America must destroy this new, even more sinister enemy, John Kerry.

The Sinclair Group has made large donations to President Bush's re-election campaign. The company made news in April when it ordered seven stations not to air another program that featured a roll call of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

While Mr. Bush has spent $200 billion so far on the war in Iraq, average Americans are hurting. Bush's ill-advised tax cut for the wealthy has resulted in a record $422 billion budget deficit this year alone. Unemployment remains high, close to 6 per cent. Mr. Bush will go down in history as the first President since Herbert Hoover during the depression of the 1920s to record a net loss of jobs during his 4 years in office. Between January 2001 and November 2004, America will have lost at least one million jobs. The stock market is sputtering; the NASDAQ is down 60 per cent from its all time high. More Americans are without health insurance than ever. Mr. Bush has appointed the most rightwing judges to the nation's courts. His environmental record is atrocious. Last week, to please the gun lobby he let the ban on assault weapon lapse after ten years, infuriating the law enforcement agencies who will be the prime target of these weapons. Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq.

Federal election law prohibits corporations and labor unions from engaging in or funding "electioneering communication" within 60 days of an election.

Sinclair's markets clearly reach more than 50,000 people. They clearly intend to broadcast an anti-Kerry smear-umentary within very few days of the election. Few reasonable people would call "Stolen Honor" news any more than they'd call "Fahrenheit 9/11" news.

John Kerry's rise in the polls always seems to be quickly followed by the raising of the terror threat level by Attorney General Ashcroft and Homeland Security Secretary Ridge. This way Americans are scared into rallying around the commander-in-chief. Last weak, Vice President Cheney told Americans that if Kerry is elected, America will be hit again by terrorist. The press reported it as "Vote for Bush or Die!"

Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns the largest chain of TV stations in the United States, has told its stations to broadcast a documentary accusing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and democrats of betraying the United Sates of America.

I am not a lawyer, and if you think Federal election law is confusing, you're not alone. Having said that, it certainly appears to me that Sinclair Broadcasting intends to violate Federal election law, specifically the prohibition of corporate election campaigning within 60 days of an election

John Kerry has forgotten how vicious the Bushes can be.

In 2000, when the junior Bush's campaign was faltering and Senator John McCain's surging, the Bushies circulated lies that MCCain was a traitor against the United Sates, and that his adopted daughter from Bangladesh, Brigitte, is actually his daughter with a black prostitute!

CBS News apologized under pressure last month, saying it could not verify the authenticity of documents it used in a segment dealing with President Bush's National Guard service record.

The media and the entertainment industry have frequently been in the spotlight in the run-up to this year's presidential election.

Sinclair in April told its ABC-affiliated stations not to show a "Nightline" show on which the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were read.

BOYCOTT FOX

Boycott Sinclair Broadcast Group and report them for illegal activity - Not that it will matter with Bush and Powell

BOYCOTT THEM ALL !!

Why get the American people Drafted off to Iraq when baby-Bush never even turned up for National Guard duty ,
what was it that was so important that he couldn't turn up for Duty
was it Coke or Driving while intoxicated ??

Thus far, President Bush has succeeded in fooling all Americans for some time; he will no doubt fool some Americans for all time. His challenge is to keep the lies afloat for all Americans until November 2, when he will be home free. Right now, America is under the spell of his lies.

News reports say The Sinclair Group has made large donations to President Bush's re-election campaign. The company made news in April when it ordered seven stations not to air another program that featured a roll call of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

Sinclair TV Group, who tried to block news on the Enron corruption , the stations that made little mention of Cheney's robbery
can you say Halliburton ?
and whose executives have given tens of thousands of dollars to President George W Bush's
They have revealed plans to show the smear film calling hima a traitor and attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry just days before US the election

The United States founding fathers would be turning in their graves !!

http://www.sbgi.net/index.shtml

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 11, 2004 10:57 PM

ZARQUON

So has anyone out there seen Outfoxed? It's a documentary that looks into exactly what you're talking about here. Basically how Fox's nonobjective "journalism" heavly pushes a conservative right-wing agenda, while constantly claiming a fair and balanced point of view.

I think it available on DVD now in the US. I know it's currently playing in cinemas here in Australia.

Check out the website for more info:
http://www.outfoxed.org/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:21 AM

KELLAINA

I was curious about this whole thing so I visited the corporate site http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtml

They must be receiving a ton of complaints already because the following statement is on the main page:

Quote:
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.

if you would like to make further comments on this matter, you may do so at:
comments@sbgi.net

I found it interesting that it's supposed to be an unscripted event. To me that makes it sound more like they're attempting a smear campaign, not less. At least if it was taped in advance they could plead that it was simply timing etc. But to purposely schedule an unscripted show that can't be reviewed makes it all sorts of suspicious. Is it supposed to be a round table or something?

It could just be that the leaking of whatever info (true or not) is an attempt to get everyone upset about a program which may or may not defame Kerry. The bad press the company receives may end up benefitting Kerry's campaign after all. Really, until it airs, there is no way to know.

But what gets me is how is this any different from what CBS news attempted? They used false documents in an attempt to smear the president. CBS is a corporate entity, could we say they were trying to influence the election? Or if Farenheit 9/11 was to air on tv before the election, would that be an unlawful attempt to influence the election (by the production co and by whatever network chose to air it)?

I'm not saying I think they should be able to air the program, I'm just curious as to what everyone thinks (and I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate

)

If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. -"Angel"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:17 PM

SHINY

There's a boycott website up encouraging advertisers to pull their ads from Sinclair networks:

http://www.boycottsbg.com/default.htm

There's more detailed discussion here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/12/121355/52

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 12:55 PM

I'll just throw some more information out there. The vice president for corporate relations of Sinclair was on CNN this morning (his name is Mark Hyman). Here are some statements that he made regarding this story (Hemmer is Bill Hemmer, CNN anchor):

Quote:
excerpted from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/12/ltm.04.html
...
HEMMER: Democrats say this is illegal. Clearly, you do not. Why not?

HYMAN: Well, a couple of issues. First of all, we haven't even looked at a 90-minute program. But if John Kerry wants to spend 45 minutes or an hour with us, maybe we have a 90-minute program. Again, no formal format has been decided upon.

However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?

If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry. Weak job performance ratings that came out last month would have been an in- kind contribution to John Kerry. And that's just nonsense.

This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today. The networks had this opportunity over a month ago to speak with these people. They chose to suppress them. They chose to ignore them. They are acting like Holocaust deniers, pretending these men don't exist.
...

The third and fourth paragraphs are especially fascinating. The statement relating networks to Holocaust deniers has upset some people. Here is a letter released today by the Anti-Defamation Leage written to the Washington Post (the news organization that wrote an October 10 article about Sinclair and the upcoming broadcast).

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.adl.org/media_watch/newspapers/20041011-WashPost.htm
The statement by Mark Hyman, vice president of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, that the television networks were "acting like Holocaust deniers" with regard to coverage of anti-Kerry veterans groups is grossly inappropriate ("Sinclair Stations to Air Anti-Kerry Documentary," Oct. 11).

Regardless of Mr. Hyman's opinion of the quality of news coverage relating to Presidential campaign issues, his analogy to those who deny the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others is insensitive and painful. Usage of Holocaust imagery to score a political point is unacceptable. He should repudiate the comment.
Sincerely,

Abraham H. Foxman
National Director

What I'm curious about is why Sinclair would choose to put themselves in the middle of such a controversy. Jayneztown has written about the contributions by Sinclair executives to the Republican Party and the Bush campaign so I won't go into any detail on that. But here is something that rang a bell for me. It's from a USAToday article, dated the 11th, entitled "Plan to air divisive film raises questions":

Quote:
excerpted from http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-10-11-sinclair_x.htm
...
But many believe Sinclair's provocative decision shows how much the company has riding on the election.

With its heavy concentration of Fox and WB affiliates, ranking in the middle of the pack in mostly midsize markets, Sinclair is barely profitable and laden with debt. It had a net profit of $14 million on revenue of $739 million in 2003.

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.

Sinclair wants officials to permit a company to own two or more stations in more communities than allowed now. It also wants the FCC to ease a restriction that bars a company from owning TV stations reaching more than 35% of all homes, and to lift the rule that keeps companies from owning newspapers and TV stations in most markets.

That's where the parties part ways. FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican, has made media deregulation a priority, although many of the FCC's rule changes are tangled in court.

Kerry says he'll clamp down on changes that promote consolidation.

How do I personally feel about this? I'm not sure yet but I am leaning in a particular direction that should be apparent from my choice of excerpts. As always with stories that are in the process of unfolding, I'm reading as much as I can and awaiting new information.

* links to articles from dailyKos, Tom Tomorrow and Josh Marshall

**editted to add: Sigh. I could have saved myself work and just linked to a couple of posts by Steve Soto over at The Left Coaster. Caveat about a grain of salt and all that...
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002993.html
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/002991.html

Nature has infinite variety. Straight lines? Not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:36 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
What I'm curious about is why Sinclair would choose to put themselves in the middle of such a controversy.

I can't remember where (NPR possibly) but I originally heard that Sinclair's broadcast was intended as counter-programming for this.

Quote:
Fahrenheit 9/11 to screen on TV on election eve

Staff and agencies
Friday October 8, 2004

Fahrenheit 9/11: Looking to rock the vote

The Michael Moore bandwagon rolled on yesterday as it emerged the filmmaker is in talks to screen Fahrenheit 9/11 on US pay-per-view television one night before the US presidential election.
According to reports, Moore is preparing a three-hour special for pay-per-view operator In Demand that features the bestselling documentary sandwiched between fresh interviews with politically-motivated celebrities.

The incendiary picture grossed more than $119m at the US box office - making it by far the biggest documentary of all time - and is believed to have sold more than two million videos and DVDs on its first day of home entertainment release earlier this week.

While a spokesperson for Moore said no deal had been signed, television sources said In Demand would broadcast the event on the night of November 1 for the princely sum of $9.95.

Moore has publicly stated his desire to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on free television on the eve of elections, but In Demand would have to abide by certain terms to keep the peace with Columbia TriStar, which owns the video rights.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1322825,00.html

So I'm sure that all of you folks who were planning on protesting and boycotting Sinclair stations for their inappropriate politicking will do the same to On Demand and Mr. Moore. Right? Right? Hello? Anybody there?

It's called freedom of speech & the press, guys. If you don't wanna watch, change the channel.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:52 PM

You have a point, Geezer, but a major news takeover on network TV doesn't really compare to Michael Moore's Pay Per View movie.

Fahrenheit 9/11 isn't even a real documentary. Or is it? First the right-wingers call the movie garbage and a bunch of lies, and now they legitimize it by offering "counter programming" in a news broadcast?

It would be kind of funny if they showed this program on one network channel, and Moore's movie on another network channel - at the same time. Both, for free.

I wonder what good ol' Nielsen would have to say.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

So I'm sure that all of you folks who were planning on protesting and boycotting Sinclair stations for their inappropriate politicking will do the same to On Demand and Mr. Moore. Right? Right? Hello? Anybody there?

It's called freedom of speech & the press, guys. If you don't wanna watch, change the channel.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

The big difference between the two scenarios is per-per-view versus broadcast television. Sinclair stations are broadcast. People who watch those stations do so for free. People who watch a pay-per-view special actually pay money for the content. There are limitations put on content for broadcast stations that are not in place for pay-per-view, or cable, stations.

So it's really a case of comparing apples and oranges.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:27 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
The big difference between the two scenarios is per-per-view versus broadcast television. Sinclair stations are broadcast. People who watch those stations do so for free. People who watch a pay-per-view special actually pay money for the content. There are limitations put on content for broadcast stations that are not in place for pay-per-view, or cable, stations.

So it's really a case of comparing apples and oranges.

As noted in the Guardian article: "Moore has publicly stated his desire to see Fahrenheit 9/11 on free television on the eve of elections, but In Demand would have to abide by certain terms to keep the peace with Columbia TriStar, which owns the video rights."

Actually, I think it's pretty clever of him; Put on a 3 hour political commercial on the eve of the election and make money at the same time. Why do I think that the making money part is more important to him?

Moore/On Demand and the Sinclair network are both presenting information designed to influence voters prior to the election. It doesn't matter how the information is distributed. If you consider Moore's film a documentary that deserves First Amendment protection, then so does Sinclair's "documentary", no matter how biased you believe it to be. The idea behind the first amendment is to protect the speech you don't like, not just the speech you do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:50 PM

RANGRBOB

But it (Moore's Movie) will only be seen by people who want to see it. In other words democrats, liberals, progressives that want more Anti-Bush programing. People casually flipping through channels looking for Smallville or whatever WB junk is on won't run across Moore's flick. Where with what Sinclare is doing and with as many stations as they own, viewers in some areas will only or mostly have the Anti-Kerry programing available.

Again, Not The Same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:55 PM

Geezer, you're avoiding the scary part -- it's being reported as NEWS - News on network television.

This isn't a fat man's independent movie you are paying for.

"News is exempt from federal equal-time rules, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041012/tc_washpost
/a25406_2004oct11

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:34 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Excellent!

Boo hoo hoo! Someone's criticizing Kerry and they're doing it by exercising their right to free speech something that we claim to support! How dare they!

I'll defend to the death your right to say anything that I agree with! Otherwise, meh, not so much!

John Kerry, he's our savior! He's the One! With one fell swoop of his mighty, mighty hand he'll make quadripeligic's walk.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! How do you like getting Moored?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:41 PM

But, but, but, but, but (Kerry's favorite word in the second debate, by the way) it's being reported as news and it's not news it's opinion!

Well, boo hoo hoo hoo! Welcome to how the Right sees "objective" news every day, my friends!

Witness Dan Rather. It doesn't matter that the documents were forged, only that the story was true.

Of course, I wonder if Dan would feel the same if police "forged" evidence to convict "guilty" men. I think not.

You know, Dan didn't give a rat's hairy ass about getting out of military service when ol' draft dodging Bill Clinton was running against war hero Bob Dole. No, sir! 'Cause Bill was a DEMOCRAP!

John Kerry didn't give a rat's hairy ass about military service when Clinton ran against Dole. That war (Vietnam) was something that we needed to 'get over,' until, of course, he could hypocritical try to take political advantage of it himself.

You folks are in for a huge surprise on November 3. Hee hee hee!

P.S. Sucks to get "Peroted" by Nader, don't it? I loves me the party of free speech trying to get it shut up and the party of "democracy" trying to limit candidates on the ballot. Hee hee hee!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:55 PM

Want to know why your "genuine war hero," John Kerry can't seem to run away with this election?

Two words -- Bill Clinton.

See, when your party runs an actual draft dodger ("I loathe the military") against an actual war hero (Bob Dole) and does everything that it can to undercut and undermine the importance of being a war hero as a condition of electability then you've shot your future "war heroes" in the foot.

Bill Clinton defeated John Kerry's major claim to fame, kids! Chew on that one for a while.

In regards to criticisms of the Swift Boat veterans, none of whom actually served on the same boat as Kerry, I ask this --- since when did witnesses all have to be on or in the same vehicle?

Put it this way: if you're driving down the street with four of your friends and you're suddenly in a car accident (which is about as much of a "hero" as The Marrying Man will ever be), who do the cops question? Do they question only you and your friends in the car in order to determine who did what and who's at fault or do they ask other witnesses in other cars and standing nearby?

That's beside the point, however. I'll just end by reiterating:

Bill Clinton defeated John Kerry's major claim to fame, kids!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:02 PM

I just cannot get over how freakin' funny some of these posts are! I laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh....

Oh, oh, oh, oh, Bush lies! He's evil, evil incarnate! What? Oh, but our guy lies for the side of good.

Oh, oh, oh, people believe him. What? Oh, but people were fooled by our liar for their own good.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, it's the end of the world! What? Well, yeah, I know I've been screaming that for like decades now, but this time...

Oh, oh, oh, oh, the sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Bwahahahahahaha! Yes, it's all over. It's amazing that you folks are still able to post on the internet, but not for long!

Just wait!

When we win in November, we're coming...

For you! Bwahahahahahaha!

Boo!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 8:16 PM

How about this? Would you guys feel much better if the head of Sinclair broadcasting said the following:

"I did not have political relations with that party, the Republicans."

That'd help you sleep better, right?

Oh, how about this? The head of Sinclair says he ran this documentary news program to protect his wife and kids? You'd like that, huh?

All would then be forgiven, right? I mean, it's only about free speech and sure maybe he's breaking the (campaign) law (perjury) but it's only about politics (sex).

Maybe he claims that Buddhist monks gave him that documentary at a fundraiser, uh, I mean, outreach event. He never knew. Why, he's shocked at the accusation!

How about this? He says the tape just mysteriously popped up on a table in his private quarters and that he has no idea how it got there?

Oh, I know. He puts the blame on some flunky bouncer from Arkansas, says it's THAT guys fault that the tape got aired and he doesn't even know how that got hired!

Hee hee hee hee!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:04 PM

Quote:
from stilldragons profile

Member Since: Sunday, September 26, 2004 11:16
Last Visited: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 20:29

Posting history:

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 20:16
TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 20:02
TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 19:55
TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 19:41
TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 19:34
TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election

Sunday, September 26, 2004 11:29
Iraq war illegal, Kofi Annan - The UN

Welcome to fireflyfans, stilldragons. It's always nice to have a new browncoat drop in. There's a lot more to the site than the Real World Events Discussion section (actually, this is a very small component of the overall site).

The reason why I bring this up is because this is the only section of the site where you have posted. And of your six posts, five were made to this one thread in the space of less than an hour. From reading those five posts, and the earlier one in the Kofi Annan thread, they all have a similar tenor to them.

I look forward to seeing what you have to add to this conversation, and the fireflyfan site in general. Hopefully the preceding five posts are merely outlyers.

Nature has infinite variety. Straight lines? Not so much.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:24 PM

Thanks, soupcatcher. You know, my posts (due to the nature of the thread) have been predominantly political, but, all that aside, I can't wait for April 22, 2005!

Heck, I can't wait until a teaser or a trailer for the flick is released.

I'm a huge fan of the show and absolutely love what Whedon was doing by re-envisioning the Western as space opera.

No matter what our RL disagreements on politics, I'm sure that we all agree that 22/4/2005 will be a due of wonder and wow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:30 PM

SERGEANTX

I'm not sure the documentary will be as damning as has been suggested. Or maybe I'm just hoping that people aren't really as stupid as Bush campaigners think.

From what I've heard, the big beef is that Kerry came back from the Vietnam war and then turned around and protested it. Good for him. It was another fucked up war we shouldn't have been in. If the boat captains can't see that, they're only making fools out of themselves.

Of course they'll try to dumb it down to some kind of "Kerry hates soldiers" kind of thing, but I just think people are starting to see through this junk. I say let them show it. It might be good for a few laughs.

And before anyone starts the labeling, I'm anything but a Kerry supporter. Kerry is too liberal. He's a typical statist tax-and-spend democrat. But I'm voting for him anyway because of what he isn't. He isn't a born-again, nut-job working as nothing more than a puppet for neo-nazis.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:35 PM

Amen to that, stilldragons!

Depending on how you feel about spoilers, there is a lot of information from conventions that the cast has given out on the site. The General Discussions section archives have a lot of threads with reports of fans who went to the conventions as well as fans who were actually extras in the movie! Plenty of pictures and there is a trailer somewhere on the site that was taped from the San Diego comic convention trailer Joss showed.

Plus, plenty of great fan artwork and fan fiction in the Blue Sun room. Lots and lots of stuff to help us pass the time before April.

Okay, back to the Sinclair thread

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 9:45 PM

Thanks for the info on spoilers. I'll check it out. I've been a regular over at the Angel and Buffy spoiler boards for years! I'll look for that trailer, too. Much obliged! 'Preciate ya!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But I'm voting for him anyway because of what he isn't. He isn't a born-again, nut-job working as nothing more than a puppet for neo-nazis.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Wow, I LOVE how you stay away from the labels. Born again? You use the same criticism against Kerry when he panders/pops up in a black church on Sunday? Nut job? Try a schizophrenic embrace/repudiation of military service ("reminiscent of Genghis Khan") by the Democraps. Neo-Nazi? My dear sir, I only WISH I got to throw a critic in the oven every time he trotted out that old saw. I'd put you at the front of the list. ;-) As a Jew, however, I find your use of the phrase both offensive and ignorant. :-(

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:52 PM

JOHN EDWARDS: If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk, get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.

You gotta appreciate the stones on a bloke to make a promise like that. Elect us and the lame will walk and lepers will be healed.

Good thing Edwards and Kerry aren't "born-again," huh? No telling what "nut-job" thing these Neo-Commie puppets might start promising.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 12, 2004 10:54 PM

You know, whoever said "hypocrisy, thy name is woman" was probably talking to a Democrap woman.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

Geezer, you're avoiding the scary part -- it's being reported as NEWS - News on network television.

This isn't a fat man's independent movie you are paying for.

"News is exempt from federal equal-time rules, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20041012/tc_washpost
/a25406_2004oct11

Mr. Moore represents his documentary as the truth. Sinclair represents their "news special" as the truth. They're both trying to influence people. Don't you think that the media does this all the time?

I find it interesting that it's all the folk who usually come across as liberal here who are the ones arguing for supression of freedom of speech. I find F911 total bulls*it propaganda, but if people want to watch it at $9.95 a pop, or even for free, that's fine with me. You don't even want to allow folk to make up their own minds about watching the Sinclair broadcast. Does this seem right to you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:41 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by stilldragons:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
But I'm voting for him anyway because of what he isn't. He isn't a born-again, nut-job working as nothing more than a puppet for neo-nazis.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Wow, I LOVE how you stay away from the labels. Born again? You use the same criticism against Kerry when he panders/pops up in a black church on Sunday? Nut job? Try a schizophrenic embrace/repudiation of military service ("reminiscent of Genghis Khan") by the Democraps. Neo-Nazi? My dear sir, I only WISH I got to throw a critic in the oven every time he trotted out that old saw. I'd put you at the front of the list. ;-) As a Jew, however, I find your use of the phrase both offensive and ignorant. :-(

Wow, well then, I guess you've won the thread. Congratulations!

Still a shame the way Bush has mucked things up though.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:45 AM

GAVIDA

There once was a time here in Germany when the so called "Gleichschaltung der Presse" (politically enforced conformity of the press) happened.

I think it was somewhen around October 4th 1933 when all newspaper where "gleichgeschaltet".

Keep flying,
Gavida

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:53 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

Mr. Moore represents his documentary as the truth. Sinclair represents their "news special" as the truth. They're both trying to influence people. Don't you think that the media does this all the time?

"

Normally I refrain from political thread postings anymore, but this response intrigued me- Any good writing class or film class on the first day will explain to you that documentary-style films/writings are slanted to the perspective of the writer/filmmaker - It's how you make a successful piece- The attempt is to draw sympathy to yourself or your cause and to bring the other side around- When I watch a documentary, I look for what that person is trying to capture- Now, with Moore, there was never any question what group he was pandering to (it was mine, I'm a left-wing nutjob), and even I will say that I doubt it would convince anyone who wasnt already convinced because his facts were so obviously slanted-
BUT HERE'S THE THING- F911 wasnt heralded as NEWS, it was a documentary - When I watch CNN, or Fox, or MSNBC, I dont want my facts to be skewed, although I know they are- I want the facts, black and white, so I can do my fact checking or form my opinion, and I get angry when the news people skew the facts, left or right (and even from the left I like OReilly, he's a straight shooter) - But many people out there dont realize that news is slanted, or that the Sinclair broadcast is a documentary- Those people will watch without looking for a grain of truth or without fact checking, and be unduly influenced- People want to have faith in what they see, especially when it's called 'news'- They want to believe they are getting the facts, that's what the news is supposed to be all about-
So if they call it a documentary when they air it, and admit to being a Bush contributor, then hey, I say air it- But if they call it News, which it isnt, then it's a piece of propaganda and misleading the American people and should be pulled-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:10 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But many people out there dont realize that news is slanted, or that the Sinclair broadcast is a documentary- Those people will watch without looking for a grain of truth or without fact checking, and be unduly influenced- People want to have faith in what they see, especially when it's called 'news'- They want to believe they are getting the facts, that's what the news is supposed to be all about-
------------------------------------------

Couple of things. Everyone (including myself, I admit) seems to think that the Sinclair broadcast will be skewed. Why is that? We haven't seen it, and the only comments on its quality I've seen are from a Kerry staffer and the Democratic party chairman. Hardly unbiased critics. Does the fact that it shows Sen. Kerry in a bad light automatically make it a lie? What if it's true? whould you still want to supress it?

Next, if absolute truth is required in news, should CBS give equal time to President Bush after their 60 Minutes show on his Reserve service turned out to be based in part on phony documents?

Third, You seem to have a pretty low opinion of the average American, assuming that they will be influanced by anything they see on TV (except maybe you and the F911 fans, who know slanted info when you see it). Could this be the "liberal eliteism" I've heard so much about

?

Actually, there's plenty of folks who quote F911 chapter and verse as the revealed gospel and defend Mr. Moore with an almost religious fervor. I'm surprised you haven't met any.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:15 AM

SHINY

Sinclair is forcing its networks/affiliates to air the anti-Kerry documentary just before the election on broadcast television, where everyone can see it or stumble upon it. This is very different than having the anti-Bush F911 documentary available only on a pay-per-view cable channel, where even those who have heard about it in advance and want to see it would have to be willing to pay to see it.

That's why different rules govern cable and broadcast media.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 8:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Sinclair is forcing its networks/affiliates to air the anti-Kerry documentary just before the election on broadcast television, where everyone can see it or stumble upon it. This is very different than having the anti-Bush F911 documentary available only on a pay-per-view cable channel, where even those who have heard about it in advance and want to see it would have to be willing to pay to see it.

That's why different rules govern cable and broadcast media.

So CBS didn't force their affiliates to air the Anti-Bush 60 Minutes show based on phony documents? And run commercials advertising it? Networks do tell their affiliates what to show. That's why they're networks.

And after checking the Stolen Honor web site:

http://www.stolenhonor.com/index.asp

I find that they call the film a documentary as well, just like F911.

Tell me the truth. If CBS were running F911 the night before the election, would you, that's any of you out there, not just SHINY, be raising this much fuss, or demanding that Mr. Moore's freedom of speech be taken away? The truth now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:37 AM

SHINY

Yes, it would be improper if a company forced all of its networks and affiliates to air F911 right before the election. Now you tell me the truth (not just you Geezer but everyone defending SBG). If you believe that it would be wrong to broadcast F911, then you must agree that Sinclair Broadcast Group is in the wrong now.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:37 AM

Sinclair is ordering the stations to air this program. What does that mean? Well, if you look at http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/business/television.shtml you see that Sinclar stations are spread throughout the US. "Sinclair's television group includes 20 FOX, 19 WB, 6 UPN, 8 ABC, 3 CBS, 4 NBC affiliates and 2 independent stations and reaches approximately 24% of all U.S. television households." That's from Sinclair's own web-site. The link actually has a map that shows all the stations.

So what they are asking their stations to do is pre-empt existing agreements with six different networks to air this program. That can't make the networks too happy. But I'm sure there are provisions in the contracts that cover this sort of thing. They are also asking their stations to pre-empt the advertising that runs with the regularly scheduled programs. That can't make the advertisers too happy. But I'm sure there are provisions in the contracts that cover this sort of thing. So they're willing to irritate networks and advertisers that their stations have contracts with. That's irritating a lot of people with money.

This doesn't seem to be a good short term business decision. So why make it? Well, in this instance, it would appear that Sinclair is taking a longer term approach. The ownership has donated primarily (I think it's close to 97%) to the Bush campaign and the Republican party [1]. Follow the money trail. They clearly believe it is in their best interest for Bush to be re-elected. Sinclair owns interest in firms that have received defense contracts [2]. They are pushing for the FCC to relax ownership rules so they can increase their market share [3]. This will only happen under a Republican administration. The airing of the program, two days before the election, can only be seen as an attempt to use their position to attempt to influence the election.

So what? People don't have to watch. They can just turn off their television set or switch the channel. If their shows are pre-empted they should just suck it up and wait for the next week. What's the big deal? Well, because Sinclair operates on broadcast rather than cable, there are certain regulations concerning political programming. If a station airs a program that is basically a platform for one side, then it is required to give equivalent time to the other side [4].

Will this happen? Probably not before the election. The Kerry campaign would be fools to have Kerry be part of this program. It's a political hit piece and even with Kerry given the chance to share his side, the hit piece will go out on the air. The Kerry campaign would rather this program did not air in the first place but they really have no leverage. They can't, and shouldn't be able to, get this program banned through the FCC. So that brings us back to the business side of things.

The only way for this program to not be aired is if Sinclair can be shown that it would be a very poor business decision. I doubt that any market pressure brought to bear would force Sinclair to change their mind. But those are the only tactics that I think are appropriate in this instance. So I fully expect this program to air and I also fully expect that advertisers will withdraw their advertisements from stations (they already are [5]) and people will sell their shares of Sinclair stock (they already are [6]). With the slim profit margin that Sinclar had last year [7], they are really putting all their eggs in one basket. If Bush is re-elected, than the short term revenue loss will be balanced by what they will gain. If Bush is not re-elected, they will be in serious trouble.

So it's a fascinating case of a media company making a decision to use their position and market share to influence an election. Will it work? I don't know. But it does underscore the problems with media consolidation.

Other issues… Is this program biased? Well, there is a lot of overlap between the people who produced this program and the Republican party and the Swift Boat group [8]. That's interesting but nowhere near enough evidence. Is this suppression of free speech? Only if Sinclair is ordered to not move forward with their plans. If their stations refuse to air the program, that is not suppression of free speech. If people refuse to watch this program, that is not suppression of free speech.

Footnotes:

[1] This table is from the PoliticalMoneyLine web-site run by TRKC, Inc. The Smith family is the ownership behind Sinclair. Hyman is one of the vice presidents. Those are the people I am referring to when I use the 97% number.
http://www.tray.com/docs/sinclair.html { link from the LeftCoaster }

[2] The company in question is Jadoo. Here is their press release: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story
/09-28-2004/0002260384&EDATE+
Jadoo is partially owned by Sinclair. { link courtesy of BlueLemur }

[3] From USAToday article, "Plan to air divisive flim raises questions." Here is the relevant paragraph: "Sinclair wants officials to permit a company to own two or more stations in more communities than allowed now. It also wants the FCC to ease a restriction that bars a company from owning TV stations reaching more than 35% of all homes, and to lift the rule that keeps companies from owning newspapers and TV stations in most markets." http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2004-10-11-sinclair_x.htm

[4] The Kerry campaign is trying to paint this as a political advertisement, basically an in-kind contribution to Bush's campaign that would be covered under Federal Election Commission rules. I don't understand the terms well enough to state whether this is or not, but here is the law http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf . However, what I was going off of is from the FCC regulations, which is something different. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html
So there is some ambiguity and I am not as sure about the validity of this sentence. Update: Josh Marshall posted a letter from Reed Hundt, former chair of the FCC, that does a much better job explaining why this is all a problem. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_10.php#003649

[5] This is more anecdotal evidence than anything else. One of the people calling advertisers to complain about Sinclar reported that Sylvan had decided to pull their advertising. I'm haven't seen any press release on this so take it with a grain of salt. "A few minutes ago I received a call from them telling me they were PULLING their advertising from the Sinclair stations." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/12/121355/52

[6] USAToday article again. "The decision annoyed investors. 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."

[7] USAToday article again. "With its heavy concentration of Fox and WB affiliates, ranking in the middle of the pack in mostly midsize markets, Sinclair is barely profitable and laden with debt. It had a net profit of $14 million on revenue of $739 million in 2003."

[8] The overlap with Swift Boat is from a press release on the Stolen Honor website: http://www.stolenhonor.com/news/view.asp?id=14&page= There is an ongoing effort to learn more about the people behind this movie. Attach as much validity to any of these reports as you want, since they are being conducted mostly by bloggers. Here is a representative example: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=342 { link to Stolen Honor from DailyKos }

[*] The following bloggers have been posting a lot on this topic: Atrios at Eschaton, Steve at The Left Coaster, various people at DailyKos, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, the Blue Lemur, and a bunch of others I'm not aware of. As with any story that is being investigated by bloggers and the mainstream media, this is a work in progress and the situation is fluid.

* editted to add more of those pesky things referred to as paragraphs. Re-editted to add in supplemental links. A lot of this post is my opinion but, since I do make some assertions, I'm including where I got that information from.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:43 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Shiny:
Yes, it would be improper if a company forced all of its networks and affiliates to air F911 right before the election. Now you tell me the truth (not just you Geezer but everyone defending SBG). If you believe that it would be wrong to broadcast F911, then you must agree that Sinclair Broadcast Group is in the wrong now.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

I actually have no problem with anyone broadcasting either one. I have enough sense to not watch something I don't want to. I believe that most other people have this amount of sense as well. Freedom of Speech.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:44 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

IF CBS or other network pre-empted normal programming to air F 9/11 AND CALLED IT A NEWSCAST, I would certainly object.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:09 PM

I have relegated the Sinclair story to the back burner for the moment based on a far more important story concerning voter registration. Voters Outreach of America is being accused of destroying voter registration for people who registered as Democrats in at least two states. Here are the local news reports from Nevada and Oregon:
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe
http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x47627&La
yout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530

This is some serious crap.

This story was brought to my awareness by Josh Marshall, Atrios, DailyKos, and Kevin Drum.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:25 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

I have to admit I'm kind of puzzled by all this talk of Sinclair "forcing" or "ordering" their stations to air a program, as though the stations were entities with rights and free will, and were being coerced against that free will to do something morally repugnant to them. They are part of Sinclair's company, and they do what the head office tells them. This is not "force", it's the way business operates. The head office tells the branches what to do and they do it, whether it's showing Stolen Honor, or the Presidential Debates. Stations aren't going to "refuse" unless their management is ready to retire very soon. If Sinclair wants to piss off sponsors or networks, that's their business.

I'm also kind of surprised that I'm apparently the only one sticking up for free expression here. Most everyone else, without knowing the content or format of this proposed show, would rather censor it, apparently just because it criticizes Sen. Kerry.

The few answers I got to my question above are hedged about with caveats. Folk are going on about the Republican connections to Sinclair and the film (as though there's no Democratic linkage to F911). Hairs are being split so fine about the difference between documentories and news shows that it would take an electron microscope to see the remains.

Many here also seem to think that the majority of the American people don't have enough spine or sense to change the channel if they see something they don't want to watch. This has got to be some of the most elitest crap I've seen in a while. They obviously don't trust the population to do the right thing, so you'd rather control what they see to keep them from making (in your opinion) a big mistake.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:38 PM

Geezer, thanks for interpreting my post and stating my position. Unfortunately, the position that you attach is not the one that I hold.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:38 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I have relegated the Sinclair story to the back burner for the moment based on a far more important story concerning voter registration. Voters Outreach of America is being accused of destroying voter registration for people who registered as Democrats in at least two states. This is some serious crap.

This story was brought to my awareness by Josh Marshall, Atrios, DailyKos, and Kevin Drum.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

And you can still get a job with them:

Quote:
Voter's Outreach of America is hiring door-to-door canvassers asking people to register to vote. Must be at least 18 yrs of age, no felonies, registered to vote and have own transportation. Need good communication skills and professional appearance. Hours are 4pm to 8pm Monday-Friday and 8am to noon Saturday.

Call toll free 702-307-1320 for more information.

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. www.gop.com. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

http://nonprofit.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?Job_
DID=JQ5WL605V900TFY6WG

I'd hoped we'd gotten past this sort of stuff. Not only illegal but just plain stupid. Maybe we do need to ask the UN for election observers.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:40 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Geezer, thanks for interpreting my post and stating my position. Unfortunately, the position that you attach is not the one that I hold.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

Oops. Got sort of off track. That was the editorial "you", not personal. I will fix.

Edit: Or come on over to the dark side for a little while. You'll get used to the folk in this forum putting words in your mouth.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:40 PM

Yes, voter registration fraud is some serious crap, indeed, but I guess that it all balances out in the end, eh?

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/summit/10960
18375266600.xml

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7674

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=8ac173fd-0a
be-421a-011e-5ce7dfcf561e&TEMPLATEID=4525fe63-ac1f-02d8-002a-f131478a1f55

It's amazing to me that the party of South Texas U.S. Senate elections and Daley's Chicago's support of Kennedy in 1960 express "shock and outrage" over voting malfeasance.

It's also amazing to me that the party that started the legal maneuvering in Florida in 2000 (whatever his provocation, Gore filed the first lawsuit) bemoans the fact that the Supreme Court decided the case.

Nonetheless, voter registration fraud is despicable and obviously requires more government intervention. Perhaps a law stating that outside "nonprofit" groups may not register people to vote as this only encourages corruption.

Oh, but that might disenfranchise the poor and illegal immigrants!

I've got it! A law that restricts the upper middle class and white people from registering to vote while simultaneously granting multiple votes to minorities and illegal aliens!

Excellent! Big Government strikes again!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 1:03 PM

Thanks, Geezer. I thought I had done a good job of outlining why I think this should be handled as a business decision and that Sinclair, unless they are violating FEC laws, should be able to do what they want to do as long as they follow the appropriate FCC regulations. I thought I had done a good job in outlining what the appropriate response should be: attempting to bring economic pressure to bear. I thought I had done a good job outlining the unique position that a company that owns broadcast stations, versus a pay-per-view or cable station, is in in regards to the broadcasting of political material. I thought I had done a good job of stating that whether or not an individual station runs the show is a business decision and whether or not someone watches the show is a personal decision, and neither of those oppress free speech. I thought I had done a good job of stating my belief that the only oppression of free speech would be in the case that Sinclair is forbidden from airing this show, even if they are in compliance with FEC and FCC regulations. Then I read your post and realized that I hadn't done a good job.

There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:10 PM

I think Geezer is arguing a case he doesn't even necessarily believe. He just loves to take the other side. He knows his logic isn't perfect and it's our job to prove him wrong.

?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:50 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Speaking of voter registration, I always thought they should do what they (almost) did in Afghanistan: paint a finger with indelible ink (I propose ninhydrin as a better alternative). Registration becomes a moot point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 13, 2004 9:09 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

I think Geezer is arguing a case he doesn't even necessarily believe. He just loves to take the other side. He knows his logic isn't perfect and it's our job to prove him wrong.

I'm thinking you may be wrong here Succatash.
I believe that Geezer is being sincere in his conviction, and has an argument for his point of view.

That being said, freedom of speech has turned out to be a more slippery subject than most. There have been reams written about it and reams more still to be scratched by pen. Some legal eagle here might want to cite some of the relevant cases, especially as relevant to political speech, journalism, and artistic expression. Anybody here with a very fine hat and some very fine schooling?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2004 1:29 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

I think Geezer is arguing a case he doesn't even necessarily believe. He just loves to take the other side. He knows his logic isn't perfect and it's our job to prove him wrong.

?

Freedom of speech and censorship are real hot-button issues with me. My views in that realm probably make Libertarians look conservative. If I'm going to be true to this belief, I have to defend the stuff I don't like, like Mr. Moore's "documentaries", just as rigorously as anything else.

If a private company wants to show Stolen Honor, or F911, or 24 hours a day of Popeye cartoons on their stations they should be able to. If they want to run 24 hours of classic porn, they should be able to. If Gary Trudeau wants to draw anti-Bush Doonesbury cartoons and the Washington Post wants to run them, they should be able to. If Howard Stern wants to say "f*ck" on the radio, he should be able to. If (whoever the fundamentalist preacher of the moment is right now) wants to rant about same-sex marriage, he should be able to.

You don't have to watch, or read, or listen. You have free will. Learn to read the TV guide and you don't even have to worry about catching a bare breast while channel surfing. Shouldn't you be allowed to make your own choice, instead of having the government make it for you?

Hell, if you want to find your local Sinclair TV station and protest on their doorstep, you can do that too. Just don't ask the government to impose your choice on everyone else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 14, 2004 4:55 AM