[ October 11, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Perhaps you could find the source on CNN.com. Otherwise it sounds like liberal paranoia.
Posted same time as Ben
[ October 11, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
see the post above yours pooka.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."
Interesting...
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I don't agree that they should, but it is his business and he can run it as he sees fit. If/when ratings drop off a cliff, then he has to worry about it. There's hardly anything good on tv anyway.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm thinking this won't happen, but if it does I hope it backfires on Bush like a clogged up shotgun.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Stan, that's not entirely true. Even if he owns the TV stations, he only leases the airwaves from the US government and is subject to certain rules, especially regarding political messages. Whether this type of movie falls within the scope of those rules is probably a matter for the courts and will undoubtedly end up there. If they push on with these plans, I won't be surprised to hear of a court order stopping the airing until after the election.
Now it's just as likely they know this and are counting on it, expecting the public to view an injunction as Kerry having something to hide. Anyway you look at it, it's dirty pool.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Looks like we're just a stone's throw away from this. My cousins in Italy are gonna tell me "I told you so".
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Does the film really accuse Kerry of betraying the soldiers in Vietnam, or merely doing what he actually did, which is come back and criticize the war in testimony to congress? (As I understand it... I could be wrong.)
I don't think this kind of mandated commercial free broadcasting is incredibly productive. And cooler heads will probably prevail. I mean, if Bush can't win a debate, can't produce Bin Laden, can't find WMDs then he doesn't deserve to win. Though I can see how right wingers might be frustrated by the mainstream media proclaiming Kerry the winner of the debates.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: I hope it backfires on Bush like a clogged up shotgun
UMMM....(from Ben's link)
quote: A Bush campaign spokesman said the camp has nothing to do with Sinclair Broadcasting, the anti-Kerry film or Sinclair's plan to air the film just before this year's tight election
What if they are actually telling the truth about not having anything to do w/ it.
edited to add: You are right on the air wave issue Karled. And yeah, it's one big political mess.
[ October 11, 2004, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
This is why McCain is my favorite Republican.
quote:The decision of Sinclair Broadcast Group, which ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline," has received criticism from U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.
Friday's edition will broadcast the names and photographs of the more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war.
"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces," McCain, a Vietnam veteran, wrote in a letter to David Smith, president and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group.
"It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."
...
An earlier statement from Sinclair accused ABC of politicizing the war.
"Mr. Koppel and 'Nightline' are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq," the statement said.
Stan, Sinclair "tell the truth"? I don't think so...
According to the Center for Public Integrity:
"Sinclair has also given more money to Republicans in the form of campaign contributions, proportionately, than even Bush benefactor, Clear Channel Communications Inc. Between 1996 and mid-2004, Sinclair has contributed 89 percent of its $2.3 million in contributions to Republicans. Clear Channel, by comparison, has donated 65 percent of its $10 million in contributions to Republicans, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis."
[ October 11, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Defenestraitor ]
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Defenestraitor, I was talking about the other more unbelievable portion in that comment. The GWB spokesperson.
Yes, I know it carries the same "I don't think so."
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
My bad, Stan. I misread your post.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
That's ok. I misread Corwin's almost all the time. Unfortunately it is always when he is joking.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Bush campaign spokesman said the camp has nothing to do with Sinclair Broadcasting, the anti-Kerry film or Sinclair's plan to air the film just before this year's tight election --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I'm sure Bush's cronies have made every effort to provide him plausible deniability.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just think it's interesting that it's being argued on a broadcasting/election bias point rather than libel or slander or what have you.
P.S. What happened to that thread that claimed everything produced by the right was doomed to be lacking in taste and efficacy?
[ October 11, 2004, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Libel and/or slander would be infinitely more difficult to prove. If you were to say "The war in Iraq was a mistake" and I were to say (or write, or make a movie claiming) that "Pooka does not support our troops or our country. He is unfit to even be allowed to post on this board. In fact, he is a traitor to our country because his decrying of our foreign policy is giving aid to the terrorists", you'd have a hard time proving libel or slander because those statements are basically opinion. An opinion can't really be proved to be a lie.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, except you said "He". And you know how men are a hated and oppressed sector in our society.
I guess distributing the film in a way that guarantees it will be prevented from screening with great publicity is cheaper than actually producing the show.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
What's the big deal again? TV stations are showing a documentary about what Kerry did after Vietnam. They're not criticizing Kerry's service and it gives people a chance to see a "documentary" that's not made by Michael Moore. If you don't like it, don't watch.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Then you'd not complain if, for instance, CBS decided to put Fahrenheit 9/11 on national television prime-time on November 1?
Because you know once Michael Moore hears about this, that's the first idea that's going to pop into his mind...
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
don't see that it is that big of a deal. Moore was planning on rushing F911 to TV before the election (though I think he might have decided against it because of the academy awards)
if the Bush camp was in charge of the movie, it would be bad...but if this guy watch to show a movie, he should be able to...just as Moore should be able to advertise his movie.
[ October 12, 2004, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Lupus ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I dunno... I'm not saying I wouldn't like to WATCH this movie... but it seems wrong. If they do this, then I would say they have no way to stop F9/11 from airing either. (The infamous "they")
So... I'm against it.
-Katarain
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
the only 'they' that might stop F9/11 from airing is Moore.
The problem originally was if he showed it on TV before the 9 month mark he could not get the best documentary award at the academy awards
Though he has now pulled it out of contention for that award...so he can show it on TV. He is in talks to show it on payperview.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I can understand why you wouldn't want F 9/11 shown, but I can't think of any legitimate complaint especially when networks can have news magazines air politically charged shows *cough* 60 Minutes *cough* that use evidence just as questionable as what Michael Moore uses. So one's in documentary form and the other is in news magazine form, what the difference?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
while F911 has opinions abound, i don't think it's evidence is questionable. it's editing, maybe. but it's "facts" seem to be just that, facts.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Actually, Moore's shooting for a Pay-Per-View showing of his movie the night before the election.
[ October 12, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: docmagik ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm trying to understand how Michael Moore's(Modern Day Leni Riefenstahl) film can make an Anti-Bush film but if anyone on the other side makes and Anti-Kerry film that it's "bad" somehow.
As for backfiring in "Bush's" face. It has nothing to do with Bush.
Or to put it another way, It has as much to do with Bush as Kerry does with Michael Moore's film.
And F9/11 did that for me. Made me more conservative and less liberal.
And Moore's opinions aren't Fact. Anyone who believes his film is a fool for propaganda. It has as much fact as the SBV ads.
Congratulations!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm trying to understand how Michael Moore's(Modern Day Leni Riefenstahl) film can make an Anti-Bush film but if anyone on the other side makes and Anti-Kerry film that it's "bad" somehow.
I think the issue is not that the existence of the film is bad, but that someone is requiring that the stations he owns broadcast the film for explicitly partisan reasons.
quote:And F9/11 did that for me. Made me more conservative and less liberal.
Well, heck, I'm not surprised. Merely hearing people make the point that civil unions are an unsatisfactory alternative to civil marriage as long as civil marriage exists made you, by your own admission, stop caring about gay rights altogether and turned you into a hard-core bigot -- just because you disliked the people arguing. It must be really, really difficult for you to listen to people without constantly changing your mind to piss them off.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
quote: "Sinclair's plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes," Media Matters CEO David Brock said in the letter.
Explain to me how this differs from all of the propaganda aired through the various commercials the different party supporters air? Is it merely because this is longer?
Honestly I'm so disgusted with this election. My head hurts trying to wade through all the garbage on both sides of the two sided campaign.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Because individuals are supposed to be prohibited from airing campaign ads with their own money before the election. It's illegal. This is an attempt by an individaul to use their personal media power to circumvent that law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And now we see how campaign finance laws do amount to censorship. Here's a person about to exercise his right to free speech. If Xap's right, and it's against the law, then the law requires censorship. And, of course, if Xap's wrong about this law, then it's not illegal.
I'd much rather see F9/11 aired non-stop until the election than to see the government restrict political speech so blatantly.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I thought about this long and hard before putting my opinion up because I wanted to be sure my answer wasn't because of my politics. I tried to imagine what if it was the other side and it was a democrat doing something similar?
I think I still have to come down on the side of free speech. I heard a democratic senator arguing that it was against the public interest to have this aired, and it made me think what else he might consider against the public interest? Say a station owner wanted to air a documentary about the life of Jesus and someone decided that would be against the public interest? How would I feel then? I'd feel that it was a violation of free speech to tell a private citizen what he can say over a station he owns, unless it violates a law, (for example pornography or some such)
Now, if this does violate the law because of CFR, then I guess it can't be shown. That doesn't mean the law is right though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think we need checks on campaigns. I also think we need to protect the nature of usage of the airwaves.
[ October 12, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I am absolutely in favor of boycotts (or petitions which carry the implied threat of boycotts) in these situations. That's free speech and the market system at their finest.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Posted same time as Ben![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)