Apparently from the following article,

Anti-Kerry Broadcast Planned

the Sinclair Broadcast Group plans to run an uninterrupted film that trashes Kerry regarding his statements to Congress about Vietnam. This is planned for a couple of weeks before the election.

At issue seems to be equal time for candidates, campaign finance law and regulation of the public airwaves.

For debate:

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?

If so, should Farenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?

Remember that movie theaters aren't under the same regulations as television broadcasts when it comes to election seasons.

This is somewhat disturbing to me quite frankly. I'm not sure what the specific laws concerning this are, but in the past broadcasters have shied away from airing programs that dealt with or featured political candidates running for office. Back when Vincent Bugliosi, the Manson prosecutor, was running for office in California broadcasters here refused to run the movie Helter Skelter, and of course when Arnold was running for Governor, none of his movies aired in California. This may set a bad precident I think.

I've seen the movie in question, it's called Stolen Honor and it's available for viewing (online pay-per-view)/DVD purchase or some free trailers on this website. I would recommend at least watching the free samples of this movie for those who seek to understand the level of anger that many Vietnam veterans hold towards John Kerry. Probably not going to change any minds here, but it will add to some's understanding of what really happened back then.

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?

If the movie does not endorse Bush, I'm not sure it violates the law.

Certainly, concerts by such worthies as Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam and others link have had no such outcry. I am not sure what is different here. This particular concert is raising money for Kerry advocacy groups (such as Moveon.org), if not for Kerry himself.



Is there a difference here?

If so, should Farenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?

Should Sarah Evans or Charlie Daniels be included in the "Voices Against Bush" crowd?

This is yet another example of how our "freedom of speech" boils down to, if you've got the money and the power, you can use the airways. While many would be quite afraid of our government taking over the television, it is taken over all the time by special interest groups.


I don't know enough about the laws to say whether it can be prohibited. It's easier to say that it is easy for viewers to confuse Sinclair's campaigning against Kerry for just a "timely" documentary, and for that reason it should not be aired.


Michael Moore's film was shown in movie theaters to those who paid to see it. I don't see it as the same as a media group using its power to sway the voters. Further, I do not know that showing Fahrenheit 9/11 would be effective in "neutralizing" the other film's message in how it may influence the election.

I guess the fairness went out the window for this election some time ago.

If the movie does not endorse Bush, I'm not sure it violates the law.

The above argument is absurd. (hey mods, that is a quote from Bush in his debate, so you gotta let it fly here.)

So Amlord would find it perfectly acceptable for ABC to air Farenhieght 9-11 on the same night. Moore does not endorse a candidate.

Certainly, concerts by such worthies as Bruce Springsteen and Pearl Jam and others link have had no such outcry. I am not sure what is different here.

I can relate going to a concert to going to a movie, but I cannot relate paying to go see a concert to having this movie piped directly into my home on the same channel that provides the news. (And I know you would see it differently if we were discussing another aforementioned movie).

I think that an important medium is being overlooked. These are PUBLIC airwaves.

Well, if people don't want to watch the documentary, they can always do what you suggested back in January.



Or back in February......



Well, Paladin Elspeth, this documentary has an important message too.

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?

I'm going to make the assumption that if it weren't legal to show it, it wouldn't be shown (or at least a major legal campaign to block it would be underway). Since that doesn't seem to be the case, it should be allowed. In fact, I would suggest this might be the wave of the future, like it or not, as special interest groups continue their dominance of politics (which is the 6th of 7 stages in the fall of democracy, if I remember correctly).

If so, should Farenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?


I don't know--should Sean Hannity be allowed to have a rebuttal every time Dan Rather airs something? There's nothing unfair about this--everyone had an equal shot at purchasing the airtime. The equal time laws in public television don't apply (or again, the legal wheels would already be grinding).

Kudos to you, Aquilla, for your facility in pulling up my posts!

Now let's contrast the MoveOn ad, which was not allowed to be run on ABC (yeah, the Sinclair Group owns a lot of ABC, doesn't it), and this program.

First of all, obviously, is the length of the "commercial," and let's be fair about this: this is a commercial against Kerry. It will have far more impact than the MoveOn ad simply because of its length and the fact that "the boss says" it has to be run.

Money talks; more money talks longer. So if you want the advantage, don't worry about a grassroots effort, just have the money you need. Better yet, own the stations.

Really Amlord I am suprised. I realize this election cycle has been long and somewhat bitter, but that is no excuse for subjecting your opponents to Sarah Evans or Charlie Daniels.
The difference between the television show and the concert is that you gotta want to pay to go to the concert. As for the Ad,,Who actually watches network television anymore?



Strange Aquilla. I suppose you are right. It wouldn't change my thinking. I would have bet that the response from the Vets would have been to tell both sides to go to Hell. That they had already given enough to those who never appreciated it and to leave them alone. I have found it very suprising just how many Vietnam Vets have been silent. I grew up hearing anger over Vietnam and the governments willingness to sacrifice them for a bad cause. I also remember the anger over rich kids hiding out stateside because of their father's connections. It didn't come from the liberals i encountered growing up but from the Vets themselves. Due to the affiliations of many of my family friends I knew a great many vets growing up. Yet in regards to this there has been a deafening silence.
Vietnam is long past and serves, to me, only as a reminder to always go to war as a LAST resort. The mentioned impression I got from many of the vets i knew was a major part of my decision to never enlist in the military--EVER.
It also is responsible for my way of thinking in that reassessment of plans in response to results is also of critical importance.
Perhaps this is why when i read Kerry statements to congress i do not get angry, but agree with him. Soldiers coming home from Vietnam were given the shaft all around. Accused and labeled unjustly by the ignorance of the 60s antiwar movement and used and tossed aside by the government. They couldn't even get the medical care they were and are promised. my impression growing up has been that those who had been so willing to send them off to war got awful tight with the purse strings when it became their turn to fulfill their promises.
I realize some of the Elder generations still have some vitriol stored from that era, but it holds no sway over my thinking.
Its like asking me to be upset over the death of Francis Ferdinand. I would only turn off the tv. My question would be does it show the other side. Those who were very bitter at their government for wasting their lives in the foolishness that is/was the Domino Theory. A justification of war by cowards and people who have no faith in what America is.

Seems clear to me that the Vets are again political cannon fodder and still continue to get none of what they earned by their service.
When I see a complete rejection in regards to closing their hospitals and the cutting of funds for the medical treatment they earned will i ever take any of the rhetoric seriously.

That's not true. Sinclair is forcing their stations to broadcast the program. The time was not "purchased" and there was no equality in the process that dictated it.

It is also true that the DNC has filed an FEC complaint. Regarding other legal actions, this is breaking news. It takes time to get the wheels in motion.

I see a big difference over what gets broadcast over public airwaves and what gets put over cable or through the dish. So does the FCC. Regulations are much tighter for the public airwaves. For example, cable/dish can carry more adult content during prime time than the public stuff.

I'm wondering if Sinclair is pushing the envelope here. After all, most folks do cable or dish than rabbit ears. But cable carries the old big three networks, and so it becomes part of the public stuff even though people pay for it.

Should Sinclair be allowed to broadcast under current law? It's an interesting question that should be answered after the election, once there's enough time to really think it out. For now, no change. Eh, let them have their little broadcast. Even though they think they control people's minds, I have serious doubts for those with minds. Those without probably don't care to vote anyway.

Should F-9/11 be required to broadcast directly afterward? Yes. The FCC should force this issue as an ad hoc reg. Then Sinclair can take 'em to court after the election.

Else pull the plug on Sinclair.

Ah, power!

This boils down to the following, then: should Sinclair be allowed to broadcast what it wants, with the viewers then deciding whether or not to watch it(and their other shows), or should the government regulate what is broadcast. Clearly, the status quo is the latter. I'm good with it either way it goes...if it decided to be a legal broadcast, fine...if the legal process takes it off the air, that's fine too.



Interesting....Rather has been broadcasting partisan messages for decades now, and they haven't been after him . I guess it has to do with how blatant you are?



Where exactly would/should this be regulated? Exactly when does a documentary become partisan--topic? content? degree? (this could even be a plus for Kerry, showing that he is willing to stand up for his convictions) Is reporting of soldier casualties without also reporting reconstruction successes partisan? Is reporting positive aspects of polls for one candidate and only negative aspects for another? Would a news report detailing problems with one campaign, without a similar emphasis on another, be partisan? The fact is, all of these are partisan. We're trying to paint a line on a big bowl of jello--its completely arbitrary. In the wake of private media efforts like Fahrenheit 9-11, etc. this line is going to be pushed ever farther back, to eventually become non-existent (or non relevant).

Democracy doesn't work if those who control the media have a vested interest in manipulating the political landscape (see this). When the founding fathers contemplated a free press, they never imagined television corporations that would stand to be rewarded with billions in tax breaks and regulatory exemptions for helping to elect the more pro-corporate candidate. The best hope for preserving the democracy our constitution intended is to eliminate all political advertising on television, our dominant medium, including such pieces as the Sinclair Group's anti-Kerry film. Candidates should be given a generous amount of free air time to let the voters hear directly from them. What to do about biased reporting remains a problem, but at least candidates would have a chance to rebut the inaccuracies.

siaga,

You make an excellent point here. Corporate control of media has been a problem for decades that looks to be coming to a head.

Here's the head I'm seeing: People aren't buying it as much as before. Newspapers aren't circulating and broadcasts aren't being watched as much as before . . . the Internet became popular.

Sinclair I think is trying to drum up some publicity for its outlets, trying to drive up viewership. Nothing better than a good, juicy, 30-year old situation to do this, right?

It's an interesting time when an icon of Network News comes tumbling down due to some guy's blog. It points to the more effective medium of the Internet for sharing information, questioning information, yammering on about opinion (as we so love to do ), and carrying on lively, meaningful debate

Although Sinclair may drop off the radar scope of public attention rapidly over this non-event it plans, the legal ramifications could become important down the road.

How important is it to regulate political discourse over media, including pay-for-service and the relatively free Internet? Can we trust people to make up their own minds as to what is important, true, false, slanted, biased, or balanced?

I'm not concerned about Sinclair's planned broadcast because I don't think voting people will be watching. Voting people are more interested in the actual presidential debate coming on Wednesday evening, what the candidates are actually saying, what has been done and what is planned to be done over the next four years.

What concerns me is a possible attempt at regulating all media with the expressed intent to enforce balance, but the net effect of censorship. It's not a huge concern because I believe it will be impossible to censor the Internet. That is, unless some sort of world dictatorship develops

Christoper wrote:




Ummm, look at my Avatar, if that is some kind of punishment then Redliner says "bring it on bad boy!!!!!!"

Now on to the serious question:



Absolutely. I am surprised at anyone being opposed to a "documentary" being aired. This is freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the era of "campaign reform". This is what all the hubbub was about, wasn't it? (sarcasm intended).

Sinclair says it is being handled as a "news" story. Dan Rather handled fake documents as a news story, but instead he didn't cover the possible forgery of these documents as "news", but the implication contained within the "non authenticated" documents as the "news".

It appears that we got what we paid for with "Campaign reform".

I don't know how pertinent this article is to the debate at hand, but I thought it interesting enough to post since it regards the Bush administrations use of the internet as an anti Kerry attack medium:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65142,00.html

Thanks for the article, moif. It does talk to the bigger media issue that I went off on a little tangent about.

Sinclair's broadcast might actually influence one or two voters. Who knows, but the impact of the Internet is here to stay, and stay with significant changes in how campaigns manipulate, er I mean, educate the voting public.

Don't think anyone has it right yet. Spamming sites and individuals could just irritate folks. Getting caught in whoppers by factcheck.org could be a backfire situation.

Could this actually evolve to force political campaigns to be honest?

I'd like to see that.

It's funny that all those clamoring for "freedom of speech" in airing this "movie" were the same people who were against showing the Reagans! Personally, I believe it is their station and they can do what they want to do. I also think that nobody cares about this. Some group of Veterans are clearly mad at Kerry for what he did and others LOVE him for what he did. If this does get aired, the Kerry campaign should air a similar documentary featuring the godd things he did and having those Vets who support him speak.

This is a tired issue. Now that the debates have started and, by most accounts, the Republicans are 0-3, people care more about the issues NOW than what happened 30+years ago.

Yes, there is a big difference here Amlord and that is that Sinclair is a broadcast chain that is utilizing the public airwaves to broadcast what is an partisan poltical message. You have to pay to see Bruce Springsteen or REM at a concert heart. It doesn't matter if rock stars with a political message are charging willing customers for their own partisan cause. The customers (which would presumably include Republicans and conservatives) decide to go to these shows. No one is forcing them.

Sinclair is directing their stations to dump their regular programming to air a propaganda piece followed by a discussion. They are describing this as a "news" program which is exempt from equal time and fairness doctrines. This is the same Sinclair Broadcast Group that refused to air Nightline when Ted Koppel made the unpardonable sin of reading the names of fallen U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

I have the misfortune of living in a city where Sinclair owns a television station. Trying to equate this garbage with "Fahrenheit 9/11" or rock n' rollers against Bush is an apples-and-oranges argument. You can choose to see the movie or concert. Now I have to deliberately avoid this right-wing hatchet job on one of my local channels.

My son pointed out a bumper sticker the other day. It read KILL YOUR TELEVISION. In times like this that makes pretty good sense.

I am surprised by how powerless some here feel. We live in a country designed to give 'the people' 'the power'. The power of boycott is a powerful tool consumers have in a free country. For example, when CBS wanted to air The Reagans, the number of people who threatened to boycott CBS and its advertisers was so overwhelming that CBS pulled the show. If enough people were to do the same with Sinclair, they would pull the show in a heart beat. I would respect such tactics.

What I oppose is the tactic of government censorship. Senator Durbin (D) was saying on ABC today that the government should censure the Sinclair documentary because it would be in the public interest. This type of talk bothers me. When China censures news, movies, media, websites, etc they use that exact same argument.

I have no doubt that this is where we will eventually end up--it will simply become too easy to use the Internet for fact checking, and word of improper statements will spread too fast to too many people. But, we're not quite there yet--and, once we get there, we will find that all we have done is shift the medium, not the events. Campaigns will still be mounted, by both the media corporations and the politicians, but they will be done using this new medium--but still contain all the same elements. One thing the Internet does far faster than spread information....is spread disinformation.



Documentary, Nighttimer....historical documentary. Yes, I know...but that is how it is being played. And, in all honesty, probably with some merit. As I said in my earlier post, exactly where is the line that divides documentary from partisan political message? One could easily make the claim that the major news networks had been broadcasting partisan political messages for decades...it is a fine line, and no one really knows where to draw it. I think the only viable avenue is the one Deerjerkydave proposes--use your power of democracy, either by not watching, or by boycotting.

Although I certainly understand the arguments presented here, I have to wonder somewhat if this isn't a case of they doft protest too much. If the show is clearly partisan, it will be obvious, I think--and therefore have little effect. However, if it is in fact accurate and/or believable, then it may indeed sway things. Of course, you'd have to watch it for it to sway you--how many of the Kerry camp here are planning on viewing? FWIW, I did just listen to the VP of Sinclair address some of the charges, and he made a good case. I think this may end up somewhat like the protests of NightLines airing of the commemoration of those that had lost their lives in the war...after actually viewing it, is wasn't nearly as bad as they had foreseen.

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?
Unfortunately, I think that this is within the bounds of the law, although I personally believe it is certainly pushing the boundaries. Even if this show does not explicitly endorse Bush, it certainly will denegrate Kerry and I think that the association to the election is clear enough that an outright declaration of "Vote Bush for president" is not necessary.

What is probably worse is that this directly conflicts with the position Sinclair took on showing the soldiers returning from Iraq. Press Release


Can we say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y? I think it is an undeniable fact that this documentary has a political bent as well with the goal of influencing public opinion and encouraging people to vote against Kerry. So, a political agenda is unacceptable unless of course it is Sinclair's political agenda.

After Dan Rathers fiasco, The West Wing, and Politcal Director Mark Halperin's directive to judge Bush harder, and this: http://www.mediatenor.com/index1.html (Click on the SLANT-O-METER)

I simply consider this some eqaul time for years of ANTI-BUSH anti-GOP coverage.

Here is a question. Someone name me a movie where the President was a GOOD REPUBLICAN? OR.... name me a movie where the political opposition was an EVIL DEMOCRAT?

Later,

SURFERH2O

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?

Yes.


If so, should Farenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?


No. I think Moore, anti-war vets, and others should get together and do two things (and within the next two weeks complete it!)

1. Show a documentary (online if necessary, short and to the point if time requires) showing that the horrors described by Kerry were taking place, and were widespread, according to many who were there. Show the My Lai photos, photos of the girl burned by Napalm, Pentagon Paper documents relating to Operation Phoenix, and the facts behind the movie, Casualties of War. NPR played a clip of Stolen Honor in which someone blamed Kerry for movies like 'Casualties of War'. But how is Kerry responsible for a movie based on facts? After which people were convicted for the rape and eventual murder of a teenage girl, thanks to the courage of a soldier who was there, who reported the crimes committed, after failing to be able to save her life?

2. Make a quickie film with actors portraying Bush's wild days, his draft dodging days, and then cutting to a simulated bombing of Baghdad, with child actors screaming under foam rubber and actors screaming and swearing at Bush. Have actors portray soldiers who have gone to jail or fled the country to keep from going back to Iraq. Then get the so-called liberal media to run it, and see how quickly the FCC steps in.

The sad thing is, this film will work on some. But I don't see how. It can only smear Kerry on two counts: It can say that these things didn't happen (you'd have to be pretty ignorant to think they didn't) or it can say Kerry (and by extension, the My Lai photographer and the soldier who reported his buddies' rape and murder) should shut up about these things, so Americans and the world can ignore them.

Yessiree nighttimer, and this would be an effective boycott of manipulative media too!

I don't miss anything that we use to see on cable TV. In fact, since dropping cable and ignoring the public airwaves (other than radio) I'm feeling right mellow with things.

This Sinclair experiment will be interesting to read about on the Net, if it generates anything of interest. I just don't think it will. As pointed out several times, media will probably get away with anything that doesn't specifically endorse a candidate. Still, I'm no expert on how these laws work during an election season. Will be looking for reports on that level, too.

But television? Shoot the tube or use it just for DVDs. I like that idea.

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?FCC won't prevent airing of anti-Kerry film, chairman says

Basically my understanding is there is no law preventing broadcaster to show this film.

If so, should Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?

Only if the broadcaster wants to show it. Broadcaster are not suppose to be fair and balance, so they are not held by any laws with regards to giving equal time to both candidates.



It is your first admendment right to make the films, it is your first admendment right to show the films. Besides 9/11 will be on pay pre view.

An interesting update to this story, A Vietnam Vet connected to the movie Stolen Honor is filing a libel suit against the film's producer, Carlton Sherwood.


If they are telling bald faced lies about someone with no political agenda or position, wonder how true the stuff about Kerry is

I do hope the media picks this up and advertisers put more pressure on Sinclair because of it. Incidently, Sinclair has lost roughly 13% of its stock price in the last 10 days probably due to this decision. The guys over at DkoS have launched an aggressive campaign against Sinclair advertisers and it appears to be working.

1. The law would actually not prohibit the Sinclair Group from airing this program. I don't believe that at this point in the campaign that a slanted documentary is going to dissuade any Kerry voters.

2. Showing Farenheit 9/11 directly afterward would be perfectly legal, yet unlikely to happen unless a cable network decides to do so. Micheal Moore's zealot nature has kept him on the fringes of society and outside of network air time as opposed to being prohibited from being aired by law. If the Sinclair group can get their show on the tube, so be it.

The funny thing about discussions such as these is that the answer is quite simple. The legality is a non-issue. Liberals whom are against such shows should simply not watch the show. Movies such as Mr. Moore's being shown in mainstream theatres , concerts by large-name bands, and other assorted celebrity endorsements probably have a larger impact on swing voters than a show made specifically to malign Kerry. I would venture to guess that nearly all of the information, true or not, has been aired on the net or otherwise.

We've already proven that campaigns spin information to include what some people would deem "untrue". Why can't a broadcasting group, within the law, discuss Kerry flaws? Remember the first amendment.

Not likely. Fahrenheit 9/11 is probably not going on cable because the producers want to maximize any profits they make on selling DVDs. The same reason why the Matrix didn't play on cable a few months after the DVD release. They eventually put it on HBO.

I heard, however, that it will be a pay-per-view movie. So you can order it off your TV.

Sure. They just have to accept that they've alienated a large portion of their audience. I, personally, have looked up and refused to watch anything this group puts out. I've also told their advertisers I won't buy any of their products. Oh, the power of one.

But, its totally legal.

Darn that liberal media.

Well I took a look back over the thread and I didn't see anyone that describes themselves as liberal posting that the government should step in and not allow Sinclair to show this program. What I do see is a lot of people questioning the legality and suggesting it is pushing the envelope, but no one is demanding the FCC get involved. So that leaves me wondering where you got that blanket statement from aevans176.

And actually, the legality is the issue, in fact it is the very issue we are debating here.


It isn't about the first amendment, it has more to do with the Equal Time Rule:

Congress even gave a few exemptions, which this show doesn't qualify for:

So, what everyone is really suggesting here is that the Sinclair group is violating the equal time rule by showing this documentary. The documentary without a doubt primarily focuses on Kerry in a negative light. I personally don't feel that it is something we'll get resolved before the election, I only hope that the pressure activist groups are putting on Sinclair's advertisers (and in turn their bottom line) hurts just enough to stop it.

This is a dangerous trend to set, and while you may be jumping for glee aevans176 because it benefits your candidate, it could very well turn against you in the next election or the election after that. That is the funny thing about precedents, they tend to effect everyone at some point or another.

If so, should Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?

Neither of them should be aired for the reasons Aquilla listed in his first post. Here's an update.



To recap you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't have faith Sinclair will depict the events in question as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Mark "Iron" Hyman knows a thing or two about journalistic integrity, and your partisan outcry won't breach his and Sinclair's resolve to be fair to Kerry.

Is this is a "freedom of speech" issue?... I don't believe it is

If the "liberal media" united and forced F/911 (which viewers had to pay to see and actively seek out) to the mainstream television, a selfish part of me would be pleased, but understanding of the conservative outrage which you know would be able to hear all the way to the moon.

Can we all step aside from our investment in our parties to recognize this for what it is, which is a large corporate controlled media empire excersizing unprecidented control over our elections? I think this is distinct from "liberal media" (if such a thing ever existed) because this is one entity controlling our political destiny, as opposed to a general media sector where the players act [largely] independently of each other).

Do the conservatives out there not see the dangers of this even though thier guy benefits? To allow one corporation to push thier political agenda into 25% of american homes can't be good for democracy can it?

or am I wrong again?
Jacabo

In terms of precedent, I am beyond confident that these documentaries will have little outcome on the elections either now or in the future. The negative press surrounding such films automatically dictates that a large portion of people viewing said political "films" are predisposed to accepting the information as truth.

I truly believe that the argument against a Sinclair documentary stems from the fact that it revolves around John Kerry. The Sinclair organization has a history of journalistic reliability and will undoubtedly make an attempt to report with candor. With that in mind, CBS cannot even make such claim.

The idea that I was attempting to suggest is that Far. 9/11 is more than welcome to air on any television station willing to broadcast the documentary. The law discussing equal air time prohibits neither. However, as previous posts suggest, Mr. Moore may be more concerned with profitability and it's unlikely to air on either cable or network television (possibly HBO or pay per view). If that's the case, then the likelihood of it hitting cable is fairly small.

The stark reality is that people whom are Kerry supporters (as I indicated in the previous post) are very unlikely to watch such a documentary (assuredly not with an objective view). There may be a small percentage of undecided voters whom choose to watch the documentary, but I would assume with a certain amount of apprehension. If I had to make an educated guess, it will appeal to polarized voters. All I was eluding to was that it fell within the equal air time clause and that whether it would have any affect on this election is debatable.

I believe the fallacy in your logic is that 25% of American viewers will more than likely not be watching this program. The availability of a program such as this is very similar to Far. 9/11 in that you have the choice to watch it or not. From what I've read, it falls within the equal air time clause. With that in mind, what is dangerous? If the program contains factual information in reference to Kerry, then maybe it's even a service to the public. I would applaud such a program about Mr. Bush (which Far 9/11 is far from factual and objective).

Yes, I see the issue...my take is that this type of thing is inevitable, and will become increasingly difficult to police. As I said in my first post...exactly what consitutes bias or propoganda? One could certainly make the claim, with at least some justification, that almost everything CBS shows is biased...even down to the way they discuss poll results. How do you police that? While I am certainly willing to admit that the airing of this is politically motivated....that doesn't mean the content necessarily is. I think the Nightline documentary on those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan was also politically motivated (although not necessarily intentionally so), however, everything I heard about it afterward indicated that it really did not have that effect or appearance. However, even if this is slanted....it seems obvious that this type of thing will only become more and more common. It is worth noting that Kerry was given the opportunity to air a response after the showing, but declined. I would think that presenting the opportunity would go a long way towards meeting the equal airtime requirement.

[quote=aevans176,Oct 19 2004, 08:07 AM]
[quote=jacabo,Oct 19 2004, 09:40 AM] then maybe it's even a service to the public. I would applaud such a program about Mr. Bush (which Far 9/11 is far from factual and objective).[/quote]

I think you have been completely blinded by your politics Aevans on this issue. You haven't even seen the movie, and your already proposing that it's a service to the public because (by use of exclusion) it is factual and objective. You are basing this entirely because it falls in line with your political views. This documentary (and all documentary) is NOT journalism, and therfore as I have argued many time in F911 threads, has absolutely no responsibility or perogative to do anything but convice the watchers of its argument, which in this case, is that John Kerry is a horrible man who harmed POW's through his actions.

Unless this documentary is monumentally bad (which from all previews, it appears it has incredibly low production values for something being broadcast across the nation), it by definition will not be in any way "factual and objective."

Your understanding of what documentary is really needs to be merged with the reality of the art form. We're not talking history channel or Nanook of the North here, we're talking about politically motivated filmmaking. Which has never had any obligation to do anything but convince the view of it's viewpoint.

Edited to Add:

Just had a brain bubble, and forgot to add my contribution to the debate:

I'm in line with everyone else, there's unfortunately nothing directly illegal about this.

However, I find myself torn between my strong beliefs in free speech, and my very serious concerns that corporations are already rigging these elections so badly that we're losing our democratic process slowly but surely. I think this just pushes the bar further up, and we're further from the kind of democracy I would like to see in which Ideas and not Money are the determining factor in an election.

Obviously, I'm opposed to Sinclair's actions, but I see boycotting their other products as a captilist means of inflicting my will forcefully on others, simply because I disagree with their views, and would not take part in it. In the same way I do not agree when say the Republicans managed to get The Reagens thrown off the air. If I disagree with Sinclair's actions, the only way I can change them is through discourse, not through the monetary damages inflcited through a boycott. But how do you engage in discource with a mega-corporation? It's quite the conundrum for me. And one, I certainly don't have the answer for at this point.

Hobbes, I think there is a big difference between bias, which arguably all news stations have in some form or degree, and doing something that violates the equal time rule (which I feel this does). If you'll scroll up a few posts, you can see the relevant sections of that rule and read the whole thing if you like.

So, I think it is possible to police this kind of thing, we just have to decide to follow the laws which we have created in the first place. I really don't have any desire to see the government step in on the Sinclair thing, I think that might cause all kinds of problems with the election and we all know we'll have enough of them. But I'd like to see someone take a firm position on this after it is all over.

Should the Sinclair Broadcast Group be allowed under current law to broadcast this film about Kerry?

If so, should Farenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore) be shown directly afterward?

Yes let them broadcast it I think its going a little far to call it a news documentary. It will end up in court so let the courts decide it. As far as Farenheit 9/11 no they don't have to show it after the broadcast it suffers from the same problem as the program they will be broadcasting its a little hard to call either one a documentary.

I have a lot of faith in Americans to know what to watch and what to ignore. I don't have any problem with letting the courts decide it after the fact. I infact have not watched Farenheit 9/11 and I won't watch Stolen Honor. Niether will be fair to President Bush or Senator Kerry.

CJ, I agree that it is possibly to police these things currently....my concern is more for future trends. Given the bias we both seem to agree exists in the media (yes, on both sides)...what would prevent a similar issue from being addressed completely within the confines of 'news reporting'? As people discover how to work these things into the system (and they will), it will become harder and harder to police. Even in the current example, there seems to be grey area already. So, I really think what will have to happen then is fighting fire with fire...having your own 'documentary' ready to counter the opposition's likely 'documentaries'. Without that, you will run the serious risk of having the other side 'sneak one in', to which you will have no counter.

The point to me is less about the content and which candidate benefits. Its wether a major broadcast group can donate 90 minutes of commercial free air in prime time to a campaign. True they are trying to circumvent the law by labeling it as "News" programming, but I don't think there's much doubt that this is a gift pure and simple to the Bush campaign. Rather than trying to handle this through the FCC, it should be taken instead to the Federal Election commission. Either it should be ruled an illegal contribution or Kerry should get a similar timeslot to air whatever the heck he wants.

Since Sinclair owns stations affiliated to all the major networks, I'm suprised they haven't weighed in, there are contracts in place covering airing of network shows and failure to do so without good reason could jeapodize an affiliates status.

And that Hobbes, is exactly why the media needs to do two things:
1. Be more diversified, so that one group isn't holding a large percentage of the air waves.
2. Reform itself and actually start challenging politicians and asking tough questions. If they lie, it should be exposed. I can't even begin to count how many times that both sides have blatantly lied about something and the media has done absolutely nothing about it. If you've seen the Jon Stewart episode of Crossfire or heard his views on the media he is 135.36% correct.

I don't think the answer is more government regulation, with the exception of possibly forcing some of these large media conglomerates to break up, but the media itself needs to wake up and realize that they are just becoming another tool in the propaganda toolbox. You are exactly right, if something isn't done then in the future, many news programs are just going to become covert political ads (some already are).

I quickly scanned the thread and didn't the update I'm about to post. If I missed it I'm sorry.



I didn't see anything wrong with people boycotting The Reagans. I just boycotted a product myself for their terrible customer service. It appears that Sinclair is changing plans through a concerted boycott effort as well.



Sinclair posted a press release yesterday. They now claim that "contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts" they never intended to air the documentary in its entirety.

Sinclair will still air A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media. This film will still draw from Stolen Honor, however. CEO Smith defended Sinclair by stating:

You can order a copy of Stolen Honor from Sinclair's website. For the full critique, check out Slate:

The legality of airing the documentary has been addressed. I'll just add although I think the Michael Moore analogy fits two wrongs don't make a right and I wouldn't want his film aired either.

Edited to add Stolen Honor transcript.

It seems Sinclair has bowed to pressure (or was it that huge drop in their stocks?) and will only air portions of the anti-Kerry film spun into a shorter “news” program, on fewer stations than originally intended.

So they "didn’t even know what they intended". I don’t know that I can recall any media mogul ever admitting his own idiocy.

It’s funny how the film blames Kerry for every atrocity that ever occurred in Vietnam, and then Sinclair makes a statement like this:


Not smart.

Slate’s Dana Stevens characterizes the film as “… the kind of show you might come across at 2 a.m. as a paid infomercial on a local-access channel and leave on for a few minutes out of sheer fascinated disgust.”

Have you seen the film, DaffyGrl, or are you just going on the word of that bastion of impartiality, Slate? You can view portions of the movie here, if you dare.

Lesly, that is too funny. Who would have thought those bleeding heart, socialistic liberals would have the monetary leverage to affect Sinclair stock?

But smash-mouth politics? Hoo boy, someone needs to read up on political history in this and other countries. Clever and manipulative, yes. Smash-mouth, no.

Why am I sensing that this tactic came from the Demo meetups? That a network of influencial people exhanged ideas, perhaps in IM sessions, and whoomp! Sinclair backs down and slinks away. Man. Liberals with money -- what next?

Hey least it ain't the liberal rag known as NYT.



If you dare? Is that a goosebump cue? I watched the MSNBC clips, Aquilla. I can't believe Sinclair dared to contemplate broadcasting Stolen Honor two weeks before elections. The unmitigated gall to call themselves impartial, deny they ever intended to show the whole thing, and squelch questions by wrapping themselves up in the 1st Amendment feigning victimhood.

Oh wait. Do I feel a... is that a... twinge of fear?

Oh, false alarm. Just need to use the bathroom.

It isn't even really monetary leverage so much as activism. If you want to check out how this was pulled off it is worth taking a look at the entry on the Dkosopedia. This is one very vocal group that went after Sinclair's advertisers. Hurt them on their balance sheet and on wall street, brilliant!

This whole thing proves that sometimes, it is better to work around the system than to use it. If someone had taken this before the government, it would have taken forever for any action to occur, Sinclair would have gotten loads of free press for it, the Republicans could have probably tried to claim Kerry, the Democrats and Liberals were trying to subvert free speech and in the end they would have likely have been able to show the film anyway.

As it stands they lost 15% of their stock price, millions in advertising revenue, could find themselves in a few lawsuits with shareholders, have lost credibility and generally have been made to look ridiculous. I much prefer this method

Well, it is Halloween month, creepy stuff and goosebumps are appropriate...guess I could use a good scare.

I was merely commenting on the news story and Sinclair's actions IN REGARDS to the film, NOT the film itself. What is it, Pick on the Duck Day?

WABBIT SEASON!! Fire!

The
NY Times Review of the film was actually pretty positive. A few excerpts.


The Times take was that it was a good film, and could have been better if it hadn't been trying so hard to slam Kerry. But, ironically, Kerry seemed to be the impetus for the anger that drove making the film, so it's a bit of Catch 22. I talked to someone who saw it and he said he wanted to go apologize to every Vietnam vet he could after seeing this. Maybe I'll watch on the internet.