Kerry documentary- Is the truth anti-Kerry?
10-11-2004, 07:45 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: "It will take time to restore chaos." GWB
Posts: 3,461
Car Info: 72 Vespa with curb feelers
Kerry documentary- Is the truth anti-Kerry?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._tv/kerry_film
Do you think Kerry's past is fair game since they've picked apart GW's?
Somehow I doubt this will get on any channels where I live.
Do you think Kerry's past is fair game since they've picked apart GW's?
Somehow I doubt this will get on any channels where I live.
10-12-2004, 12:35 PM
#3
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I'm sure one of those 18 senators is McCain.
Anyway... why can't they show this film? Doesn't this fall under the same freedoms of speech Moore used to make Fahrenheit 9/11 as a 3rd party? Isn't Sinclair Broadcast Group a similar 3rd party? Besides general & somewhat significant Republican party members, I don't think Bush -or- any Senators directly addressed that movie as a "political low-blow" -or- made any major attempts to stop it from happening. But alas, when these same freedoms aren't convenient for the Dems you can bet there'll be hell to pay.
There's really no proof on what happened in Vietnam besides hearsay from other Veterans, a questionable record and the fact he admitted to war crimes with Hanoi Jane. As far as i'm concerned the movie is free game and voids slander if done properly. They could even "base it on a true story"
Anyway... why can't they show this film? Doesn't this fall under the same freedoms of speech Moore used to make Fahrenheit 9/11 as a 3rd party? Isn't Sinclair Broadcast Group a similar 3rd party? Besides general & somewhat significant Republican party members, I don't think Bush -or- any Senators directly addressed that movie as a "political low-blow" -or- made any major attempts to stop it from happening. But alas, when these same freedoms aren't convenient for the Dems you can bet there'll be hell to pay.
There's really no proof on what happened in Vietnam besides hearsay from other Veterans, a questionable record and the fact he admitted to war crimes with Hanoi Jane. As far as i'm concerned the movie is free game and voids slander if done properly. They could even "base it on a true story"
Last edited by Salty; 10-12-2004 at 12:40 PM.
10-13-2004, 10:57 AM
#4
This isn't allowed, for a very obvious reason.
They are running a one-hour ad for an in-kind ad for Bush. They are a 527 and this is illegal. If you think this is "fair game" you should really do some research into what the actual laws are.
Go to: http://www.sinclairwatch.org/
or
http://www.mediamatters.org/
Here's a link (http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=25213) with a quote from the FCC stating that it is unfair.
Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.
Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”
Still think its "fair game"?
They are running a one-hour ad for an in-kind ad for Bush. They are a 527 and this is illegal. If you think this is "fair game" you should really do some research into what the actual laws are.
Go to: http://www.sinclairwatch.org/
or
http://www.mediamatters.org/
Here's a link (http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=25213) with a quote from the FCC stating that it is unfair.
Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.
Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”
Still think its "fair game"?
10-13-2004, 11:06 AM
#5
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by njc200
This isn't allowed, for a very obvious reason.
They are running a one-hour ad for an in-kind ad for Bush. They are a 527 and this is illegal. If you think this is "fair game" you should really do some research into what the actual laws are.
Go to: http://www.sinclairwatch.org/
or
http://www.mediamatters.org/
Here's a link (http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=25213) with a quote from the FCC stating that it is unfair.
Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.
Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”
Still think its "fair game"?
They are running a one-hour ad for an in-kind ad for Bush. They are a 527 and this is illegal. If you think this is "fair game" you should really do some research into what the actual laws are.
Go to: http://www.sinclairwatch.org/
or
http://www.mediamatters.org/
Here's a link (http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=25213) with a quote from the FCC stating that it is unfair.
Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.
Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”
Still think its "fair game"?
-Chris
10-13-2004, 12:01 PM
#6
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
I actually did my homework because I don't post here without a loaded gun. I knew about everything you posted long ago but never mentioned it having had another question & point.
Since the invention of television Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have enacted a series of laws and regulations ensuring that stations provide accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major political candidates. An important component of this is a ban on donating advertising time, which is what this airing amounts to since it has zero fresh news value.
Broadcasters receive their licenses to use public airwaves for free, and one condition of that free licensing is that they help uphold free and fair elections, an obligation which has been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court.
The same could be said about right and left wing radio when they aren't talking about topics with fresh news value, right? I've heard Rush and Franken elude to past events and arguments numerous times over the airwaves.
Furthermore, while Moore has the right to free speech to advertise F9/11, his work "has zero fresh news value" and is meant as a political statement. These are the same airwaves the Sinclair Broadcast Group wants to use. So wouldn’t Moore's advertising fall under the ban on donating advertising time? It certainly had no fresh news value, right?
In the end we have the most emotional election in history, filled with countless amounts of half truths and disinformation. The propaganda machine is in full swing, "legitimate" news outlets are blatantly becoming mouthpieces for their political party.
Since the invention of television Congress and the Federal Communications Commission have enacted a series of laws and regulations ensuring that stations provide accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major political candidates. An important component of this is a ban on donating advertising time, which is what this airing amounts to since it has zero fresh news value.
Broadcasters receive their licenses to use public airwaves for free, and one condition of that free licensing is that they help uphold free and fair elections, an obligation which has been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court.
The same could be said about right and left wing radio when they aren't talking about topics with fresh news value, right? I've heard Rush and Franken elude to past events and arguments numerous times over the airwaves.
Furthermore, while Moore has the right to free speech to advertise F9/11, his work "has zero fresh news value" and is meant as a political statement. These are the same airwaves the Sinclair Broadcast Group wants to use. So wouldn’t Moore's advertising fall under the ban on donating advertising time? It certainly had no fresh news value, right?
In the end we have the most emotional election in history, filled with countless amounts of half truths and disinformation. The propaganda machine is in full swing, "legitimate" news outlets are blatantly becoming mouthpieces for their political party.
Last edited by Salty; 10-13-2004 at 12:08 PM.
10-13-2004, 02:38 PM
#7
I see your point, but there's still one glaring difference between the two pieces of "work"--Moore's is a film that one would voluntarily go see in a theater, while the "Lost Honor" one would be forcefed directly into many homes.
Also, the FCC regulates our television, whereas nobody regulates movies because a person choses to see a movie.
Also, the FCC regulates our television, whereas nobody regulates movies because a person choses to see a movie.
10-13-2004, 02:51 PM
#8
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by njc200
Also, the FCC regulates our television, whereas nobody regulates movies because a person choses to see a movie.
But your statement quoted ^above^ gets back to the Janet Jackson "accident" and the recent overregulation the FCC is doing . The major argument (mainly among leftists, 1st amendment activists and even myself) was that the viewer could simply turn the channel or turn off the power to the radio -or- television.
What's your view on that?
10-13-2004, 02:57 PM
#9
Originally Posted by Salty
I'll leave my argument at that seeing how we've both made a point.
But your statement quoted ^above^ gets back to the Janet Jackson "accident" and the recent overregulation the FCC is doing . The major argument (mainly among leftists, 1st amendment activists and even myself) was that the viewer could simply turn the channel or turn off the power to the radio -or- television.
What's your view on that?
But your statement quoted ^above^ gets back to the Janet Jackson "accident" and the recent overregulation the FCC is doing . The major argument (mainly among leftists, 1st amendment activists and even myself) was that the viewer could simply turn the channel or turn off the power to the radio -or- television.
What's your view on that?
If these people wanted this movie seen, they should release it to theaters, which is completely legal.
Here's an interesting flash movie that should be looked at on this topic.
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geek...41013042650709
10-13-2004, 02:59 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by njc200
I see your point, but there's still one glaring difference between the two pieces of "work"--Moore's is a film that one would voluntarily go see in a theater, while the "Lost Honor" one would be forcefed directly into many homes.
Also, the FCC regulates our television, whereas nobody regulates movies because a person choses to see a movie.
Also, the FCC regulates our television, whereas nobody regulates movies because a person choses to see a movie.
"Fair" and "allowed" are too different things. For this, only "allowed" applies to whether or not that documentary is going to air.
10-13-2004, 03:04 PM
#11
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by njc200
I wholeheartedly agree. However, its still out there for free for public consumption, whereas a viewer must buy a ticket to the Michael Moore movie to see it.
If these people wanted this movie seen, they should release it to theaters, which is completely legal.
Here's an interesting flash movie that should be looked at on this topic.
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geek...41013042650709
If these people wanted this movie seen, they should release it to theaters, which is completely legal.
Here's an interesting flash movie that should be looked at on this topic.
http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geek...41013042650709
But how is changing the channel not equal to not purchasing a ticket? I don't understand how you can support the deregulation of the FCC and support the FCC’s decision on this matter at the same time?
10-15-2004, 09:06 AM
#12
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by bassplayrr
OWN3D. Thanks for psoting that salty. I was going to post something similar, but couldn't find the FCC quote, and didn't want to post up any claims with no support. Kudos.
-Chris
-Chris
No problem, Chris.
FCC won't block documentary
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...on_t_block_doc
WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) topper Michael Powell doesn't think the federal government should get into the messy business of telling broadcasters what types of political shows they can and cannot air.
Powell said Thursday the FCC (news - web sites) will not step in to prevent Sinclair Broadcast Group from airing an anti-Kerry docu called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" in the final days before the election because the agency does not and should not have the power to do so.
Powell said Thursday the FCC (news - web sites) will not step in to prevent Sinclair Broadcast Group from airing an anti-Kerry docu called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" in the final days before the election because the agency does not and should not have the power to do so.
10-15-2004, 09:58 AM
#13
It is still very obvious why it SHOULDN'T be shown, but apparently Commissioner Cobbs must have been talking out his ***.
Although, here is an interesting point. The Kerry/Edwards people have written this letter to the Sinclair group:
So, under this decision, if Sinclair goes ahead and airs this program, they must give Kerry supporters EQUAL time. I doubt Sinclair is going to allow that.
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/ke_sinclair.pdf
Although, here is an interesting point. The Kerry/Edwards people have written this letter to the Sinclair group:
Originally Posted by kerry/edwards letter
Under the Federal Communications Commission's decision in Nicholas Zapple, 12 F.C.C.2d 707 (1970), a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate's campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate "quasi-equal opportunities."
http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/ke_sinclair.pdf
10-15-2004, 11:33 AM
#14
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 409
Car Info: 2003 WRX Wgn
I beleive they offered Kerry 15 min. to discuss the propoganda film in panel style. I could only imagine O'Rielly or other similar individual hosting the event. They would most assuredly stack deck.
Kerry declined to appear, for obvious reasons.
Kerry declined to appear, for obvious reasons.
10-15-2004, 11:37 AM
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by syncopation
I beleive they offered Kerry 15 min. to discuss the propoganda film in panel style. I could only imagine O'Rielly or other similar individual hosting the event. They would most assuredly stack deck.
Kerry declined to appear, for obvious reasons.
Kerry declined to appear, for obvious reasons.
