Slashdot Mirror
Stolen Honor: Sinclair Under Fire
worm eater writes "The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, in its latest politically charged move, has announced that it will air a 90-minute anti-Kerry documentary a week before the election. The video, 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,' was funded by a group of Pennsylvania POWs that has merged with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Sinclair, which is the largest TV broadcasting group in the nation, has 62 affiliates, many in swing states. It made news in April by refusing to let any of its affiliates air an edition of Nightline in which Ted Koppel read the names of US soldiers who had died in Iraq, saying the broadcast was politically motivated. Predictably, liberal blogs are fighting back."
Fahrenheit 911 is OK but this isn't? Doesn't that sound a little hypocritical?
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
Damn those liberals that control the media! This is just a vast conspiracy to distort Bush's record and try to get Kerry into office by bringing up stuff that happened decades ago. Can't they let the DWI arrest and the Guard service stories die?
Geesh. And all this time I never believed the stories about the "liberal media".
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
But on the other hand, they don't give an affirmative statement that the documentary is not intended to attack Kerry.
Since they're basically slashdotted, this is on their front page:
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
Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911- an utter lack of journalism but at least about events that happened in the last 4 years- but this will get on the air?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Very interesting. Do you have a link? Not that i don't trust you, i just want to read more about it.
... and tell them you're not going to be buying their products as long as they support Sinclair. Hurt Sinclair where it really stings - in the wallet.
List of Advertisers
Furthermore, just in case you don't think your phone call will do anything, see a little morale-booster from Kos.
Remember, the only logical standard for judging is "If the other side did the exact same thing, how would you feel?"
If your are pro-Kerry, but it wouldn't bother you to see a hatchet job on Bush at the same time by the same basic people, then you really have no grounds to complain.
Flip-side, if you are Pro-Bush, but would not want to see a hatchet job on Kerry at the same time, then you should not support this.
Personally, since I sort of fall into the latter category (I'm not 100% for Bush, but Kerry has completely failed to convince me he is better in the ways I personally care about; this is disclosure, not a request to be "corrected", OK?), my personal opinion is that this is an inappropriate action to take, and I don't care what side does it. If it was run earlier, I don't think I'd care, and there have certainly been hatchet jobs on both sides meeting this criteria, but the closer you get to the election, the more important it is for large entities to shut the hell up and leave the final voting as a matter between the candidates and the voters.
Fahrenheit 911 is OK but this isn't? Doesn't that sound a little hypocritical?
It's not hypocritical. People who see F9/11 are voluntarily paying $10 per movie ticket / $15+ per DVD to watch it. Plus, they have to make the decision to go out to the local cinema/video store to view/obtain it. Much more time-consuming that simply flipping on your television.
There would only be hypocrisy if F9/11 was being broadcast for free on television. But that's not the case.
POWs like John McCain? Scarred veterans like Max Cleland? Maybe the veteran William Laws Calley? For shame!
Maybe a drunk, AWOL frat boy high on coke and Air National Guard issue oxygen could help us set the record straight here? I hear he got kidnapped by Delta Kappa Phi once and forced to drink a whole keg of Bud, I guess that makes him not only a POW, but subject of cruel and unusual punishment as well. Talk about stolen honor...
Money for nothing, pix for free
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e1/equaltime.asp
a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires equal air time for all major candidates competing for political office. It was preceded by the fairness doctrine, abolished in 1987, which required radio and television broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial public issues.
See this thread from earlier as explanation why no, it is not the same thing.
Without regard to your political leanings, I suspect you will live to regret saying that.
What this really does is set a precedent opening the door to outright political warfare over the public airwaves. You can be certain if this goes forward, that some politically-motivated group will respond with an anti-Bush message much worse than anything even Moore would be accused of stooping to. (And remember, if it air's after the Kerry attack, there will be even less time for the forces-of-truth to pick apart the lies.) It may not happed this election cycle, but once the tactic is considered allowable, you can write-off any hope of getting fair and balanced coverage of the issues from any aspect of the public media. The prize will be just too big to ignore.
We mustn't be led into the trap of saying "it's okay for <one candidate> to get away with ruining our country, because <the other guy> got away with it; down that road lies only madness and ruin.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
wow. So many open targets...where to begin...
1. Michael Moore doesn't own 62 stations, and he didn't force anyone to show his movie. He made it, and people gladly lined up to see it. It may have been a little too conspiritorial in a few places, but no one has proved it untrue, and it's certainly not showing up masquerading as a news show.
2. Despite what you are determined to believe, while the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out and guess what, they support what's expressed in the memos. That's what made it possible to verify them. Everyone and their brother agreed that what's in them is true.
3. George Soros also has not forced anyone to broadcast anything. He's written a rational essay, and paid for it to be dispatched like any other advertising. See point #1.
Now if Dan Rather had put Fahrenheit 9/11 on TV and dressed it up as news, then you might have a point, but you seem to be hanging on to your simplistic views a little too tightly.
Why should anyone threaten somebody's freedom of speech just because they don't like what they stand for?
I didn't think anyone's freedom of speech was being violated? Or are you yet another person who thinks that everytime somebody doesn't get their way their right to free speech is violated?
Here's a hint. If their freedom of speech had been violated, we probably wouldn't be talking about this right now...
Just a slashdotter who's sick of all this "Foo's freedom of speech is being violated!"
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
As long as the TV station gives up its broadcasting rights (at least, for the private bit of spectrum it has a free, government mandated, monopoly on) for the duration of the broadcast, I certainly agree with you. A newspaper endorsing a candidate and printing the fact on its own paper with its own ink and distributing those papers with its own gasoline is certainly comparable to a TV station endorsing a candidate and transmitting the fact on its own wires and distributing those signals with its own huge long cables.
Did anyone else read the headline and think the same thing?
- Amendment I
While the "freedom of the press" could possibly be stretched to cover the situation, it's still a pretty big stretch. Congress is not doing a ruddy thing to silence a large media group. A corporation. Businesses are not people, and should not be viewed as individuals. There is no proviso securing the unhampered freedom of speech for a business; it's a right guaranteed only to human beings.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, if Kerry were to use his position as a senator to enact punitive bitch-slap legislation that was aimed at Sinclair, then yes; there's a clear violation. However, as it stands, what we have here is a media conglomerate throwing its corporate weight around to promote a particular political viewpoint. Period.
So much for the "Liberal Media" meme.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
Perhaps you missed the "hopefully it can be fixed in the future".
Oh, please. Sometimes, when people are angry, they make comments that aren't very well thought-out. To believe that this somehow implies that Kerry is going to abuse his power as president to hurt Sinclair is silly.
Also, I don't see CNN, ABC, or NBC airing Farenheight 9/11 during prime time.
but no one has proved it untrue
I suggest you do more research.
masquerading as a news show
Masquerading as a news show? The release itself is very clear that it is a film by an outside group, and the story above even says it a documentary. If they have to call it news to get around the horrible screw up of campaign finance reform just to get some fairness in the media, that's unfortunate. As I said, I sure as hell hope they fix all this before the next election.
the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out
Oh, yes, I forgot about the 86 year old democrat lady who just swears that even though she didn't type the memos that they are true. Uh huh. Sure. That's CBS trying to grab onto whatever credibility they could pick up off the floor.
George Soros also has not forced anyone
He's funded all kinds of lawyers against such targets as the swift boat veterans group, and funds several 527's which routinely attack Bush and the Republican party and anyone who would support them, including media outlets.
Nice try though.
>[T]his is really no different from the New York Times endorsing a candidate for president
The NY Times, or any other newspaper, doesn't use the publicly owned airwaves to distribute its copy and doesn't need a government license to publish. Sinclair, and all other teevee stations do and are subject to the FCC Fairness Doctrine and its implementing regulations. If this is OK, them I'm sure all our neo-con pals will be OK with Turner Broadcasting airing Farenheit 911 on Monday November 1, followed, of course, by a fair and balanced panel discussion at 11 pm PST.Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Excerpts from "Stolen Honor", from the ever witty Adam Felber.
Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
I like this quote from one of the web pages:
Sure, be outraged, but you can't do anything about it. The right exercised their outrage about Farenheight/911 as well, and that is also a "slanted, inaccurate documentary." It's funny how the biggest supporters of one thing can be the biggest opponents of the same thing when it is done by the other side.I think it's ridiculous that this is the same company that didn't let the Nightline air where Ted Kopple read the names of those killed in Iraq.
read the names of US soldiers who had died in Iraq, saying the broadcast was politically motivated.
Reading the names of the fallen used to be considered an act of honoring the memory of the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Honorable and truthful activities should be carried out regardless of whether some political faction or other thinks they can make hay from it.
It's yet another symptom of our society where perception trumps substance. What matters is how something is perceived - not what it actually is.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I don't understandy why this documentary is such a big deal then. This is a documentary (it's factual) that calls into question John Kerry's behavior after/during the Vietnam war. 60 Minutes aired a documentary that called into question George Bush's behavior during the war. 60 Minutes was broadcast on FAR more stations then this will be. Dan Rather reported misconduct by Bush during the war. It could be called news, history, documentary, whatever you want. The behavior of John Kerry at the same time is now being reported by some other source (although maybe less "reputable" than Dan Rather).
This is not a sensationalistic documentary like Moores, this is going to be speeches given by Kerry, an account of where he was, and interviews with wives of POWs who say that their husbands were made to listen to Kerry as torture when they were in prison (to demoralize them, I guess).
To complain about this but not Dan Rather's 60 Minutes is a double standard.
There is an important difference between the "documentary" Sinclair intends to broadcast and F9/11 and the concerts you cite. People actively chose to attend those concerts; they were not broadcast on TV. People paid money to go see F9/11. The concert halls and movie theaters are private property. By contrast, the airwaves are public property, and broadcasters are granted the privelege of using assigned frequencies with the understanding that they will not abuse that privelege. That is why, for example, the FCC levies fines for indecency. It would NOT be OK for a network syndicate to order its stations to broadcast F9/11 uninterrupted before the election, just as Sinclair's plans are not in the public interest.
some US Soldiers did many acts that we should not be proud of in Vietnam, although that is not to fault the majority who did act responsibly.
He's not lying, it did actually happen. I think he did the right thing by speaking out, nothing is served by papering it over and ignoring reality.
"The key issue here is this, this is a freedom of speech issue."
Incorrect. Airwaves are not "free speach" zones. They are heavily regulated finite resource. They are leased to business but they are a public resource. One of the requirements from the FCC is that they are administered in the public interest. Sinclair claims that this program is "news".
That claim - that this is a 90 minute news piece done for the public good - doesn't pass the laugh test.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
so I did some research on the owners and newscasters on CNN , ABC and NBC and found that they all gave large sums to the Democratic party and candidates.
Can you please provide a link to back this up?
I doubt that ABC and NBC would give money individually of their parent companies (Disney and GE? respectively).
I see Viacom gave $167446 to Kerry, and Time Warner (parent of CNN) gave $288,299.
Here is some information about donations to Bush, which includes similar contributions from big companies.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
The massacre at My Lai probably helped to sustain the fable as well.
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
This is not about freedom of speech, it's about using the scarce airwaves in a responsible manner.
If Sinclair chose to run its mocku^H^H^H^H^Hdocumentary in theaters, on the Internet, in newspapers, or on giant rotating signs on blimps, that would be OK. But by trying to abuse the airwave rights that we the people gave them, they are doing something that is not OK.
On the other side of the coin, Michael Moore publishing 9/11 in theaters is OK, but on TV two weeks before the election would not be.
On the milled edge of the coin, Sinclair could redeem themselves by running the Swift Boat Vets documentary back-to-back with Fahrenheit 9/11. Now that's fair and balanced journalism...
Hmmm... It's quite common for large organizations to give money to both major parties. That's called "hedging your bet".
oh, so i guess that the point of the entire documentary will be to highlight how john kerry had a MAJOR HAND in stopping the vietnam war.
of course, it wont take testimony out of context, and try to paint kerry as anti-american, instead of the war hero who came home and STOPPED the same unpopular, insane war.
what exactly were you doing at age 27? did you manage to stop a war?
... hi bingo
2. Despite what you are determined to believe, while the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out and guess what, they support what's expressed in the memos. That's what made it possible to verify them. Everyone and their brother agreed that what's in them is true.
While I disagree with all your points, this one is particularly troubling. Are you saying that it is okay if evidence is fake, as long as it supports your assumptions? What if a district attorney submitted into evidence a photoshopped picture of the defendant killing somebody, just to help his case that if the 'real facts' got out, everyone would know the defendant was a murderer? Wrong, wrong, wrong... conclusions should be arrived at based on the evidence at hand, not evidence conjured up to support foregone assumptions.
"Everybody and his brother" has expressed similar doubts about Kerry's record but you don't see the Swift Boat Vets fabricating documents do you? They get blasted enough as "liars" just for providing eyewitness accounts that paint Kerry in an unfavorable light, but if someone resorts to criminal acts of forgery to make Bush look bad, that's alright?/P.
From the FCC website:
"The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In March 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities." The Court found the Commission needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country. In March 1972, new rules regarding cable television became effective. These rules required cable television operators to obtain a certificate of compliance from the Commission prior to operating a cable television system or adding a television broadcast signal. The rules applicable to cable operators fell into several broad subject areas -- franchise standards, signal carriage, network program nonduplication and syndicated program exclusivity, nonbroadcast or cablecasting services, cross-ownership, equal employment opportunity, and technical standards. Cable television operators who originated programming were subject to equal time, Fairness Doctrine, sponsorship identification and other provisions similar to rules applicable to broadcasters. Cable operators were also required to maintain certain records and to file annual reports with the Commission concerning general statistics, employment and finances."
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Lets see We have Jean val Jean (Dan Rather) at CBS who pursues the rediculous air national gaurd story for 5 years and finds nothing but forged documents and testimony from a Kerry campaign chairman.
At ABC we have, both candidates lie but Kerrys are harmless so we should go after bush.
The economy adds 350,000 jobs in March and the New York times reports "Bonds Down on Jobs Figure"
You have moveon.org relentlessly targeting anyone that disagreeing or even bearing bad news about or for the democrats. Their latest target was Gallup for reporting the president was up in the polls.
You have just about all the liberal media pulling out the stops to pull a smear job on the swiftboat vets. The only points they have been able to prove is that some of the vets charges are true and others are subject to dispute.
I won't go into farenheit 911 or CBS running the antibush book of the week club on 60 minutes. Kitty Kellys character assasination tome that got nearly 4 hours of morning show coverage on the major networks.
All the above being said the men that made stolen honor were POW's in Vietnam. They have earned the right to have their say. You may be the most ardent supporter for either side, American citizen or other but you have your freedom of speach because these men and others like them paid the price. If it weren't for them and others like them that stood up for freedom NO ONE reading this would have had any freedom and we would all be speaking german or russian.
Faux news is great! I love to laugh at the ridiculous things stated on that show! I love it!
Note that Sinclair is a busness. As such it wants to make $$$ at every oportunity. Last I heard F911 made over $250M. If the Kerry bash piece is such a great work of art that it would actually catch an audience they would have released it to the theaters. Obviously it must be a total bore. THATS why they have to shove it down our throats.
F911 is a riot (in addition to being a pretty good basher of the Bushies). Mr Moore put up a $$$ bounty on anyone who could disprove the content of 911. AFAIK that has not happened. If it were such a piece of propoganda SOMEONE would have poked lots of holes in it. I, for one DO believe that Bush has a cozy relationship with the Saudi royal family. Just too much evidence to dismiss the hypothesis.
Oh, and I am a registered Republican -- and am embarassed that my party has Bush for a candidate. Yikes.
the Swift Boat Vets haven't managed to get a single person who personally served with Kerry to say anything bad about him. The best they have managed to do is people who met him once or twice. I suggest you check out www.swiftvets.org. You'll find that even those people that only met him a few times actually have said positive things about kerry until recenty. I can only assume what Swift Vets did to get them to change thier minds.
Your political bias is showing.
1. Freedom of speech applies to individuals, not corporations. That *might* be a freedom of the press case. Get you battle cries straight.
2. There are rules governing the use of publicly-owned licensed airwaves. This isn't HBO, it's broadcast TV. There goes you Michael Moore rant.
3. Speaking of F911, there was signifcant outcry to showing it on TV before the election. You don't remember it because it was spearheade by Republicans, or which you obviously are. You didn't see it was outcry, but as common sense. Admit your bias.
4. Even if the 1st Amendment applied here, you can't think of any circumstances free speech is curtailed for the greater good by the government?
5. Maybe the Sinclair Group should make the movie it wants to and release it to theaters.
The only thing proven by the memos were that they were fake. The only person they could find that hinted that the view expressed may possibily had some truth was a secretary. His own wife and co-workers denied the memos and almost all claimed that he had only respect for GWB.
/. as you know the moderation here is a joke and that most moderators hold multiple accounts just so they can mod their own posts higher.
I suppose as part of the "BIG LIE" you hope that if you repeat your BS enough it will be believed. I suppose that you post such on
Typical leftist crap, repeat a falsehood enough times that you make people believe it. Works on weak minded people.... of which there are plenty here.
Despite the fact that the airwaves are free, I assure you that this broadcast will cost money. I imagine a lot more than Mr. Soros' equally biased piece. The cost of the airwaves is not the issue. It isn't the issue with Rush Limbaugh who uses these airwaves to espouse his opinions any more than it is an issue for Al Franken espousing his tilted views. So drop the "Mommy it's not fair" tactics.
Consider the argument used by liberal pundits when it comes to issues of censorship of the arts (one I happen to agree with)..."If you don't want to see it...DON'T". Nobody's putting a gun to your head and making you watch it!
This seems to contrast with Sinclair's attempt to classify this as "news"--if they're free to do as they choose, why bother with such euphemisms?
The courts from time to time agreed that commercially sponsored speech does not qualify as free speech under the first amendment.
Why is it that the left defines public interest as that which is critical of the right ?
By your reasoning CBS,NBC,ABC should all have had their licenses pulled years ago for out and out fraudulent broadcasting. As an aside in 2000 FOX broke the story of george bush's drunk driving 3 days before the election. Was that in the public interest or an attempt to interfere with the election ?
Please-- Worldnetdaily doesn't even try to be objective. It's a totally biased site.
Just look at some of those ads "The Freefall of the American University: How US Colleges corrupt your kids minds and morals". "Reagans war in war and Deed".
In the article, they use the term "left-wing", but oddly don't refer to any donors as "right-wing".
Also, one big reason why CBS and NBC have donated more money to Kerry is that they have donated more money to both Candidates. NBC and CBS are much bigger then
Also, I challenge some of the facts:
1. NBC and CBS produce many shows, not just news programs. "Fox News Channel" shows just news. So he's comparing Apples to a fruit orchard.
2. "NBC's contributions totaled $146,585, none of which went to Bush."
Not true, some money did go to Bush.
3. The WorldNetDaily article is about "2004 election cycle donations from employees of CBS"
However, this is different then what parent poster said: "I did some research on the owners and newscasters on CNN , ABC and NBC and found that they all gave large sums to the Democratic party and candidates"
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Forex, during WW2 Australia sent their Catholics to fight the Japanese and everyone else to fight the Germans. An odd thing to do? Well, maybe, but it did take the wind out of the sails of the local Catholic clergy's strong incitement of their flocks to not oppose the Reich - which, according to Adolf at least, was structured after the RCC.
"A lamb in adversity, a fox when in equality, and a tiger when in the ascendancy" and has been for millennia. Who do you think is quietly pushing the Religious Right along, even if only to use them as patsies for their own political putsch later?
Mel's film is taken straight out of the doctrinal textbooks of his own Catholic sect, often in contradiction to the historical record. It does indeed have a political agenda wrapped in its religious one, but it's not exactly conservative.
Other than that, your points are all good. Including that one quasi-Conservative film hardly outweighs the scores with their helms turned firmly to follow the Good Ship Liberalism. The big problem is that neither Liberalism nor Conservatism as we know them bear more than a nodding acquaintance with an optimal approach.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Opensecrets kept crashing when I tried to lookup Fox, but it seems to be working now:
FOX: 81% DEM, 19% REP
Where the heck did they get their numbers from?
This one is way off. According to Opensecrets, Fox employees gave
$62,540 to Bush, and
$87,875 to Kerry.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Whoa, there. Rick Hasen wrote: "from the point of view of federal election law (as opposed to, say, federal communications law---this is really no different" ... and quoting it out of context badly distorts the meaning.
But the moment someone tries to fine CBS for the superbowl fiasco you cry censorship.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
at the same time on the following day, cries of bias would go out the window...
> The concerts were not making use of scarce airwave bandwidth
Yeah right, and I'm sure there were no city or county funds that have went into making the venues those concerts occur at possible.
You know as well as I do that concert halls, arenas, parks all receive local funding and outright gifts, such as land to make them possible.
So don't sit on your high and mighty throne pretending that some liberal musician promoting Kerry isn't using something that is public.
Caution: Contents under pressure
Well, since we're on the subject of lies, and deception, let's look at the degrees of each of these cases.
While investigating a supposedly thirty-year-old document, a news team discovered that the writer expressed similar reservations verbally. They also discover that the circumstantial facts were all true (missed a physical...outside pressure applied to fudge some paperwork...etc.) News team therefore assumes a document is valid. Sloppy journalism, yes. Personal vendetta by a journalist to sacrifice his career and reputation to smear the President? Doubtful, but some of you will believe anything...
Contrast that to your example. "Everyone and his brother" hasn't expressed similar doubts about Kerry's service. Actually, of all of the servicemen on those 3 patrol boats, ONE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT has his doubts...the rest of the "everyone" got this information third-hand. They happen to hook up with some Texas political operatives who smeared McCain 5 years ago, they write a book and form a supposed "group" of Swift Boat Vets. Sorry, pretty low on the credibility chart for me.
You, however, seem to have been swept up in the story about the story.
document
While we're on the subject of foregone assumptions,
"everyone and his brother" hasn't expressed doubts about Kerry's service...and while the Swift Boat Vets have Let's see, if we examine what was said
I feel sorry for these guys, American kids that went through hell in Vietnam. But they have turned into angry old men without getting any wiser. Today, they are just letting themselves be used as political pawns. Rather than facing the fact that they were fighting in an purposeless war that the US lost and in which the US injured large numbers of innocent civilians, rather than facing that it was their own government that caused them all this pain and suffering, they want to cling to the illusion that there was nobility and purpose to this war.
The sad thing is that Bush is far more likely to generate the next generation of hurt, confused, and angry veterans. Bush doesn't know first hand what happens to US soldiers in battle and he doesn't seem to care much either (except for photo ops). Kerry may have many flaws, and he may not have seen the worst of Vietnam when he was serving there, but he has actually seen some of the horrors of war and is far more likely to avoid getting US soldiers into trouble unnecessarily.
I found this from Bill Maher message board:
Freepress.net has a site all set up for protests. You enter your zip and it will give you numbers/addresses of stations near your zip. It ALSO has a PETITION to send to the FCC.
Go to http://www.freepress.net/sinclair/ and enter your zip, sign the petition. It may not accomplish much, but it'll feel good to 'express' your distaste.
Um, hello? Maybe I just went to an amazingly liberal public school (here in the mountains in Northeast Georgia), but, um....I thought we all knew some seriously fucked up shit happened during the Vietnam war.
I'm baffled as to why Kerry would have testified about it if it wasn't true. According to right-wing kooks, what, exactly, would have been his new motives for fighting a war that he volunteered for? Did he read Karl Marx while drifting lazily along in his swift boat and decide to become a bleeding-heart liberal? So he faked some war wounds and came home to protest?
That is, any new motive besides the obvious one of 'He discovered the horror of the war and what it was causing normal people to do.'. That obviously can't have anything to do with anything.
I mean, honestly people, it happened so much it's a fucking cliche. Be patriotic, go to Nam, see some crazy stuff done by both sides, come home, protest against the war. To finish the cliche up he should have been disowned by his family, spit at by other protesters, gotten clinically depressed, and ended up on the street.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
If you don't like it, change the law.
D-Day : War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto : Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter : Germans?
Boon : Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto : And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto : the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[runs out, alone; then returns]
White: Contains facts, no lies.
Grey: Contains facts, half-truths, parts of the story, etc.
Black: Lies. May contain some facts, but definately contains lies.
f9/11 is either white or grey, depending upon whom you talk to. There are no outright lies in it.
The "Swift Boat" stuff is either grey or black, depending upon whom you talk to.
Just because two items are both propaganda does not mean that they are both the same or that they can both be dismissed.
The "Swift Boat" ads are black.
For many of them, Vietnam was the defining moment of their lives.
But all the evidence that comes out shows how worthless their sacrifice was and how they were used by a government that lied to them.
Some can see how they were used and grow beyond it.
Some cannot and will attack anyone who says that it was a useless war. These are the ones that will be used again by the same government that lied to them last time.
All the bad news that is reported on the news is Pro-Kerry propaganda.
So they are just balancing this out by publishing their own anti-Kerry news.
Besides. Sinclair is only doing this because they want Bush to win and deregulate the media markets further so they can buy up additional stations. That's it, it has nothing to do with Vietnam or any other nonsense.
"Fox News Channel" shows just news
Fox News Channel has started showing news?! Did Rupert Murdoch die last night or something?
I did not become a vegetarian for my health, I did it for the health of the chickens. --Isaac Bashevis Singer
haven't managed to get a single person who personally served with Kerry
This is like saying I don't work with the guys in the QA section of my project because they're on the other side of the room, separated by cubicles. While I may not know them as well as the other developers sitting next to me, who I can eavesdrop on if I wanted, I still know who they are, how they act, what they've done and all their personal information. The SBVs you question were serving with Kerry in the sense that many were on another boat right next to him. They ate together, they fought together, they just weren't on the same boat.
1. No pipleine in afghanistan
a n/david_sar asohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1093434977273600.x ml
"However, in 2002 Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf agreed to revive (http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?id=674) plans of a trans-Afghan gas pipeline; Alim Razim, Afghanistan's minister for Mines and Industries, described UNOCAL as the "lead company" in the revived plans, although they continue to deny renewed involvement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11
I'm saving space and not dealing with your other examples. But they are all just as easily debunked.
Now, lies in the "Swift Boat" campaign.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregoni
"After the ad ran, Elliott told The Boston Globe he'd made "a terrible mistake" in signing the statement accusing Kerry when "I knew it was wrong." The anti-Kerry group later said Elliott was repudiating his repudiation, but he is no longer available to reporter."
Not just lies but cowardice.
I've seen dozens of anti-Bush "documentaries" and "news magazine stories" on TV over the last year.
The sitting president is, and always should be, open for more criticism than anyone else in the nation. Bush's inability to admit mistakes, his willingness to push his political agenda, and the fact that many feel that his election was at least controversial, all add to the need to critical look at his decisions. (the fact that most critical looks at this administration are not too complementary is a different item)
Just because a news article or report doesn't follow the current day's talking points doesn't meant that the report has a liberal bias. When you hear "liberal bias" brandished about, think about it with a open mind; most of the time, any fact (like listing the names of the fallen in Iraq) not agreeing with the Republicans current talking points are labeled as "liberal". Critically investigating or reporting on an administration and its actions is not a "left wing" bias or "hatchet-job tabloid" journalism, but instead an important part of the political process, and one of the best uses of free speech in this country. The fake document CBS report was, in essence, true and relevant only because of the attacks on Kerry about his service during the Vietnam era. This report was not a "hachet-job", it was just poor journalism (double check you sources, and don't trust one with an axe to grind). Ironically, it did more to help the president than it hurt him.
If "Fahrenheit 9/11" were aired commercial free on TV before the election, you would hear the same cries of foul in reverse. No hypocrisy, just politics.
If Sinclair were truly interested in being fair and furthering the democratic process, it would air both "Stolen Honor" and Going Upriver, in the same commercial free time slot on consecutive evenings. This would show two sides of the same man and actions. But the democratic process and fairness are not on Sinclair's agenda.
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
I would include #1.5 : Passing up several chances to kill Zarqawi in Northern Iraq before the war started because it would undercut the case for war against Saddam. Even though NBC News reported this story back in March 2004, Zarqawi's existence in Iraq is still commonly used to justify the war.
Three problems with your comparison to 60 Minutes: 1) That particular 60 minutes was not broadcast 2 weeks before the election and broadcast without commercials. 2) In addition, it didn't preempt 90 minutes of normal shows, thus causing many americans to see it who wouldn't normally have watched it. 3) It wasn't forced upon 62 stations, the stations that show it actually purchase the show regularly. To compare these two shows is an attempt to use the comparison to validate Stolen Honor, something that has been called into question--not an attempt to invalidate 60 Minutes. This act alone shows that there is something worth questioning.
Sorry not me
;-)
But your paranoia is showing
Do you realize how freaking hard it is to totally boycott these billion dollar mega-companies? And I'm talking from experience here...
I decided a long time ago to never support cigarette companies and not buy anything made by a cigarette company. Well Kraft Foods is owned by Altria, which used to be Phillip Morris (one of the tobacco giants), do you realize how much stuff is made by Kraft!? They own Post cereals, and Mr.Christie cookies, Jell-o and God knows what else.
But if you're going to boycott Sinclair, what about the media outlets it's affiliated with? What about NBC? NBC is owned by RCA which is in turn owned by GE, and GE makes damn near everything from tiny electric gizmos to airplane engines.
Just be careful when you commit to something like this... it get real complicated, real fast.
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
Heres an article from the daily times of pakistan talking about the new pipeline.s p?page=st ory_22-12-2002_pg4_9
s tm
:)
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.a
Please note no unocal and its a new pipeline, but I suppose if the Afghanis ever lay pipe it will upset you.
You found one story that did not mention any company involved in the pipeline? And you think that supports your position?
Here's the BBC on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.
And they do specifically mention the issue with Unocal. And they give a specific person's name as a reference.
Seeing as you decided to use a retracted retraction to brand 240 vets liars lets go to the source
1. Kerry has retracted his story about being in cambodia on nixons orders christmas 69 (neat trick being seared in his memory and all)
2. Kerry has retracted the story his boat was the only one that stayed to help, it turned out his was the only one that left when Jim Rasmussen was rescued.
3. Kerry insisted there was 3 kilometers of enemy fire, but they stayed in the firezone for half an hour. And not a hole in the boat.
You're misguided on that. My position was that the "Swift Boat" people used black (or at best, grey) propaganda.
In order to refute that, you'd have to show that the facts I presented were not accurate. Not that other people had said other things. But it was a nice try anyway.
Sorry not me
;-)
I didn't say it was. The person who posted it understands the reference.
But your paranoia is showing
Hardly. You have a problem assuming that I'm talking about you when I'm not. Try to keep everything in perspective.
I'm not sure there are even 5 posters here that know what the heck they're talking about.
1) Mark Hyman (http://www.newscentral.tv/station/bios/mhyman.sht ml) from Sinclair (http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtml) says they haven't finalized anything, but they're thinking about an hour-long show with 30 minutes of clips from the Stolen Honor documentary, and 30 minutes of discussion with Senator Kerry, if he's interested. Or 40 minutes with Kerry and 20 minutes of clips ...
2) It's not a 90min documentary -- the Stolen Honor video is a 40min documentary
3) It's a real documentary, with real evidence and real witnesses that backup statements in the film. Not a bunch of made up crapola backed up by manufactured evidence like Micheal-Moore-Money's media-pollution extravaganzas.
4) Most of the pro-Kerry-anti-Bush posters here haven't seen the film, don't know anything about it other than its Vietnam War POWs and Vets, but are against it airing. Why? Because they know the content will be bad for Kerry. How to they know that? Because what Kerry did in the early 70's was bad.
Personally, I'm hoping they can get some Vets and POWs to don gloves and come out swinging against Kerry and his Election Campaign staff. That would make a great special.
Free Speech Rules!
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
What I love about slashdot is that the parent to this post was modded a troll. I will repost at the bottom but I would point out the rather obvious inference that not only does the left believe that free speach is exclusive to them, but also anyone pointing this out shouldnt be allowed to either.
Kerry camp actually THREATENED Sinclair! (Score:-1, Troll) by ChaoticLimbs (597275) on Tuesday October 12, @03:22PM (#10506129) Chad Clanton, senior campaign advisor for Kerry said "They [Sinclair] better hope we don't win." Vester immediately picked up on that as a direct unveiled threat and went with it. Clanton attempted to back off a bit but it was pretty much out already. I got an email from my local Democrat party action committee saying Sinclair's execs had given big donations to the Republican party. That's interesting to me, so I did some research on the owners and newscasters on CNN , ABC and NBC and found that they all gave large sums to the Democratic party and candidates. I guess the real issue is that we have media, they have views, and overall it looks like both sides are represented. Why should anyone threaten somebody's freedom of speech just because they don't like what they stand for? I have no doubt that this Clanton fellow will be fired by Kerry. There's no way that a candidate for President should allow this extremism
Look, John, we know its you. It does you no good to post anonymously ...
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
> He won't be eligible for an Oscar under the documentary category, but I guess he doesn't care.
There are some obvious reasons why F9/11 is ineligible for a best documentary Oscar. For one thing, he faked an article's headline in his "documentary" (among other things)?
People who claim "it doesn't matter" also probably dont think anything wrong with forging the CBS memos (alongwith a dead man's signature!) because "it was forged just like it _really_ was".
Why should we believe liars?
Isn't it interesting how people say that when the enemy lies to cover his atrocities, he is a coward and a monster, but they demand that their their soldiers lie and conceal the truth in order to cover atrocities they have seen or committed, and accuse them of treason if they tell the truth?
Isn't it interesting how people consider the victims of war to be heroes when they support a particular ideology, but consider them weaklings, traitors, liars, and worse when they disagree?
Isn't it interesting how people have double standards?
My site: Free Nature Pictures