BS: Sinclair breaking the law

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:40 PM

Well, Donnie Rumsfield has allready said its too dangerous for real elections. When he was pinned down about the fact that countrywide elections can not take place he said "Nothin's perfect"...

Well, we agree on that...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

News Night with Aaron Brown on CNN is saying Iraq may be too dangerous for reporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Brucie:
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:58 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM

OG: You ask lots of questions and don't give any answers. Assuming Bush has a functioning brain, do you think a blue funk of seven minutes is reasonable time for a President to sit and get lost in his thoughts while his country is, as he was told, under attack?

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:41 PM

Well, given my drithers I'd rather have Saddam still in power and have the somw 1200 Americans and upwards of 20,000 Ieagis still alive, not to mention the tens upon thousands of folks who have been seriously injured.

But that doesn't seem to be an option.

In charge is a difficult question to answer because no matter who it is as soon as the US and the coilition of the cohersed leave, Iraq is going to fall into a bloody civil war...

You see, Old Guy, the only guy who was preventing the various factions from *having at it* was Saddam. Do I approve of his meathods? Well, no.

The problem with Alawi is that he does not represent the Iraqi people. He wasn't really elected by the Iraqi people but by a council of handpicked folks who are in general support of the US.

It's too bad Bush has so pissed off the iternational coommunity with his arrogance because it really makes it hard for an international group to be sold on helping stabilize Iraq while things shake out. Semocarcy is probably not a realistic goal here.

What could happen, but won't as long as the US continues to shrug its sholders at the Isreali/Palestinian war, is the implimentation of the Saudi Peoposal (Mitchell Proposal), which would open up communications in the Middle East and put more of the responsibility for stability in thre region on the regions various nations. But this will take a monumental change in philosphy in the US foriegn policies which the current John Wayne gang ain't interested in. They like the microphone but ain't much into listening to noone esle but themselves. That's what got them in this mess to begin with. Cloesed mindedness...

So, Old Guy, I can't give you an answer other than what I have presented. These things will have to come about in order for Iraq to answer it's own questions. Hand pickin' other folks leaders ain't my game.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:09 PM

Bobert:

Who do you think should be in Alawi's place? I think you should.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

Who says he "went bad", Old Guy?

He was always bad 'cept he went too long without supervision and support from his masters...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:12 PM

The first choice for Alawi's position was Adnan Pachachi but he turned the job down because of objections from others in the governing council. So Alawi has the position because of the members of the governing counsel.

Where are the facts about who wrote Alawi's speech?

Who wrote Kerry's famous Gengiss Kahn speech? Adam Walinsky anti-war activist and former speech writer for Robert F. Kennedy.

If Saddam was indeed our man that went bad, that is all the more reason to remove him.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 12:09 PM

Ahhhh, Amos, if Allawi can't cut it as "our man in Iraq" they can always bring back the last "our man in Iraq". He oughtta be well rested and ready to do what he did as long as we *needed* him: say "Yes, Sir, and when's pay day?"

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM

OG:

Jon Stewart did a wonderful comment on the fact that Bush and Allawi were actually using the same speechwriter, andhe was serving as a mechnaism for the Bush campaign. Iraq is in a LOT more trouble than Allawi was allowed to comment on in that rose-colored speech.

It is pretty clear that Allawi is "our man in Iraq" but he may not be Iraq's man.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:06 AM

"Money" apparently is the bottom line, and I find it immensely satisfying to see Sinclair's evolving rationalizations (Sinclair attorney Barry Faber quoted in Portland Press Herald, p. A10, 10/20/04):

"There has been a misunderstanding of what our intention was in part because it wasn't clear to us what our intention was."

Nuff said!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 01:21 AM

Bobert:

Yes. That way I can decide if those claims hold water.

Brucie:

What should Bush have done?

Scorchia:

I am just an old guy saying what I believe. I stayed out of the debate until I saw Kerry downing Alawi miuntes after he addressed congress. That did it for me. Now I state what I see wrong with Kerry. People hate Bush so much they don't even question Kerry. Maybe Bush is bad but Kerry is an impending asteroid collision. I am not a Democrat or republican. I vote for whom I like. I like Bush. So does pooty-poot *after* Beslan.

You do need to see everything pro and con pertaining to this election if you want to be informed.

KimC:

The dumb bastard should have used his Yugo. He could have saved some money.

Dianavan:

Yeah, I want a free ticket. That asshole is already bragging about the 500 mil he made on that "Documentary"

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 11:02 PM

brucie - the first site wants money and the second is no longer available. I just want a list of those that advertise with Sinclair.

Not that it really matters to Sinclair. They have probably already decided that that the stockholders can 'bite it' because I'm sure whoever is running the show at Sinclair will probably be nicely rewarded for this 'dirty trick'.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM

Excerpt from article on worldnetdaily site, October 19. To quote Dylan, "Money doesn't speak, it swears."

The letter of demand, obtained by WND, stated, "In light of the collapse of Sinclair's stock price and the apparent insider trading of senior executives and board members, we are also dismayed at the company's seemingly politically motivated determination to air a program that from all reports is a politically partisan criticism of one of the candidates for president."

The letter warned of additional stock decline and additional damage to the company's reputation and success.

"Our clients are more interested in the success of the company than they are in the political views of Sinclair's executives or Board of Directors," Lerach wrote, "and we are extremely concerned at the firestorm Sinclair has ignited – especially the boycott of Sinclair's advertisers as indicated at www.boycotsbg.com and www.stopsinclair.org."

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM

Huh. Can't find it in this thread, but I did mark it. Boycott

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM

"It should be mentioned that Sinclair's manager was caught soliciting a prostitute from his Mercedes."

Yes, but that was on his own personal time, and his personal life shouldn't have a bearing on how he does his business. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:23 AM

Fine, Old Guy. Would you support Sinclair providing an equal amount of pre election time for the Kerry folks to air on the same 86 or so Siclair stations in a similar time slot a "documentary" on Bush's Air National Guard duty, his alcoholism and his family's past ties to the Nazis?

If you can answer "yes" to this, with your same arguement you made that the viewers can make up their own minds, then you and I have a deal. If you can't then I'll stick with my observation that you are just another partisan Bushite who couldn't care less about fairness...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM

One good thing about English elections is that political TV adverts are not allowed. Just a limited number of Party Political Broadcasts, identified as such, and viewed (or not viewed) with a certain scorn.

I see that Sinclair have just sacked their chief political correspondent because he spoke out againsat this propaganda broadcast - TV chain sacks journalist who accused it of propaganda . Did someone say this was about "free speech"?

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 03:44 AM

Sorcha, I missed the advertisers' links and don't see anything in brucie's postings. Please let me know which posting I missed, so that I might email them, too? Thanks, darlin'...

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM

Still sick of it all, but I DO need to see F 9/11...I don't need to see Stolen Honor. Thanks, brucie for the link to the advertisers. I've e mailed all the ones (local) thru the C's.....and I'll get to the rest of them.

And, Old Guy, I don't really care which side of the fence who is on, I just don't like lies and trashing. Why are you a Guest here anyway? Just so you can stir up trouble and nobody knows who you are? Heavens forbid that anyone can PM you....or know who you really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM

As noted above, here is the reference.

Stolen Honor lawsuit

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:31 AM

DougR, a lot depends on whether the documentary consists of lies or of provable facts. The Kerry-Vietnam thing is coming apart at the seams now. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been proved as liars -- even the so-called "documentary" that Sinclair is saying it will show is under threat of a lawsuit from a man who will apparently be featured in it. His claim is that they are not representing him truthfully. (Sorry, I'll find the reference and link it.)

The point is this: a lot of people believe that F9/11 was built on lies. Moore has defended every point he made in that film.

If Sinclair and those associated with the Stolen Honor film are prepared to back up and defend every point they make in the film, fair enough. But I'll bet you that they won't.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM

Brucie:

What should Bush have done?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM

The difference is that t.v. broadcasting can be timed to enter every American home at the crucial hour.

It might be fair if everyone got a free ticket to see Farenheit 911.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:21 AM

Guest Frank: would the solicitation of a prostitute have been more acceptable had the Sinclair executive have been driving a Volkswagon?

Critical Mudcatters: ever heard of Freedom of Speech?

If a similar documentary had been produced (and it has of course) that was critical of GWB, would you be up on your high horse about that? I don't think so.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:46 AM

The only thing the Dems have to do is show seven minutes of Bush sitting still while he digested the news that the Twin Towers had been attacked. That picture would be worth a billion words. The leader of the Free World. Riiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhhht.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:43 AM

Bobert:

Fairness is showing everything to everybody and letting them decide.

Un fairness is telling them that can't see all of the information because some one else says it is untrue and should not be shown.

I saw a political ad from Colorado. An actor dressed like one of the candidates was reaching into a coffin and taking the personal effects off of the corpse such as a wristwatch. The message was that the candidate was robbing the dead. There was a another one with the same actor at a house fire grabbing something.

Would you call this the dirtiest of the dirty? Should the public be kept from seeing such ads?

It seems that you are saying that any unfair political ad is acceptable but an unfair documentary film is not acceptable.

I say that to make such distinctions is censorship.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Censorship, Old Guy?

I'd like to know how you'd like it if it were Michael Moores' film that was going to be shown as a *documentary* while on a vast national network while yer guy was pluggin' away 30 second ads at a timel.

You wouldn't seem so righteous if that were the scenerio. But since it's your guy who will benefit most from this cheezey end around of fairness you sit there and want to shift your partianship onto me.

Firget it. The only person in this joint that doesn't see thru this is you ande maybe a couple other Bushites...

And this is from someone who just voted today (early) for Nadar... I couldn't care less about Kerry but your obvious glee in the posssibility that yer crook will pull a fast one on the other crook is downright disgusting.

This ain't about censorship. It's about thre dirtiest of the dirty when it comes to that fraternity rivalry that you folks got going.

Fir God's sake, show a little fairness. Yer guy is going to win without having to stoop to such dirtiness and evil. It's bad for the country...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:03 PM

Bobert:
"smear ad"

Are you interpreting the contents and delivering a verdict to me and the other people that want to see the film?

I really don't need any help evaluating the film. I only need help to stop self appointed censors like you blocking the film from me and others that want to see it.


Fair and balanced:

"Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University and Media Tenor October 19, 2004 Page 1

Summary Findings:

This study examines 2004 presidential election coverage from September 7 to October 1, 2004 on ABC's "World News Tonight", CBS's "Evening News" and NBC's "Nightly News" as well as "Special Report with Brit Hume" on the Fox News Channel.

* More News – Network news campaign coverage in September was up 40% over 2000 – 199 stories vs. 141.

* More Beef – The proportion of stories covering the campaign horse race dropped from 62% in 2000 to only 23% this year, a decline of 57%. Meanwhile, the proportion of stories dealing with policy issues rose from 50% in 2000 to 53% in 2004.

* More Beefs – Both candidates are getting more negative coverage than their counterparts in 2000. Evaluations were only 38% positive toward Kerry and 29% positive toward Bush, compared to 48% positive toward Gore and 33% positive toward Bush in 2000.

* Bite Size News – Candidate sound bites averaged under eight seconds in length.

* More Differences – All three networks gave Kerry 38% positive evalua-tions.

But ABC gave Bush only 20% positive, compared to 30% at NBC and 35% at CBS.

* Bent Toward Bush? – Fox News Channel's "Special Report" featured 31% positive evaluations of Bush compared to 21% positive toward Kerry. And Fox panelists' comments favored Bush by 50% positive to only 13% positive toward Kerry.

* "Fair and Balanced"? – In "Special Report" news segments, the coverage was balanced – 27% positive for Bush and 24% for Kerry. Fox was also more balanced in its issue coverage (30% positive for Bush vs. 28% for Kerry) than the broadcast network (41% positive for Kerry vs. 23% positive for Bush)."

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:46 PM

Greg F:

Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:38 PM

Actually, I agree with Larry K. I'm a liberal, but I agree that the balance hasn't been equal.

Too true. Since Bill Clinton took office the "balance"[sic] has been skewed in favor of the Neo-Cons and the Republiican agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM

Word on the street is they are gettin' some pressure from some of thier stockholders who fear that this grotesque display of partisanship will negatively impact theis ability to keep their current accounts or attract new ones...

As far as I am concerned, this should be like Business 101. If you have clients who are from both parties then walk the line.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:56 PM

Here's a cute dodge (NY Times):

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. , under widening scrutiny over plans to air a documentary about Sen. John Kerry's wartime activities 30 years ago, said Tuesday it would not show the program in its entirety.

"Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary 'Stolen Honor' in its entirety," the Baltimore-based company said in a statement.

Sinclair said it would air a special news program on Friday called "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" that would discuss the allegations surrounding Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities.

---

Slime? Or something else?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:21 PM

Yes, Old Guy, if the socalled documentary is broken up into 30 second spots and some group is willing to pay for their airing, then let it rip. But that is not the case at all. And you know it.

You even said that you would not pay to see Michsle Moore's film. Fine. That's your choice. But to have a one hour smear ad disguised as a documentary brought free into your and your neigbor's houses is quite a different critter indeed.

You can argue otherwise but if you have even one ounce of logic wiring in yer brain you must know that your arguments are nuthin' but partisanship.

And this observation from a Green Party supporter and voter.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:47 PM

Actually, I agree with Larry K. I'm a liberal, but I agree that the balance hasn't been equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM

Larry K,

Have you spoken with Old Guy lately? He's on the rag about people's English usage. Strange fellow. Anyway, it would be cool to air 9/11 every day for a week before the election. IMO, of course. However, it will all come to nothing, because Bush will lose and Kerry will win. I do think the vote will be close, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:20 PM

I am still waiting for equal time on 60 minutes after the 4 interviews with the Bush Bashers.   I am still waiting for equal time on the morning shows which had Kitty Kelly for 3 days, but never once had the Swift Boats.   I am still waiting for equal time on CBS news after they put on forged doccuments.   I am still waiting for Farenhype 911 to get distribution in theatres.

Payback it a bitch.   Thank you Sinclair.   I hope they run it over and over.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:03 PM

It's not illegal and the FCC cannot stop it. It's Sinclair's stations and they can put on what they want. They DO own the air waves as long as they have the license to do so.

When Sinclair stations come up for annual license renewal, that is the time to bitch.

As I and many others had no interest in watching the Michael Moore editorialized docu-op-ed, there will be some who won't watch the Kerry one.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM

Leiberman was indeed fired today. And the market is showing Sinclair its reaction.

Retribution, saith the market.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:37 AM

Well, someone at Sinclair has integrity. Jon Leiberman may no longer have a job by the time you read this, but someone will hire him and be lucky to have him. He has spoken out against Sinclair's intention to show the anti-Kerry film -- not for what the film states, but for the way the network is planning to show it: propaganda as "news."


"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," said Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter for more than a year. "For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election."

Leiberman spoke out yesterday after a mandatory staff meeting attended by Sinclair's corporate news division at company headquarters in Hunt Valley.

"I have nothing to gain here -- and really, I have a lot to lose," Leiberman said. "At the end of the day, though, all you really have is your credibility."

Sinclair staffers were told the show would be presented as news, not opinion, Leiberman said.

Some industry analysts have decried Sinclair's plans. "People in the news business are supposed to present both sides of the story," said American University communications professor Jane Hall, a media critic for Fox News Watch. "They are not supposed to have an agenda. They are not supposed to want to affect the outcome of the election with something they label news."

Leiberman said he was anguished by his decision to speak out. But, he said, the influence of commentator Mark Hyman and Chief Executive David D. Smith has been devastating. "There is going to be a concerted effort on the part of my colleagues to make this as balanced a program as they can," Leiberman said. "But the selection of the material -- dumping it on the news department, and giving them four days, and running it this close to the election -- it's indefensible, in my opinion."

Leiberman said he told Sinclair's vice president for news, Joseph DeFeo, that he would not contribute to the program and that DeFeo suggested the reporter could lose his job.

--------------
Good for him! Unfortunately, I can't make a link, as this piece was published in the Baltimore Sun, which requires a subscription. Perhaps an online search will bring up another source for the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:13 AM

Bobert:

So if the documentary that the Democrats don't want me to see was broken up into 30 second segments and somebody of the documentary paid big bucks to have the segments aired on national TV it would be acceptable?

I think I can decide the validity of the film If I could see it. I could also decide on the validity of Farenheit 9/11 if I saw it but I am not about to put more money into Moore's pocket in order to see it.

I say all those documaenarys should be on national TV for all to watch and decide what is truth and what is a lie but he Democrats seem to know more about what the public should see than the public does.

They think can screen out the lies and present us only with the truth. They think they are our "keepers" looking out for us. They think we could not survive if it were not for them and we need them to protect us from the evil Republicans.

Here is what is presented to the public as truth by Democrats:
"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." M Moore speaking at the University
of Michigan's Power Center Oct 12 2003

Show us all the information. BRING IT ON as Kerry would say.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM

You will find links to the stations which Sinclair owns and much more info on the subject in this previous thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:01 PM

NPR Story on the boycott.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4114144

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM

Dianavan, you will have to do more than that to be effective. try this link, it seems to be well organized.

Boycott

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:39 PM

Yo old guy.

Yer comparision between the so called 1 hour documentary against Kerry and the Moveon ads is clearly flawed.

First, there is a world of difference betweena 30 second as and a 1 hour program disguised as a documentary.

Now if you want a real comparasion, try Michael Moore's film being aired as a documentaryty about Bush against a 30 second spot by the Swift Boat Vets.

Get it now?

And I don't even like Kerry.

But let's keep the perspectives at least somewhat real here, old guy.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM

SINSULL - Please post the list of advertisers and advertisements so that those of us in Canada can boycott those same services and suppliers (if they are available in Canada, that is).

Its such an easy and painless way to object. I mean how hard is it to take a pass on certain brand nemes and reach for another.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

Its not nearly that Sinsull. Sinclair is illegally trying to build media monopolies and Michael Powell is helping them. The only solution is to pray, vote Democrat and then, if the Dems get in, raise heck. Even that's not nearly enough but its all we can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 07:52 PM

Simple Solution: watch the programand keep a list of itssponsors AND Sinclair's major sponsors in your area.If you are not satisfied,boycott the sponsors and let them know why.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:47 PM

It ain't the substance; it's the timing.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:05 PM

The cable network which had apparently signed a contract with Moore to air the film the night before the election as a special, has now cancelled it. Moore made that announcement on Leno last week. He also offered to let Sinclair show F9/11 for free, to "balance" the vet film.

I think all of this is a tempest in a teapot. The only appropriate place to address the airing of the film on Sinclair is at their license renewal time. Other than that, there are no laws that allow censorship of the film.

The Democrats who tried to get the FCC to censor the film were idiots, playing right into the hands of the Bush camp.

Again, the level of hysteria over this election is way out of proportion to the reality. I can't for the life of me figure out why the Democrats are getting so hysterical about this film. It's the same old stuff we saw on the commercials in August, the demographic of viewers of those networks hardly are up for grabs anyway, I mean, it doesn't make any sense for the Democrats to go so over the top on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:37 PM

Equality according to Frank:

Anti Kerry=Propaganda

Vietnam POWs=Liars

Web Blog=National TV paid for political ad

CBS examines documents=CBS has disclosed who informed them about the forged documents.
(By the way they asked for the documents. Who told them to ask?)

Documentary seen for free=Paying money that goes into the pocket of a asshole to see a documentary.

I think the main thing that upsets the Kerry supporters is the fact that Moore charges but Sinclair does not.

I think the important thing is the contents of the film that the Kerry supporters do not want anybody to see.

Who the fuck are you to give me permission to see it, tell me what is a smear and propaganda and based on lies? I can decide whether it is a lie or not for myself if people of superior intelligence like you will quit trying to stop me from seeing it.

Do I have permission to see Farenhype 9/11 and is that smear propaganda based on lies?

In the words of John Kerry "BRING IT ON"

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: curmudgeon
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM

If this "news" piece is so truthful and non-partisan, why is Viet Nam vet Kenneth Campbell suing the producers for libel? More can be read at Yahoo News under "Entertainment."

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:01 PM

Old Guy, there is a law that says that a broadcasting company can't
use a smear documentary as "news".

You can see it and believe it if you must. But it is a smear propaganda based on lies.

Moveon.com pulled all ads suggesting Bush was like Hitler. I have seen blogs in support of the RNC deliberately suggesting that Kerry was like Hitler and nothing was done to remove them.

CBS has been forced to examine the documents they were given.
What they had to say though was true.

Fahrenheit 911 doesn't need to be on Sinclair. Enough people have seen it in theaters. Enough people are being exposed to reactionary talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Larson,Boortz and others which are abusing their power as spokespeople for the Reactionary Republicans.

Old Guy, you can rent or buy Farenheit 911 as a video or DVD. It even might get an Academy Award.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Underground artist Don Hackman
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:41 AM

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/mediaizer.jpg


Sorcha, thanks again for your personal invitation here 7 years ago.
I have actually had 8 different people respond to my posts since then.
Bill Hawn was one of them. Bill, as you walk the tight rope of objecrtivity I imagine you have had personal misgivings regarding your word selection that might jeopardize your career. Interenet posts even at relatively obscure sites like this one have cost people their jobs.

I, on the other hand, have no such concerns. Speaking my mind freely in print, original images and song has only resulted in be banned from dozens of websites, some of which I had been a member for 7 or more years.

We are in a world of multinational corporations that pay no US tax but help control the direction of US foriegn policy. For example Halliburton's corporate offices are in Bermuda and Vanatu, ergo - they are free from US corporate taxation. For them patriotism is for suckers but patriotism feeds their coffers.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/halliburt.jpg

The proud Americans who support "my country right or wrong" are looking the wrong direction. It should be 'my corporation, right or wrong'.

The business of America is business. As long as all the corporate money controls the Congress, the Presidency, the Defense Industry and the Media - America will be milked of every last dollar. Access to the courts or Congress is more limited with every passing year. Access to prison or no/free spech zones increase every year.

How far the pendulum swings will depend on the personal suffering and conscience of the US population.

For all the true "patriots out there, I say - Suffer well and choose wisely".

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:47 AM

You mean there is a law that says I can't see Stolen Honor on TV?

I want to see it and I want everybody else to see it. I don't want the FTC to keep me from seeing it.

They can balance it with some moveon.org Bush is Hitler ads that are legal.

Let CBS show their forged documents too but don't force them to disclose who told them about their existance.

Oh and put Farenheit 9/11 on too. I heard Hezbollah liked it and they realy liked it in Cuba.

And I want to see Farenhype 9/11. I heard it is a real zinger.


Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:36 AM

I'm soooo sick of all this..realy, SOME humans have brains....hard to believe but we do. I wish they would all just SHUT THE F!@K UP AND GET IT OVER WITH.

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:47 PM

Here is an interesting aside that I heard on On The Media this morning---given the equal time rule (for air stations--not cable) and that since this film is about Kerry the bizarre possibility is that the Bushies can get equal time

The saving grace to all this is that, by law, Sinclair must accept paid advertising by the Dems---like it or not. Also---license renewal becomes problematical. Though, as it was pointed out, given the makeup of the FCC---with the son of Powell as its head now---well, pretty much forget that. Theoretically ,in a perfect world that would, or should, have been a proper venue to air their dirty little politics and use of the public air waves---an FCC hearing.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:34 PM

It should be mentioned that Sinclair's manager was caught soliciting a prostitute from his Mercedes.


Creeping Fascism at Sinclair

By Molly Ivins , AlterNet


Don't look now, but your local network is a propaganda machine.   


Now is the time for all good men – and women – to race to the aid of their country. Liberals and libertarians unite! The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, with their biased "documentary" on John Kerry, has moved this election into the realm of creeping fascism, state propaganda, Big Brother and brainwashing. What me, hyperbole?

This is SO simple – how would you conservatives feel if NBC, CBS or ABC decided to pre-empt primetime programming a week before the election to air Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11? And then announced, "But we've offered President Bush a chance to reply"?

Sinclair has also offered President George W. Bush the inestimable service of diverting attention from his record and is using OUR publicly owned airwaves to do it.

For Sinclair's lobbyist and on-air editorialist Mark Hyman to claim this long attack ad is "news" is ludicrous – almost as strained as his claim, somewhere between infelicitous and crackers, that those who disagree are like "Holocaust deniers."

Sinclair Group is the perfect example of what's wrong with the concentration of ownership in media: Just a few companies now own almost all the major information outlets. Sinclair is the largest owner of local TV stations in the nation. It controls 62 stations in 39 markets and reaches at least 25 percent of Americans every day, all day.

As FCC Commissioner Michael Copps noted in a 2001 decision: "Over the last several years (Sinclair) has pursued a strategy of acquiring interests in or management of more than one station in each market in which it has a television station. In so doing, it has continually pushed against the parameters of ownership structures prohibited by the commission. With the investigation before the commission today, Sinclair has crossed the line into behavior that the majority has found to violate the commission's rules. In assessing a fine on Sinclair for this violation, the majority purports to stop the expansion of Sinclair's forays ... but in fact it merely points out that lines have been crossed, while allowing Sinclair to run over those lines and to continue its multiple ownership strategy." Truer words were never written.

When Sinclair bought a second station in Pittsburgh, it sold its existing station to the first station's manager, an employee of Sinclair, on favorable terms, and then proceeded to operate both. It repeated this trick at least twice and then used a new one: The president of Sinclair had his mother "buy" the new station. The new corporation's stock was 70 percent owned by his mother and the same station manager, who then transferred control of these stations to Sinclair.

Sinclair sends prerecorded right-wing editorial commentary to its affiliates to be broadcast as "local news." Sinclair's management has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars almost entirely to Republicans (97 percent this year), as it continued to lobby for looser ownership rules. The Bush administration is pushing aggressively to remove those same rules.

The producer of the alleged "documentary," which is actually just a very long Swift Boat Liars ad, makes the same arguments and features some of the same people as the thoroughly discredited short ads.

Carlton Sherwood, the ad's producer, was part of a Gannett team that won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting in 1980, but he has since moved far to the right and away from anything resembling actual journalism. In 1986, he joined The Washington Times, a right-wing daily owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. In 1991, he wrote a book "Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon," defending the self-described "Son of God." Sherwood then went to work for then-Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, now homeland security director for Bush.

I have not seen Sherwood's ad. I am relying on press reports that its central thesis is that John Kerry's congressional testimony in 1971 prolonged the Vietnam War. Sure, the North Vietnamese would have surrendered long before they never did, if it hadn't have been for Kerry. Look, 14,000 more Americans died after his testimony – how many would it take to make that war anything other than a mistaken horror?

The ad also alleges that Kerry impugned the good names of all those who served in Vietnam. That is not only false but malicious. I heard his testimony at the time and have reviewed it since during this campaign – it is honorable and patriotic. I am also familiar with the Winter Soldier hearings on which his testimony was partly based, and they were just as he reported.

I am sick of the right wing claiming patriotism as its exclusive purview. No one serves this country well who blindly supports misbegotten wars in the name of patriotism. The right to dissent is one of the founding principles of this country and is in itself a high form of patriotism. What you owe your country is your best evaluation of whether we are or are not going in the right direction.

As Huey P. Long once said, "Sure we'll have fascism in America, but it'll come disguised as 100 percent Americanism."

Subject: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 06:29 PM

Check this out.

Dangerous Territory

October 15, 2004


The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most
powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of
using its public license to promote Republican causes.
Earlier this year, Sinclair tried to censor an installment
of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced
plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Now
the company, owned by financial backers of President Bush
and other Republican politicians, plans to actively join
the re-election campaign.

Its plan sounds like the plot of a bad political novel, or
an actual election in post-Soviet Russia. The Times and
other newspapers reported this week that Sinclair, a
Maryland-based company that reaches nearly a quarter of
American households, would broadcast a propaganda film in
the next two weeks that labels Senator John Kerry a liar, a
traitor and a "willing accomplice" of the enemy during the
Vietnam War. It claims, falsely, that his antiwar
statements inspired the North Vietnamese to step up the
torture of American prisoners, and it is filled with other
distortions about the war in Vietnam.

Sinclair has instructed its stations, which are heavily
represented in swing states like Florida and Wisconsin, to
run the film without commercials in the evening. The
company already compels them to broadcast editorials and
commentaries favorable to Mr. Bush and his policies. But
this is a whole new arena, and little different from making
the stations give donations to the Republican campaign.

We would be just as appalled if one of the major networks
forced its affiliates to broadcast "Fahrenheit 9/11" next
week and call it a news program.

The movie that caught Sinclair's eye, a 45-minute diatribe
called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," rehashes
Republican charges that are familiar to everyone from the
latest round of ads attacking Mr. Kerry's antiwar
activities: primarily that he lied to the Senate in 1971
about atrocities in Vietnam and that his testimony and the
antiwar movement in general aided the North Vietnamese and
harmed American soldiers. This line of reasoning neatly
dovetails with the Bush campaign's assertions that
criticizing Mr. Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is
unpatriotic and harms American soldiers.

Eighteen Democratic senators asked the Federal
Communications Commission to stop Sinclair from
broadcasting the new film, but the commission was right to
refuse. As painful as it is to defend this agency, which
has shown more interest in Janet Jackson's breast than in
really doing its job, we believe that the federal
government cannot indulge in that sort of prior restraint.

But the F.C.C. also cannot ignore Sinclair's poor record
when it comes to meeting its obligation to act responsibly
and fairly in the public interest, a duty it assumed when
it accepted custody of a license to broadcast on the public
airwaves. Broadcasting "Stolen Honor" within two weeks of
the election would clearly violate those commitments.

Sinclair says it is just trying to give its viewers news.
Unfortunately, this film is not news, and not journalism.
It makes no attempt at balance or fairness. Its interviews
with 17 men who were imprisoned and tortured in Hanoi are
powerful. But the narrator and producer, Carlton Sherwood,
a former journalist on leave from his job in a company that
provides "homeland security" services to the government,
exploits these brave men and their distinguished service
for a cause that he openly says is personal.

Sinclair's First Amendment defenses lack credibility
because it denied those rights to "Nightline." At the time,
Sinclair's spokesman, Mark Hyman, who doubles as a
conservative commentator, said Mr. Koppel's program did not
deserve to be broadcast because it had "no proportionality"
and ignored other aspects of the issues. It was hard to see
how that could describe a tribute to the war dead, but it's
a perfect description of "Stolen Honor."

Yesterday, Mr. Hyman seemed to be hedging a bit on
Sinclair's plans, saying the program was not finished and
would be balanced. But it was unnerving to hear him adhere
to his bizarre claim that the major broadcast networks who
wisely declined to run "Stolen Honor" when Mr. Sherwood
offered it to them were no different than "Holocaust
deniers."

If the company is thinking about seriously changing course,
it should do it quickly. Sinclair is in dangerous
territory. If television companies force their local
stations to campaign blatantly, it will not be long before
the administrations that have the power to grant licenses
begin expecting such favors as a quid pro quo. And the
public will question whether it can afford to allow such
concentrations of power in the hands of huge media
corporations.