Anti-Kerry Documentary

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:44 pm

Some of you have probably heard about this. Sinclair Broadcasting (owns 62 stations that reach about 1/4 of Americans) plans to pre-empt normal prime time broadcasting on it's affiliates to air "Stolen Honor," a documentary that attacks Kerry's post Vietnam activism.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printeditio ... 2617.story

My question to the conservatives around here: Do you think it is ok for Sinclair to do this?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:46 pm

A more important question: Why should it not be allowed?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:51 pm

Fusion pimp wrote:A more important question: Why should it not be allowed?

/me agrees, that's the question!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 5:59 pm

I've never even heard of that company...

bash · Post by **bash** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:00 pm

Blame it on campaign reform.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:01 pm

Top Gun wrote:I've never even heard of that company...

That's the way media corporations tend to be. Who knew that almost a third of cable television was owned and operated by one company: Viacom?

I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with their choice, but they'd have to live with whatever fallout exists afterward. Just like the GOP squirming and whining about Fahrenheit 9/11, yelling and complaining about it does more harm to the Dems than good.

I didn't know anything about it until they started complaining. But ultimately, a media corporation is free to do whatever it wants. It's like someone writing CBS telling them to pull Survivor because it's "stupid." CBS can do whatever it wants. If Dems are ticked off about it, they can have Moore draft a 2-hour made-for-TV movie for ABC...

... oh God... what Pandora's Box have I opened?

s. · Post by s. » Mon Oct 11, 2004 7:18 pm

Moore already did "fahrenheit 911"

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:39 pm

"A more important question: Why should it not be allowed?"

"/me agrees, that's the question!"

Thats a different issue, and a valid one, but it is beside my question: Is Sinclair Broadcasting doing a good or bad thing? Is it a good or bad thing for a media conglomorate to engage in explicit political action?

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:34 pm

I've been looking at the Sundance Channel lineup lately (a station I like for independent movies) and noticed these pre-election additions:

- The Al Franken Radio Show (One hour every night - which seemingly has nothing to do with film or film making).
- "Inside the Vote for Change Concert" (One guess at what they want you to change. A Pro-Kerry concert dressed up like a documentary).
- "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War" (an anti-Bush documentary about the run-up to the Iraq war).
- "Persons of Interest" (a sympathetic documentary about Muslim detainees and a U.S. political system gone "awry").
- "The President vs. David Hicks" (A documentary about "The father of a young Australian who embraced fundamentalist Muslim ideals, and came to be labeled a "unlawful combatant" by President Bush").
- "Unprecedented - The 2000 Presidential Election" (A documentary about how Bush "stole" the election).

This is a channel I've enjoyed for some time now for its foreign movies, small-budget movies about ordinary people, and documentaries about small voices in the world. Now, all of a sudden it's Kerry Campaign Central (or Anti-Bush Central). I wrote to ask if maybe Dennis Prager's radio program would be receiving equal time for balance. They didn't respond.

Sinclair Broadcasting's decision to preempt normal broadcasting at all their stations to show a political documentary that reflects their partisan beliefs so close to the election really rubs me wrong. But, they're not the only ones rubbing me wrong right now. As Bash notes, this is what our campaign reform has wrought. Get your DVD copy of "Farenheit 911" ... rushed out the door in record time for you undecided voters to enjoy.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:47 pm

I don't think there can be any 'good' or 'bad' about it. If it's not illegal it's just programming. It discloses where they are in the debate but they don't exist in a vacuum...they like everyone else have an opinion. Their customers may reward them for it or punish them.

If the movie is factual then it's of service to the electorate. If it's full of out of context distortion designed to fool the audience into believing Kerry is something he really isn't then it's just another campaign commercial.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:51 pm

I understand your point, Will. It's just all smelling a whole lot more like manipulation than information to me these days. As we've seen time and again, facts aren't necessarily essential in documentary films. Spin seems to win the day. The larger picture is often set aside to make a small point. The media has so trashed its credibility in my opinion that it's hard not to watch anything without seeing marionette strings over your head. If Ted Turner decided to broadcast "Farenheit 911" on all his stations two weeks before the election, I'd be pretty pissed. I try to be consistent. I don't think there's any doubt that "Stolen Honor" is designed and timed to affect a close election.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:23 pm

index_html wrote:If Ted Turner decided to broadcast "Farenheit 911" on all his stations two weeks before the election, I'd be pretty pissed.

Wow! I actually conjured that very scenario in my head when trying to see both sides of this issue before posting but I thought, hell, Ted probably will air it and I'm just so jaded it really wouldn't piss me off.

I don't mind partisans unless they pretend to be journalists. Rush Limbaugh is fine but if he ever appears as an anchor for a network then the lefty's will know what it's like to see some of the crap we put up with from Rather et al.

This whole thing is a product of our collective acceptance of the system, it's to be expected.
Hopefully it wont have to get much worse before the electorate finally wakes up and rejects it.
I'm doing my part by whining and refusing to vote for the big two. Not much of a Tea Party I know but what the hell...

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:26 pm

too polarized for my tastes...

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:38 pm

Rush Limbaugh is fine but if he ever appears as an anchor for a network then the lefty's will know what it's like to see some of the crap we put up with from Rather et al.

Ever heard of Sean Hannity?

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:38 pm

Kyouryuu wrote: CBS can do whatever it wants. If Dems are ticked off about it, they can have Moore draft a 2-hour made-for-TV movie for ABC...

They can do whatever they like, provided it doesn't piss-off the FCC.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:39 pm

Or the FEC.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:39 pm

Rush Limbaugh is fine but if he ever appears as an anchor for a network then the lefty's will know what it's like to see some of the crap we put up with from Rather et al.

Ever heard of Sean Hannity?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:40 pm

Hannity is a pimp.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Oct 11, 2004 10:49 pm

Some people seem to have a hard time differentiating between reading the news (anchors) and spinning the news (pundits). "Hannity & Colmes" is punditry. It's a debate program, as is Crossfire, and Hardball, et. al. I think the media itself has a hard time with that distinction at times.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 6:45 am

Birdseye wrote:Ever heard of Sean Hannity?

The shrill little shameless rightwinger?
Yea, he's on one of those shows where they have one guy from the right and one guy from the left and they try to out spin each others point of view.

They have shows like that on every network...the only difference is, on Fox they let the conservative guests finish their sentances and cut off the liberal guests mid point.
On CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc. they let the liberals finish their sentance and cut off the conservatives mid point. Then of course you have shows like Bill Marr's where you have 3 liberals and one token conservative and they all talk over the conservative everytime he tries to talk....
So one Sean Hannity is no match for all the many leftwing counterparts out there.

How do you think Fox news got to be so popular? It's because the lefty's dominated the TV news so blatently with their spin that the righty's were hungry for some turnabout! If all the networks had just objectively presented the facts there wouldn't have been a market for Fox to get so big!

But I wasn't talking about shows like that since they don't have the volume of viewers that the evening news shows have, nor do they have the long standing tradition of being *the* source of news for the people to learn from.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:27 am

I don't share the same conservative slanted view. My view is slanted a lil differently, and big surprise I don't see the massive liberal bias you report. In fact I sometimes wonder if conservatives own all the media. Keep on crying will

Sorry index, I should have said "Brit Hume" who is equally is slanted. Or maybe a lot of those war cheerleaders who lost the "unbiased" viewpoint by a mile during the beginning of the war.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 am

If you want a complete examination of media bias read Manufacturing Consent. It's real, it's supported, and it's frightening. The media supports whoever is in office, not just the left or the right, because both the left and the right support economic imperialism and big business.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:15 pm

The media supports whoever is in office

I give you 3 "hehs" and a "lol" for that one.

Here's the Editor of Newsweek's idea of "supporting whoever's in office":

"There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Link

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:39 pm

Well, speculation is one thing, but read teh book. By analyzing an ENORMOUS amount of media here in the US and in other nations, the authors demonstrate incredible bias in BOTH directions, especially when it comes to not covering or ignoring atrocious acts of violence committed by or supported by the United States.

Just check out the book. It goes FAR beyond partisanship and speculation.

Skyalmian · Post by **Skyalmian** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:12 pm

"They better hope we don't win." - Kerry's Senior Advisor, Chad Clanton, to SINCLAIR Broadcasting on Fox News Dayside.

Speaks for itself.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 2:13 pm

Index, please try to explain how this is more than "Republican claims liberal bias"

I'm sure we can run out and find some democrat working for a news agency who says the reverse.

and on the 15 points... I haven't seen any such conversion. The media consistantly calls Kerry a flip flopper, much to his detriment.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:04 pm

Index, please try to explain how this is more than "Republican claims liberal bias"

Uh, because the Editor of Newsweek himself was on t.v. when he said it. Maybe you're under the false impression that Evan Thomas from Newsweek is a Republican and was criticizing the media. Au contraire, he was touting it. He's speaking on behalf of the media, not against it. That interview was conducted the week that Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. The cover of Newsweek was "The Sunshine Boys" and Time ran "The Gleam Team" cover. He was saying WE want Kerry to win and we'll provide 15 points as a result.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:52 pm

Birdseye, I've brought specific examples to this forum and your only rebutal has been a blanket dismissal without substance. You offer Sean Hannity or even Brit Hume (who is far more objective than Hannity by the way) as some kind of proof I'm wrong?!? Well, for every one person you name there are at least ten on the other side so I'd abandon the name dropping as your sole argument if I were you.

Go back to my challenge that you mysteriously avoided in this thread and answer the question please.

While you're at it, explain the double standard criteria applied by Dan Rather when reporting stories that are damaging to Bush versus damaging to Kerry.

Dan Rather who will:
*use forged documents, (warned ahead of time by his own expert that they were forged)
*to support a story that has *no* witnesses or coroborating evidence
* to report as news an accusation that originated only from the head of the democrat national committee
But..
He won't report a story based on the testimony of 60 living witnesses and reams of corroborating documentary evidence because it's "not believable"

Go ahead, since there is no media bias explain all that to me instead of just sweeping it under the rug.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:57 pm

"Birdseye, I've brought specific examples to this forum and your only rebutal has been a blanket dismissal without substance."

Alright, so 2 in the democrat column--but do you think this is an overall example? The example before this was from Limbaugh's MRC center so I'll ignore that.

----------

Now that you mention it from that perspective index, that's pretty interesting. So you are saying this guy is a known democrat who is publically calling it for his team eh? Very interesting.
It likens him more to sinclair though in terms of a tv station having a bias--but if you could elaborate more, I would be interested.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 5:28 pm

Birdseye wrote: Alright, so 2 in the democrat column--but do you think this is an overall example?

I've shown you where so called legitimate reporters have taken an active role in helping the democratic candidate.
Can you show me any examples where legitimate reporters have done the same for the republican candidate?

This isn't about how many stories are spun by editorialists, although the left leads there as well, this is about pretending to be an objective source of news but filtering it to help a candidate or party. It's like having the bank robbers guard the bank!

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:48 pm

index_html wrote:facts aren't necessarily essential in documentary films.

You're only partially right. Facts are essential in good documentary films. They are, however, optional in smutty pseudo-documentaries.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:38 pm

kufyit wrote:If you want a complete examination of media bias read Manufacturing Consent. It's real, it's supported, and it's frightening. The media supports whoever is in office, not just the left or the right, because both the left and the right support economic imperialism and big business.

indeed. Noam Chomsky can have my babies.
this was a great introductory read, the years ago i read it online:
What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream - From a talk at Z Media Institute June 1997 - By Noam Chomsky.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:12 pm

No block! Sorry, bleeders.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... kerry_film

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:59 pm

Separately, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday contending that Sinclair's airing of the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to President Bush's campaign.

wtf? and airing Fahrenheit 9/11 the day before the election isn't somehow aimed to sway voters to Kerry? Granted it'll be on PPV but come on. We've listened to nothing but anti-Bush this and that for over a year now...give me a friggin break.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:25 pm

Just for the record (and I know you're keeping records), I think desiring the government to step in and prevent Sinclair Broadcasting from running the film is far worse than wanting to show it. It falls into that "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" category for me because it seems so transparently manipulative. But for all the Democratic noise we've heard about our eroding freedoms, seeing the DNC file a complaint to shut the film down is just a little more than lame.

Thought Police(D) = Fluffy white clouds & gumdrops
Thought Police(R) = EVIL NAZI FACISTS

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:06 pm

"I've shown you where so called legitimate reporters have taken an active role in helping the democratic candidate." - WILL

Please define "legitimate reporter" before we discuss further.

Anyway, I think the Sinclair stuff is totally fair game under current law, but in general concerning the media I miss the fairness doctrine.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:49 pm

Birdseye wrote:Please define "legitimate reporter" before we discuss further.

A journalist like Rather is considered, or at least was until his forgery scam, a legitimate reporter where an editorialist like Hannity is not, nor was he ever considered a reporter. People tune in to the big three networks nightly news programs expecting the truth to be told. They don't tune in to Hannity or Rush without some expectation of spin added.

Show me where a reporter has done the work of the RNC the way my examples show how a reporter has done the work of the DNC.

An objective press is the only thing that keeps the candidates from running on a platform of lies. Currently we have a press that is for the most part in favor of letting one candidate get away with quite a few big lies, apparantly so he will win the election. No matter how good their intentions they have opened a pandoras box for the future, soon we will have Big Media appointing the candidate of their choice, literally.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:24 pm

Birds, I think Will has given enough information that his definition should be clear. You're intentionally ignoring him.

A guy on a show called "news" (especially major network news) is at least supposed to be a legitimate, unbiased reporter.

A guy on an editorial show (ie, a "here, let's talk and/or argue about the issues") -- especially one where they state their party affiliations up-front -- is not a reporter.

Will made this point clearly back here:

This isn't about how many stories are spun by editorialists, although the left leads there as well, this is about pretending to be an objective source of news but filtering it to help a candidate or party.

Let me state it yet again:

Someone whose purpose is clearly to editorialize -- like Rush, or anybody on Bill Maher -- is not a "reporter" and they don't count when you're talking about media bias, because the bias is up front. Someone whose purpose is (supposedly) to report the news -- but who biases their coverage, and editorializes while pretending to be objective -- is a "biased reporter".

Maybe we need to stop calling it media bias, and start calling it news bias. Because the problem isn't that people on TV are biased, it's that people who are supposedly presenting us with objective news coverage ("just the facts") are spinning it.

If they did away with all pretenses of being "objective" and made their party affiliations and voting preferences known beforehand, I wouldn't mind. But when someone pretends to be an objective journalist, and then they go ahead with something like the forged NG memo story, that bugs me.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:12 pm

Brit Hume

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:11 am

Birdseye wrote:Brit Hume

So where's the details of how he knowingly used forged documents to attack Kerry...or the memo he issued instructing the reporters under him to not hold Bush to the same standard they hold Kerry...or where he attended fundraisers for Bush?

I think your benchmark for middle ground is based on a long practiced left of center 'norm' so Hume 'seems' to the right when actually he to the right of left, not to the right of center.

Unless you can give me examples you haven't given me anything.