PhillyArena Forums
PhillyArena Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ted on October 13, 2004, 12:48:46 PM
-
Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109763076928843802,00.html?mod=opinion%5Fmain%5Freview%5Fand%5Foutlooks)
Wall Street Journal OpEd page
Sinclair and Double Standards
October 13, 2004; Page A16
We haven't seen "Stolen Honor," the documentary on Senator John Kerry's post-Vietnam antiwar activities that's causing such a brouhaha in advance of its scheduled airing later this month. Sinclair Broadcast Group doesn't own a station in our metro New York City market, though we're now tempted to hop on a plane to Buffalo or St. Louis to check out what all the fuss is about.
Of course, if Dianne Feinstein and 17 other Democratic Senators have their way, Buffalonians and St. Louisans won't get to see it either. The Senators have written a letter of protest to the Federal Communications Commission. "To allow a broadcasting company to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming, and to classify that attack as 'news programming' as has been suggested, would violate the spirit, and we think the text, of current law and regulation," they write.
Meanwhile, Terry McAuliffe called the program "an illegal in-kind contribution" to the Bush campaign and said the Democratic National Committee is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. Over at the FCC, Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps interrupted his Columbus Day holiday to dub the broadcast "an abuse of the public trust." More ominously, Kerry adviser Chad Clanton told Fox News yesterday that "I think they (Sinclair) are going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win." Perhaps Mr. Clanton is auditioning for the H.R. Haldeman seat in the Nixon, er, Kerry White House.
Allow us to interrupt this programming with a commercial on the First Amendment. It wasn't the intention of the Founders to give elected officials veto power over press reports. That goes for Republicans too. We didn't like it any better when GOP Representative Joe Barton, outraged at Rathergate, last month considered convening a hearing on TV news operations.
The excuse for such broadcast regulation used to be that the public airwaves required "equal time." But this anti-democratic notion went away when the so-called Fairness Doctrine finally did in the 1980s. With all of the many media outlets that are now available, surely no one thinks Sinclair's special will brainwash voters who haven't been exposed to the alternative point of view. All those voters have to do is turn on CNN 24 hours a day, or the CBS Evening News whenever Dan Rather is letting anti-Bush Texas partisans leak him a story.
In any event, we fail to see a difference between Sinclair's anti-Kerry documentary and the cascade of newspaper editorials now endorsing the Senator. The Kerry campaign graciously sent us (and no doubt a few thousand other of its closest media friends) a batch this week, complete with Web links. The list included such leading big-city dailies as the Philadelphia Inquirer (which is planning 21 installments on its favored candidate), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Oregonian, the Portland (Maine) Press Herald, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. These editorials all appeared over the weekend.
Previous Kerry endorsements have come from the Philadelphia Daily News, the Seattle Times, the Arizona Daily Star, the Detroit Free Press, the New London Day, and -- living up to its name -- the Lone Star Iconoclast of President Bush's hometown of Crawford, Texas. Other big city papers -- New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald -- haven't weighed in yet, but you can already guess where most will lean. (This newspaper has a long tradition of not endorsing candidates.)
We haven't done the math, but surely the combined impact of these "in-kind contributions" reaches millions of potential voters who aren't likely to read another editorial endorsing Mr. Bush. By contrast, Sinclair's 42-minute documentary is airing on the company's 62 stations, which reach 24% of U.S. households. The Kerry campaign declined Sinclair's invitation to the Senator to comment on the show.
None of "Stolen Honor's" critics appears to have actually seen the show, whose subtitle is "Wounds That Never Heal." It is said to include interviews with former Vietnam POWs arguing that Senator Kerry's 1971 testimony to Congress prolonged their captivity. Whether or not one agrees with Sinclair vice president Mark Hyman's news judgment that this is an undercovered story, it is certainly the right of the news organization to broadcast it.
Meanwhile, Variety reports that Michael Moore is negotiating to air "Fahrenheit 9/11" on pay per view on Election Day eve. We look forward to reading the Senators' follow-up letter to the FCC on this abuse of the airwaves.
-
Hypocrisy at it's best!
It's okay to endorse (silently) Michael Moore (his movie is the ONLY reason that he was given a spot at the Democratic Convention and his movie but there's no WAY that it's okay for anyone in the Republican camp to air anything even REMOTELY similar?
Name ONE person who believes that everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is true? Anyone? I don't even think Michael Moore believes it's all true but that's certainly not the way it was presented, right?
I heard some Senators reacting to the movie and proclaiming that the Media was supposed to be "non-partisan" and "non-biased" -- you mean like CBS and Dan Rather? That kind of "non-partisan" and "non-biased" reporting? Please!
Then I heard that they were upset because Kerry and his camp were not given the opportunity to present their side of the story following the movie -- umm, trying to remember Moore giving Bush that same opportunity.
If you don't cry when someone does it IN your favor -- don't cry because they did it when it's NOT in your favor!
-
It's blatantly biased and subjective. My only gripe is, if your an independent news source, you need to present both sides. If they showed Farenheit 9-11 immediately following the program, I wouldn't have issue.
That's what PBS did. They presented both sides, they didn't try to sway the election.
-
It's blatantly biased and subjective. My only gripe is, if your an independent news source, you need to present both sides. If they showed Farenheit 9-11 immediately following the program, I wouldn't have issue.
That's what PBS did. They presented both sides, they didn't try to sway the election.
Dude you're so blind.
Would you say Fahrenheit 911 was blatantly biased and subjective? Matt Lauer shredded Moore on NBC, accusing him of putting biased and subjective material out there as journalism. And yet it's okay for that movie to be distributed in an election year, but this movie (which is probably also a pile of crap) should be banned? Why?
What about the 11th hour deal to have Fahrenheit 911 on pay per view the night before the election? Where's the outcry about that?
I may think Michael Moore is fat, bombastic liar, but I support his right to make and sell his movie. I see no difference in allowing these people to air their movie. Are you really for censorship? Seriously?
-
Are you really for censorship? Seriously?
Absolutely not unless it causes harm or injury to somebody else. For example, somebody yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or say, a scrub network trying to make a name for itself by purposely causing controversy in an election year.
CBS paid a terrible price for their mistake. Hope the same happens to FOX.
-
Mark Hyman of Sinclair Broadcasting has routinely reported biased "news" as part of his "The Point" editorial for months. We lucky folks in San Antonio can listen to his blathering on a nightly basis. Last week he even went as far as calling Kerry the "leader of the entire 60's anti-war movement." He has regularly taken the campaign rhetoric of the Bush camp and spent several minutes nightly editoralizing it as the "truth" about Kerry. Funny thing is that he has never done an editorial on Bush. Hmmmmm.
-
Are you really for censorship? Seriously?
Absolutely not unless it causes harm or injury to somebody else. For example, somebody yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or say, a scrub network trying to make a name for itself by purposely causing controversy in an election year.
CBS paid a terrible price for their mistake. Hope the same happens to FOX.
We aren't talking a NEWS agency -- we are talking a MEDIA agency -- we expect the News (i.e. reporters) to be unbiased -- of course, we all know they aren't. There are obvious agencies on BOTH sides of the political fence. However, we aren't talking a NEWS program -- we are talking a movie shown through a media market. I fail to see the difference in how you can tell a media market that they can't show a one-sided perspective without the other side without telling Michael Moore the same thing! It's hypocrisy to say it's okay for one side without saying it's okay for the other.
I have ZERO doubt that there are going to be untruths and inaccuracies in this movie -- just as most people (all rational people actually) will admit that Michael Moore's movie is nothing more than propaganda for a perspective -- HIS perspective and is FILLED with untruths and inaccuracies.
I believe that if you want to ban one of them -- you ban them BOTH! These Senators don't have a problem with the media venue -- they have a problem with the message of the argument. When the start saying that they don't approve of what Michael Moore did with a movie that was supposedly representing the truth -- then I'll start believing that they are standing on an issue! But the Democratic Party LOVED what Moore did, lies and all, and that's why they gave him a spot on the platform during the Convention -- to connect Moore, his film and the democratic party.
If it's good for one, it's good for the other. I, actually believe, that BOTH are wrong!
-
I just can't wait for this election to be over with to be honest with you. It will be nice to have the board back!
(Of course, whoever gets elected, I'm sure either side will think the world will be coming to an end.) :cry: :alcohol: :D
-
I just can't wait for this election to be over with to be honest with you. It will be nice to have the board back!
(Of course, whoever gets elected, I'm sure either side will think the world will be coming to an end.) :cry: :alcohol: :D
You forgot to mention that the winner is already preresigned to listen to conspiracy theories of a "rigged" election -- always happens in close elections (or NBA championships, right Reality?).
-
I just can't wait for this election to be over with to be honest with you. It will be nice to have the board back!
(Of course, whoever gets elected, I'm sure either side will think the world will be coming to an end.) :cry: :alcohol: :D
This coming from the run away leader of politically off topic posts. :up:
I don't think the world will come to an end if Kerry wins. I think things will be okay. Our foreign policy experts and diplomats might all have to learn French, but otherwise I think the country will get along okay, until the Democratic party ousts Kerry in 2008 and nominates Shrillary. Then we're going to hell in a hand basket.
Seriously, though, I strongly believe this country is still stronger than anyone president. It may not always be so, but I don't think one administration can ruin this country. Although it seems like every one of them for the past 15 or so years has sure tried.
-
You forgot to mention that the winner is already preresigned to listen to conspiracy theories of a "rigged" election -- always happens in close elections (or NBA championships, right Reality?).
Don't say such things Randy! That is my absolute greatest fear. I hope whatever happens, it is a decisive win. I couldn't stand another Florida.
-
Ted it won't be ANOTHER Florida, it will be Florida. Again. Seriously I've seen some articles on it and the news is not good.
-
But the Democratic Party LOVED what Moore did, lies and all, and that's why they gave him a spot on the platform during the Convention -- to connect Moore, his film and the democratic party.
Michael Moore was at the Republican Convention too.
Also, there's a law that you can't have any tv advertisements about a political documentary within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. Republican officials actually tried to prevent ads for Farenheit 9/11 because it was within 30 days of the Republican National Convention, which was technically a primary.
So don't act like the Republicans didn't try to stop Farenheith 9/11. They did.
Not to mention, Republicans flat out trying stop the release of 9/11
-----------------------------------
Shadow Divers: According to Variety, now that Sony/Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment has landed domestic DVD distribution rights to Fahrenheit 9/11, studio is facing the wrath of some of same Republicans who went after Michael Moore before the controversial doc was released.
Days before "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in theaters, Citizens' United, a conservative group in Washington, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, charging that the movie and any ads related to its promotion amount to political electioneering and are subject to the same restraints of the new campaign finance laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In essence:
I don't like Michael Moore
Republicans did the same damned thing. There's no hypocrisy. They both tried to sensor and destroy the 1st amendment. And neither will be successful.
-
Already been said before.....Demo's are doing exactly the Republicans were doing with Farenheit. If you are going to say the Demo's are attacking the first amendment, are wrong, and trying to undermind our rights....please apply those to the Rep party also.
-
Ted,
Well it didn't take long to find another article about the situation in Florida.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6236774/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6236774/)
-
Already been said before.....Demo's are doing exactly the Republicans were doing with Farenheit. If you are going to say the Demo's are attacking the first amendment, are wrong, and trying to undermind our rights....please apply those to the Rep party also.
I thought the Repubs were trying to get advertisements barred. I hadn't heard anything about them trying to get it pulled. Edumicate me, please!
-
Already been said before.....Demo's are doing exactly the Republicans were doing with Farenheit. If you are going to say the Demo's are attacking the first amendment, are wrong, and trying to undermind our rights....please apply those to the Rep party also.
yeah but this is different becuz the demo's are wrong...............snicker, laugh....j/k
-
:Just heard on NPR that Voters Outreach America was caught throwing away democratic voter registration forms . The company hired temps to go out and register ONLY registered voters. Votes that gone through were chunked.
Hmmm... Im sure there is deception on both sides.nonono:
-
Only registered REPUBLICAN VOTERS by the way...
-
I thought the Repubs were trying to get advertisements barred. I hadn't heard anything about them trying to get it pulled. Edumicate me, please!
First of all, it's the same principle. Both parties doing anything they can to prevent the ramifications of a piece of work.
Second, once commercials were aired for 9/11, Citizens United then tried to get the movie taken out of theaters.
It's the same damned thing Ted. Both sides are wrong.
And for the Kerry campaign, he never supported the movie.
-
Of course, if Dianne Feinstein and 17 other Democratic Senators have their way, Buffalonians and St. Louisans won't get to see it either. The Senators have written a letter of protest to the Federal Communications Commission. "To allow a broadcasting company to air such a blatantly partisan attack in lieu of regular programming, and to classify that attack as 'news programming' as has been suggested, would violate the spirit, and we think the text, of current law and regulation," they write.
Meanwhile, Terry McAuliffe called the program "an illegal in-kind contribution" to the Bush campaign and said the Democratic National Committee is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
Over at the FCC, Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps interrupted his Columbus Day holiday to dub the broadcast "an abuse of the public trust."
More ominously, Kerry adviser Chad Clanton told Fox News yesterday that "I think they (Sinclair) are going to regret doing this, and they better hope we don't win." Perhaps Mr. Clanton is auditioning for the H.R. Haldeman seat in the Nixon, er, Kerry White House.
Excuse me while I :puke: :puke: :puke: .
With all due respect there is a VERY VERY VERY HUGE difference between some obviously partisan yet private political group like Citizans United attempting to influence advertisers and theatre owners and a member of Congress, or the head of the FCC challenging the legitimacy of a network to air a "documentary" no matter how sleazy.
The real issue, and I must admit I am disgusted that none of our lefties have stood up and denounced this, are the comments from the Kerry advisor Chad Clanton. All the moralizing about Mel Gibson not publically denouncing his father, but that statement goes by here with barely a wisp. Give me a break.
-
But the Democratic Party LOVED what Moore did, lies and all, and that's why they gave him a spot on the platform during the Convention -- to connect Moore, his film and the democratic party.
Michael Moore was at the Republican Convention too.
Also, there's a law that you can't have any tv advertisements about a political documentary within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. Republican officials actually tried to prevent ads for Farenheit 9/11 because it was within 30 days of the Republican National Convention, which was technically a primary.
So don't act like the Republicans didn't try to stop Farenheith 9/11. They did.
Not to mention, Republicans flat out trying stop the release of 9/11
-----------------------------------
Shadow Divers: According to Variety, now that Sony/Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment has landed domestic DVD distribution rights to Fahrenheit 9/11, studio is facing the wrath of some of same Republicans who went after Michael Moore before the controversial doc was released.
Days before "Fahrenheit 9/11" opened in theaters, Citizens' United, a conservative group in Washington, filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, charging that the movie and any ads related to its promotion amount to political electioneering and are subject to the same restraints of the new campaign finance laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In essence:
I don't like Michael Moore
Republicans did the same damned thing. There's no hypocrisy. They both tried to sensor and destroy the 1st amendment. And neither will be successful.
Michael Moore was at the Republican Convention too.
Woah, this is some SERIOUS spin, dbods. Care to elaborate WHY Moore was at the Republican Convention? Because he was PAID to give the opposing perspective of what occured. I forget the woman who was hired to do the same thing at the Democratic Convention -- mainly, because she got canned after turning in her first story and being unwilling to do the rewrite that was insisted upon.
I like the spin attempt -- pretty humorous! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Moore wasn't at the Republican Convention because they invited him there based on his support of the republican party. You also didn't see him on the platform did you?
Demo's did EVERYTHING short of publicly affirming his movie in words (they obviously did it in action) -- still are -- and yet, want to stop a TV station from showing a movie on TV that does the same thing. I don't have much problem with criticism -- I HIGHLY criticize the untruth of Moore's movie -- just as I'm sure there is a great deal of untruth in the movie that will be shown on television. However, it's one thing to be critical -- it's another to try and STOP the movie from showing. Perhaps republicans can send this movie around the world too -- I know that the middle east would love to see a movie on Kerry. I think that's a HUGE mistake, IMO -- on BOTH movies. I realize that because we are a democracy, we air our dirty laundry in public -- but I REALLY hate these movies because I think the feed the wrong messages to our enemy -- terrorists. I'm sure many terrorists enjoyed all the lies that Moore proffered in his movie. The same, unfortunately, I believe is true of this upcoming movie.
I actually have a problem with using the media in this way. Moore has opened a HUGE door that I think we SHOULD question. Should Hollywood (whether TV OR the big screen) be a venue for political expression? Is that really a door we want to swing wide open and invite anyone to see?
Another struggle I have, Scott Peterson is now on trial -- there has been a movie out for quite some time now (and another one that just hit the video stores) that has proclaimed him guilty -- even before his trial. Does he LOOK guilty? IMO, absolutely, yes! However, at this point, it all appears to be quite CIMCUMSTANTIAL evidence -- that bothers me -- and for someone to make a movie BEFORE his trial was even completed is VERY wrong, IMO, no matter HOW much I dislike the guy and think he's guilty.
-
I see a BIG difference. You have to PAY to go see this movie at a movie theater. This swiftie message is being hand-delivered free of charge (right to your door) by a right wing TV station.
-
I see a BIG difference. You have to PAY to go see this movie at a movie theater. This swiftie message is being hand-delivered free of charge (right to your door) by a right wing TV station.
Umm, you have a choice to go and PAY to see a movie (on a big screen which adds greater effects, etc.) or CHANGE the stupid channel and NOT watch it. If this was ALL that was going to be shown during that time slot, it would be different but it's one of many, many choices. Your argument is very weak and shows your political persuasion.
Do you have a problem with the fact that Moore is trying to get his movie out on pay-per-view the day of the election? Or that he is trying to get gifts to college students to get them to register them to vote -- AFTER and DURING he tells them how they should vote?
BOTH of these people are VERY wrong, IMO, but anyone who supports one and chastises the other is showing their partisan colors.