NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberals Warn Sinclair Not to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Film
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A liberal group dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" is furious that Sinclair Broadcasting plans to have its stations air an "anti-Kerry attack film" between now and Nov. 2.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200410/CUL20041011a.html

Oh well. There's already bullshit enough on both sides to choke the St. Lawrence, what's another bucket more or less?

Michael Moore does not own or control what is being put on the airwaves. It's not the same thing at all. MM is not a member of the press. What don't you understand about that?

Michael Moore does not own or control what is being put on the airwaves. It's not the same thing at all. MM is not a member of the press. What don't you understand about that?

Perhaps not, but he certainly knows how to manipulate the press. What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

Perhaps not, but he certainly knows how to manipulate the press. What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

So it's his fault he knows how to play the system?

I thought if someone played the system, it's the system's fault? After all, that's the republican argument against social services...

It wasn't okay for Michael Moore to release his film, as per FEC regulations... however, because he's a celebrity - not politician - he can get away with doing it anyway. Thus, they are right for not letting this anti-Kerry ad/movie/whatever run, as per FEC regulations, because it's backed by a politically-funded group.

"According to the "Stolen Honor" website, the film is a "documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal.""That's all I need, it's a documentary, just like mm's fling about The President. What's fair is fair!
Roll It!

Perhaps not, but he certainly knows how to manipulate the press. What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

It does not matter that he knows how to manipulate the press, only that he is not a part of the press. The press are supposed to maintain certain standards of impartiality

It does not matter that he knows how to manipulate the press, only that he is not a part of the press. The press are supposed to maintain certain standards of impartiality
:rolleyes:
You have GOT to be kidding.
CBS
PBS
Fox
Standards of impartiality indeed. :p

Just because they areN't impartial doesn't mean they shouldn't be...

Perhaps not, but he certainly knows how to manipulate the press. What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend?
He puts out his own material with his own money, Disney that paid for the film to be made REFUSED to distribute 9/11, again this is not someone who owns a major media source and dictates what is being offered. Who in the media kowtows to Michael Moore? Point of fact being, you're a dumbass.

:rolleyes:
You have GOT to be kidding.
CBS
PBS
Fox
Standards of impartiality indeed. :p

dont forget ABC

How about we simply scrap campaign finance reform. With thepossible exception of the presidency, all these laws do is make it easier for incumbants to stay in power. Look at the re elect rates in congress. Its almost freaking impossible for a sitting senator to lose.

MM should be allowed to say whatever he wants to whenever he wants to and wherever he wants to, and so should everybody else.


None of this garbage about one group being able to mention a candidate 60 before an election but this other group cant.

And let people give how much ever they want as long as there is a public record of who is giving money to whom.

Liberals Warn Sinclair Not to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Film
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A liberal group dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" is furious that Sinclair Broadcasting plans to have its stations air an "anti-Kerry attack film" between now and Nov. 2.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200410/CUL20041011a.html

Another smear campagin by the Republicans. :rolleyes:

keyword: STATIONS

michael moore produced a film that only aired in theatres and now on dvd

these people are putting it on tv, breaking the RULES.

thanks for not knowing wth you are even talking about AGAIN eutrusca

Who cares its the old bill hicks thing "well I believe the puppet on the left, I believe the puppet on the right, oh wait theres one person holding both puppets"

Wait. Let me get a time line going here.

Moore's movie starts being made
Neo cons try to stop the movie from being made
Disney refuses to release it, or some such thing
Neo cons try AGAIN to stop the movie from being made
Movie comes out.
Neo cons insult it and say it should've never been made
Neo cons, not satisfied, make dirty websites about the movie
Neo cons claim that such a movie should never, ever exist
Then they try to fucking make one
Kyle Morton, also known as Goed in some circles, calls them on their bullshit.
There is much rejoicing
Flags wave

You forgot to mention that Sinclair is the media group that told it's ABC affiliates not to air the "Nightline" broadcast last spring that read the names of all the soldiers who had died in Iraq. Yeah. We wouldn't want to honor our fallen heroes, now would we?

To find a Sinclair station near you to boycott:
http://www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml

Liberals Warn Sinclair Not to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Film
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A liberal group dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" is furious that Sinclair Broadcasting plans to have its stations air an "anti-Kerry attack film" between now and Nov. 2.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200410/CUL20041011a.html

What the owners of the stations decide, they decide. They are their stations and not the liberal group's. So what. Exactly, if Michael Moore can talk his crap, so can everyone else.

Liberals Warn Sinclair Not to Broadcast Anti-Kerry Film
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
October 11, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A liberal group dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" is furious that Sinclair Broadcasting plans to have its stations air an "anti-Kerry attack film" between now and Nov. 2.

Full article at:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200410/CUL20041011a.html

What Michael Moore did and what Sinclair is saying they are going to do is apples and oranges not even close. Moore's film is pay-per-view. You have to decide to go out and pay to see it. What Sinclair is doing may in fact be illegal. You see they don't own the airwaves, only the TV stations. If the FCC ever gets a back-bone maybe Sinclair will lose their license to broadcast and they would deserve it. However, if enough noise is made maybe they won't do it, they seem to be backing off of their position now. I watched the VP of Sinclair on CNN this morning.. they are trying to pretend like it's news.. which is pretty funny. However remember what happened to CBS? CBS will survive because it's the Tiffany network and the oldest network in America.. Sinclair might not be so lucky. I just keep hoping they keep saying it's a "news" story and get their license revoked.

So it's his fault he knows how to play the system?

I thought if someone played the system, it's the system's fault? After all, that's the republican argument against social services...


republicans are against social services? you sound like MM yourself, delusions and paranoia for breakfast anyone?

and since the movie is true in every detail that would qualify it as news wouldn't it?

Others have already made the big point here--that Moore made a film that you had to pay to go watch as compared to a hatchet job that a company is forcing its affiliates to broadcast whether the local programmers want to broadcast it or not. F 9/11 isn't being broadcast over the public airwaves. It was screened in theatres and is now available on dvd. Big difference.

And it's not like Sinclair isn't already known as a right-wing media organization. They include "commentary" for their local affiliates to play on their news shows that's always from the christian conservative perspective, and went so far as to describe the major networks who wouldn't show this film as "holocaust deniers." And no, I'm not making that last part up. Fuck Sinclair.

2 things:

1. I find it interesting that the Bush supporters are getting worried enough about this election that they're resorting to these kinds of tactics.

2. Does anyone have any links to FCC/FEC policy that would clarify a resolution for this situation? I'm not up on the regulations they have, nor the legal arguments for and against this. Much appreciated.

2 things:

1. I find it interesting that the Bush supporters are getting worried enough about this election that they're resorting to these kinds of tactics.

2. Does anyone have any links to FCC/FEC policy that would clarify a resolution for this situation? I'm not up on the regulations they have, nor the legal arguments for and against this. Much appreciated.As to the second, I don't have chapter and verse on the FEC regs on this matter, but my guess from seeing the urged action on the blogosphere is that the airing of the film is legal, unless it can be proven that Sinclair is working directly with the Bush campaign, and I'd be surprised if they were that clumsy. That's why the response has been to denounce Sinclair loudly and publicly, and to boycott companies that advertise on Sinclair news broadcasts. And even if the boadcast is illegal--and I doubt it is--the FEC wouldn't get to the complaint before the November election anyway. They're still backed up with stuff from 2002, as I understand.

OK, I'm not much on the FCC, I think they are a bunch of beurocratic 1st amendment stifling gang of right wing nuts. However, rules are rules. Whether you disagree or not with Michael Moore isn't the issue. Because you had to actively get up, go out and pay to see his film. That is a right that he has to express himself in that way and if people choose to pay to see it then don't worry about it, its not your problem. Unfortunately the Kerry thing is to be broadcast on television, a media available to the general public in their own homes. Even though you still have to pay for cable and there is an on/off switch the FCC in their "infinate wisdom" had deemed things on television as public domain veiwing and as such materials and films concerning the candidates cannot be shown, nor can a film such as this that is paid for or endorsed by the political party be shown. Thats the rule.

As to the second, I don't have chapter and verse on the FEC regs on this matter, but my guess from seeing the urged action on the blogosphere is that the airing of the film is legal, unless it can be proven that Sinclair is working directly with the Bush campaign, and I'd be surprised if they were that clumsy. That's why the response has been to denounce Sinclair loudly and publicly, and to boycott companies that advertise on Sinclair news broadcasts. And even if the boadcast is illegal--and I doubt it is--the FEC wouldn't get to the complaint before the November election anyway. They're still backed up with stuff from 2002, as I understand.

I don't believe it would be breaking any of the FEC rules.. however it may be breaking FCC rules. There are rules about "fairness" in news according to the FCC. Now the pure fact that Fox news is allowed to be called "news" means that the FCC doesn't have much of a back-bone to enforce their own rules. However, let's see how much noise is made about it. Maybe they will. I have my doubts though.

I don't believe it would be breaking any of the FEC rules.. however it may be breaking FCC rules. There are rules about "fairness" in news according to the FCC. Now the pure fact that Fox news is allowed to be called "news" means that the FCC doesn't have much of a back-bone to enforce their own rules. However, let's see how much noise is made about it. Maybe they will. I have my doubts though.
If you're talking about the "fairness doctrine," that was done away with way back in the Reagan years. Surprised? I was too. There are no equal time requirements for any broadcast media anymore in the US. When there was a call to return to the days of the fairness doctrine earlier this year, Rush Limbaugh claimed, in an oxycodone-induced haze perhaps, that liberals were calling for a return to it so they could shut him down. Like that would ever happen.

If you're talking about the "fairness doctrine," that was done away with way back in the Reagan years. Surprised? I was too

Yeah, I'm surprised. However it would then explain Fox.. that's just stupid imo though. Why bother calling it news then. What's the point.

republicans are against social services? you sound like MM yourself, delusions and paranoia for breakfast anyone?
The constant raving against "welfare queens" and about how "90% of people on welfare are lazy, we should cut them" really gives that impression.

Yeah, I'm surprised. However it would then explain Fox.. that's just stupid imo though. Why bother calling it news then. What's the point.It's just another facet of the stupid idea that the free market can solve all your problems. The market does some stuff very, very well. Balance ain't one of them.

If the FCC ever gets a back-bone maybe Sinclair will lose their license to broadcast and they would deserve it.

Don't hold your breath. The chairman is Michael Powell son of our dear secretary of state.

Super Arch conservative who thinks he is out to save the morality of the country.

Not exact quote:

"There are some on the supreme court that think that since you are paying for satelite(referencing the Howard Stern show), you know what you are getting and do not need regulation"
:eek:

So I really doubt he will do anything against the partys wishes.

well i'm sure this has been brought up already...but if they're going to allow an anti-Kerry film be aired on national television, then it should be mandatory that "Fahrenheit 9/11" be aired. That would be impartial. But we must also remember that Sinclair are the ones that ordered stations not to run the show of Nightline (or primtetime, sorry can't remember right now which one it was) where they were reading the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq. As i said, to make it totally fair, then "Fahrenheit 9/11" should be aired as well

Michael Moore, if listened to with an unbiased mind, only says facts. H ehas done nothin wrong, he simply points out when someone else has done something wrong

Ok, so it seems FCC rules may be out the window.. and I do understand that FEC rules means no direct link with the Bushies is a go.. However, what about a large corporations trying to skew the out-come of an election? I mean there are FEC rules that cover how much can be contributed to a campaign right? I certainly know there is here in Canada.. what Sinclair is doing will be nothing more then tantamount to a 90 minute infomercial, lets not forget, they are saying they would be doing this "commercial free"

I think I need Zeppistan to look up the legal on this. He's at work. But this doesn't sound right. It's not a Kerry vs. Bush issue here, it's how do Americans feel about large corporations trying to skew the out-come of your election by creating infomercials a week before an election?

This is not the same as what Michael Moore did. Not by a long shot!

Well, to justify themselves, a VP for Sinclair said in an interview today--hell, let me quote it. (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/12/ltm.04.html)
However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?

If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry. Weak job performance ratings that came out last month would have been an in- kind contribution to John Kerry. And that's just nonsense.

This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today. The networks had this opportunity over a month ago to speak with these people. They chose to suppress them. They chose to ignore them. They are acting like Holocaust deniers, pretending these men don't exist.Now that's a demonstration of truly retarded logic.

I say just air the thing and be done with it. If it is just old footage of what was said on Capital Hill then what is the harm?

I'm going to apologize in advance, because I'm probably gonna forget I posted this, and will be slow to reply.

As far as I know, it would be perfectly legal for any corporation, so long as it was not directly tied to Bush, to spend any amount of money they want to say that he should be the President. He's not allowed to get more than I think $5,000 from them, but they can spend millions, as long as it's they who are doing it.

If they don't like Kerry, they have every right to blast him. However, I think it crucial that most Americans realize that the views being expressed are not solid fact, they are the opinion of the people controlling the networks.

Coincidentally, I don't think I'll ever get to see that film on Kerry, as Sinclair does not appear to own any stations in Atlanta.

News media have no obligation to be impartial, unless some misguided law mandates it. They're businesses, thus they have the right to do whatever they want; nuts to you if you think they're not being fair.

I'm going to apologize in advance, because I'm probably gonna forget I posted this, and will be slow to reply.

As far as I know, it would be perfectly legal for any corporation, so long as it was not directly tied to Bush, to spend any amount of money they want to say that he should be the President. He's not allowed to get more than I think $5,000 from them, but they can spend millions, as long as it's they who are doing it.

If they don't like Kerry, they have every right to blast him. However, I think it crucial that most Americans realize that the views being expressed are not solid fact, they are the opinion of the people controlling the networks.

Coincidentally, I don't think I'll ever get to see that film on Kerry, as Sinclair does not appear to own any stations in Atlanta.

Actually, that is not entirely true. If an action is determined under law to be a "contribution in kind", which is to say the provision of services or materials to help a candidate instead of money, then this must also fall under contribution caps. 527's are exempt in that they are specifically designated for political puropses, however Sinclair is not a registered 527.

There are some issues regarding coordination as well, but the rules regarding access to airwaves for political parties is also fairly complex. Providing a one-sided viewpoint on the eve of an election, going to the extent of pre-empting regular viewing and ommitting any advertizing breaks certainly might fail the sniff-test regarding the various FEC/FCC regulations that apply. Frankly, I don't have the time to read them all nor feel qualified to render an opinion on which a judge might lend more wieght to - but it seems possible that the circumstances could be construed this way.


The downside, of course, is that the FEC is REQUIRED to spend at least 90 days investigating any such complaint, and so a decision cannot be rendered prior to the election. So if Sinclair feels it wants to take the risk and can afford the fines.....


Certain of the more popular Democrat-supporting political bloggers have already started campaigns to target Sinclair advertizers to try and pressure them in advance of the broadcast, which might be interesting if ad-spot cancellations start coming in - and also are planning to organize complaint campaigns against the upcoming renewal of FCC licences to Sinclair stations in Florida, N. Carolina, and S. Carolina - which would add legal costs to the process of renewals for them.


So - we'll see what happens I guess.

What the owners of the stations decide, they decide. They are their stations and not the liberal group's. So what. Exactly, if Michael Moore can talk his crap, so can everyone else.
STATIONS. michael moore produced a MOVIE, it was NEVER on TELEVISION, these people are putting it directly on television, that breaks rules, period.

News media have no obligation to be impartial, unless some misguided law mandates it. They're businesses, thus they have the right to do whatever they want; nuts to you if you think they're not being fair.
and businesses are governed by rules. they are not being fair if they air only one side of a political campaign, thus it violates campaign law

STATIONS. michael moore produced a MOVIE, it was NEVER on TELEVISION, these people are putting it directly on television, that breaks rules, period.

It's tricky as to what rules they're breaking although it appears certain there should be rules that this breaks. It doesn't matter how many TV stations you own, no TV station owns the airwaves.. you do!

You know...British news agencies should set up shop and start selling their papers at newspaper stands around the nation as well as offer subscriptions to be delivered directly to American homes...just like the Wall Street Journal...

...then Americans can boycott American news station because they all suck, and we might get some media reform...

Perhaps not, but he certainly knows how to manipulate the press. What about that is so difficult for you to comprehend?

Even if that is the case: Manipulating the press and being the press isn't the same thing...

Michael Moore, if listened to with an unbiased mind, only says facts. H ehas done nothin wrong, he simply points out when someone else has done something wrong


Lol you do have a knack for comedy (sorry but saying he only speaks the truth is ridiculous) I mean he has some points but you are speaking in absolutes which the only absolute with people is that absolutes are false (so does this make this statement false … I don’t know)

Lol you do have a knack for comedy (sorry but saying he only speaks the truth is ridiculous) I mean he has some points but you are speaking in absolutes which the only absolute with people is that absolutes are false (so does this make this statement false … I don’t know)
He doesn't lie. He simply fails to tell the whole story.

He doesn't lie. He simply fails to tell the whole story.
I suppose he said facts anyway not truth

There are plenty of facts out there that I can quote that are not the truth


Such as my personal survey

Michael more is an alien

20 percent of Americans think he is an alien


(note I didn’t point out I surveyed 5 people and only 1 thought he was an alien) hardly a representative sample but ya know … it does not have to be … :)

Sorry I hate a lot of other popular speakers for the same reason … so much BS floating around

I suppose he said facts anyway not truth

There are plenty of facts out there that I can quote that are not the truth


Such as my personal survey

Michael more is an alien

20 percent of Americans think he is an alien


(note I didn’t point out I surveyed 5 people and only 1 thought he was an alien) hardly a representative sample but ya know … it does not have to be … :)

Sorry I hate a lot of other popular speakers for the same reason … so much BS floating around
Because 20 percent of Americans think something doesn't make it so...

I would accept...

Studies show that 20 percent of Americans believe Michael Moore is a fat bastard of an alien...
*Note: Results contracted from a highly unscientific poll.