Sinclair Broadcasting Group Poised to Break Election Laws

Dookiestix wrote:

To think that SBG would define this piece they're about to air as "news" is egregious, because it obviously isn't.

Really?

Have you seen "this piece"? No? Then how do you know that it isn't the finest piece of news reporting ever to hit the airwaves? Wasn't it you who was just insisting you have to actually see something for yourself to judge it?... Other wise it would be... how'd you put it again... oh yeah... "really quite sad".

Dookiestix wrote:

DontTreadOnMe:

As Larry434 hasn't seen Michael's movie, he has only commented on it based on what everybody else tells him to say.

It's really quite sad...

This is the type of hyper-partisan hypocrisy that turns my stomach. It is also the reason your earlier "Sez-me" means absolutely nothing.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Larry434:

You're completely missing the point. This doesn't HAVE to do with censorship. Sinclair Broadcasting Group could very well put this on pay-per-view as well, and no laws would be broken. But I doubt they would make very much money with such an ill-fated business venture.

To think that SBG would define this piece they're about to air as "news" is egregious, because it obviously isn't. You agree that Farenheit 9/11 is ALSO not news, and so Michael is bound by law to not have it televised on network television so close to the election.

Of course it is censorship. What else would you call it?

0 Replies

Upholding the law?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Upholding the law?

By censoring the video.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Larry434 thinks:

Quote:
It is not an "ad".

It promotes a political agenda. Anything that promotes something like a "political agenda" on television is generally an "advertisement." But if you feel that it's o.k. for CBS and other network affiliates to do the same thing with Michael Moore's film, then you must regard Farenheit 9/11 as actual NEWS, and not a documentary or and ad.

Wow!

Advertising:

c : to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize

The NEWS piece about Kerry doesn't fit your definition of an ad. How is highlighting Kerry's anti war activities an ad? It is informative and provides back round information on a candidate that wouldn't other wise be know, but is indeed true.

Quote:

You're completely missing the point. This doesn't HAVE to do with censorship. Sinclair Broadcasting Group could very well put this on pay-per-view as well, and no laws would be broken. But I doubt they would make very much money with such an ill-fated business venture.

I don't know what part you missed in all of this, but the company isn't going to make any money on this, instead it is going to make the group loss money due to interrupting normal programming that brings in money from the ads shown. They are not going to be showing any commercials so there for there won't be any income to the channels.

Aren't people like you always telling others, that they can't judge something before viewing it? How do you know it is going to be wrong and full of lies, if you haven't seen it?

0 Replies

Quote:

What else would you call it?

Illegal. You of all people have bitched enough about following the law. As this is about campaign finance reform and massive conflicts of interest with this current administration, I would think you would hold the law in higher regard.

Apparently not. You've now turned this into an issue of censorship.

Very sad indeed, because that isn't what this is about.

0 Replies

Not familiar with the laws regarding this, but aren't we also talking about public air?

Anyone know how this applies to the use of public airwaves?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
What else would you call it?

Illegal. You of all people have bitched enough about following the law. As this is about campaign finance reform and massive conflicts of interest with this current administration, I would think you would hold the law in higher regard.

Apparently not. You've now turned this into an issue of censorship.

Very sad indeed, because that isn't what this is about.

I support competent authority in enforcing the law. What competent authority has charged Sinclair with a violation of the law for their intentions to air this piece?

0 Replies

Quote:

The NEWS piece about Kerry doesn't fit your definition of an ad. How is highlighting Kerry's anti war activities an ad? It is informative and provides back round information on a candidate that wouldn't other wise be know, but is indeed true.

Um, actually, no Baldimo. This "background" information has already been vetted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bullshit, and one of the people used in their ads has worked on this film. How can this be anything BUT a political advertisement that is directly helping the Bush administration? Sinclair can do whatever the hell they feel like it, because they are filthy rich, and give predominantly to Republicans. And so, they are scoring further brownie points with the Bush administration, and furthering the cause of media monopolies in this country. In case you aren't aware, this is the same Sinclair who prevented a Madison, Wisconsin Fox affiliate from airing an advertisement by the Democratic National Committee last July. The same Sinclair who today forces local stations against their will to run a daily "commentary" segment by its corporate spokesman which calls the French "cheese eating surrender monkeys," and antiwar Congressman "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military."

There is no DOUBT that it wil be wrong and full of lies. When Kerry testified in front of Congress back in 1971, the many atrocities that he cited DID take place, and have been well documented. What the press releases have been saying SPECIFICALLY about what Kerry said in the context of this film is that these atrocities did not happen. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. They are also saying that because Kerry said these things were happening, that it was his fault. Christ, it was the fault of those men who committed those atrocities, and Kerry called them on their heinous acts. It's like Rumsfeld and Cheney not calling Saddam on his heinous acts against his own people back in 1983. Oh, wait. They actually DID that.

John Kerry railed against the establishment and those in the top command, and held THEM responsible for these atrocities, not the predominantly 2.5 million men who served in Vietnam. And you should, too. We were occupiers in a strange land, trapped in a civil war, whereas many were high on drugs, drunk, and horrifically disillusioned by the horrors of the Vietnam war.

Republicans are so desperate as to try this latest attempt at nonsense. And I think it is utterly dispicable.

0 Replies

And all that blathering excuses your hyper-partisan hypocrisy how? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

And by offering some blanket denial that these 2.5 million Vietnam veterans shouldn't be accused of these atrocities (which Kerry was never doing to being with), it is a clear indication that these neoconservatives are attempting to deflect criticism of Bush's service, as well as deflect ANY criticism on the commanding officers at the time of the Vietnam war.

If you want to have honest debate on this, then there should be honest debate. But to be used purely as a political smear belittles the real issues of all those Vietnam vets who are wandering mindlessly in the streets, homeless and scarred for life, and who will never know what normal life is like. Their benefits are being further cut by this administration, and vets are being shuffled around and sent to other facilities, with dwindling resources.

The trauma of Vietnam is fresh, and like 9/11, the Republican neoconservatives have shamelessly used these to their disgusting political advantage.

0 Replies

"all those Vietnam vets who are wandering mindlessly..."

So that is what is afflicting Kerry. :wink:

0 Replies

"stolen honor" is not an ad. "stolen honor" is not news. "stolen honor" is;

http://www.stolenhonor.com/lib/img/tagline.jpg

stolen honor

legal or not, sinclair is playing a game with this. it is a doc. it's called a doc by the film maker. but, if sinclair runs it for free as such, they then have to give kerry equal free time. if they run it as news, well then; "hey! it's just a news story. what equal time?"

timber, you again make several good points about distribution and preaching to the choir. but, if a tree falls in the forrest and nobody is there to hear it, it still comes down to right or wrong as to whether the tree fell over on it's own or whether it was it was chopped down without a logging permit.

0 Replies

Quote:

So that is what is afflicting Kerry.

No, it's most likely afflicting people such as yourself who do not care to really discuss the issue of Vietnam, but instead argue to have this political "documentary" aired, campaign laws be damned.

These Republican idiots funding this are from the same mold, it would seem.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

And by offering some blanket denial that these 2.5 million Vietnam veterans shouldn't be accused of these atrocities (which Kerry was never doing to being with), it is a clear indication that these neoconservatives are attempting to deflect criticism of Bush's service, as well as deflect ANY criticism on the commanding officers at the time of the Vietnam war.

If you want to have honest debate on this, then there should be honest debate. But to be used purely as a political smear belittles the real issues of all those Vietnam vets who are wandering mindlessly in the streets, homeless and scarred for life, and who will never know what normal life is like. Their benefits are being further cut by this administration, and vets are being shuffled around and sent to other facilities, with dwindling resources.

The trauma of Vietnam is fresh, and like 9/11, the Republican neoconservatives have shamelessly used these to their disgusting political advantage.

You want to have a fair debate on Vietnam? Ok lets do it. You'll lose of course but I'm game. Do me a favor when you do loose don't cry, ok?

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
So that is what is afflicting Kerry.

No, it's most likely afflicting people such as yourself who do not care to really discuss the issue of Vietnam, but instead argue to have this political "documentary" aired, campaign laws be damned.

I could care less if it is aired or not. That is up to Sinclair and applicable law, not you or I.

These Republican idiots funding this are from the same mold, it would seem.

0 Replies

Okay, here ya go. If you want to do something about it, you can certainly flood him with letters of objection as well as letters to advertisers on the station websites.

Here's the postal address:

David D. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030

Feel free to bring up that whole "sorry bout ya gettin caught doing perverted things with a prostitute this summer" thing.

On the Sinclair Group homepage is this message:

We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.

if you would like to make further comments on this matter, you may do so at:
[email protected]

Yeah, I'm sure they'll read every word...

Here's a list of stations: (target web advertisers)

http://www.sbgi.net/business/television.shtml

I'll be sending out letters by mail. Much more annoying, harder to ignore when piled up, than e-mails. Laughing

0 Replies

My local WB station just talked about this on their "news." Said you can go to www.newscentral.com to vote on whether or not you think they should run the Kerry story.

I'm getting "Page Not Available" right now, but you can keep checking back.

0 Replies

Quote:

I could care less if it is aired or not. That is up to Sinclair and applicable law, not you or I.

Of course you don't care. But my guess is that it's up to applicable law, NOT Sinclair. And it's always possible that Sinclair will back down, as they are being called on this as we write.

That's why Bush signed the McCain-Feingold bill into law.

0 Replies

Here's an interestin' thought ... sure, the piece is not pro-Kerry, but its not pro-Bush and its ABOUT Kerry. Bush theoretically could press a claim for equal time.

0 Replies

Sinclair Broadcasting Group Poised to Break Election Laws

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know