Anti-Kerry movie to air in primetime

Wow, look at all of this liberal media bias!
-----
Nation's largest TV chain orders all 62 stations to show movie without commercials next week.
October 11, 2004: 1:24 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War, a newspaper reported Monday.

The network has ORDERED all 62 of its stations to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" without commercials in prime-time next week, the Washington Post said, just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Sinclair's television group, which includes affiliates of all the major networks, reaches nearly a quarter of all U.S. television households, according to the company's Web site. But the affiliates owned by the major television networks reach a larger percentage of U.S. homes because they are in the largest markets...
-----
Also:
-----
"The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest.""
-----
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news...erry/index.htm
-----

That's a really smart move by the republican machine. Since metropolitan areas are traditionally democratic ground, the film could have the chance to change a few votes. It only seems fair what with all the press Farenheit 911 is getting.

Time to organize a boycott.
That'll get their attention.

So what's it up against? My Big Fat Obnoxious Fascist Scumbag Talkshow Radio Host? You're Fired, Stupid? Take My Big Fat Wife, Please? My Big Fat Stupid Friends? Friends? Reruns of Simpsons? Baseball playoffs are big right now. A lot of trash is immersed in the Star Wars DVD, I'm sure. And then there's always that porn thing on the web......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FNG

It only seems fair what with all the press Farenheit 911 is getting.

---

Just like the "Swift boat vets" campaign versus MoveOn.org, this makes a ton of sense.

It is desperation. Poor showings in the debates, dropping in the polls. Bush will pull even more crap in the next few weeks. He obviously can not win on his record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FNG

That's a really smart move by the republican machine. Since metropolitan areas are traditionally democratic ground, the film could have the chance to change a few votes. It only seems fair what with all the press Farenheit 911 is getting.

---

Yeah, I hope you can see the difference between new outlets reporting on a popular movie and a private company using the public’s airwaves to promote their political agenda.

I assume this broadcast will violate or bend some sort of federal election law—congress did write some rules about equal air time—but the FEC moves at a glacial pace and will find time to investigate in 2007.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

—but the FEC moves at a glacial pace and will find time to investigate in 2007.

---

How unpatriotic of you to think the FEC is controled by those appointed by the current administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Yeah, I hope you can see the difference between new outlets reporting on a popular movie and a private company using the public’s airwaves to promote their political agenda.

---

yeah, what i meant was that it'd be fair for each side to have an over-dramatized movie out. i didn't mean to bring the media attention paid to F911 into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fesser

How unpatriotic of you to think the FEC is controled by those appointed by the current administration.

---

Really not fair to say that. The FEC decided to delay ruling on 527 groups, even when they were hurting Bush badly about 6 months ago. They're consistently incompetent and slow-moving, but not extremely partisan...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shamrockpow

Really not fair to say that. The FEC decided to delay ruling on 527 groups, even when they were hurting Bush badly about 6 months ago. They're consistently incompetent and slow-moving, but not extremely partisan...

---

I stand corrected; they were REALLY slow with the whole H. Stern situation.

Its really important and hard work to be morel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FNG

yeah, what i meant was that it'd be fair for each side to have an over-dramatized movie out. i didn't mean to bring the media attention paid to F911 into it.

---

Yeah, but one you pay to see in a movie theater and one is broadcast for free on the public’s airwaves. In my mind, the difference is fairly substantial. Do you honestly feel that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film this close to a highly contested election is "fair" or in anyway benefits voters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fesser

I stand corrected; they were REALLY slow with the whole H. Stern situation.

Its really important and hard work to be morel.

---

Who loves acronyms? I love acronyms.
FEC = Federal Election Commission
FCC = Federal Communications Commission
Michael Powel is a moralist of the worst kind and his support of media consolidation makes the type of shenanigans we’re now witnessing possible.

The F-E-C is nonpartisan and useless for one reason, because the democrats and the republicans have equal power on the commission so therefore they just sit there and veto anything that the other side wants to do. As for the "liberal media bias" or whatever people are calling it here's my take on it, the MEDIA itself is VERY liberal. Ask yourself, who are the talking heads and column writers voting for in this election? Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Jim Leahr, Tim Russert John Stewart(not a REAL newstype person but people DO watch him), Mauren Dowd, etc etc. I would say its a pretty safe bet to assume that most of them are Kerry voters. Now as for the conservative side of the fence most of the Network Execs and Owners are going to be fairly conservative as they have lots of $$$ and see any Democrat as someone who's going to regulate and tax what they're doing. Thus the media and its outlets are BOTH liberal and conservative which means if you REALLY want the truth you'd better be watching C-SPAN's live feed where you can see EVERYTHING that actually happened. Other then that we're back to where we've ALWAYS been you have to take every source and evaluate its biais and then draw your own conclusions as to what YOU want to belive about what actually is going on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supercow

John Stewart(not a REAL newstype person but people DO watch him

---

I really wanted to read the rest of what you said after this, but I started laughing so hard that I shot beer out my nose and onto my monitor and keyboard, and made myself go to bed so I could ski in a couple hours. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BakerBoy

I really wanted to read the rest of what you said after this, but I started laughing so hard that I shot beer out my nose and onto my monitor and keyboard, and made myself go to bed so I could ski in a couple hours. Thanks!

---

:D :D

The scary thing is I remember hearing somewhere that 75% of people ages 18-25 said that they get their news from the daily show :eek: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Yeah, but one you pay to see in a movie theater and one is broadcast for free on the public’s airwaves. In my mind, the difference is fairly substantial. Do you honestly feel that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film this close to a highly contested election is "fair" or in anyway benefits voters?

---

good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Yeah, but one you pay to see in a movie theater and one is broadcast for free on the public’s airwaves. In my mind, the difference is fairly substantial. Do you honestly feel that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film this close to a highly contested election is "fair" or in anyway benefits voters?

---

Nobody's making you turn the tv on or on to a station broadcasting it. It's not the only choice you have. You can still watch "Real World / Road Rules Challenge".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shmerham

Nobody's making you turn the tv on or on to a station broadcasting it. It's not the only choice you have. You can still watch "Real World / Road Rules Challenge".

---

So, you're OK with govt. controlled television as long as Real World is still on?

i don't see how hard it is to understand greydon's point.

big media companies = dick cheney's puppets

you know how much money sinclair stands to gain with another bush victory? especially after pulling a stunt like this.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

Yeah, I hope you can see the difference between new outlets reporting on a popular movie and a private company using the public’s airwaves to promote their political agenda.

I assume this broadcast will violate or bend some sort of federal election law—congress did write some rules about equal air time—but the FEC moves at a glacial pace and will find time to investigate in 2007.

---

It's certainly not like Dan Rather using the highest rated news magazine to push blatantly forged documents regarding Bush's National Guard service.

or this:

"Recognition of the obvious. The media “wants Kerry to win” and so “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, Evan Thomas, the Assistant Managing Editor of Newsweek, admitted on Inside Washington over the weekend. He should know. His magazine this week sports a smiling Kerry and Edwards on its cover with the yearning headline, “The Sunshine Boys?” Inside, an article carrying Thomas’ byline contrasted how “Dick Cheney projects the bleakness of a Wyoming winter, while John Edwards always appears to be strolling in the Carolina sunshine.” The cover story touted how Kerry and Edwards “became a buddy-buddy act, hugging and whispering like Starsky and Hutch after consuming the evidence.”

That was only the Assistant editor of the second largest news weekly.

Look at the markets where this cracker is broadcasting. I think the effects will be inconsequential at best, but the precedent he is setting is scary.

Example:
- Flint, MI is heavily democratic and is not likely to affect the vote much anyway.

- Madison, WI is also heavily democratic.

- Mobile, AB/Pensacola, FL are both heavily Republican and will probably vote that way anyhow, due to a large military presence.

If I was a franchise manager for this station, I'd tell Sinclair to fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

If I was a franchise manager for this station, I'd tell Sinclair to fuck off.

---

while packing your stuff.

i used to work next to one of the sales managers for sinclair. he smelled horrible.

1) Isn't this film being made by a former reporter for the Washington Times ?Isn't it being produced by the same hacks who make made-to-order propaganda for the Moonies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

...
That was only the Assistant editor of the second largest news weekly.
...

---

2) [dripping sarcasm]And oh yes, the media just hates Bush. They've never ever been nice to him....[/sarc]

http://i.timeinc.net/time/magazine/a...010924_400.jpg

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/12/1...bush.cover.jpg


Also, check out what foxnews had to say about the press' reaction to the first debate,
"While it is not uncommon in press filing centers for reporters to laugh, cheer, groan and audibly react during a presidential debate, there was silence in the press room Thursday night."

In other words, the "liberal media" was stunned into silence by the vicious ass whupping chimpy received. Doesn't sound like they wanted Kerry to win, now does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

It's certainly not like Dan Rather using the highest rated news magazine to push blatantly forged documents regarding Bush's National Guard service.

---

3) As for the Rather crack, Rather at least thought what he had was real, and it lined up with everything else we knew (see the awolproject and the boston globe). He just stupidly thought he had a scoop no one else had noticed.

In contrast the head political correspondent of Fox News, Carl Cameron, wrote a completely made-up story about Kerry (with fake quotes) after the first debate and then posting it as fox's lead debate story. They said it was an "honest mistake", but somehow this obviously false "honest mistake" got past (at the very least) one editor, one factchecker, and one copy editor.

Interestingly enough, the smears Cameron wrote about (mostly to do with Kerry's nails) were also used by fox commentators for the rest of the night. Almost as if they all got their marching orders from a memo.....

Cameron made shit up, got it past the rest of the editorial staff, got it posted, got caught, then claimed it 'was in jest'.

like whoa.

Oh now, now - Don't think the Dems are going to allow it without a Federal Probe of the people airing it:

"Illegal Contribution of airtime?" McAuliffe is at (her) best when (she) gets hysterical. :rolleyes: (Maybe us taxpayers could call an unwarranted Federal probe an illegal allocation of funds?)

Dems seek Federal probe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

It's certainly not like Dan Rather using the highest rated news magazine to push blatantly forged documents regarding Bush's National Guard service.

---

I would agree that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film commercial free is certainly not like Dan Rather’s sloppy journalism. Additionally, CBS has given ample coverage to both sides as they attempt to discredit the other based on ancient history. On the other hand, would you support some other national media corporation broadcasting “Up River” uninterrupted or a semi-libelous documentary on President Bush’s fortunate son past—complete with interviews of the mother’s of Texan soldiers who couldn’t get into the air guard and subsequently died in Vietnam?

hey I'm just pasting what Evan thomas said.

I can see what you're saying, though. I mean utilizing the top rated TV news magazine to attack a candidate, falsely, mind you is exactly the same as writing what is deemed to be a joke. Fox corrected the article within 24 hours. Dan Rather took two weeks.

Imagine if Brit Hume had taken forged doc's from a someone that had been hounding Kerry for over a decade.

As I've said before, this place would have gone apeshit.

But as Rather said "The documents I based my story upon were false, but the accusation that Bush didn't serve honorably is true." You all believe that, so what Rather did is OK. Well Bush has done everything he can to open his service records to the public. Has Kerry done the same?? you wish.

Also, notice how most of the media did nothing to rebut the false letters Rather used. It was the webloggers that did this weird thing called attacking the supporting evidence rather than specifically focusing on the dipshit that gave the forged doc's to CBS. It's an interesting tactic.

Now, look at how Kerry defended himself against the SBVT. he did not have concrete evidence stating he was in Cambodia, or evidence to contradict the SBVT's commercials. He weakly attacked the supposed supporters and their connections to the Bush campaign. again, you all deem this to be an effective defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greydon Clark

I would agree that broadcasting a 2nd rate propaganda film commercial free is certainly not like Dan Rather’s sloppy journalism. Additionally, CBS has given ample coverage to both sides as they attempt to discredit the other based on ancient history. On the other hand, would you support some other national media corporation broadcasting “Up River” uninterrupted or a semi-libelous documentary on President Bush’s fortunate son past—complete with interviews of the mother’s of Texan soldiers who couldn’t get into the air guard and subsequently died in Vietnam?

---

No I don't think it is proper use of free speech specifically because networks don't pay for their access to airwaves.

CBS has not given ample coverage. They are a willing shill. Jesus, even Don Hewitt said Dan Rather should have gotten a pink slip for running that story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

I can see what you're saying, though. I mean utilizing the top rated TV news magazine to attack a candidate, falsely, mind you is exactly the same as writing what is deemed to be a joke. Fox corrected the article within 24 hours. Dan Rather took two weeks..

---

Dan Rather got fooled, reviewed the evidence, then apologized. He and 60 minutes are getting the beating they deserved. (and the right are using his mistake to claim that any attack on Georgie's war record is without merit)

Cameron lied directly and purposefully to the public, got caught, passed it off as a "joke" and has not been punished.

As for the SBVT, maybe Kerry thought he shouldn't dignify blatant lies with a response? And I'm sorry that all you've seen is attacks on the people producing these lies, perhaps that's because you've been ignoring the substantive debunking? (start here)

We've been down this road before and the only leg your argument has left to stand on was that in 1979 John Kerry mistated what the year was when he was in Cambodia. Oooohhhhh, now that's a character flaw!

------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and for those of you who want to do something about this sinclair bullshit here's an idea:

If so go here. It's a list of stations Sinclair owns. Google a station name (preferably in a swing state) and get their website. From their website get a list of their advertisers and their sales manager. Call the sales manager and tell him you're calling the local advertisers to complain (mention them by name) about Sinclair's decision (at this point he may start begging, stay strong). Then follow through and call the advertisers. Be polite, be respectfull, but be firm.

God bless capitalism, and make it work for you this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EPSkis

(Maybe us taxpayers could call an unwarranted Federal probe an illegal allocation of funds?)

---

Yes, I'm waiting for Ken Starr to refund the $80 million he wasted on his useless, Republican funded fishing expedition that managed to uncover a lie about a blow job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by supercow

:D :D

The scary thing is I remember hearing somewhere that 75% of people ages 18-25 said that they get their news from the daily show :eek: :D

---

That's were I get my daily news from. If you're going to watch bullshit news (ie any news network), it should at least be humorous. Besides, they get some good guests on the show.

And I think Stewart is a Repub. He hinted as much in an interview I recently read.

that may be the case but there are many repub converts voting for kerry this time around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Yes, I'm waiting for Ken Starr to refund the $80 million he wasted on his useless, Republican funded fishing expedition that managed to uncover a lie about a blow job.

---

Right. That's the particular stink I made the reference about.

edit: That was the popular argument against it at the time, right? So as usual - the logic only works for ONE side. I get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will

Dan Rather got fooled, reviewed the evidence, then apologized. He and 60 minutes are getting the beating they deserved. (and the right are using his mistake to claim that any attack on Georgie's war record is without merit)

Cameron lied directly and purposefully to the public, got caught, passed it off as a "joke" and has not been punished.

As for the SBVT, maybe Kerry thought he shouldn't dignify blatant lies with a response? And I'm sorry that all you've seen is attacks on the people producing these lies, perhaps that's because you've been ignoring the substantive debunking? (start here)

We've been down this road before and the only leg your argument has left to stand on was that in 1979 John Kerry mistated what the year was when he was in Cambodia. Oooohhhhh, now that's a character flaw!

------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and for those of you who want to do something about this sinclair bullshit here's an idea:

If so go here. It's a list of stations Sinclair owns. Google a station name (preferably in a swing state) and get their website. From their website get a list of their advertisers and their sales manager. Call the sales manager and tell him you're calling the local advertisers to complain (mention them by name) about Sinclair's decision (at this point he may start begging, stay strong). Then follow through and call the advertisers. Be polite, be respectfull, but be firm.

God bless capitalism, and make it work for you this time.

---

nice link. I'm looking at the link and it doesn't have anything from Kerry debunking the SBVT. Oh and he has not released his records.

Actually the leg I have to stand on is that the Kerry campaign has admitted he was never in Cambodia. despite the experience being seared into his brain.

I guess it might be one thing for some wet behind the ears reporter to be "fooled" by the difference between Times New Roman and a 1972 typewriter. but Dan Rather used typewriters not unlike the one he was supposedly fooled by.

It's not surprising, Dan's always been a loose cannon. My favorite performance ever was on election night four years ago. He was like the Cory Haim True Hollywood Story on national fucking TV. I'm not surprised he wasn't yanked. 60 minutes has a retirement policy rivaled only by the US Supreme Court.

The funny thing about this movie is that I think it might be more legit than the SBVT. Attacking Kerry's medals from a distance (as opposed to the people in the boat) was a crock of shit. But if these guys are legitimately POWs that saw Kerry's testimony used by the VC and feel hurt then they can say what they want. Of course, if any of them say that their torture was materially worse or better b/c of John Kerry's 1971 testimony I'll have to ignore it - but that's what our thinking caps are for. And the legality of this from Sinclair's POV is shaky - ad revenue for 1 hour on 62 stations is a lot more than federal limits on campaign contributions.

The Dems should have known this was gonna get dirty and been out in front on this with a movie showing Al Qaeda Arabic-language recruitment ads starring George Bush "THE #1 TERRORIST RECRUITER IN THE WORLD." That is basically the equivalent to insinuating that John Kerry is responsible for torturing our own POWs...

another shot of everclear for the fire:

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

n recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine
President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that
Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.


L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I can't site a source as it was emailed to me without one. I'm sure its out there though.

I live in Oregon...am I going to be able to see this? On a recent visit to my parents house (aka republican HQ) i picked through "Unfit for Command," the sbvt book about Kerry during and after Vietnam. I've got to say that while I can understand how these vets feel betrayed by Kerry, this happened 30 years ago. He was just some rich kid trying to make a name for himself in American politics. Let it go. Goddamn, if thirty years from now my employers (or employees) are drilling me for the shit I do now, I'll probably end up in jail.

Oh, and as long as we can take our news from who ever is the funniest, I choose cartoon network.

[vote griffin]

hahaha @ "Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton to SINCLAIR Broadcasting: 'They better hope we don't win' [said on FOX NEWS SAYSIDE]... "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fesser

Its really important and hard work to be morel.

---

:p......... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EPSkis

Right. That's the particular stink I made the reference about.

edit: That was the popular argument against it at the time, right? So as usual - the logic only works for ONE side. I get it.

---

This is in the FEC's job description. Ken Starr was a special prosecutor. I guarentee the FEC won't spend a disproportionate sum investigating this movie as it does investigating the legality of 527 groups (a complaint brought by Republicans). When there's a special prosecutor spending $80 million taxpayer dollars to investigate GWB's coke habit and whether he lied about it, then I think the situations could be called analagous