http://news.google.com/news?q=Stolen+Honor+Sinclair&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr

Just want to know what everyone thinks of this. I fear we here in the states have gone off the deep end with propaganda. :eek:
It won’t be long now tell firemen will be trained to burn books! :m:

Isn't that a bit extreme? And a bit suspicious, bringing out a documentary that is obviously against Kerry...

I have to say the american election propaganda thingy is getting a pretty dirty game.

Pure propaganda...this is the height of populist manipulation. America should be ashamed of itself. You don't do that nonsense in a election, that's non-democratic. Even if were about Bush I would condemn it.

HA! and the right is always complaining about the "liberal media" and "social engeneering" what a joke.

This is the same company that blocked the report about the public listing of dead GIs in Iraq.

The right is so desperate because their little idiot prince stumbled so badly in the debates and is sinking like a stone. Hey George, if you can't stand up to boring, wishy washy liberal wiener John Kerry, how are you going to stand up to terrorist leaders?

Anyone know of a list of local stations airing this?

Pure propaganda...this is the height of populist manipulation. America should be ashamed of itself.

How is this more manipulative than any other article, advertisement, politicially motivated song or movie?

You don't do that nonsense in a election, that's non-democratic.

How is this "non-democratic"?

Even if were about Bush I would condemn it.

Even if it were about Bush, they'd still have a right to do it.

Even if it were about Bush, they'd still have a right to do it.
Well, technically they wouldn't.
It is FCC regulation that they have to give equal time to both parties.

What I am curious about is where that line is drawn.

Air America Radio, for example, were bitching about this up and down, but they are a self-admitted Liberal radio station that spends every broadcast hour bashing Bush and supporting Kerry.
Why is it not the same thing?
Why are there no Bush ads on Air America?
What exactly is included in the Equal Time rule?

I'm not arguing, mind you, just genuinely confused and curious.

I just think the general state of propaganda is skyrocketing here in the states on both sides, at this rate their won’t be anymore unbiased news or information here.

I just think the general state of propaganda is skyrocketing here in the states on both sides, at this rate their won’t be anymore unbiased news or information here.
There still is unbiased news somewhere?

PLEASE let me know where!

Well, technically they wouldn't.
It is FCC regulation that they have to give equal time to both parties.

I listen to a radio show every morning and, ironically, it was mentioned this morning that the "equal time" rule (which never should have existed, in my opinion) was eliminated 10 or 20 years ago. The person who mentioned it was much more specific than this, but I can't remember exactly what he said.

EDIT: I was only halfway paying attention to the discussion on the radio show, but they may have been talking about this very television show when the "equal time" rule was mentioned. I know they talked about both topics, but I don't remember if the "equal time" thing was mentioned because of this show, or it came up in some other discussion.

one_raven,

Yes there is unbais news, its just these day that if your bias you will automatically think that a news station that shows evidence against the divinity of your candidates means that news station is bias. The resulting trend ends up favoring bias news sources because many people come to feel that those news sources are unbais! (because those sources always agree with them) thus news media is now being focuses into pleasing specific bais groups rather then generally everyone.

Where were all you guys when Fahrenheit 911 came out? I didn't hear any of you complaining about that "documentary"? This movie can not possibly be any more of a hatchet job than F911. Turnabout makes fair play. Of course, it's nice that the right wing propaganda movie came out closer to the election, while Michael Moore has already shot his wad.

Fahrenheit 911 is not being aired for free on public television, during prime time, uninterrupted on 62 channels.

Wow. That's quite a coup. PBS is the last place I'd expect a right wing propaganda flick. Oh well, you guys still have ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR etc, etc.

so all those must be liberal then?

If Sinclair showed good intention and aired Farenheit 911 next to the Kerry slam...I would be ok with it. But they wont obviously. They are blatantly right wing. If this were a cable station, it would be different.

Imagine if CBS said they would interrupt regular programming to air Farenheit 911 during primetime hours this week! Do you think the republicans would be happy with that? Would they complain? Its ridiculus.

madanthonywayne,

when I said public televisions I meant as in public airwaves, not cable, I did not mean PBS, though is Sinclair owns some PBS station that would be a sin against humanity: PBS is suppose to be a non-profit organization.

Of right-wing propaganda and PBS, some might recall a late-90s documentary about Ronald Reagan that pretty much sainted him. The point was allegedly to give him respect while he was still alive, but it was pure right-wing fodder.

The thing is that Sinclair has put itself in a bad position: its political donations are largely (something like 97%) conservative, and as has been mentioned refused to air the Nightline roll call of the dead. Additionally, Sinclair is considering this film a "news event", for legal purposes.

The film is called Stolen Honor, and it would be hard to not notice who is pitching the film: the Swift Boat vets. Seriously, they advertise the movie in their anti-Kerry attack ads.

The FCC chairman has already denounced the film, though it's unclear what, if anything, can be done.

Hell, maybe some media owner should show F9/11 in four or five states at 7:00 pm the Sunday before the election. Hey, then people could point to Moore in this one.

Without even having been aired, Stolen Honor already appears to have succeeded.

Succeeded in revealing people terribly insecure in their, and others', belief in Kerry's ability to win and even govern.

Frightened expressions of irrational, abject horror and dismay that opposing points of view actually exist. Possibly more successful points of view, at that.

The sheer frenzy of it all is quite revealing.

It's a veritable parade around here.

All quite festive, in fact.

Without even having been aired, Stolen Honor already appears to have succeeded.

Succeeded in revealing people terribly insecure in their, and others', belief in Kerry's ability to win and even govern.

Americans ought to be wary of their American neighbors. We did, after all, allow this all to happen.

However, Stolen Honor is also a testament to the success of Michael Moore in shaping the national dialogue. Even though the comparison of a paid ticket versus broadcast television (F9/11 has even been yanked from PPV) makes little sense, conservatives are pointing at Moore as a defense of Stolen Honor.

I have yet to hear how a propaganda film representing the culmination of a decades-long grudge against one individual really constitutes a legitimate news event in terms of this sort of coverage.

Yeah, the FCC announced it will not stop anything from airing. Nothing can be done until it airs, then it will hear the complaint. They haven't done anything wrong yet.
That this can be called a news event is scandalous, give me Janets boob any day.

tiassa

they banned F9\11?

why?

it did BRILLANTLY in the cinnima's here

Yeah, the FCC announced it will not stop anything from airing. Nothing can be done until it airs, then it will hear the complaint. They haven't done anything wrong yet.
That this can be called a news event is scandalous, give me Janets boob any day.
Except a certain obese liberal's film.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=11&u=/ap/20041015/ap_on_el_pr/election_moore_3

Yea, it wasn't the fcc that blocked it, but it was still blocked.

1984!!!

Finally, we should be able to agree that Campaign Finance Reform is a totalitarian, unconstitutional joke that does nothing but force political mudslinging to third parties.

It's also nice to see the left all up in arms about what they would normally defend under the auspices of free speech. Inconsistency ahoy. This is partisan trash, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to air.

There are at least two issues here.

Equal access campain finance laws.
Sinclair Broadcasting hopes to subvert the existing law by classifying a 90 minute commercial free attack-add as news programming.
This is to be considered a campain contribution to the Bush election. It is illegal. Clearly if Bush wins, Powell retains FCC post and Sinclair will be protected. If Kerry wins, Powell will be ousted and Sinclair will face a $250,000 fine per station that airs this plus a great many other legal repercussions.

Control of the airwaves.
In the early 90's iirc 34 companies owned the major media outlets. Today it is 6 companies. With consolidation comes power to influence every aspect of society. These corporations have much to gain by another Bush administration. Further consolidation was only narrowly avoided this year and only by a groundswell of outrage. Imagine if we never heard of the impending consolidation because the corporate media refused to tell us?
The current Italian Dictator Berlisconi owns all major media outlets in Italy. He has flaunted his states laws and constitution and seemingly nothing can be done.
I see no difference from state controlled TV to Elitist TV.
What Sinclair Broadcasting is doing is not exersizing 1st amendment protection, quite the contrary. They are stifiling free speech by not giving equal access, and breaking the law.

Bush supporters may revel at this injustice, but it is a tragic loss of freedom.

Equal access campain finance laws.
Sinclair Broadcasting hopes to subvert the existing law by classifying a 90 minute commercial free attack-add as news programming.
This is to be considered a campain contribution to the Bush election. It is illegal.

Equal access laws are complete crap. Nobody should be forced to allow others to use their property as a political platform.


What Sinclair Broadcasting is doing is not exersizing 1st amendment protection, quite the contrary. They are stifiling free speech by not giving equal access, and breaking the law.

The law is crap, as I said before. And nobody's free speech is being stifled. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a forum (especially when that forum is someone else's property) or an audience.


Bush supporters may revel at this injustice, but it is a tragic loss of freedom.

It's not an injustice or a loss of freedom. Commandeering the property of others for use as a political forum would be a real loss of freedom, and that's exactly what equal access laws do.

Don't like it? Don't watch. Problem solved.

Asguard:

The cable pay-per-view company iN DEMAND has backed away from a plan to show a three-hour election eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore that included the first television showing of his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The company said Friday it would not air "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special" due to "legitimate business and legal concerns." A spokesman would not elaborate.

ABC News (AP) (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=170253)

Moore holds inDemand is in breach of contract, which the company calls groundless.
_____________________

• Associated Press. "Moore's Pre-Election Special Nixed". ABCNews.com, October 15, 2004. See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=170253

AcidCowboy:


Don't like it? Don't watch. Problem solved.

It's a bit of a matter of principle. Sinclair chose to not offer that option to their viewers when Ted Koppel read the roll call of American dead in Iraq on Nightline. The company ordered its stations to show alternative programming.

Additionally, Sinclair has offered John Kerry time; they would like to ask him some tough questions about his service in Vietnam. However, they have no intention of asking the producers of Stolen Honor tough questions about historical inaccuracies and the cinematic-editorial decisions that contribute to them.

The big gamble of Stolen Honor is that people won't bother to look any deeper. While I can't claim a universal principle, something does seem rather odd to me about the idea of banking on ignorance and apathy as one's greatest argumentative, historical, and academic credibility.

Equal access laws are complete crap. Nobody should be forced to allow others to use their property as a political platform.

What other laws do you not like? If you don't agree with a law just ignore it and ask others to do the same, historically typical of the authoritarian. The law is good only when it doesn't apply to me.

The law is crap, as I said before. And nobody's free speech is being stifled. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a forum (especially when that forum is someone else's property) or an audience.

Sinclair owns a broadcast channel (public airwaves) they are liscensed and (poorly) regulated. The public airwaves are not owned by sinclair.

It's not an injustice or a loss of freedom. Commandeering the property of others for use as a political forum would be a real loss of freedom, and that's exactly what equal access laws do.

Trying to hijack the electorate using public airwaves and illegally contributing to the Bush campain obviously sits well with you. You don't mind breaking the law when you don't agree with it.

Don't like it? Don't watch. Problem solved.

I don't like, I won't watch, If this is successfull the problem will have only begun.

moore offered F911 to be shown for free on those channels, if they aird them both it would not be as bad.

The campaign finance "Reform" was complete bullshit and I can't believe the supreme court didn't overturn it. Political speech should be the most protected speech, especially close to an election. For a law to say you can't run political ads in the two months before an election is so obviously a violation of the first ammendment, it makes me wonder if the majority of the supreme court is senile. There should be no limitations on political speech. The only campaign finance reform I would support would be a complete repeal of all existing laws with the stipulation that all donations must be listed on the internet. If someones getting too much money from "special interests", don't vote for him. Get the government out of the business of controlling political speech.

It's a bit of a matter of principle. Sinclair chose to not offer that option to their viewers when Ted Koppel read the roll call of American dead in Iraq on Nightline. The company ordered its stations to show alternative programming.

There is no moral obligation to offer anything to the viewers. A station should be able to choose its programming, and viewers should be able to choose whether or not to watch.

Additionally, Sinclair has offered John Kerry time; they would like to ask him some tough questions about his service in Vietnam. However, they have no intention of asking the producers of Stolen Honor tough questions about historical inaccuracies and the cinematic-editorial decisions that contribute to them.

I don't know much about John Kerry's Vietnam service and, to be honest, I don't care. It won't change who I'm voting for. I am not planning on watching this TV show thing either, for the same reason. But if there are conflicting stories, the right thing to do would be to start questioning people on both sides to get to the bottom of things.

The big gamble of Stolen Honor is that people won't bother to look any deeper. While I can't claim a universal principle, something does seem rather odd to me about the idea of banking on ignorance and apathy as one's greatest argumentative, historical, and academic credibility.

If people like what they are hearing or seeing (like bad things about a politician they hate, or good things about a politician they like), how many of them will "waste" time checking to see if what they've seen or heard is accurate?

What other laws do you not like? If you don't agree with a law just ignore it and ask others to do the same, historically typical of the authoritarian.

Opposing confiscation of private property makes me an authoritarian? Fascinating.

The law is good only when it doesn't apply to me.

"Equal access" laws for private property are bad, no matter who they apply to.

Sinclair owns a broadcast channel (public airwaves) they are liscensed and (poorly) regulated. The public airwaves are not owned by sinclair.

The show is being aired by the channel which, as you said, is owned by Sinclair. Sinclair has a right to air or not air any show they like.

By the way; how should we determine what is allowed on public airwaves? A public vote?

Trying to hijack the electorate using public airwaves and illegally contributing to the Bush campain obviously sits well with you. You don't mind breaking the law when you don't agree with it.

"Equal access" is an immoral law that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

I don't like, I won't watch, If this is successfull the problem will have only begun.

Elaborate, please.

There is no moral obligation to offer anything to the viewers. A station should be able to choose its programming, and viewers should be able to choose whether or not to watch.

By what standard?

In the meantime, what, then, is a television network? (e.g. "Yes, we are the ABC affiliate, and we are owed that prestige, although we do not wish to broadcast ABC's programming.")


I don't know much about John Kerry's Vietnam service and, to be honest, I don't care. It won't change who I'm voting for. I am not planning on watching this TV show thing either, for the same reason. But if there are conflicting stories, the right thing to do would be to start questioning people on both sides to get to the bottom of things.

If I accuse you of some ghastly crime, does that mean there's now a question? After all, our assertions will conflict, and anyone can accuse some fairly nasty stuff.

The problem is that the questions aren't necessarily being asked. Take the bit about Kerry's valiant service under fire. So a guy named Thurlow says it's bogus: there was no enemy fire, despite what Kerry's commendation says. Then Thurlow's commendation is unearthed, and it says there was enemy fire. Thurlow goes so far as to question the merit of any military award for service: there was, he reiterates, no enemy fire. And then Newsweek turns up a very interesting story: it's known that there were at least three stars given for that day. The third one went to a man who, like Kerry, pulled another man out of the water while taking enemy fire. Just whom did he pluck from the water? Why, his commanding officer, Larry Thurlow.

Stolen Honor appears to be nothing more than insistent rhetoric supported neither by common sense nor history. The sleights of history concerning Kerry's testimony are absolute leaps of "logic" based entirely on an inappropriate editorial cutting of Kerry's words.

Yes, if there are conflicting stories, but if we're standing in Death Valley at noon with nary a cloud in the sky is it really a "conflicting story" if I say the sun isn't shining while you're putting on sunblock? Is there a conflicting story if I tell you there never was a World Trade Center?

If an assertion bears no merit in history or fact, can it be called a "conflicting story"?

If people like what they are hearing or seeing (like bad things about a politician they hate, or good things about a politician they like), how many of them will "waste" time checking to see if what they've seen or heard is accurate?

And ... er .... Doesn't something seem slightly askew in principle and logic alike if the credibility of something rests on the idea that people won't bother to notice that there is no credibility?

And all else aside, how can anyone justify showing such a thing as "news"? Seriously, if CNN came on the air, or NBC News, and showed Fahrenheit 9/11 in prime-time and billed it as a news special, what would any of us say?

You can always start with StolenHonor.com (http://stolenhonor.com/); the site offers excerpts and a ppv full viewing online. If you scroll through the list of participating veterans, you'll see Paul Galanti, who argued that truth is a betrayal of America, and a number of "false" Bronze and Silver Stars (see Thurlow remarks above).

Listen to their arguments. Ask yourself how John Kerry, informing Congress what other veterans told him, "gave the enemy for free" what allegedly-honorable soldiers refused to give under torture. I mean, if I play the word game with some of the television advertisements that these guys play with Kerry's testimony, it would work out that John Kerry is being criticized by a number of people who have committed atrocities. (It has to do with reckless wording compared to circumstances of record and a sarcastic crimping thereof: If John Kerry, in "accusing" (summarizing alleged confessions of) atrocities, gave the enemy for free what these men withheld under torture, that seems to imply that these men refused to admit their war crimes.

However, if we presume that these men are supposed to be honorable soldiers and innocent of any war crimes, we can feel reasonably assured that none of them confessed atrocities to John Kerry and the Winter Soldier project. Thus, one is given to wonder on what basis these men include themselves among the alleged atrocious, or deny that atrocities ever occurred. And then when we consider that the basis of argument is a botched excerpt of Kerry's congressional testimony, the whole thing seems to be tragic: so much anger, so much hatred, and all for nothing if only they would read the record and think for themselves.

I'm absolutely amazed at the sense of equivocation in American politics.

Also, I'm curious why equal access is immoral. The airwaves belong to the people; they are not the private property of Sinclair or any other broadcasting company. Remember, the United States pledges liberty and justice for all, and includes equal protection under the law in its Constitution; issues of equal representation form one of the deepest and longest-running political divisions in our nation's history. Everything we work toward apparently is immoral?

And people think I "hate America"?

I mean, sure, you've got a point, but only if we presuppose a nihilistically-relativist moral confession. And that ain't America.

Sinclair Backed Down: showed fair documentry about poltics and media instead.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/10/21/2003207799
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/10/24/2003208219
There is hope for USA media after all, we have not gone that far for propganda yet.