Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time

[rhino 0]

Quote

NOBODY was using the public airwaves to broadcast or watch F911.

Yeah... But if Moore owned 50 TV stations you could bet your ass he would have.

[Trent 0]

Really? So it would be okay and in the public interest to show Die Hard 3, but not a show about a political figure? Should we cry when the nightly news covers what Kerry did more than what Bush did? Or how about when a 527 buys more commercial time than an opposition 527?

Remember, the owners didn't produce the movie, just decided to air it at their own expense. Sounds like a not that great business decision, but it's their decision... not yours or mine.

But interestingly, I didn't hear you or any of the other anti-Bush crowd bitching too loudly when 60 minutes repeatedly aired segments that were clearly anti-Bush without giving us an equal share of anti-Kerry time. How does that figure into your equation?

Oh, hello again!

[lummy 4]

according to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, Source, Page 3

defines electioneering communications as :
any broaddcast, cable, or satellite communications that (1) refers to any clearly identified Federal Candidate; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before the election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.


(sorry for any typo's, it's a PDF and I had to retype)

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[Ron 7]

Quote

Ron, you're missing the point. Again, it's not the programming in this case that matters, but rather the broadcast rules.

Showing the tapes from his TESTIMONY to CONGRESS is not a political statment. It is showing what someone has done.

Fact is it is a matter of record. The timing of it may bother you...But then again it should. It makes your man look stupid.

It is NOT a politcial ad. It is not an ad for one canidate. It is as fair to air it as it was for Moore to call F911 a "Documentry".

Quote

NOBODY was using the public airwaves to broadcast or watch F911.

Nope, but if Moore of Sorros could have, they would have.

Quote

Sinclair would be violating the public trust by doing this.

I don't agree. It would depend on the CONTENT of the program. If it was as biased and lie ridden as F911, then I would agree. If it is a simple relplaying of sKerry's testimony to Congress (That is a matter of public record) and some comentary on it...then I think its fair.

You will not becasue it makes your man look stupid.

Hey, I didn't think F911 should have been allowed....But you did.

You don't think this should be allowed...I do.

Fair is fair.

I do like your double standard however....It's kinda funny to watch you guys who supported F911 squirm at this news.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Because it violates the equal time rules for one.

Are you sure about that? Because I don't think that it does. The law, as I understand it, states that if a network gives time to one political party that is must be willing to give the same time to the other political party. The law does not require that networks balance their programing, especially when there isn't a political party involved. I don't think it's the RNC paying to air this film. Am I wrong?

-
Jim

EXACTLY, and that is why the networks supported McCain Feingold! Now you and I have to live with it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cvfd1399 0]

a theater in my town is showing a kerry documentary 24/7

[quade 3]

Quote

But interestingly, I didn't hear you or any of the other anti-Bush crowd bitching too loudly when 60 minutes repeatedly aired segments that were clearly anti-Bush without giving us an equal share of anti-Kerry time. How does that figure into your equation?

It's a pity you don't know more about the laws you're basing your hypotheticals on.

News, as defined by the regulations, is exempt.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

Ahhhh, so "news" is okay. So then a factual movie based on Kerry's testimony in front of the senate and the ramifications it had is okay. It's more news than Rather's BS about the military records, isn't it? Case closed.

Sorry I don't spend all my time looking for reasons to ban speech when it doesn't support my agenda, so excuse my ignorance of these laws.

But I'm glad you support free speech for everyone!

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

But I thought it was okay for people who own things to do what they wished with them...

It is, they own the tv station and they can play it in their studios all they want. They DO NOT own the airwaves. They are in the public domain and they are given permission to use them by the gov't.

[quade 3]

Quote

But I'm glad you support free speech for everyone!

I do.

That's why Sinclair should not be able to monopolize the airwaves with only their opinion.

That's the basis of equal time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

then a factual movie based on Kerry's testimony in front of the senate and the ramifications it had is okay. It's more news than Rather's BS about the military records, isn't it?

Yeah, I just saw a news report this morning about how man will walk on the moon by the end of the decade.

What part of "new"s don't you understand?

[Trent 0]

Quote

It is, they own the tv station and they can play it in their studios all they want. They DO NOT own the airwaves. They are in the public domain and they are given permission to use them by the gov't.

See Jimbo's post.


http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1292912#1292912

Oh, hello again!

[PhillyKev 0]

Just because it gets around the law through a technicality does not make it right. I never said it was illegal, I said it was wrong. It is wrong to use the public airwaves to further a political agenda whether it's airing this or airing F911. It's a violation of the public's trust.

[dorbie 0]

There's a reason NEWS is exempt, it's supposed to be factual and serve the public interests. There are supposed to be ethical standards in reporting. When it becomes a meritless one sided diatribe based on forgeries then it ain't NEWS. I was watching the evidence on the memogate forgeries as soon as it broke and it was shown to be an iron clad forgery less than two days after the broadcast at most. Absolutely categorically iron clad if you spent 30 minures reading technical analysis readily available online. Yet even after this Rather and his NEWS program persisted in broadcasting the accusation and a defense of the forgeries. If you were informed and listened to Rather his defense was very carefully worded to avoid the actuall rigor of the allegations against the forgeries, it was just enough to deflect. In the end it transpired that none of the experts actually validated the documents as they claimed and his "inimpeachable source" was a party Democrat activist with a history of Bush grudges and mental illness.

I dont' know about you but this is un-frikin'-believable to me. I mean really, it's jaw dropping. The unimpeachable source especially. Just amazing. And the Rather is still a NEWS anchor pretending to be objective.

Now Hewitt won't answer whether Rather should be allowed to even cover the election, so eggregious was his "NEWS" reporting, but of course he will.

This makes broadcast restrictions & rules at election time all the more interesting.

• Quote

[Trent 0]

So if they ran a film based about GWB during his tenure as governor or something, would you be okay with it? It doesn't say (that I've seen) that the implications of the broadcasts have to be the same. So they could air something about Kerry (even if it makes him look bad) then something about Bush (even if it makes him look good) and they'd fit in, right?

I think broadcasting rules about serving the public trust went out the window when almost every network chose sides. It's suspect that NOW, you guys are complaining about it.

Oh, hello again!

[dorbie 0]

Battle lines are drawing up on this one.
The Kerry campaign is calling the broadcast a contribution in-kind. That's contrived so it doesn't pass the soft money reform muster.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37872

More and more interesting by the minute.

Amazing that soft money finance reform is now being used to censor a broadcast by asserting that a broadcast is a campaign contribution. Wow, we're already there folks.

On reflection the lack of commercials may be what sinks this one, OTOH if the programming is free (it may be) then it may be less of an issue.

[PhreeZone 15]

Most of this is just a rehash of what Cspan ran not long ago unedited. Its nothing new, its just a repeat of that footage edited.

I can't think of a single network that has'nt taken side even if its just in their hiring of a left or right leaning on air person. And yes, if they ran a film about GWB even if its just a bio of him it would be fine since its meeting the equal airtime laws. If they run Kerry and not GWB its unfair.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Jib 0]

Quote

Wow. There's some serious stupidity in that law, in my opinion (Running an old Reagan film counts as "time" if it's during his election season?). However, it looks like you're right. Quade, would you feel better if, as Lummy suggested, they aired F/911 alongside Stolen Honor? Would it still violate the "public trust"?

No, Jimbo. It's a brilliant law. This new movie stars Kerry. So, Bush should be entitled to equal time, right? Oh, it only works where its a positive movie? I guess we're lucky Ronnie wasn't the villain.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So if they ran a film based about GWB during his tenure as governor or something, would you be okay with it?

No.

Quote

I think broadcasting rules about serving the public trust went out the window when almost every network chose sides. It's suspect that NOW, you guys are complaining about it.

I and many other of us guys have been complaining about it all along. There's ALWAYS going to be some leaning in one direction or another when it comes to the news. Now that this administration has altered FCC regulations to allow companies to own multiple stations in single markets, that's a huge problem. Before that you could watch a couple different channels, get both sides, and make an informed choice. Now you get whatever side the company who has bought all the stations in your area wants to show you.

[Trent 0]

Listen, Philly... I get whatever any network wants to show me. Sometimes it's what I want, a lot of times, it isn't. I NEVER get exactly what I want in broadcasting. And guess what, they don't own PBS so anyone not wanting to watch what's on major networks can go watch that. Same as every day... or the same as when the debates or state of the union speeches are on every channel. Find another channel, or go do something else. Simple.

So you wouldn't be okay with them running a GWB documentary unless, in your opinion, it was as damaging as the one about Kerry, right? I guess they should create a scale for that so it'll always be fair huh? According to the laws I'm seeing, equal time is equal time.

And no, I haven't seen you complaining about the media bias all along, just making fun of conservatives when they say that the media seems to have a liberal bias.

The fact is, this program is no less "news" than the bullshit we see on CBS. IMO, it's more news than not.

Oh, hello again!

[quade 3]

Quote

IMO, it's more news than not.

I guess it's fortunate then for the rest of us that you're not in charge and don't get to define what is and isn't news.

Fortunately, that is defined rather well by the FCC.

Just because you don't understand the rules, doesn't mean they're unjust.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So you wouldn't be okay with them running a GWB documentary unless, in your opinion, it was as damaging as the one about Kerry, right?

No, once again, let me repeat it slowly for you. They shouldn't air anything favorable or unfavorable to either candidate on public airwaves unless they are paid advertisements for which they provide equal time, or news stories. Period. So stop trying to make me look like I'm being partisan on the issue. I'm not. It's wrong for broadcaster to use the public airwaves to further their own political agenda. That is all.

Quote

The fact is, this program is no less "news" than the bullshit we see on CBS. IMO, it's more news than not.

I agree, and if you look at that thread, you'll see that I blasted 60 minutes as well.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Listen, Philly... I get whatever any network wants to show me. Sometimes it's what I want, a lot of times, it isn't. I NEVER get exactly what I want in broadcasting. And guess what, they don't own PBS so anyone not wanting to watch what's on major networks can go watch that. Same as every day... or the same as when the debates or state of the union speeches are on every channel. Find another channel, or go do something else. Simple.

So you wouldn't be okay with them running a GWB documentary unless, in your opinion, it was as damaging as the one about Kerry, right? I guess they should create a scale for that so it'll always be fair huh? According to the laws I'm seeing, equal time is equal time.

And no, I haven't seen you complaining about the media bias all along, just making fun of conservatives when they say that the media seems to have a liberal bias.

The fact is, this program is no less "news" than the bullshit we see on CBS. IMO, it's more news than not.

How can something that happened 30+ years ago be "NEWS"? It's history, not news.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

How can something that happened 30+ years ago be "NEWS"? It's history, not news.

If it's history, then it's certainly allowed, right? Kallend, I assume that you're now in favor of this?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

How can something that happened 30+ years ago be "NEWS"? It's history, not news.

If it's history, then it's certainly allowed, right? Kallend, I assume that you're now in favor of this?

-
Jim

Was he ever against it? I thought his comment was ""