Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

But the ACLU, AARP, AOPA, NRA... all of those groups are banned from "advertising" for their endorsed candidate within X period of an election -- courtesy of McCain Feingold -- equal time or not. They are not allowed to mention the candidate.

And who decides what is "favorable or unfavorable"?!
To me, telling me that Kerry supported extending the assault-weapons ban is extremely unfavorable, but to others, it's a reason to vote for him. And that's just one easy example. How the hell would you test "favorable versus unfavorable"?!

Quote

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.

No, that's crap. If the broadcaster has paid to have those airwave frequencies designated to that company, if you say that under those circumstances the government can step in and tell that broadcaster WHAT to broadcast or not broadcast, you are advocating fascist control of the media. Like I said, just because you own a car and drive it on a public highway, doesn't mean the government can dictate what route you drive, or where you go and visit.

-Jeffrey

Really? I've been forced into diversions I didn't really want to take, because the govt. had closed roads for a motorcade. I think the govt can indeed dictate what route you drive.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

PJ, I have an idea . . . you should become a legislator and try to change things.

I am confused.
Why, among all of the people who are vociferous in their postings here in SC, would you single ME out in this regard, with this particular suggestion? Is it not also appropriate for, say, Ron, Phillykev, TheAnvil, Kallend...? I mean, what was the thinking behind this. I take it to be kinda sarcastic, and if so, then it really does apply to far more people here than just me. And if in earnest, then thanks for the compliment.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 3]

Well, you're right, it applies to a number of folks here.

Mostly the folks that think there is some law that is totally unjust. It just seems to me that more of this applies to you than a number of other folks. I mean, look at all the laws you think are unjustifiable; guns, drugs and now this, among others I just can't remember off the top of my head.

I guess that's not too wierd, skydivers, in general, I've come to observe tend to have anti-authoritarian attitudes. You just seem to have this in spades and if it could be put to good use rather than just rants on the web, you might be able to actually do something (rather than just rant on the web).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Well, you're right, it applies to a number of folks here.

Mostly the folks that think there is some law that is totally unjust. It just seems to me that more of this applies to you than a number of other folks. I mean, look at all the laws you think are unjustifiable; guns, drugs and now this, among others I just can't remember off the top of my head.

I still don't see how that sets me apart any distance from the others. In fact, JohnRich (a person whose evident intellect has earned my respect) has avowed a distaste for an almost twin set of bad laws as I have. He's written against gun laws, drug laws, censorship laws... Is there really such a gulf between how much I articulate my distaste and how much the others do?

Quote

I guess that's not too wierd, skydivers, in general, I've come to observe tend to have anti-authoritarian attitudes. You just seem to have this in spades and if it could be put to good use rather than just rants on the web, you might be able to actually do something (rather than just rant on the web).

And then we have the odd skydiver here who seems to be an ardent fan of statism. Go figure. Some of them are even longtime skydivers!

I prefer not to get into politics. I don't believe that a lone voice of reason, like mine, would be anything but either lost, or destroyed, if I entered that fray. That, or since I'm "working poor," I just wouldn't fit in with rich fat cats and I'd be treated like that Brendan Fraser jewish character was in that movie about the prep school...

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Shark 0]

....then you might want to stick this on your car bumper.

[EricTheRed 0]

here

http://mathaba.net/x.htm?http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=76506

is a great example of the fine people who bring us this information...
Just adding to the fray-maybe they will have a documentary on "perverted sex practices in a german car" (would probably get better ratings)

Quote

Republican Values? Sinclair Arrested For 'Perverted Sex'
Posted: 10/12
From: IndyMedia

The president of Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., which owns the local Fox television affiliate, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with committing a perverted sex act in a company-owned Mercedes, city police said.

David Deniston Smith, 45, of the 800 block of Hillstead Drive in Timonium, who also is Sinclair's chief executive, was arrested in an undercover sting at Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes, Baltimore police said yesterday.

Smith and Mary DiPaulo, 31, were charged with committing an unnatural and perverted sex act. Smith was held overnight at the Central Booking and Intake Center and released on personal recognizance at 2 p.m. yesterday. DiPaulo's bail status was not available.

illegible usually

[Trent 0]

Quote

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

And from PK...

Quote

No, once again, let me repeat it slowly for you.

While I can appreciate your opinions, I don't appreciate your apparent condescending tone.

So for all of you guys...
If you don't consider history to be "NEWS" then wtf was with all the reporting on Bush's service records? What about a report on the history of the mid-east conflicts? Background history isn't a part of news? Where does the line stop... a day ago, two weeks ago, or just where you feel is best since clearly you're the authority on it?

And if Sinclair finds a loophole... they can use it. Remember, if they're not VIOLATING the law, it's not illegal.

If a news outlet found out that Kerry had molested a child in the past the day before the election, would it not be in the public interest to say so? Is it not in the public interest to know what the candidates have done on public record... even in the past?

It seems to me that you guys are hoping that it won't run based on a technicality just as much as some of us are hoping that it will run based on a technicality. Just say that you don't want it to run because you don't want it to *maybe* help Bush out and be done with it.

Oh, hello again!

[mnischalke 0]

Wow, everybody's going off and the story is yet to be written...

Yes it's about Kerry and those prisoners of war he affected, but Kerry was also invited to participate in this "unscripted" program.

From the Sinclair Broadcast Group webpage:

Quote

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].

There's another story on the subject on MSNBC that goes into more detail on the Smiths and their company.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

No, that's crap. If the broadcaster has paid to have those airwave frequencies designated to that company, if you say that under those circumstances the government can step in and tell that broadcaster WHAT to broadcast or not broadcast, you are advocating fascist control of the media. Like I said, just because you own a car and drive it on a public highway, doesn't mean the government can dictate what route you drive, or where you go and visit.

How do you explain the governmnet fining CBS for Janet Jackson's nipple? Or FOX for showing people licking whipped cream off of each other? Or fining Howard Stern?

Either the gov't regulates content or it doesn't.

[juanesky 0]

Well, if you can't see the difference between indecent exposure-bad language in a highly viewed event, to actual-historical facts programs, then there is nothing we can do to enlighten you....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[PhillyKev 0]

Yes, there is a difference. One is seeing a nipple for a split second, and the other is trying to alter the course of the nation.

But that's not the point. Jeff was trying to contend that the media is not subject to governmental regulation and can air anything that it wants because they control the airwaves.

That's simply not true.

[juanesky 0]

Alter the course of the nation.. I now have no doubt the reason you like to legitimize weed.

Certain points and facts are moot to you and those who insist in hidding the facts from the public about their skerry candidate....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Alter the course of the nation

Yes, that's what elections do.

Quote

now have no doubt the reason you like to legitimize weed.

And I have no doubt the reason you like to legitimize sticking foreign objects up your ass. Oh wait, you didn't. And I never tried to "legitimize weed". But you just love trying to accuse me of being a drug addict because I disagree with draconian drug laws. Try sticking to the topic and not bringing up other topics and then trying to use my political view in an effort to make illegitmate claims about illegal activities. That's if you're not to distracted by foreign objects to do so.

[quade 3]

Quote

And I have no doubt the reason you like to legitimize sticking foreign objects up your ass.

It should be noted that in most states that -is- legal, however, personal attacks on the forum are not so . . . could both of you guys agree to cool it a bit?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[juanesky 0]

No problem.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[Jib 0]

Quote

Yes, there is a difference. One is seeing a nipple for a split second, and the other is trying to alter the course of the nation.

I watched about 10 minutes of Frontline (PBS) last night and a little bit of the Today show this morning. I found myself thinking that Today's interview with Kerry people commenting about Bush's plan for the debate tonight and Frontline's defending Kerry's voting record re: Iraq, smelled less of "news" than of agenda. So, why aren't we talking about them too?

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

[Trent 0]

.... and what about Johnny and Thereza's interview with Oprah or Dr. Phil or whoever that was on broadcast TV? Since it was daytime TV and it was a
"family" interview, it seems it was targeted at homemakers. Very against the public interest to not balance it with something from the Bush family... right?

Oh, hello again!

[quade 3]

Uh, I don't know much about the Oprah thing, but if memory serves me right (and it does because I've checked) GWB and Laura appeared on Dr. Phil -before- Kerry and Teresa.

edited to add

And as it turns out, GWB -did- appear on Oprah as well.

Pity you don't check things out before spouting off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Trent 0]

So maybe the Bush documentary will appear -after- the Kerry one airs!

Oh, hello again!

[quade 3]

I think that if there was some equal time given between now and then, it might be ok to show, let's say, this new doc and F9/11. I have a feeling that's not going to happen though. Not on a Sinclair Broadcast Group station (which is my -entire- problem with this issue).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/index.htm?cnn=yes

And the liberals are steaming. It's okay to make anti-Bush movies and release them on video weeks before the election, but this is not okay.

Interesting either way.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, but apparently you missed "FarenHYPE 9/11" released the same day as the Moore film. So, what was that double standard you were claiming? BTW - I was at Blockbuster last night and both movies were on the same shelf in the New Videos section. So, what was your point about F9/11?

Then of course there is Unfit for Command and the SBVFT ads on tv. Yup, the world isn't allowing both sides to voice their opinion.

Broadcast media has some very strict rules when it comes to elections. Remember Stern decided not to run for Gov because he would have to release his personal financial information? There was a big dispute if he could still be on the air if he was running, etc?

By trying to classify this as a movie or documentary they are trying to use the "not-news" loophole. If it was classified news it couldn't be aired without equal time to the other side.

If anything, I see this as someone with an Agenda who owns a bunch of stations to force this onto the air. You do realize it could run on cable networks with now issues, right? OR the could put it onto the internet for free....but then he couldn't sell commericial time and make money while pushing his agenda.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[gemini 0]

Oh I see what you're saying now! It is ok if I own the station to tell my editors and producers to lean favorably toward Kerry in everything they broadcast, and to playdown any Bush activities. But it is a violation of the "public trust" to be open and above board and broadcast a documentary that does the same thing.

That clears it all up.

Blue skies,

Jim

[Trent 0]

Quote

apparently you missed "FarenHYPE 9/11" released the same day as the Moore film. So, what was that double standard you were claiming? BTW - I was at Blockbuster last night and both movies were on the same shelf in the New Videos section. So, what was your point about F9/11?

Yeah, I went to Blockbuster too, and guess what... there were no copies of FarenHYPE anywhere to be found, but there was a whole wall of f911s. Another poster found ONE copy somewhere in his blockbuster. Super equal there! And the point is that the left REALLY wants to get the F911 to as many people as possible before the elections (even though we all know its complete BS), now Sinclair wants to broadcast a story about Kerry's testimony in front of the Senate and they have a problem with it. I was right, look at all the steaming going on!

Quote

Then of course there is Unfit for Command and the SBVFT ads on tv. Yup, the world isn't allowing both sides to voice their opinion.

Unfortunately, the left cannot complain about the SBVFT commercials when they fully support MoveON and all the other Hollywood 527s. I've seen way more anti-bush ads than anti-kerry.

Quote

OR the could put it onto the internet for free....but then he couldn't sell commericial time and make money while pushing his agenda.

Actually, the broadcast is supposed to be commercial free. Take that!

Oh, hello again!

[quade 3]

Quote

Oh I see what you're saying now!

You may be seeing what I'm writing, but it doesn't appear as if you're comprehending too well.

I have -never- said it's ok for a station or broadcast group to push its political agenda. In fact, I think you'll see that I'm pretty much against the concept of it. Does it exist? Yes, at some organizations (we simply disagree on which ones). Am I for -any- of it? No.

Should a broadcast group be allowed to violate the equal time regulations? No.

Is that any more clear?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,171]

Quote

but there was a whole wall of f911s. Another poster found ONE copy somewhere in his blockbuster. Super equal there!

Does the liberal media control Blockbuster, or are they simply a business putting into the stores that they own the movies that they think will give them the most profit? I'll bet they have more copies of F/911 than that stupid fluff piece done on Kerry too. I sure hope so.

The public airwaves have access rules that apply to them.

There is no rule that says that one party can only have as many yard signs as the others, or that printers have to print for both parties, or that advertising companies have to work for both parties, or anything else like that.

But public media, like the airwaves, are subject to those rules. I don't know about billboards, they could be different. Of course, if I were king, those massive billboards would be gone anyway, but that's a whole 'nother story

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)