Comments
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2004
|
|
Sorry about the spelling error ("bradcast" is missing an "o"). |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Parking Stones
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Oct 2004
|
|
It's their stations. If they want to use their media empire to undermine democracy, they are perfectly within their rights [/sarcasm] |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Oct 2004
|
|
I gotta say that is is pretty darned funny to hear liberal minded folks all crying about Sinclair allowing the further of Freedom of Speech in this Nation. If the tables were turned, Kerry wouldn't need a Sinclair, he'd already have the entire mainstream media telling the story. In fact, if there were all kinds of Vietnam Vets willing to tell the truth about Bush, and the truth was ugly, the mainstream media would be having one or two of them on TV every night till the election, and the talk shows would not be able to get enough of them...and you all know it. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Oct 2004
|
|
To add to that, I don't mind the truth...good or bad, it is still the truth. It's the hypocrisy I cannot stand. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
20 Oct 2004
|
Dear NRA,
I appreciate your comments, though I don't agree with them (not surprisingly). There simply isn't any evidence to support your assumption that the mainstream media have a liberal bias, though I have seen lots of evidence that the opposite is true, including the "OutFoxed" documentary now showing at the Savoy 16 (a mainstream theater). A recent case in point is the 60 minutes story alleging that Bush skipped his physical and was otherwise derelict in his Nat'l Guard duties (technically AWOL). The media pounced on the forged documents and completely disregarded the fact that the story itself was TRUE (the secretary denied typing the documents, but verified that the info in them was correct). So why haven't we heard more about Bush's ILLEGAL behavior, and instead we get earfuls about how Kerry's behavior didn't rise to the level of "heroism", claims made mostly by vets connected to or funded by the Republican party?
But the media bias argument is a slippery slope that conservatives and liberals could probably argue about forever. The real issue here is that Sinclair might be airing a documentary they call "news", knowing that it could well influence the election, without giving equal time to an opposing viewpoint. If they want to show an anti-Kerry documentary, that's fine; they should also show and anti-Bush doucumentary along with it (Fahrenheit 9-11, for example). And it wouldn' really even be an issue if it were a cable or pay-per-view station, but these are public stations, broadcasting over airwaves that are technically owned by we the people. It is in fact a subversion of values that a public trust is being used to advance the interests of a private entity (in this case, a media corporation). All comparisons to F 9-11 or other left-of-center documentaries are not valid, as none of them have ever been linked in any way to the public airwaves.
Of course, Sinclair has already changed its plans, and will probably air a watered-down version of "Stolen Honor" or not air it at all, but the point remains that our media system is broken and no longer serves the public interest as it should, due mostly to hyper-consolidation, the corrupting influence of money, and the age old problem of too much power in the hands of too few. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by CBS MarketWatch via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Oct 2004
|
Poll: Sinclair should show both sides
By Jon Friedman, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 1:12 PM ET Oct. 21, 2004Â Â
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- People responding to a Consumers Union poll overwhelmingly said that Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the largest U.S. television station company, should air opposing points of view and not only a documentary reviling presidential candidate John Kerry.
According to Consumers Union, the vast majority of Americans aware of the Sinclair situation believed that the opposing political viewpoint should be presented, regardless of where they stood in the political spectrum.
"It's abundantly clear the public wants and expects balance, fairness and equal time from its local broadcasters when it comes to political issues," said Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union's senior director of public policy, in a statement.
The furor began last week when Sinclair (SBGI: news, chart, profile) said it intended to show "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a documentary that strongly criticized Kerry's antiwar activities more than 30 years ago during the Vietnam era.
Sinclair's stock tumbled about 17 percent in the aftermath, as angry institutional investors expressed their disapproval of the one-sided film and urged the company to reconsider its decision.
Stung by the outcry, Sinclair retreated. The company announced it did not intend to show "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. Its shares rose more than 11 percent Wednesday, in the first day of trading after the company's announcement.
Sinclair will instead air a program called "A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media."
On Thursday, Sinclair's stock continued to gain, rising another 11 cents to $7.15.
The survey by Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports and professes no political bias, was conducted on Oct. 19 and 20. It revealed that 78 percent of those who were aware of "Stolen Honor" said broadcasters should air the opposing point of view if the program is shown.
Meanwhile, the support for airing of the documentary was divided. Some 51 percent who knew of it supported the decision; 41 percent opposed it; and 9 percent had no opinion.
Even among those people who supported the Sinclair broadcast, 69 percent believed that the program should be balanced by the opposing point of view.
Before Sinclair changed its decision, the company was facing mounting pressure on all sides. The New York Times reported that the Burger King had said it would pull all its commercials from Sinclair stations on the day the program is broadcast as a gesture of maintaining neutrality.
The Kerry campaign also had filed a complaint with regulators, asking for equal time and protesting what Chad Clanton, a spokesman for Kerry, called a "partisan agenda."
On Wall Street, Glickenhaus & Co., which manages $1 billion in assets, came forward to publicly express its disapproval with "Stolen Honor."
In addition, Alan Hevesi, the New York state comptroller and the trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which owns more than 250,000 shares of Sinclair stock, wrote a letter to David Smith, Sinclair's chief executive, to make the fund's displeasure clear.
Sinclair, whose executives have been among the largest media contributors to President Bush and the Republican Party, is no stranger to controversies.
Last April, its eight ABC affiliates didn't air the "Nightline"' program in which the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq were read aloud. Sinclair declared the program "unpatriotic."
@%< |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Oct 2004
|
Darrin,
>"There simply isn't any evidence to support your assumption that the mainstream media have a liberal bias..."
I could posted pages of proof here, but you would not "see" that either. People believe what they want to believe. It's human nature.
>"A recent case in point is the 60 minutes story alleging that Bush skipped his physical and was otherwise derelict in his Nat'l Guard duties (technically AWOL). The media pounced on the forged documents and completely disregarded the fact that the story itself was TRUE (the secretary denied typing the documents, but verified that the info in them was correct). So why haven't we heard more about Bush's ILLEGAL behavior, and instead we get earfuls about how Kerry's behavior didn't rise to the level of "heroism", claims made mostly by vets connected to or funded by the Republican party?"
Again, you have to be a liberal thinker to even begin to compare missing a physical with Kerry aiding the enemy during wartime. All a matter of perspective I guess.
>"But the media bias argument is a slippery slope that conservatives and liberals could probably argue about forever. The real issue here is that Sinclair might be airing a documentary they call "news", knowing that it could well influence the election, without giving equal time to an opposing viewpoint."
Don't forget that Sinclair BEGGED Kerry to come on the show. They even offered him the BULK of the airtime to make his case against the charges. But again, and again, you have to be a liberal minded thinker to compare the truth, told by veteran POW's who lived it, who actually sacrificed something for their rights to free speech, to some forged documents that Dan Rather tried to pass off on America as scathing "evidence" against Bush.
>"If they want to show an anti-Kerry documentary, that's fine; they should also show and anti-Bush doucumentary along with it (Fahrenheit 9-11, for example)."
911 has already toured the Country...where were you? Add to that the fact that virtually every major "point" made by the 911 film has been proven to be either a lie, or an exageration intended to fool people, and you are trying to compare that to the actual testimony of American combat veterans??? Excuse me, but I'll take the word of people who risked everything for their Country over some lying propaganda promoter, any day.
>"And it wouldn' really even be an issue if it were a cable or pay-per-view station, but these are public stations"
No, it would still be an "issue", just look at the theator that was going to show it, but backed down in the wake of attacks by the DNC.
>"Of course, Sinclair has already changed its plans, and will probably air a watered-down version of "Stolen Honor" or not air it at all, but the point remains that our media system is broken and no longer serves the public interest as it should..."
Agreed.
>"...due mostly to hyper-consolidation, the corrupting influence of money, and the age old problem of too much power in the hands of too few"
Agreed in part! |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Oct 2004
|
Darrin,
I will add though that I appreciate the talent and the thought that goes into your cartoon political statements, even if I disagree with the intent sometimes. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Oct 2004
|
Dear NRA,
For what it’s worth, I prefer communicating through art, humor and music than engaging in intellectual discourse. But you seem like a halfway reasonable person who should be able to see how the Sinclair issue is not a partisan one, particularly if you agree with my main point the media system is completely dysfunctional.
Sinclair is a national media company that effectively leases the airwaves from the owners: we the people. As such, it has an obligation to at least strive for some semblance of "fair and balanced". Again, different rules apply to cable or satellite stations that have a contractual relationship with the consumer. Your comparisons to F9-11 are not valid. People had to actively go out and pay to see that movie, knowing full well what they were getting into. Sinclair intends to show the anti-Kerry program (for free) to couch potatoes throughout the land, all the while misleading people into thinking it’s "news". It’s not NEWS any more than F9-11 is NEWS, since it presents a very particular viewpoint, one that just so happens to be as conservative as Sinclair’s owners.
(Sound of a can of worms being opened…)
The viewpoint of the "documentary" in question, as far as I can tell, is essentially this: that it’s somehow wrong to protest a war, even if it’s one which you actually volunteered for and fought in. On this point, we will surely disagree. You see such behavior as "aiding the enemy during wartime", while I consider it a patriotic duty and a moral responsibility of the highest order to speak out against immorality (Michael Moore, by the way, would agree).
Now, I’m too much of a self-respecting lefty to actually LIKE Kerry, but it’s a helluva lot easier to respect someone who, as you say "risked everything", and returned with a headful of the horrors of war than someone who weaseled his way out of combat and, years later, is quick to send others to die in the desert for fictitious WMDs and control of oil (I’m sorry, I know it was really about regime change…I mean liberating the Iraqi people…no, wait – something about that evil guy we once supported and armed, who after all tried to kill the prez’s dad). Anyway, surely the main reason Bush has such an 8-year-old’s "GI Joe" view of war is that he’s never had to smell burning flesh or see his friends get blown to bits in front of him or stumbled over a bloated, headless corpse or an eviscerated baby, or taken a bullet. Kerry, like so many other vets, saw the pointlessness of the Vietnam war and had the courage to speak out against it.
Sadly, Kerry seems to have completely lost his spine and now barks about being a more effective warmonger than Bush. He’s a Grade A Sellout (among other things), but even if he were a unicorn-worshiping crackhead from Saturn, he’d still be a lot better than the alternative, which is basically the Apocalypse.
Sorry, I guess I’ve veered a little off topic.
Thanks for your kind comments about my cartoons.
Peace, bro. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Oct 2004
|
Darrin,
I will concede one point you make, that there is a difference between paying to see something, and turning on the TV and it being there. But here is why I do not believe it is a valid concern.
The F911 movie, by all accounts of anyone who actually compares the truth with what the movie implies, is a gross exageration at best, and is filled with outright lies and innuendo at worst. Far from being a "documentary" in any sense of the word, it's a "hit piece" if there ever was one apparently. We don't actually know whether the Sinclair product is the same kind of thing, or if it is just the plain old honest to God truth. And what if it is the truth...don't the American public have a right to know the truth before they go to the polls and possibly make a huge mistake? Liberal Democrats sure thought the American people needed to know what MM had to say, and blitzed the Nation about it with the help of the mainstream media. Why do you suppose they are all trying to silence these ex POW's? Men who have more than earned the right to at least be heard?
You infered that you don't think there is evidence that the media is biased, but you know what, anyone bothering to pay any attention this week clearly knows the truth, because the mainstream media proved itself once again. How?
Because IF the media was actually doing their job, rather than parading Kerry around on every TV channel with hunting camo on in order to try trick the American voter, they would be reporting the NEWS! You know what the REAL "news" about Kerry the hunter is? The NEWS is, what in the world is Kerry doing wandering around with a gun, or standing on a platform WAVING a gun at a speech for that matter, or even talking on the campaign trail like he LIKES guns, when for the last TWENTY YEARS his record proves that he has worked and schemed hand in hand with the anti-gun zealots in this Country in the attempt to take away, water down, or otherwise corrupt, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
THAT'S the NEWS the mainstream media ought to be REPORTING to the American people...they ought to be REPORTING the news, comparing what lying politicians(on BOTH sides) are saying compared to what they are, or have been, DOING. There are photos all over the net of Kerry marching and speaking at Brady marches, Million Mom marches, anti-gun owner marches, not to mention his record of voting against guns at EVERY opportunity for the last 20 years. Yet, what does the news media do? They allow Kerry to get away with painting a picture of himself as a "friend" to the outdoorsman. You realize that there is an outdoorsman "club" in the Congress, comprised of legislators who hunt, camp, and fish? Kerry has never seen fit to join them in the last 20 years, but NOW he is a "freind" of the "good ol boys" everywhere?
I don't think we should even get into arguing about Kerry's war record vs. Bush, other than to point out the facts.
One fact is that Kerry did attempt to get a deferment by petitioning the board that he needed to go to France to study. That petition was turned down and he was going to be drafted. So, in order to keep that from happening, he enlisted and became an officer. No big deal really, except when people try to take Bush to task for his choice of service.
Another fact is that 3 purple hearts for a walking wounded is unheard of. There is no question that Kerry was attempting to aquire the necessary medals he needed to get out, period. If most people who were awarded just one purple heart didn't live to see it, and most of those that did survive were seriously wounded. Just that information tells a tale to anyone wanting to hear it.
Another fact is that Kerry's testimony to the Senate Committee, arguably some of it lies, was in fact used by the enemy. The NVA General who wrote his book 15 years ago or whenever had no reason to lie, and he clearly pointed out that after the TET Offensive, the NVA was a beaten army on the verge of surrender. But what kept them from doing so was the news reporting of the anti war protesters here in the States and Kerry and friends testimonies about the war. He pointed out that these things were what allowed them to keep going and not give up, because they knew that a divided America was a weak America. So, they perservered and we left, defeated. Now, I seriously doubt that Kerry purposely did what he did to help the NVA and aid in our defeat. Had he known that what he was doing lengthened the war and cost countless more American lives and casualities, he probably would not have done what he did. But ignorance is no excuse, and according to Amendment 14 Section 3 of the United States Constitution which clearly reads,
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Kerry was a military officer under oath, and there is no question that Kerry's actions aided the enemy, therefore, he truly is, by the words of the United States Constitution itself, clearly unfit to even be a Senator, let alone President of the United States.
We could go on and on, but there is no point in it. At least we both know where we stand on the issue, and that's more than most folks, who seem too preoccupied to even pay attention at all to any of the things that truly matter. I had one person ask me the other day, "was Kerry even ever IN the military?"
Unbelievable! |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
Darrin,
I dare you to read this...
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20041023.shtml |
|
Re: Dishonorable Discharge? |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
I did read the article. Firstly, it was written for a rightwing publication by a rightwing pundit, as commentary (not "news"), so it should be taken with a grain (or a whole tablespoon) of salt. Secondly, it's pure speculation. The author himself, apparently also speaking on behalf of other conservatives, says: "It is our *considered opinion*, therefore, that John Kerry was separated from the military under a less than honorable discharge" and then later concedes that there are "several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable". Again, it's all pure conjecture until Kerry releases his records, and there may be many reasons why he won't, outside of "he's trying to hide something". If he were smart, he would use the Bush-Cheney excuse for their unprecedented ultra-secrecy: Uh..it's a matter of "national security". Yeah, that's it...
An indisputable fact is that Kerry DID serve in the military. He experienced combat and survived situations that were undoubtedly life-threatening. Whatever the details, he did his job as a soldier. This is more than can be said about Bush, who obviously used his connections to gain entry into the Guard, a non-combat position which he didn't even consistently show up for.
To me, it's all 100% beside the point. I'm anti-war and am completely unimpressed by and unconcerned with a person's military record; none of it is very "honorable" to me. Kerry could be an invertebrate and he'd still be more "electable" than Bush. But I DO find it absurd that the guy who narcissistically partied throughout the Vietnam war now dresses up in flight suits, talks tough, and pays Karl Rove to attack the other candidate for essentially being "not heroic enough", mostly because the dude has no other platform to run on.
Oh, I was impressed by the tough talk of the columnist in question when he said "we remain committed to holding Senator Kerry accountable for his actions regardless of the outcome of his presidential bid". There is a much larger contingent here and abroad committed to holding Bush accountable for his numerous and flagrant violations of international law. Why do you think he opposes an International Criminal Court? Cuz he'd be sitting in the same hot seat as Saddam and Osama, that's why. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
NRA,
Here's one for you to read:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410230001
I triple dog dare you!
Peace. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
You sound like a die hard liberal Darrin!
Tell you what, you go on believing the words of a proven liar and traitor, and I'll choose to believe brave Americans who survived something so horrid and terrible, that they would rather die than to lie about it. If you personally knew anyone who had been there, you'd know that they don't need to lie. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 Oct 2004
|
Darrin,
When you say you are "anti war...so none of it is honorable" I must ask what your intentions are then when an American enemy murders your whole family and enslaves you? Are you saying that you intend to be enslaved, or murdered, willingly and without a fight?
You also spoke of the "International Criminal Court". The reason America, and Americans, are against it is because it gives up our Nations Sovereignty, period. I cannot believe that you would even consider such a thing.
Do you have ANY real idea where...the world...would be at this point in time were it not for the United States of America? If you think it would be "utopia", you are sadly mistaken, and need to stop forgetting history. |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Darrin
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Oct 2004
|
I say unto thee that this shall be my final comment, mostly because I (and probably others) are tired of scrolling down this page. Also cuz we've gotten down to your foundation – nationalism – at which point we enter into philosophical territory too tedious for me, too painful for you, and too far off the original topic.
But a few last words:
>You sound like a die hard liberal Darrin!
I'm not a liberal but I play one on the internet. In real life, I'd never veer that far to the right.
>you go on believing the words of a proven liar and traitor
Nothing is proven, nor proveable. Everyone lies, especially those in power.
>I'll choose to believe brave Americans
Indeed, belief always involves choice, unless based on direct, non-intellectual experience. I suspect we have very different notions of "bravery" and "America".
>they would rather die than to lie about it
Huh?
>you'd know that they don't need to lie
No, they choose to do so.
>Are you saying that you intend to be enslaved, or murdered, willingly and without a fight
No, indeed I "intend" (meaning I fight every day) to be as free as possible from external authority, in this case the state (ie "America"). I reject its authority to indoctrinate me to hate or dehumanize others, or engage in premeditated murder (the role of the armed forces). Now, if directly threatened physically with no hope of getting the attacker to laugh, dance, or otherwise chill out, then I'd probably activate my secret ninja ray that does not kill, but renders the attacker giddy with appreciation for the Bee Gees.
As for the rest, I'll just fall back on a quote of Ghandi (incidentally, perhaps the bravest person I can think of, along with MLK, Rosa Parks, Emma Goldman...). Anyway, when asked what he thought about Western civilization, he said "I think it would be a good idea".
Until later... |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by NRA4
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Oct 2004
|
I appreciate your attitude Darrin, but fear that you view the world we live in through some seriously "rose colored" glasses. If you, or this nation, is "directly threatened physically with no hope" of ending the situation, then you either fight, or you are dead, or you become someone elses slave. Those are the only alternatives, pick one.
And history clearly reveals to anyone listening that the evil in this world doesn't "appreciate" the "Bee Gees".
Carry on... |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Sascha Meinrath
sascha (nospam) ucimc.org (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Oct 2004
|
i've been reading the debate with a lot of interest. i happen to believe that Sinclair is engaging in a highly partisan action -- one that flaunts the basic tenets of the fairness doctrine (gutted in 1984, i believe, by another republican president). mainly, the issue comes down to using the public airwaves for partisan purposes, without regard to the negative impact this has on basic democratic processes. if we believe in public debate -- which i believe both NRA and darrin would throw their lot behind -- it's improper to give one side a huge megaphone while preventing the other side of the discussion from being heard. this is especially egregious when the bullhorn is owned by the general public, but is only used to broadcast the views and perspectives of one constituency within our pluralistic society.
the very foundation of the fairness doctrine is to ensure that all sides of the discussion get heard in an equitable manner. and a huge (overwhelming) majority of americans (both those opposing the broadcast as well as those supporting it) agree that if sinclair airs the anti-kerry film that they should air the opposing point of view. most americans understand the need for this balance in civic discourse.
lots of additional information about the sinclair group available here:
http://www.freepress.net/sinclair/links.php
sinclairwatch.org also has a ton of information on how one can get involved.
if you are interested in the actual survey alluded to above, you can view the results here:
http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/CU%20MEDIA%20SURVEY%20sinclair.pdf |
|
Re: Sinclair: Stolen Values |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
29 Oct 2004
|
> And history clearly reveals to anyone listening that the evil in this world doesn't "appreciate" the "Bee Gees".
Which is exactly why we need the ninja ray, to force them to appreciate the Bee Gees so much that they forget all about carbombing. Then we can send Barry Gibb in there to ice them all. |
|
