Originally posted by trumptman
You don't consider telling the FCC to "greatly limit" Sinclair's ability to show information about Kerry to be a truly scary form of censorship? What would you consider it to be then?
"Show information"? Come on... you know this "Stolen Honor" is a partisan hit piece, it's not "information" or "news" of the type that fulfills the public service obligations of a broadcaster using public airwaves. Please don't pretend otherwise.
How about we make a deal? If you'll agree that this 90-minute program called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" isn't "news", I'll agree that possible 90-minute programs called "Stolen Presidency: Shameless Disenfranchisement in Florida", or "Stolen Lives: Our Soldiers Dying for a Lie" wouldn't be news either.
I also won't pretend that running such shows would suddenly become non-partisan objective news just because someone invited Bush to "make comments". I might agree with the premise of my hypothetical "Stolen Presidency" or "Stolen Lives" programs, but I'm objective enough to apply the same standards everywhere. "Stolen Presidency" and "Stolen Lives" would be partisan hit pieces, shows that shouldn't be aired at all over leased public airwaves
, or if they were aired, they would require equal time to be given to a Bush response, in a format of Bush's choosing.
Well your spots are showing. The 527's have allowed exactly your chilling scenario. George Soros is trying to buy the election and has been attempting to for over a year. I haven't heard a peep from you.
Your convenient misunderstanding of the issues involved is showing.
First of all, George Soros, favorite boogeyman of the right, is hardly any match to the power and money being wielded by conservatives and Republicans to spin the media for Bush. George Soros is also nowhere near, oh, say Rupert Murdoch's level of grabbing up control of the media for the benefit of Republicans. I think the influence of money on both sides has gotten out of hand, but that's a different issue that has nothing to do with violating fair use of public airwaves. When Soros or the Swiftvets peddle their partisan messages -- both of whom use 527s -- they aren't allowed to pretend they're doing a newscasts or documentaries.
All of the major media companies now have a huge conflict of interest in this election: Bush has supported policies that help media companies do just what they want to do -- grow fatter and bigger and more powerful through buyouts and mergers. That's a far bigger danger than individual rich guys spending their own money to advocate their favorite causes.
I'm a very strict free speech advocate.
Letting whoever has the most money buy out the airwaves and dominate public discourse, and letting media owners get away with calling propaganda "news" has nothing to do with free speech.
I also already posted that if they do not follow journalistic standards, that it is fine to declare the program propaganda and fine them accordingly.
Ah, I see. Wait until after
Stolen Honor airs, and perhaps has its intended effect, and then
sometime during Bush's second term, slap Sinclair on the wrist with a little fine far smaller than benefits Sinclair hopes to gain from a Bush Presidency. Yeah, that'll teach 'em!
(Which is what they should do to CBS as well) .
And what they should do to Fox as well, for their "Communists for Kerry" and "I'm a metrosexual" reports? Of course, CBS being snookered by fake documents that nevertheless tell a story fairly close to the truth is a far, far more egregious violation than someone at Fox just pulling stuff out of their butt and calling it news.
First when I did some reading, equal time specifically does not relate to news. In fact Congress declared it a special exception because you cannot control what becomes news and as a result who gets lots of coverage be it good or bad. There was no equal time for Democrats when Reagan was shot, or when Nixon lied, or when Clinton was impeached.
"Stolen Honor", however, is not news.
We've talked the 60 minutes thing to death, but the point is that there was no corresponding number of minutes devoted to an equally bad Kerry story. The news is the news. Please find for me where the FCC says that you report equally good or bad amount of minutes, on both candidates.
Bush took an entire country to war based on bad intelligence, yet you're far more bent out of shape about CBS's failings on a far more minor point. CBS, albeit reluctantly, eventually admitted their mistake, and if they were (as I'm sure you believe) motivated by a partisan cause rather than a desire to report news, they've ended up hurting that cause more than helping it.
Is it your opinion that every news story which turns out to be based on bad information retroactively becomes non-news requiring equal time for rebuttal, beyond any retractions? Are you willing to apply that standard universally, rather than just when it suits your own causes?