or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Liberal Media" to Air Anti-Kerry Film Days Before Election
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Liberal Media" to Air Anti-Kerry Film Days Before Election - Page 2  

post #41 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You have a strange definition of ownership. This "media-group" owns the respective stations that will be showing the broadcast. How do you "dictate" to what you already own?

Do you dictate your car to drive you to work?

Do you dictate to your brush to clean your teeth?

You must be dizzy from the spin.

Nick

Where I come from the owners of media-conglomerates don't meddle in the news and program profile of their stations and papers... They leave that to the people who run the stations and papers.

Seems to work pretty good, it's called the free press...

don't tell me you want the media to work this way.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #42 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Where I come from the owners of media-conglomerates don't meddle in the news and program profile of their stations and papers... They leave that to the people who run the stations and papers.

And do the owners of those media-conglomerates in Europe not hire the people who run those stations? And, if the owners of those media-conglomerates were passionate about their political bent would they not choose someone 'from their own camp' or are you really trying to tell me that a far left leaning socialist media-owner would have no problem having a far right leaning person running the show at one of the papers or tv/radio stations...

Give me a freaking break... People are people no mater what side of the pond you're on! Trying to tell me anything different is just stroking yourself!

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
post #43 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveGee
And do the owners of those media-conglomerates in Europe not hire the people who run those stations? And, if the owners of those media-conglomerates were passionate about their political bent would they not choose someone 'from their own camp' or are you really trying to tell me that a far left leaning socialist media-owner would have no problem having a far right leaning person running the show at one of the papers or tv/radio stations...

Give me a freaking break... People are people no mater what side of the pond you're on! Trying to tell me anything different is just stroking yourself!

Dave

Yes, like in all business, owners are free to hire and fire the leaders of their businesses as they see fit.

Don't put words in my mouth.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #44 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If you declared that Playboy couldn't be printed on the presses that they own, that is advocating censorship. People here are declaring that this program shouldn't be run by the group that leases the airwaves and owns the channels.

First of all, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be happy with a pro-Kerry/anti-Bush program being given equal time -- 90 primetime minutes, also commerical-free -- as an alternative.

But your analogy doesn't hold very well anyway, because leasing airwaves is not the same thing as owning a printing press. The airwaves are both a public resource and a limited commodity, access to which entails certain obligations and responsibilities. I fully support enforcement of those obligations and responsibilities, and feel that not only should present laws be enforced, but that the fairness and equal time doctrines, which have been eroded starting back in the Reagan years, should be strengthened.

We have plenty of other media available, which are not public resources, for all of the partisanship you like. (And please, Sinclair's spin that "Stolen Honor" is a news story is a bald faced lie -- anyone with the tiniest speck of honesty knows that.)

Buying the broadcasting equipment and paying the very cheap lease prices for public radio bandwidth doesn't make the act of broadcasting your own private toy to do with as you please.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #45 of 142
And btw, I didn't say Europe. Europe obviously has the same problems. Like Berlusconi's ownership of italian media.

I said "Where I come from"...

Chill..
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #46 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
You have a strange definition of ownership. This "media-group" owns the respective stations that will be showing the broadcast. How do you "dictate" to what you already own?

But as I said in my other response, this "media group" does not own the public airwaves they use, it leases that bandwidth under certain conditions which entail an obligation to public service and fairness.

But perhaps you'd be happier in a wealth-makes-right society, where anyone rich enough can buy complete control of all media they like, as long as they have the bucks to do it. That's the (extreme right-wing, laissez-faire, robber barron) American way, isn't it?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #47 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
First of all, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be happy with a pro-Kerry/anti-Bush program being given equal time -- 90 primetime minutes, also commerical-free -- as an alternative.

But your analogy doesn't hold very well anyway, because leasing airwaves is not the same thing as owning a printing press. The airwaves are both a public resource and a limited commodity, access to which entails certain obligations and responsibilities. I fully support enforcement of those obligations and responsibilities, and feel that not only should present laws be enforced, but that the fairness and equal time doctrines, which have been eroded starting back in the Reagan years, should be strengthened.

We have plenty of other media available, which are not public resources, for all of the partisanship you like. (And please, Sinclair's spin that "Stolen Honor" is a news story is a bald faced lie -- anyone with the tiniest speck of honesty knows that.)

Buying the broadcasting equipment and paying the very cheap lease prices for public radio bandwidth doesn't make the act of broadcasting your own private toy to do with as you please.

+5 Insightful and Informative

You can't do whatever the heck you want with the spectrum that we all own.
post #48 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I find it amazing that so many here endorse censorship.

Nick

Oh yes. I remember fondly when you were railing against the censorship efforts against the LA Times for their "hit piece" against Schwarzenegger.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #49 of 142
From Reed Hundt, Former Chair, FCC ...

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

[...]

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

-- Reed Hundt

The reason it is misuse of corporate property is because ordering the local stations to air the anti-Kerry propoganda will likely cause a loss of network advertising revenue, may in fact violate the stations' contracts with the networks they are affiliated with, and is almost sure to embroil the corporation in costly legal battles, for example from entities complaining that this is an illegal corporate campaign contribution, or from angry consumers who will contest the stations' license renewals.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #50 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Where I come from the owners of media-conglomerates don't meddle in the news and program profile of their stations and papers... They leave that to the people who run the stations and papers.

Seems to work pretty good, it's called the free press...

don't tell me you want the media to work this way.

Free press refers to free from government interference, not free from ownership.

Also you basically advocate absentee ownership. The owners may not run the day to day operations, but that doesn't mean they have no say, or that they don't retain the right to do with their property whatever they wish.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #51 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
First of all, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd be happy with a pro-Kerry/anti-Bush program being given equal time -- 90 primetime minutes, also commerical-free -- as an alternative.

But your analogy doesn't hold very well anyway, because leasing airwaves is not the same thing as owning a printing press. The airwaves are both a public resource and a limited commodity, access to which entails certain obligations and responsibilities. I fully support enforcement of those obligations and responsibilities, and feel that not only should present laws be enforced, but that the fairness and equal time doctrines, which have been eroded starting back in the Reagan years, should be strengthened.

We have plenty of other media available, which are not public resources, for all of the partisanship you like. (And please, Sinclair's spin that "Stolen Honor" is a news story is a bald faced lie -- anyone with the tiniest speck of honesty knows that.)

Buying the broadcasting equipment and paying the very cheap lease prices for public radio bandwidth doesn't make the act of broadcasting your own private toy to do with as you please.

Plenty of other media? Last I check both television and radio were both public airwaves. What does that leave besides the internet and newspapers?

But come now, think about what you are saying... you are saying that censorship is okay as long as you can claim it is in the public interest. That is terrifying thinking.

The airwaves are indeed public resources but the government has leased them out via the FCC and as long as the owners are following guidelines with regard to the FCC, they should be free to use them as they see fit because they have already paid to do so. The government and industry really have come to a truce here because plenty of people argue whether the government has the right to regulate and attempt to control the air.

Let me also remind you that the MPAA is a private form of industry regulation brought about in part to prevent th government from attempting to censure the movies we can and cannot see. (You know like that nice F9/11 movie) Censureship is a terrible thing and it is the type of pandora's box you don't want opened no matter what side of the aisle you happen to be on politically.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #52 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Oh yes. I remember fondly when you were railing against the censorship efforts against the LA Times for their "hit piece" against Schwarzenegger.

I have no ideal what you are talking about. Could you be a litte clear than an insinuation pretending to be an accusation?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #53 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
But as I said in my other response, this "media group" does not own the public airwaves they use, it leases that bandwidth under certain conditions which entail an obligation to public service and fairness.

But perhaps you'd be happier in a wealth-makes-right society, where anyone rich enough can buy complete control of all media they like, as long as they have the bucks to do it. That's the (extreme right-wing, laissez-faire, robber barron) American way, isn't it?

Could you name what terms of their lease they are attempting to circumvent besides "I don't like it"?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #54 of 142
What part of "illegal" does no one understand? This move by Sinclair is an illegal campaign contribution and also violates the "equal air" policies of McCain/Feingold.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #55 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
What part of "illegal" does no one understand? This move by Sinclair is an illegal campaign contribution and also violates the "equal air" policies of McCain/Feingold.

The funny thing is that this supposed program is just in the planning stage, and the only personality that was invited to take part in it was Kerry. This according to a spokesman from Sinclair.

The program was supposed to cover accusations by Vietnam vets against Kerry. No shooting has taken place for this thing.

More knee-jerking. Call the thought police!
post #56 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I have no ideal what you are talking about. Could you be a litte clear than an insinuation pretending to be an accusation?

Nick

You complained loudly about the LA Times report on Schwarzenegger's misogyny which was published several days before the election.

Now you're more interested in splitting hairs over legalities and the definition of public airways and free press.

So, by your definitions below, the LA Times had every responsibility to report that article otherwise it would've been censorship
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #57 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The funny thing is that this supposed program is just in the planning stage, and the only personality that was invited to take part in it was Kerry. This according to a spokesman from Sinclair.

The program was supposed to cover accusations by Vietnam vets against Kerry. No shooting has taken place for this thing.

More knee-jerking. Call the thought police!

A September 19th press release on the 'Stolen Honor' website announced that 'POWs for Truth', the sponsor of the 'documentary', was merging with 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' to form the new consolidated group 'Swift Vets and POWs For Truth.'

If it weren't so disgusting, it would almost be funny.

Did you see CBS's "The Reagans" before you systematically dismissed it? Did you support the efforts by Republicans to have it stopped? How about GOP efforts to intimidate theater owners from exhibiting Fahrenheit 9/11? Were either of those two films released just days before the election?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Thought police, my ass!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #58 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Could you name what terms of their lease they are attempting to circumvent besides "I don't like it"?

Nick

"Ah, that's an interesting point, shetline. I could be wrong on this one. What federal guidelines are they violating?"*

Edit

Josh Marshall published this letter from former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, which answers the public airwaves question in a broad sense, but not with the specificity that trumptman demands.
post #59 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
You complained loudly about the LA Times report on Schwarzenegger's misogyny which was published several days before the election.

Now you're more interested in splitting hairs over legalities and the definition of public airways and free press.

So, by your definitions below, the LA Times had every responsibility to report that article otherwise it would've been censorship

I might have complained loudly. I might have even claimed that it shows bias on the part of the LA Times, but I never claimed they didn't have a right to run it.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #60 of 142
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/Ne...raiseKerry.htm

another study showing the overwhelming positive spin for Kerry by the liberal media.
post #61 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
"Ah, that's an interesting point, shetline. I could be wrong on this one. What federal guidelines are they violating?"*

Edit

Josh Marshall published this letter from former FCC chairman Reed Hundt, which answers the public airwaves question in a broad sense, but not with the specificity that trumptman demands.

Thanks Shawn. It's a good read. The only aspects of the letter that I would have to take issue with are the following:

One, that if it is declared a news program, they should verify their sources and confirm the claims. I fully expect Sinclair to follow journalistic standards. If they aren't followed, then I am sure they will be investigated and have possible consequences levied against them. I hope these sorts of consequences ARE levied against CBS who I believe did abandon those standards and broadcast propaganda posing as news.

Two, I do believe that Kerry at a minimum has been invited to appear on, and respond to these charges. I would hope that since it is obvious he wouldn't appear that they do allow spokespeople who would explain Kerry's side of the story. This is again, more than was ever afforded Bush from CBS.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #62 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Stop with the name calling, already.

This thread is about Kerry, no? Am I allowed to post here, if I so choose?

Have you EVER heard me say (more precisely, read any post of mine) that one party or the other is NOT open to criticism?

I will answer for you to expedite the conversation: NO.

But once again, we are talking about Kerry in this thread, or do words no longer carry a specific meaning, so that Kerry means Bush?

You're not making any sense here. We're not talking about Kerry in this thread, we're talking about Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision to broadcast biased content.

It's criminal that a media company do this and if you can't admit that both candidates should be afforded the same criticism then you're a liar.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #63 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Plenty of other media? Last I check both television and radio were both public airwaves. What does that leave besides the internet and newspapers?

What's wrong with the internet and newspapers? And then there are books, magazines, in-person conversations, telephone conversations, speaking before live groups of people, etc.
Quote:
But come now, think about what you are saying... you are saying that censorship is okay as long as you can claim it is in the public interest. That is terrifying thinking.

The truly scary form of censorship is when governments completely disallow the expression of certain ideas or concepts -- criticism of a leader, a religious viewpoint, a form of artistic expression -- in an excessive or absolute way, greatly limiting or not permitting such expression in any form.

FCC regulations -- as they are now, or in even stronger forms like we used to have -- leave plenty of other venues of free expression open, and allow quite a bit of free expression over the airwaves as well, but with what I consider very reasonable strings attached related to the fact that broadcasters are being allowed the use of a limited resource that belongs to the public as a whole.

As far as I'm concerned the far more chilling scenario is one in which the power of money runs completely unchecked, where wealth and authority further their own interests through ever greater control of the media. If you're imagining that somehow the "magic of the marketplace" is all the control needed to keep the media in check, you're dreaming.
Quote:
The airwaves are indeed public resources but the government has leased them out via the FCC and as long as the owners are following guidelines with regard to the FCC, they should be free to use them as they see fit because they have already paid to do so.

They can use the airwaves as they see fit within the terms of the lease. I can't quote you chapter and verse from FCC regulations, but there are criteria about public service, fairness, and equal time. Some of that has been weakened over the years (a bad idea, as far as I'm concerned), but vestiges are still there.

You lease property, don't you? Do you let your tenants do anything they want to with your property while they're leasing it?
Quote:
Let me also remind you that the MPAA is a private form of industry regulation brought about in part to prevent th government from attempting to censure the movies we can and cannot see. (You know like that nice F9/11 movie) Censureship is a terrible thing and it is the type of pandora's box you don't want opened no matter what side of the aisle you happen to be on politically.

There is no word "censureship". There are the words "censor", "censorship", and "censure". "Censor" and "censure" are two different things -- and that difference is very important, even if often overlooked or misunderstood.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #64 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/Ne...raiseKerry.htm

another study showing the overwhelming positive spin for Kerry by the liberal media.

That article says nothing about spin. It talks about to what degree the coverage of Bush and Kerry is negative or positive.

Did it ever occur to you that there might be more negative coverage of Bush because the reality is that there's more negative stuff about Bush to cover? That negative news about the economy or the war in Iraq or many other things can't help but be a reflection on the current president, whoever he his, because he's the one who's in power?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #65 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
That article says nothing about spin. It talks about to what degree the coverage of Bush and Kerry is negative or positive.

Did it ever occur to you that there might be more negative coverage of Bush because the reality is that there's more negative stuff about Bush to cover? That negative news about the economy or the war in Iraq or many other things can't help but be a reflection on the current president, whoever he his, because he's the one who's in power?

I call it spin. If any given news outlet was just reporting news then the numbers would be almost exact, since most of them cover the exact same stories.

What you just posted is also spin, and a good example of it.
post #66 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
another study showing the overwhelming positive spin for Kerry by the liberal media.

Another? You never showed a first one. Try to be a least little honest. Please.
post #67 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I call it spin. If any given news outlet was just reporting news then the numbers would be almost exact, since most of them cover the exact same stories.

What you just posted is also spin, and a good example of it.

:Lol: People, people, people!!! Didn't you get the memo? We're only allowed to mention the good things Bush has done otherwise we are too negative and spinning the issues. Well then, lets list the good parts of BushCo shall we... Crickets chirping for an uncomfortable long time... There we have it.

NaplesX pointing out Bush's failures is not negative spin. Pointing out the failures is simoply telling the truth. Bush is a failure.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #68 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
What's wrong with the internet and newspapers? And then there are books, magazines, in-person conversations, telephone conversations, speaking before live groups of people, etc.

How about we just don't allow censorship to start creeping out of that pandora's box and we don't have to debate which medium we are actually allowed to express our views in.

Quote:
The truly scary form of censorship is when governments completely disallow the expression of certain ideas or concepts -- criticism of a leader, a religious viewpoint, a form of artistic expression -- in an excessive or absolute way, greatly limiting or not permitting such expression in any form.

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?

Quote:
FCC regulations -- as they are now, or in even stronger forms like we used to have -- leave plenty of other venues of free expression open, and allow quite a bit of free expression over the airwaves as well, but with what I consider very reasonable strings attached related to the fact that broadcasters are being allowed the use of a limited resource that belongs to the public as a whole.

As far as I'm concerned the far more chilling scenario is one in which the power of money runs completely unchecked, where wealth and authority further their own interests through ever greater control of the media. If you're imagining that somehow the "magic of the marketplace" is all the control needed to keep the media in check, you're dreaming.

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.

I'm a very strict free speech advocate. I don't believe in allowing libel and respective companies will get sued if they engage in it. This has been proven in other forms of media as well. As shown in with CBS, if a company abuses the public trust, if they void their objectivity as journalists, then they loss public views and a result advertisers.

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. (Which is what they should do to CBS as well)

Quote:
They can use the airwaves as they see fit within the terms of the lease. I can't quote you chapter and verse from FCC regulations, but there are criteria about public service, fairness, and equal time. Some of that has been weakened over the years (a bad idea, as far as I'm concerned), but vestiges are still there.

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.

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.

Now it does say that you cannot refuse to sell one candidate advertisements if you have sold to the other candidate. It also says that you must be willing to sell equal numbers of minutes of ads to both candidates. However it even goes further and states, as was affirmed via the courts, that if one candidate can afford more minutes of advertising than the other, the stations are under no obligation to equalize the advertising.

As for my own properties, the folks do what they want within the confines of the lease. I can't go into their living room and complain about the pictures on their walls, the books on their shelves, or the movies within their movie library.

Quote:
There is no word "censureship". There are the words "censor", "censorship", and "censure". "Censor" and "censure" are two different things -- and that difference is very important, even if often overlooked or misunderstood.

Thanks, I don't know what the hell my fingers were typing there. I did type it correctly spelled several times earlier and guess I was just distracted.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #69 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
How about we just don't allow censorship to start creeping out of that pandora's box and we don't have to debate which medium we are actually allowed to express our views in.



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?



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.

I'm a very strict free speech advocate. I don't believe in allowing libel and respective companies will get sued if they engage in it. This has been proven in other forms of media as well. As shown in with CBS, if a company abuses the public trust, if they void their objectivity as journalists, then they loss public views and a result advertisers.

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. (Which is what they should do to CBS as well)



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.

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.

Now it does say that you cannot refuse to sell one candidate advertisements if you have sold to the other candidate. It also says that you must be willing to sell equal numbers of minutes of ads to both candidates. However it even goes further and states, as was affirmed via the courts, that if one candidate can afford more minutes of advertising than the other, the stations are under no obligation to equalize the advertising.

As for my own properties, the folks do what they want within the confines of the lease. I can't go into their living room and complain about the pictures on their walls, the books on their shelves, or the movies within their movie library.



Thanks, I don't know what the hell my fingers were typing there. I did type it correctly spelled several times earlier and guess I was just distracted.

Nick

I'll sum your entire post up: "Live in constant fear of censorship."

In this respect you are wrong I'm sorry to inform you. Not allowing a decidedly partisan media conglomerate to air untruths about a candidate days before an election is not censorship. Sinclair should not have the right to attempt to swing an election in such a manner using public air ways which are given to these broadcasters for free providing the broadcasters adhere to certain rules. Is fining CBS for showing a funky titty not censorship? In this regard what Sinclair is trying to do is more egregious that the brief shot of an obscure boob. Sinclair is using public interests to soap box it's message. Nothing is stopping these guys from using the same outlets available to you and me trump. What people are trying to do is to stop this partisan hack job from occurring on airwaves which belong to you and me. Sinclair agreed to abide by certain rules when entrusted with their broadcasting license. Simply because Sinclair has the short-term rights to certain frequencies does not mean they own those frequencies. Not air this trash is not censorship. Telling individuals who work at sinclair to not publish books would be because publishers are not public interest companies. Telling individuals at Sinclair to not speak their feelings in the same venues available to common man (not the troll here at AO either) would be.

I know you'll disregard everything I just typed because it clashes with your view that all things pro-Bush anti-Kerry should be allowed while the converse is not true to you.

Enjoy your fantasy world. Good day.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #70 of 142
There goes Trumpt complaining about 527's again. Last I checked the Republicans were doing just fine with their own 527 groups.

Oh, wait, I forgot. 527's are evil when Democrats use them.

If I remember correctly it was 527 group that helped Bush steal the election in 2000.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #71 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Not allowing a decidedly partisan media conglomerate to air untruths about a candidate days before an election is not censorship. Sinclair should not have the right to attempt to swing an election in such a manner using public air ways which are given to these broadcasters for free providing the broadcasters adhere to certain rules.

I think you've touched on the precise explanation for why Sinclair's actions are considered illegal. Everyone here knows it.

Isn't it ironic that guys like Naples, Trumpt, SDW and their ilk laugh out loud over Kerry's "nuance" and then procede to use nuance in their interpretation of public airways and campaign finance laws.

Trumpt's arguing that he's a strict free speech advocate yet lauds any and all GOP efforts to prevent liberal Hollywood from conducting business. Odd.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #72 of 142
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!
Quote:
(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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
post #73 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Free press refers to free from government interference, not free from ownership.

Errr... no... Freedom of the Press is something that a government guarantees (or not). In modern times there are more threats to a free press than governments. Big Media Owners being one very important.

So I ask you again, is this actually the way you want the media to work?
Yes or no will do.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Also you basically advocate absentee ownership. The owners may not run the day to day operations, but that doesn't mean they have no say, or that they don't retain the right to do with their property whatever they wish.

I don't advocate anything. Active ownership is ok. If the Sinclair group was just any business I would leave it at calling this a stupid decission, bad for buisness. But they also have to abide by the rules of a public broadcaster.

In Norway, this would be such a scandal that any public licenses would be revoked immediately.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
post #74 of 142
SWIFT BOAT LIES

In August the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth charged that John Kerry had lied about the events that led to his Silver Star. In order to figure out if the SBVT account was true, Nightline sent a crew to Vietnam, where they visited the hamlets of Tran Thoi and Nha Vi and interviewed the local villagers to get their recollections of what really happened 35 years ago. You can read the resulting story yourself, but it's summarized pretty easily: Kerry was right and SBVT honcho John O'Neill wasn't.

But there was also this:

Quote:
Back in Tran Thoi, villager Nguyen Van Khoai said that about six months ago he was visited by an American who described himself as a Swift boat veteran and told him another American from the Swift boats was running for president of the United States. Nguyen said the man was accompanied by a cameraman.

"They say he didn't do anything to deserve the medal," Nguyen said. "The other day, they came and asked me the questions and I said that the recognition for the medal is up to the U.S.A."

He said that, after they met, the Swift Boat veteran and the cameraman turned around and went back down the river. Nightline has not been able to identify the men.

Unbelievable. The SBVT folks, hoping to dig up dirt on Kerry, interviewed these villagers six months ago and have known the truth all along.

It wasn't just a case of differing recollections in the heat of the battle. They knew the truth. But they went ahead and told their lies anyway.

What a revolting bunch of men. What a disgusting, repellent, sleazy operation. And now Sinclair Broadcasting is about to air their movie.

Even worse, we still have three weeks to go. I wonder how much lower the Bush team and their surrogates can sink in that time? And I wonder what decent Republicans are going to do about it after Bush drags them down to defeat in November?

UPDATE: For obvious reasons, I was pretty steamed when I wrote this last night. My assumption then (and now) is that the unnamed Swift boat veteran was associated with SBVT since, after all, who else would have been interested in this story back in March? Needless to say, though, if anyone has any information that can confirm or deny this, I'll print it.

Washington Monthly
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #75 of 142
From Media Matters

Quote:
Having reviewed the film, MMFA can confirm that at least two of the POWs featured in the film, Paul Galanti (MMFA has noted Galanti's false attacks on Kerry, which he made while a guest on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes) and Ken Cordier (former member of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign's National Veterans Steering Committee, appointee to a Bush administration advisory committee, and vice chair of Veterans for Bush-Cheney '00) also appeared in Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads attacking Kerry.

While the Los Angeles Times reported that the film "shares several sources with the anti-Kerry campaign of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth," the media has largely ignored this fact -- along with the fact that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and POWs [prisoners of war] for Truth are now the same group. The anti-Kerry POWs for Truth, who released Stolen Honor, merged with the discredited Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as a September 29 press release announced. According to that release, "The merger coincide[d] with a new $1.4 million television ad campaign released by the new group Swift Vets and POWs For Truth." Swift Boat Vets also has significant connections to the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign, as MMFA has noted.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001

and Swift Vets and POWs for Truth

This IS mearly a 90 minute ad. It's no wonder there's no commercials during this broadcast... because it is one.
post #76 of 142
"We do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content." - Sinclair Broadcast Group

That was the statement released by Sinclair when they refused to air Ted Koppel's reading of the soldiers killed in Iraq.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
post #77 of 142
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Dear Josh:

As a former FCC chair, I read with interest -- and disappointment -- the following:

Quote:
"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Michael Powell told reporters. "I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that."

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," two weeks before the Nov. 2 election."

But no one has asked the FCC to bar Sinclair from showing the program. There are only two issues for the FCC and only two requests to Chairman Powell.

The issues are: if Sinclair shows this anti-Kerry propaganda (which can be downloaded from Internet, lest anyone question the characterization), then (1) should it also give a free hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any authentic progressive organization, and (2) will Sinclair face at least the prospect after the fact of a review of its fulfillment of its public interest duties.

And the two requests are: (1) will the Chairman of the FCC remind Sinclair and other broadcasters by word and deed that they have public interest obligations, and (2) will the Chairman of the FCC investigate now, before the propaganda airs, whether Sinclair has a duty to give an hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any progressive organization?

Chairman Powell instead pretends that he has been asked to bar the showing of the propaganda -- which no one has asked him to do. His remarks are so far off the point, and he is so intelligent, that one must conclude that he knows what he is doing and intends the result -- tacit and plain encouragement of the use of the Sinclair airwaves to pursue a smear campaign. No broadcast group in the history of America has ever committed an hour to smearing a presidential candidate, and no FCC chairman before this one would have reacted with equanimity to this radical step down in broadcasting ethics.

By the way, this FCC Chairman had no trouble issuing volumes of commentary about the obligation of broadcasters not to air indecent material during hours when children are in the audience. As important as that obligation is to many people, no less important to our democracy is the ability to conduct an election without the bombardment from the airwaves of station-sponsored propaganda.

In any event, the current FCC Chairman is no stranger to the White House. They know who he is and what he says. So the White House can and should remind the Chairman of his duties and express publicly its expectation that broadcasters will honor our democracy by playing fair. This is what should happen. If it is not a prediction of what will happen, that's a sign of how far out of the mainstream the current Administration is.

Reed Hundt, FCC Chair 1993-97

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._10.php#003689
post #78 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Trumpt's arguing that he's a strict free speech advocate yet lauds any and all GOP efforts to prevent liberal Hollywood from conducting business. Odd.

You are welcome to search through all my posts to back up this claim. I am and always have been a very strict free speech advocate. I don't even like campaign contribution limits.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #79 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Errr... no... Freedom of the Press is something that a government guarantees (or not). In modern times there are more threats to a free press than governments. Big Media Owners being one very important.

So I ask you again, is this actually the way you want the media to work?
Yes or no will do.

100% Bullshit. Freedom of speech means freedom to say what you want. It does not mean the government has to buy you the press or give you the megaphone. Private speech has no obligation to be small and no one says that your speech has a right to a certain volume, repetition or guaranteed visibility.

I believe in private ownership. If that is the question you are asking, then yes that is how I want it to work.

Quote:
I don't advocate anything. Active ownership is ok. If the Sinclair group was just any business I would leave it at calling this a stupid decission, bad for buisness. But they also have to abide by the rules of a public broadcaster.

In Norway, this would be such a scandal that any public licenses would be revoked immediately.

Not to be rude, but I really could give a shit about how Norway conducts its business. If they believe that government gives people power, then that is fine. However in the United State the power is vested in the people and it is the government's job to stay out of the way.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

post #80 of 142
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
But no one has asked the FCC to bar Sinclair from showing the program. There are only two issues for the FCC and only two requests to Chairman Powell.

The issues are: if Sinclair shows this anti-Kerry propaganda (which can be downloaded from Internet, lest anyone question the characterization), then (1) should it also give a free hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any authentic progressive organization, and (2) will Sinclair face at least the prospect after the fact of a review of its fulfillment of its public interest duties.

And the two requests are: (1) will the Chairman of the FCC remind Sinclair and other broadcasters by word and deed that they have public interest obligations, and (2) will the Chairman of the FCC investigate now, before the propaganda airs, whether Sinclair has a duty to give an hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any progressive organization?

Chairman Powell instead pretends that he has been asked to bar the showing of the propaganda -- which no one has asked him to do. His remarks are so far off the point, and he is so intelligent, that one must conclude that he knows what he is doing and intends the result -- tacit and plain encouragement of the use of the Sinclair airwaves to pursue a smear campaign. No broadcast group in the history of America has ever committed an hour to smearing a presidential candidate, and no FCC chairman before this one would have reacted with equanimity to this radical step down in broadcasting ethics.

By the way, this FCC Chairman had no trouble issuing volumes of commentary about the obligation of broadcasters not to air indecent material during hours when children are in the audience. As important as that obligation is to many people, no less important to our democracy is the ability to conduct an election without the bombardment from the airwaves of station-sponsored propaganda.

In any event, the current FCC Chairman is no stranger to the White House. They know who he is and what he says. So the White House can and should remind the Chairman of his duties and express publicly its expectation that broadcasters will honor our democracy by playing fair. This is what should happen. If it is not a prediction of what will happen, that's a sign of how far out of the mainstream the current Administration is.

Reed Hundt, FCC Chair 1993-97


http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc..._10.php#003689
[/QUOTE]

I take clear issue with this...

Quote:
The issues are: if Sinclair shows this anti-Kerry propaganda (which can be downloaded from Internet, lest anyone question the characterization)

The double standard is quite amusing. CBS runs "news." The "news" consists of some fake memos given by an anonymous source never involved in the events in any manner. They are attempting to confirm a story they believe to already be true. (That was Rather's own justification)

Along the way they ignore their own experts, misrepresent the papers to parties involved, etc. The never issue a retraction.

The POW/SwiftVets features a bunch of folks giving their FIRST PERSON account of the actual events. The first person events are "propaganda" and the CBS story is "news."

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "Liberal Media" to Air Anti-Kerry Film Days Before Election