Primetime Anti-Kerry Special set to Air

materia3

Muse
M
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
560
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/kerry.program/

from Wolf Blitzer about 1 Hr ago:


Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe says it's "extraordinary that someone can go out there and pre-empt regular television.

"If people want to pay -- pay-per-view -- [to] watch [a] documentary, that is their right. To go out and pre-empt regular broadcasting to put out a 90-minute attack against a presidential candidate is absolutely outrageous and it's illegal," says McAuliffe.
Sinclair Broadcast Group plans to have its stations air the show commercial-free. The Democrats charge that the broadcast group's plan amounts to an "illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush-Cheney campaign." McAuliffe says this is the first time the DNC has ever filed an FEC complaint against a media organization.
Click to expand...


More at the above URL and elsewhere. Guess this means the gloves are off and we probably won't have to wait long after this program airs (if it airs and it probably will) to see what the pro Kerry 527s do in response. Although both candidates get plenty of pro Bush/Pro Kerry+anti-Bush/anti-Kerry commentary from our biased newscasters, even those who try hard to persuade us they are fair and balanced, F 9/11 was a paid admission and/or buy or rent to view DVD, Kitty Kelly's book has to be purchased, etc. The Reagan movie, which the republicans suceeded in getting quashed from network TV went to premium cable (and he wasn't even running for anything).

By their curious silence on the heroin trade in Afghanistan which they sanction, my guess this will be the area for attack, keeping in mind that the Preisdent's father was DCI post-Vietnam and during the heyday of CIA sponsored and operated SE Asian heroin operations. (Golden Triangle anyone?) If nothing else, this political family understands the politics of dope.
 
materia3 said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/kerry.program/

from Wolf Blitzer about 1 Hr ago:





More at the above URL and elsewhere. Guess this means the gloves are off and we probably won't have to wait long after this program airs (if it airs and it probably will) to see what the pro Kerry 527s do in response. Although both candidates get plenty of pro Bush/Pro Kerry+anti-Bush/anti-Kerry commentary from our biased newscasters, even those who try hard to persuade us they are fair and balanced, F 9/11 was a paid admission and/or buy or rent to view DVD, Kitty Kelly's book has to be purchased, etc. The Reagan movie, which the republicans suceeded in getting quashed from network TV went to premium cable (and he wasn't even running for anything).

By their curious silence on the heroin trade in Afghanistan which they sanction, my guess this will be the area for attack, keeping in mind that the Preisdent's father was DCI post-Vietnam and during the heyday of CIA sponsored and operated SE Asian heroin operations. (Golden Triangle anyone?) If nothing else, this political family understands the politics of dope.
Click to expand...


The dems seem like girley men. Somehow MM was not contributing to Kerry's campaign?
 
What could possibly be in this documentary that would hurt Kerry's chances? Kerry is telling the truth isn't he?

F911 has been a free download with Moore's blessing for how long now?
 
Once again, a law lesson.

Either party can have as many internet ads or movies as they want and be as biased and one sided as they want and there never has to be an equal say for the other side.

However, on television, it is the law that both candidates receive equal time. The only way Sinclair can show this on TV is if they show an equal-length documentary that is anti-Bush.

Pepto, the Moore thing on the internet is something people voluntarily download. It doesn't matter if Moore gave the movie away, as long as he didn't show it on TV without equal time for Bush.

In other words, Republicans need to stop their whining and thinking they can skirt the law, and just make an equal but opposite movie, internet download, book, etc.

At this time, I would like to point out that the FCC just fined Fox over 1 million dollars, so this admin is not above biting the hand that shills for them - so Sinclair is screwed if they do this.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Once again, a law lesson.

Either party can have as many internet ads or movies as they want and be as biased and one sided as they want and there never has to be an equal say for the other side.

However, on television, it is the law that both candidates receive equal time. The only way Sinclair can show this on TV is if they show an equal-length documentary that is anti-Bush.
Click to expand...
Or, if they can show that the documentary is not specifically anti-Kerry or pro-Bush. This could easily be shown as a Vietnam documentary.

Pepto, the Moore thing on the internet is something people voluntarily download. It doesn't matter if Moore gave the movie away, as long as he didn't show it on TV without equal time for Bush.
Click to expand...
You mean like this? Moore's planned TV broadcast of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' an Oscar gamble Why I Will Not Seek a Best Documentary Oscar (I'm giving it up in the hopes more voters can see "Fahrenheit 9/11") He's trying...

In other words, Republicans need to stop their whining and thinking they can skirt the law, and just make an equal but opposite movie, internet download, book, etc.
Click to expand...
I thought this thread was about the Democrats crying "unfair" again. Let me check... Yes it is.


At this time, I would like to point out that the FCC just fined Fox over 1 million dollars, so this admin is not above biting the hand that shills for them - so Sinclair is screwed if they do this.
Click to expand...
For indecency in a show titled "Married in America". What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
 
Or, if they can show that the documentary is not specifically anti-Kerry or pro-Bush. This could easily be shown as a Vietnam documentary.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right.

Michael Moore PLANNING something (how many times do I have to say this?) is not Michael Moore DOING something - and if he manages to show it, it will be a violation of the law. Moore has to try to get several stations to air his film. Sinclair IS several stations.

I thought this thread was about the Democrats crying "unfair" again. Let me check... Yes it is.
Click to expand...
I thought this thread was about the Republicans trying to do something illegal. Let me check... Yes it is.

What Sinclair is using as a justification is like if someone used drinking as a justification to shoot up heroin - in the sense that drinking is legal, and heroin is not.
 
Sinclair has apparently offered Kerry the opportunity to participate, which was declined. The offer is also apparently still open.

Most level headed folks said there would be trouble when F911 was called a documentary. Now you can call just about anything a documentary, I guess.

We can now look forward to such "documentaries" every time there is a big election.
 
Dorian is right on the money. And for people to complain about F9/11 is apples to oranges. TV is regulated, movies are not. I note that there are a plethroa of conservative books out there that bash liberals. If you want to consider F9/11 an advertisement then why not Hannity's book? Or the Swift Boat Vet book and so on?

Bottom line, what Sinclair is doing is against the law but I am sure they will find a way to skirt it.

Lurker
 
Re: Re: Primetime Anti-Kerry Special set to Air

Ed said:
The dems seem like girley men. Somehow MM was not contributing to Kerry's campaign?
Click to expand...
Does he have a New York City address?

This is fun, too.

BTW, didn't Kitty Kelley get three days of interviews on the Today show?
 
BTW, isn't Kitty Kelley a private citizen who is not a political candidate?

F911 IS a documentary. A biased and possibly one-sided documentary, but a documentary nonetheless. It's also a movie.
 
Dorian Gray said:
BTW, isn't Kitty Kelley a private citizen who is not a political candidate?
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. A news organization devoting three days to interviewing a private citizen who is not a political candidate about her book bashing a candidate is okay, but a news organization interviewing a bunch of veterans who are not a political candidate for 90 minutes needs to be pulled off the air?

Y'know I really hate this trashing of the first amendment in the name of campaign finance "reform."
 
Sundance channel aired the Vote Democrat* concert for 6 hours, and I think PBS just aired an Elect Kerry* special as well.

There have been many such programs on TV with nary a word from the FCC or anyone else. The only objections were from the people that were made to look bad.

F911 was certainly not any sort of documentary to me, and it was all over the TV via discussions anyway. It was also freely available to anyone who wanted it.

You've even got newspapers doing it. Much of the media is now putting out stuff that supports their chosen candidate, instead of just reporting the news.

This stuff was allowed to get started, now it will be difficult to stop it. We will be seeing this crap from all sides from now on.

Fortunately, the people putting it out will likely overplay the stuff and overwhelm the public to the point where no one pays any attention. Soon, a candidate will probably have to behead someone live to get the public's attention.

The idea of a newspaper endorsing a candidate still sounds wrong to me, and that's been going on for a very long time.

*not their real names, but........
 
News is news – ads is ads

BPSCG said:
So let me get this straight. A news organization devoting three days to interviewing a private citizen who is not a political candidate about her book bashing a candidate is okay, but a news organization interviewing a bunch of veterans who are not a political candidate for 90 minutes needs to be pulled off the air?
Click to expand...
The anti-Kerry film was not made by a "news organization." It was made by a right-wing producer out to smear Kerry. It is a piece of propaganda. The idea that it is "news" was invented by Sinclair in hopes of eluding federal regulations that prohibit TV stations giving free air time to political candidates and requiring them to provide equal time for rebuttal. Forcing your stations to run the thing free, disguised as "news," is not only unethical and illegal, but leads to publc loss of trust in the integrity of the stations' news departments. In the long term, this does a station and its owner no good at all.

I didn't see any of the Kitty Kelly coverage, but did some station actually get her to undergo an interview lasting three days on the air? Even Jerry Lewis pooped out after 24 hours.
 
"...by Sinclair in hopes of eluding federal regulations..."

He's being chased by large stacks of paper written by federal regulators?

How horrible!
;)
 
I already e-mailed Moore to give a one time use right to F 9-11 as a rebuttal, knowing these reactionary idiots would never accept it.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
I already e-mailed Moore to give a one time use right to F 9-11 as a rebuttal, knowing these reactionary idiots would never accept it.
Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing. In the name of equal time, why doesn't someone just insist that the same networks show F911 for free? It's about the same length.

Wouldn't that go over well?
 
pgwenthold said:
I wondered the same thing. In the name of equal time, why doesn't someone just insist that the same networks show F911 for free? It's about the same length.

Wouldn't that go over well?
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the uproar here if even one station pre-empted prime time to play F911?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom