What liberal media conspiracy?

Stations told to air anti-Kerry film
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Elizabeth Jensen
LOS ANGELES TIMES

NEW YORK — The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation’s homes with TV, is ordering its stations to pre-empt regular programming days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said yesterday.

Sinclair owns WSYX (Channel 6) in Columbus.

Sinclair’s programming plan is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war.

Sinclair will pre-empt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the documentary, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar who are with the plan.

Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process. "It’s not the American way for powerful corporations to strong-arm local broadcasters to air lies promoting a political agenda," Kerry spokesman David Wade said. "It’s beyond yellow journalism; it’s a smear bankrolled by Republican money, and I don’t think Americans will stand for it."

Sinclair owns 62 stations, including ones in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas.

Station and network sources said they have been told the Sinclair stations will pre-empt regular programming for one hour between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24 for the documentary.

No one familiar with the plan was willing to criticize it publicly, some because they said they don’t know all the details of what Sinclair plans for the panel that follows the documentary.

But a number of people privately expressed outrage at the seemingly overt nature of the political attack, which comes at a time when the media are under assault as never before.

Cable’s Fox News Channel was attacked earlier in the summer by a coalition of liberal groups for what they said was its efforts to boost Republicans; in recent weeks, CBS’ Dan Rather has been criticized by conservatives, as well as some nonpartisan journalists, for its 60 Minutes II report that used now-discredited documents in a report claiming President Bush received favorable treatment when in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s.

Democrats have for some time accused Sinclair, a publicly traded company based in Maryland, of a having a rightwing agenda.

The company made headlines in April when it ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel’s Nightline roll call of military dead in Iraq, deeming it a political statement "disguised as news content."

http://www.dispatch.com/election/ele....html&rfr=nwsl

[ 10-12-2004, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

You people have equal time regulations, right? So I reckon mister Sinclair will have to show Fahrenheit 9/11 or this movie right after that, for fairness' sake.

These elections are getting dirtier and dirtier, though. :(

[ 10-12-2004, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

There is no equal time regulation anymore. If there were every station that aired Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., would have to follow it with an Air America style program, which would mean there would be a need for AA.

My understanding is that Moore wants to have Farenheit 9/11 televised before the election. If he were running for the documentary Oscar this would make him ineligible, but it doesn't effect his run for best picture.

[ 10-12-2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Show it! Please! If you can prove to me that an entire war was prolonged by one skinny GI bitching about a war everyone was bitching about, I'll eat my felt nose! Most likely, you'll end up just looking a fool for trying to take history and spin it too hard.

I'd watch it, though. :D

I don't even get the logic of that statement. What's the mechanism whereby protesting war prolongs it? Spite? I gathered that their claim was that they were tortured as a direct response to Kerry's testimony. I don't doubt they were tortured, but I'm skeptical that the rationality, if any, could even be known - much less linked to 'one skinny GI' as Timber put it (lol).

And I'd watch it too. I wonder if they own any stations that cover my area.

I also caught an argumentative cat-fight on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer between the VP of Sinclair and some kind of representative of the DNC. Sure they both had a naked agenda, but the VP wasn't really standing on much, nor was he very capable of defending what little he was standing upon. The best he could do is frame the documentary in the context of a news story that the other networks passed on.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...air_10-12.html

They actually turned down a Democratic political ad for 'taking statements out of context'. I can't imagine any political ad passing muster on that one. They also made an "offer" to Kerry (and Kerry alone) to come and respond to the film. That's their fair-and-balanced claim I think, though it's an obvious ambush. Pending the quality of the documentary, that may be like inviting GW to respond to the tv screening of F911.

So they are a publicly traded company, buy their stock get controling interest and stop the airing of the film. Ain't Capitalism great!

<font color=plum>Actually, I "reckon" that the Sinclair film would need to be shown nationwide (and abroad) in theaters for 3-5 months AND sold on DVD to the general public in order to achieve "equal time". However, F9/11 WILL air on cable the night before the election.</font>

<font color=plum>Actually, I "reckon" that the Sinclair film would need to be shown nationwide (and abroad) in theaters for 3-5 months AND sold on DVD to the general public in order to achieve "equal time". However, F9/11 WILL air on cable the night before the election.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]That's a wholly different thing altogether Cerek, and you know very well that's the case. People actually had to put some effort and extra money into it to actually go and see F9/11; bar public expectation, no one was forcing a cinema or broadcast network to show it (plenty of cinemas had refused it), nor were stations forcing it upon anyone who simply want to tune in to a station's regular programming. I don't think a Sinclair owned tv station has the option of refusal, however.
And I don't agree with F9/11 being aired on the night before the election either (by the way, I thought Michael Moore had yet to find a station for all this?) - though I'd like to see some evidence as to whether the showing of F9/11 was forced by some media tycoon onto the stations airing it as well. And note that if there is such evidence, that's still no excuse for Sinclair's decision - it only proves how rotten and "mainstream" partisan crap has truely become.

[ 10-14-2004, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

No.

<font color=plum>No, <font color=orange>Groj</font>, it is NOT "a wholly different thing altogether" as much as the opponents of Bush would like to say it is.

Sinclair may be able to force their stations to air the program, but they cannot force the viewer to actually WATCH the program. And the ONLY effort required to avoid the Sinclair project is a simple CLICK of the remote.

The core issue is the exposure the Sinclair project will supposedly have on the viewing public...but even in your wildest imaginations, there is NO WAY you could honostly say that one 42-minute program is going to get even a FRACTION of the "total viewing audience" that has already seen F9/11 (and that doesn't include the DVD sales or the pre-election special broadcast). The bottom line is that BOTH projects are nothing more than blantant political messages wrapped up in the guise of a "documentary" or a "news program". And - of the two - F9/11 reached more viewers in it's opening weekend than the Sinclair Project will recieve in their airing.

Also, who is actually gonna WATCH the Sinclair show and how many of those viewers will actually CHANGE thier vote because of it. Do your REALLY believe that someone sitting on the fence - but leaning towards Kerry - is going to watch this drivel from Sinclair and say "Wow...I had NO IDEA he was such a scumbag. Gosh, I better vote for Bush as quick as I can." ? N0. Most likely the ones that watch the show will be the ones that ALREADY think Kerry is a scumbag who is lying through his teeth about his military record. So I really don't think it will have THAT big an impact on the overall vote (though I do concede it won't be from lack of trying on Sinclair's part).

It is no secret that Kerry has virtually NO SUPPORT from ANYBODY connected to the military (according to comments I've heard on the news, radio and from members here at IW who are actually members of the military). In fact, I can think of only one member here with military experience that is definitely a Kerry supporter. Most others are firmly against him already and the show aired by Sinclair isn't going to change those opinions very much in either direction.

<font color=plum>Actually, I have no problem with F9/11 being aired the night before the election. I think Moore should have pushed to have the broadcasts begin about a week before the election, but that isn't how HBO and SHO time do their programming. They only add 1-2 new movies to their rotation PER MONTH...and November 1st would be the earliest F9/11 could be shown to have maximum impact BEFORE the election. He could have pushed to have it added in the October rotation, but that would probably have been TOO soon and the impact would have worn off by November 2. Also, an October rotation would have preceded the release of the movie on DVD - another business/marketing faux pas. I had predicted that F9/11 would be released on DVD about 2 weeks before the election to gain maximum impact - but Moore timed it to coincide with the beginning of the Presidential debates. As usual, Moore knows MUCH more about "perfect timing" than I do.

To be perfectly honost, I actually agree with you about Sinclair (at least in principle). This IS a really "dirty" move on their part and is blantantly political. I agree it is shameful for a media corporation especially to use it's power in such a way, but I still believe the actual impact of the show itself will be far less than anticipated. Now, a good buddy of mine said that this just shows how low Boy George is willing to go to smear Kerry - but that is misleading. There is NO evidence to suggest that Bush or any of his staff had ANYTHING to do with the decision made by the Sinclair execs. I know it is hard for the liberals to believe, but there really ARE people (like the Swifties) who actually DO HATE Kerry enough to launch these attacks on their own WITHOUT the express written permission of the President. I'm sure Bush isn't upset about the action taken by Sinclair, but that is a FAR CRY from being personally responsible for it also.

One other ironic note about the Sinclair Project is that they seem to have taken some lessons from Michael Moore himself. This 42 minute program of thiers would not have recieved anywhere NEAR the attention it has (and thus wouldn't have recieved near the viewers it will) if this "controversy" hadn't recieved the national coverage it has. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that Sinclair themselves were the ones that "leaked" the story to the general media. ;) </font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Whats all this BS about "FORCING" their stations to air the film? THEY OWN THE FRIGGIN STATIONS.
I gaurentee you that IF Michale Moore owned theaters He would have "FORCED" them to show the film in exactly the same way. If you OWN the station, you have the RIGHT to air what you want within the bounds of decency as set by the FCC....Now the FEC might have a valid issue, but the FCC has no right to say anything.

And umm if F 9/11 airs the night before the election on cable TV...no one has to put in any more effort to see it than those watching Sinclair stations.

On top of all that....

A. There is an off button on the tv.
B. There are other channels.
C. At this point there are no really undecided people on this issue...oh maybe one or two here and there, but not enough to matter either way AND IF by this time they havn't made up their minds one way or the other...Im thinkin they should sit this one out as their indecision would indicate they have bigger worries intheir life at the moment.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Edit: Even the title of this thread is misleading and wrong....ALL stations are told what to air by their owners.....this title makes it sound like something unusual is happening.
</font>

[ 10-14-2004, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color=plum>Damn dude...You just said the same thing I did, only in about 1/4 of the space. I gotta work on shortening my longwinded replies.

Good job, <font color=lime>Magik Man</font>. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] </font>

MagiK and Cerek, just to correct a fallacy:

Sinclair owns 60-something stations in 39 markets, covering 25% of US households. Their stations include NBC, UPN, CBS, and FOX affiliates. It *is* unusual for a conglomerate broadcast owner to tell *all* of those stations, no matter what network they are on, to air one show. I'm not saying you don't have valid points, just don't try to take the magnitude away from this. It is VERY unusual.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
TL Tell that to Viacom :D
</font>

Unusual or even VERY unusual is not wrong, it's just differant/strange/not usual/Unpresedented(sp?) even, unlike airing a show based on let's say forged papers. Sent out over the airwaves to afiliates that are under contract to air the show. ;)

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I still think that people should remember that they can just turn the TV off...a crazy notion I know...however it is an option. I actually highly reccomend turning it off when F 9/11 is forced on to the national affiliates (since we are going to dub programming as being forced).


Funny how Kerry supporters are all for free speach for Michael Moore but not for the Swift Boat vets, Free Speach for George Sorros but not for Sinclair....</font>

[ 10-14-2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Enough of the mis-information ( can there actually be enough mis-information during the election season?) that F-9/11 will be shown for free on cable. That is incorrect.

F-9/11 may air on election-eve as part of a PAY-PER-VEIW package that includes other M. Moore material. No final deal has been announced on this yet.

Comparing the Sinclair initiative to broadcast the Kerry film on OUR FREE airwaves to a pay-per-view event on private cable is like comparing watermelons and string beans.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
What airwaves you been smoking Chewie??? They AINT free and haven't been since the FCC was formed.

I speak as one who has an idea what bandwidth actually costs to license...having worked in telecom before.

Edit: and see my comments about the easy to use On and Off button for the Television :D
</font>

[ 10-14-2004, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
By Airing the show without commercial interruption Sinclair is basicly giving people the chance to vote with their money...if they don't watch, Sinclair gave up the advertising dollars for nothing.

AND on top of that. They (Sinclair) offered John Kerry FREE air time to rebut the movie or to counter it or to say whatever he wanted to say after the show aired.....he declined.</font>

[ 10-14-2004, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

On PAY-PER-VIEW Moore power to him (pun intended) I'm a capitalist if there are lambs that can be fleeced, fleece'em. P.T. Barnum way underestemated the birth rate. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] :D

While we are at this enough of this Mis-imformation Let's clearify the Free air waves stuff. In order for a T.V. station to use OUR FREE air they must be lisenced(sp?) from the U.S. Gov't. They opperate at the will of the governing, and pay for the privilage to opperate. They own the company it is theirs to opperate at their disgression, until they violate a law.

[ 10-14-2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Free like the library, people. As in public. Not literally "free". Geez, the nitpickers are out in force here today. ;) To further cement the non-point of the nitpick, nothing is free. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Did anyone see Fox news Wednesday? They had a representative from the Kerry campaign threatening to revoke Sinclair's broadcast license if they should win the election. Yep, those guys sure are big on free speech alright.

MagiK, as the VP of Sinclair framed that offer, it would be up for time/content edit by an obviously anti-Kerry group. Does that sound like a good offer to you?

The VP of Sinclair also said that the documentary describes Kerry as responsible for indirect torture of US POWs. How could anyone even respond to that? Giving an interview would imply that the documentary was filmed in the spirit of intellectual discourse rather than partisan propaganda. I guess we'll have to wait and see. If Kerry knows what's good for him, he'll stay away and have channel-surfers mistake it for another showing of Platoon.

I am curious for something a little firmer than "I heard it" to back up the quite bold statement: It doesn't suprise me that you have heard it, but just hearing (or saying it) doesn't make it factual or accurate.

Funny thing is that if you turn the argument around and exchange "Kerry supporters" with "Bush supporters", you'd have an argument that would apply to as many people as yours did. Which isn't a lot, by the way, as you're trying to hint at a kind of hypocrisy that doesn't really exist in my opinion. I'm all for free speech for the people you mentioned, but the wonderful part about free speech is that it doesn't keep you from criticising the validity of someone else's statements.

I'm not really familiar with George Sorros, but I mostly like Michael Moore because republicans are starting to act all funny whenever you mention him ( ;) ), though I wasn't all that enthusiastic myself about F9/11. While as a foreigner concerned about global stability, and as a slightly politically left leaning person from one of the most progressive and clearly secularized nations of the world, I'd rather see someone other than Bush in the White House, and I suppose that won't surprise anyone around here; so for that I should applaud Moore's initiatives - with reservations, however. While F9/11 makes some good and at times even revelatory points, the evidence regarding the alleged Saudi/Bush links (for example) is rather circumstantial and thin - giving it the feel of a cheap smear campaign that really shouldn't have a place in the presidential elections... And in result, F9/11 left a somewhat sour taste in my mouth, making me feel somewhat awkward.
And that's basically my beef with the Swiftboat Veterans* and Sinclair's proposed plans as well - they're taking the presidential debate to a whole new level by turning issues that (in my opinion) have little importance, relevance or validity regarding a candidate's future policies into what these elections "are all about", completely overwhelming the real issues - like foreign policy, the environment, unemployment, health care, education, etc.
Presidential elections shouldn't be about which side is responsible for the most convincing character assassinations - they should be about their proposed policies. All Sinclair is doing with his forced airing of such a partisan documentary on about a quarter of all stations across the nation is hit to a new low in American history and apply for having a photograph of him included in the dictionary next to the definition of "bad taste"; and while there's a sense of Swiftian irony** in all this pointless squabbling from afar, it still saddens me to no end that things have come this.

As for why I think Sinclair's decision is in a wholly different ball park than the cinema/proposed cable airing of Michael Moore's F9/11, I'd like to refer to Chewie's post regarding that subject - he managed to explain it a lot better than I did. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh, and I intended to respond to some of the seperate points made people here. but that'll have to be for another day - I really should be going to bed now. :(

<font size=0>* Note that I think the Swiftboat Veterans are mere partisan opportunists using some warped grudges to make a quick buck and help their party in the process; though I suppose that when you're a hardcore Bush supporter you may tend to sympathise with them regardless of the real facts - as it seems to work the other way around as well with Michael Moore and hardcore liberals, right? The end justifies the means and all. ;) </font>
<font size=0>** Not to mention some great laughs thanks to people like Bill Maher and Michael Moore, or a somewhat different sense of amusement taken from the ramblings of people like Alan Keyes, Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter. </font>

[ 10-14-2004, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

That's just it Groj, in the opening post from an news article where is the arguement of the validity about the statements? I see alot of messenger shoot'n about how Sinclair is bad, not that the things Sinclair is going to say are wrong and how the facts are off the mark, but that since they are saying them the facts must be wrong. And they are wrong for doing this and should not do it. Where as evidenced by the earlier threads about MM's stuff the majority of us "Bush supporters" said we don't beleive MM, but if he wants to say it go ahead. Very few have said MM should not say anything, we said we won't beleive him.

Wanted to quote this seperate, you are correct, but as a US citizen that has been politicly aware for nearly 35 years. Policies haven't had much impact since 1988 :(

Sorry, JD, but from my perspective policies have a huge impact. Especially when you broaden your horizons to include all topics, such as the environment. In environmental law, when confronted with any compliance issue a client has, I look to the latest EPA guidance and policy documents (EPA being controlled by the President). The same is true in any area where there is a large amount of regulatory oversight.

Well, a documentary that's basically putting John Kerry on par with the anti-Christ who directly worsened the war in Vietnam because of his actions (funny how no one brought this up 30 years ago) seems like a no-brainer to me when we're discussing the validity of this thing. It pre-emptively seems like a huge stretching of the truth (I'd still watch it for sheer comedy value, though ;) ), but that's not the issue at stake here - while Sinclair has the right to say whatever he wants to say, and while he's technically not violating any rules with his orders to his networks, I do believe this doesn't deserve any airtime on publically accessible airwaves - morals, ethics, integrity, bad judgement, bad taste, whatever - and in the light of the elections not exactly an improvement on the quality of the debate overall. We've seen more than enough cheap and unconvincing smearing already with Awolgate, "flip-flop", F9/11 and the Swiftboat Veterans, now could we please let it rest already?

[ 10-15-2004, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well, if the electorate in your country is anything similar to the one we've got over here in the Netherlands, then the number of people that's actually interested enough in politics to take non-gimmick* issues into their consideration of who to vote for is only a minority - and that's not even taking complete voting apathy into account. People just don't care as much about politics as we'd all like to think.

<font size=0>* I'd say the War in Iraq/Terrorism and tax breaks fit the definition of "gimmick" issues during these elections, apart from the obvious ones like a candidate's Vietnam war records or whatever filth they manage to dig up.</font>

My understanding of the Groj's post is he was talking about the election, Policies haven't had much of an impact on the election process in years. Look at what is said: "He Lied", "Flip-Flop", "AWOL", "Tratior", etc. during the campaign.
Now Policies have all the impact on how the winner governs, but in the election season, NO way. Look at either side and what is said. Being a conserve I can tell you that during the 2000 election it was said that the Republican wanted to poison the air and water! Now think about that statement, truely think about it. If that was a policy, that the repubilcans wanted to poison the air and water, what would republicans breath and drink? Do not republicans breath and drink the same air and water that the Dems. do? The statment is not a policy statment it is an emotional statement meant to scare people. Lordy we do the same thing but from our point of view.

Groj you said a mouthful there [img]smile.gif[/img] Politics is open warfare and all is fair, the vast majority of people vote on emotions not brains, that goes for bothsides. It's a popularity contest who we like best, not who will govern best.

Will Rogers said there ain't a dimes worth of differance between the Dems and Reps. Will Rogers was willing to pay to much ;)

Soorry, JD, I thought you meant policy, not policy. Erm.... you know what I mean.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Grojlach, you are correct in that some people did try to stop F 9/11 from airing...they did this by voting with their dollars and boycotting sponsors...Kerry however used lawyers to threaten book stores not to allow the Swift Vets book out...I see a difference between the two efforts.

I counted 27 anti-bush books at Borders Book Store yesterday, and 4 Anti-Republican party books on the shelves, however there were just 3 anti-kerry books and no anti-democrat books.....I think the mass media vendors who decide wich books get put into the public book stores are demonstrably a monopoly for the left.

On the internet the number of books availabe for each side seems to be pretty even.


But you are right...both sides do to some degree try to stifle the other side, I just happen to think the leftists are more effective at it, guess it comes more naturally :D
</font>

As for what Bush did and what Kerry did in response - they just show two possible ways of dealing with alleged lies. You either ignore them and refuse to acknowledge them completely (Bush approach), or go in the offense (kerry approach). It helps in this respect of course that Michael Moore was already pretty much already accepted by the public as a celebrity and as a thought-provoking (if not slightly manipulating) film maker who also happened to be backed by a large group of lawyers, who went over his films and reduced the possibility of having facts in it that could be contested in a court of law; Kerry probably had a simpler task by simply denying the lies outright because they were more transparent and easier to prove, plus the Swiftboat Veterans didn't really have any public sympathy when they began their crusade, apart from some people who really, really don't want Kerry to win the elections and take an "end justifies the means" approach.
Which approach is best? I don't know, but even if both were proven to be 100% consisting of lies, the damage would still have been done.

Major difference here - Bush has been in office for four years already in one of the most criticised administrations in recent US history. Of course there will be more anti-Bush books than anti-Kerry ones, if only for that fact. Furthermore, unless the Republicans have managed to fabricate hundreds of books on the two or three bad things you could say about Kerry ("flip-flop", Vietnam war record) or just made up stuff altogether ("On why Kerry is a closet French homosexual and a crossdresser" or "Kerry's secret affair with his dog Toto" ;) ), I seriously doubt your statement that the total number of books available for each side is pretty much even - either that, or the liberals didn't do their homework properly, as there *ought* to be more books about Bush than about Kerry right now. We could do a fairer comparison in four years in case Kerry gets elected, but not at this point, I suppose.*

And I'm mentioning this because for a book to appear in mainstream bookstores, a certain level of quality (or reliabiliy and a good "selling name") is required - and if there are 200 books about Bush and 40 about Kerry, then it only is a matter of simple logic that more of the anti-Bush ones have those aforementioned requirements. As of right now, most of the books being written about Kerry will contain more speculation than fact (just look at the Vietnam war records ones, with him being backed by anyone who actually served with him but being contested by ex-soldiers who didn't, really), while there's probably a book written for every controversial decision made by the Bush administration (regarding the environment, taxes, "no child left behind", the war on drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, International relationships with the UN, Ashcroft's policies altogether, you name it); these last books don't have to rely on speculation that much and have a higher chance of having mainstream appeal than yet another 100% smear-'n'-speculation novel.

I suppose it does. [img]smile.gif[/img] I always thought it was common knowledge that the smear media on the conservative side was way more effective and venomous than those of the liberals (including Michael Moore) could ever be - republicans are most of all extremely good at using short catchphrases and applying very simplistic terms to get their message across ("if you're not with us, you're against us", "flip flop", the whole deal with France and 'freedom fries' (which had little to do with the Bush administration, but more than enough by a small number of hardcore republicans looking for ways to strengthen their narrow-mindedness ;) ), the whole semi-hidden being-a-patriot-only-if-you-support-the-war implications, "weapons of mass destruction" was extremely efficient to get their message across until it backfired on them, and even the Patriot Act has one of the most manipulative names I've ever seen); all things that have stuck some way or another with the general populace in the US. The most memorable things the liberal side has come up with in the past decade include some simplistic anti-war exclamations ("no blood for oil" etc.) and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". ;)

<font size=0>* Maybe you could compare it with the situation a few years back, with the number of books on Clinton to be found in stores as opposed to any books written about the Republican candidates he and Gore went up against. There's no way you can convince me there were more books about, say, Bob Dole in stores than about Clinton. </font>

[ 10-17-2004, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Yeah I know, with all the shi...sh...stuff being shoveled. ;)

<font color=plum>I actually agree with everything you've said here, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. Only one minor correction - Sinclair is the name of the corporation that owns the stations and not the CEO himself (AFAIK, anyway).

I agree completely that it is blantant political smear and does dredge "bad taste" to new depths. But the program is not being "forced" on anybody - so long as they have a remote control. I certainly won't be watching it, even though I don't plan to vote for Kerry. I wouldn't dignify it with my viewing time.

I also disagree with the implication (made by a good friend of mine who is a hardcore liberal) that the Bush Administration has any connection to this action by Sinclair. I think they did it on their own to win some major <font color=tan>brownie points</font>.

Anyway, that's my [img]graemlins/twocents.gif[/img] on the subject.</font>

Quote:

Originally posted by Grojlach: It pre-emptively seems like a huge stretching of the truth (I'd still watch it for sheer comedy value, though ;) ),

Funny, thats why I watched Farenheit 9/11 (Also a MAJOR stretching of the truth; along with many lies). I almost had stop it because I was laughing so hard at all of the crap that was squeezed onto that reel. Hell, "The Core" was a better movie.

[ 10-19-2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Morgan_Corbesant ]

Funny, thats why I watched Farenheit 9/11 (Also a MAJOR stretching of the truth; along with many lies). I almost had stop it because I was laughing so hard at all of the crap that was squeezed onto that reel. Hell, "The Core" was a better movie. </font>[/QUOTE]I just hope you reserve the same skepticism for Fahrenhype 9/11 as I did with Fahrenheit 9/11, though.

And as we've been discussing dirty campaigning tricks in this topic anyway, I thought throwing in this episode of "This Modern World" for good measure would be appropriate.

http://pandemonium.phpwebhosting.com/story.jpg