Stations told to air anti-Kerry film

[Chewbacca]

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]

[Khazadman Risen]

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.

[Lucern]

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

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.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek: 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.

I am curious for something a little firmer than "I heard it" to back up the quite bold statement:

"It is no secret that Kerry has virtually NO SUPPORT from ANYBODY connected to the military".

It doesn't suprise me that you have heard it, but just hearing (or saying it) doesn't make it factual or accurate.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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....

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.

* 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.
** 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.

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

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Grojlach: 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.

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.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Presidential elections shouldn't be about which side is responsible for the most convincing character assassinations - they should be about their proposed policies.

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

[Timber Loftis]

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.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by John D Harris: 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.

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 ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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, 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.

* 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.