Stations told to air anti-Kerry film

Capitalism at Work...a victory for the Capitalistic system and a victory for Kerry at the same time [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sinclair backed off on the show, it won't be airing at all, it will have select portions aired as part of a discussion on POW's and MIA's.

Sinclairs move to back off on the show comes as their stock dropped 17% over this issue. The New York Controller threatened to dump several hundred thousand shares of Sinclair stock if the show was aired as intended.

[Grojlach]

Well, at least that's something.

[Davros]

The system works [img]smile.gif[/img]

LOL this whole thing may have doomed Sinclair. They backed off the issue due to a cut in sotck price, and a threat from the NY (not sure if it was a City or State Official) Controllers office to dump roughly 400,000 shares of Sinclair stock.....now it turns out thier stock has taken another hit, as the people from the conservative side of the aisle have started dumping their stock in Sinclair as retaliation for backing down..... It looks like Sinclair put themselves in a no win situation.

[John D Harris]

As I said earlier Ain't Capitalism GREAT!!

[Oblivion437]

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but in accordance with "equal time" the Sinclair group fellow has offered Kerry direct response to those criticisms on the program. Nothing says equal time like putting it in the program in question.

Moore better be careful, he might be in violation of certain campaign finance laws if he decides to get it aired...Remember, the first ammendment only protects government speech. In Soviet Washington, Constitution recognizes inalienable government power!

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I don't know if this has been mentioned, but in accordance with "equal time" the Sinclair group fellow has offered Kerry direct response to those criticisms on the program. Nothing says equal time like putting it in the program in question.

True, but that's like inviting Bush to discuss the criticism at his expense in Fahrenheit 9/11 - and I think that neither Kerry nor Bush have anything to gain from acknowledging any of these "documentaries".

[Lucern]

It has been Oblivion. I suggested that it was up for time/content edit by Sinclair, and that it didn't sound like a good offer.

I also said exactly what Groj said lol.

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.

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?

Of course, that was way back on page 1

Lucern, Ihave not been able to find any verification of the stipulation you said was made...There was no time/content edit stipulation in the offer I read about. Where did you find it (re. the time content Edit that would be out of Kerrys control)

Also the air time was a no cost to Kerry offer. So who ever it was that commented about the cost had that wrong.

[ 10-20-2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Grojlach]

(Note that I tried to watch this with an open mind and tried to see things from the Veterans' perspective, instead of immediately dismissing these people as partisan hacks)

Okay, I've managed to see this particular documentary now. Basically, the beef these veterans have with Kerry has to do with some statements Kerry made in front of a commission in which he admitted that American Vietnam soldiers were involved in committing atrocities. While on its own these statements aren't all that strange - it's certainly not as if Kerry was the only one to admit that these happened in some parts of the American army - the veterans interviewed for the documentary have a special grudge against Kerry because some of the Vietcong managed to get their hands on the transcripts of Kerry's hearing, and used these against these veterans as emotional torture when they were imprisoned in Vietnam (or so they claim, but it would explain their irrational hatred against Kerry). Hearing "one of their own" confess that some* American soldiers were involved in torture, rape and pillaging, while they themselves were being tortured by the Vietcong, is bound to leave a lasting impression on someone; and while it does make their personal grudge understandable, it certainly doesn't make any of their hatred towards Kerry particularly fair.
The thing is, by that particular exposure, they've made a psychological association in their minds so few other Vietnam veterans did (else Kerry would have been in every history book regarding Vietnam by now) - to them, Kerry is a symbol of 'betrayal' to them, a person who, with his fellow war protesters, was responsible for misrepresenting Vietnam veterans, responsible for prolonging the war by two years (because Kerry's words gave the Vietcong the morale boost that kept the fight going for so long), and responsible for them not being hailed as the heroes they expected to be hailed as after the war. Oh, and he was blamed for "Apocalypse Now", too.

So in the end, you're left with veterans telling about how they were being tortured, followed by some manipulative presenting of facts that is supposed to convince us that John Kerry was the embodiment of the anti-Christ who was responsible for the failure of the Vietnam War.** The psychologist in me sympathises with these Veterans and their trauma-induced skewed perception of facts, but the rational being in me can easily dismiss the criticism levelled at John Kerry as being unfair and of no consequence.


*Note that I say "some" for a reason - any sane person would understand that even though Kerry's statements could very well be true, they're still anecdotal at best, and he actually makes his statements in reference to certain factions within the American army, certainly not to all Vietnam soldiers - despite what this documentary is trying to insinuate by blatantly calling Kerry a liar several times "because they themselves didn't do any of those things in Vietnam, so his statements have to be false", not once realizing that one doesn't disprove the other in any way.
** For instance, they used the photograph with both Jane Fonda and John Kerry on it as some "very incriminating evidence" to that - the very same photograph that was proven to be faked many months ago already.

[ 10-25-2004, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]