And if the goppers want to retaliate against our affiliates....... oh, never mind. Bring it on, eh!
What about the FEC? This seems like blatant electioneering, especially if, as I've seen, they are planning on running this piece o crap movie without commercials. Then it seems like a clear cut traipsing over into campaign contributions/election activities/527's/whatevers since the company is clearly not exercising their fiduciary duties as a publically held corporation, i.e. make money.
And that would seem to be a faster way to put the kibosh on Sinclair.
And challenging the license applications seems like a grand way to put a hurtin' on the media. And they need one in the worst way.
They need to start doing their jobs as guarantors of the public airwaves, rather than serving as self-serving whores to power.
I'm not looking to get them to push the left agenda, I'm looking for them to stop pushing the right agenda, and get back to pushing the news and truth for a change.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 11, 2004 10:38 AMwhereas this piece of propaganda is being beamed into your home on the public airwaves with the specific intention of swinging the election by using taxpayer-subsidized airwaves
Turn the channel.
Enough said.
Posted by Right Coaster at October 11, 2004 10:41 AMNot if they're using the public airwaves for it, RC, and calling it news.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 11, 2004 10:44 AMTurn the channel.
Enough said.
Rightcoaster,
Don't have an abortion.
Enough said.
Posted by muckcat at October 11, 2004 10:46 AMRight Coaster is right - first and foremost, we need to encourage people to turn the channel. Well, hey, maybe even turn the TV off.
But Steve is also right. We, the public, need to hold the stations who broadcast this junk on taxpayer-subsidized public airwaves accountable. Both now and after the fact.
Whodathunk?
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 11, 2004 10:52 AMI wonder if any competing stations in Sinclair markets'd be interested in showing F911?
Posted by TonyClifton at October 11, 2004 11:16 AMYou should crosslink to Josh Marshall at this link: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_10.php#003640. It's a memo from FCC Chairman Reed Hundt to Sinclair. Very cleverly worded.
Posted by Heath at October 11, 2004 11:39 AMI disagree about giving the past deadline stations a pass. Get an objection in anyway, if the conduct is eggregious and occurred after the deadline it is reasonable to expect the FCC to take it into account.
You may not succeed but you do further increase the problems for Sinclair and further dilute their resources.
I would also suggest getting in notices of objection pre-emptively before the broadcast.
Also if Sinclair is a public company buy some shares and then start a shareholder class action lawsuit against the management claiming that their actions are putting the shareholder's assets (the FCC licenses) in jepoardy for the personal political ambitions of the management and that this may cause irredemable harm.
Take them out on so many legal fronts that they are so busy fighting that they forget to show the film.
Posted by Phill at October 11, 2004 11:46 AMright on, let's do it. I'll be on this nonstop for the next week at least. I love turning back thuggery in the trenches.
Posted by lud at October 11, 2004 11:48 AMRemember there was some Ahnuld movie that couldntbe shown in the last month of the campaig last year b/c it violated the finance rules. I have no prblem if you want to show this movie, but show F9/11 on the same number of channels at te same time, or approximately same time. RC, did you feel that way when the RNC went after the " The Reagans'" miniseries.
Posted by J at October 11, 2004 11:54 AMRemember there was some Ahnuld movie that couldntbe shown in the last month of the campaig last year b/c it violated the finance rules. I have no prblem if you want to show this movie, but show F9/11 on the same number of channels at te same time, or approximately same time. RC, did you feel that way when the RNC went after the " The Reagans'" miniseries.
Posted by J at October 11, 2004 11:54 AMAh, such exquisite bullshit! The song of the truly desperate is now being screamed by BushCo.
Posted by Alex at October 11, 2004 11:56 AMIt would seem that Sinclair is taking a big risk, a Kerry FCC will be looking at them really close I would assume.
Posted by Ron In Portland at October 11, 2004 11:56 AMI noticed your link to the channel expiration dates ends before you get to Pennsylvania, but here in Pittsburgh we have 2 Sinclair stations. Any idea what the expiration dates are for PA?
Posted by Adso at October 11, 2004 11:57 AMIf there are any lawyers in these markets with the time and connections, go ahead and try to get an injunction.
After all, this is an in-kind contribution to Bush/Cheater04 and violates election laws.
A judge could certainly slap an injunction. But win or lose, it wouldn't hurt your reputation (and business bottom line) to get your name in the papers standing up for what is right.
(Wouldn't hurt to spam this suggestion far and wide.)
>
Posted by Dusty at October 11, 2004 12:00 PMI used to live in Asheville, and on WLOS (local ABC affiliate there), they would play a taped two minute segment once a week where a Sinclair executive offered up the latest GOP talking points, usually finishing with a snide remark about Democrats. There was no strong advocate of the Democratic position, no opportunity for dissenting opinion at all.
I assume that Sinclair forces this segment on all of its affiliates. Let's get 'em.
Posted by shamanic at October 11, 2004 12:00 PMSinclair is a publicly traded company. why doesn't some nice, progressive billionaire like George Soros, who owns no media at present and would not be hampered by media conglomeration rules make a run at the stock of the company or make a bid.. I don't know enough about finance to know how to do this. But I don't think it's as far out as one would think.
Posted by debra at October 11, 2004 12:04 PMwhat about the possibility of filing false advertising charges against Sinclair.
If they promote their bogus "documentary" as somehow anything other than fiction - if they label it "truthful" in any way - then they may be subject to fraud charges.
This is not to suggest they should not broadcast whatever they want to broadcast. It is, rather, that any company which falsely characterizes its product is subject to criminal fraud prosecution, and Sinclair has an obligation to honestly describe their presentation.
if any one station particpates in willfully misleading the public, it could be subject to both civil and criminal charges, with all the implications inherent thereto
Posted by bz at October 11, 2004 12:09 PMGo sign the Stop Sinclair Petition
Posted by Tinman at October 11, 2004 12:11 PMSBG is a public company, but it's 95% owned by the founding family that's behind the decision to run the anti-Kerry propoganda. No hope of a run on the stock, but a shareholder lawsuit might be possible. I don't know enough about shareholder lawsuits, though, to know if there's enough time to prevent the broadcast, but it could drain the SBG coffers post-broadcast.
Posted by Kathy at October 11, 2004 12:13 PMI found the directions at the link you sent somewhat confusing and could even lead someone's objection ignored. The following link includes more specific information about what you need and what is helpful in your informal objection. Please take a look before you file anything.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/renewal.html
The most valuable information is in the final two paragraphs. They suggest that you include the following information with your filing:
1) The station's call sign,
2) The station's facility ID number,
3) the license renewal application file number
The FCC provides a database where you can look this information up: http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm
Here is the information the request for the two stations in Raleigh:
Call Sign: WLFL
Facility ID:73205
File Number: BRCT-20040730ARF
Call Sign: WRDC
Facility ID: 54963
File Number: BRCT-20040730ARG
What would turn this situation around quickly is if just ONE courageous station manager would tell Sinclair to take a hike. Such an action would receive enormous publicity, and embolden others. Sinclair would end up with mucho egg on face...
Posted by peter jung at October 11, 2004 12:27 PMIf there are any lawyers in these markets with the time and connections, go ahead and try to get an injunction.
After all, this is an in-kind contribution to Bush/Cheater04 and violates election laws.
A judge could certainly slap an injunction. But win or lose, it wouldn't hurt your reputation (and business bottom line) to get your name in the papers standing up for what is right.
(Wouldn't hurt to spam this suggestion far and wide.)
>
Posted by Dusty at October 11, 2004 12:29 PMSign the petition: http://www.stopSinclair.org
Posted by Stop Sinclair at October 11, 2004 12:41 PMAn advertiser database has been set up at www.boycottsbg.com (follow the link on the upper right). Please add any known local and national advertisers to this list.
Posted by Nick at October 11, 2004 12:48 PMAn advertiser database has been set up at www.boycottsbg.com (follow the link on the upper right). Please add any known local and national advertisers to this list.
Posted by Nick at October 11, 2004 12:50 PMAn advertiser database has been set up at www.boycottsbg.com (follow the link on the upper right). Please add any known local and national advertisers to this list.
Posted by Nick at October 11, 2004 12:52 PMYou can download Going Upriver from here:
http://apnu.danielstrading.com/political/
Download the full length movie Going Upriver
Since the DVD isn't out yet, download the movie if there isn't a theatre near you playing it, or if you're simply interested. Then, go and buy the DVD.
Posted by Mike at October 11, 2004 12:53 PMIf you haven't had the chance, please log your protest here!
http://www.stopsinclair.org/index.php
and then pass it on to all Kerry supporters you know! This will be turned in to the feds on October 15th!! Sinclair will also get it!
Posted by Ursula at October 11, 2004 12:54 PMMy apologies for the triple post, I kept getting a 500 error.
Posted by Nick at October 11, 2004 12:54 PMIf you haven't had the chance, please log your protest here!
http://www.stopsinclair.org/index.php
and then pass it on to all Kerry supporters you know! This will be turned in to the feds on October 15th!! Sinclair will also get it!
Posted by Ursula at October 11, 2004 12:54 PMTurn off the TV, write to Sinclair, but the best thing we can do is boycott Sinclair's sponsors. Remember the only thing a conservative loves more than Bush, is money!
Posted by Barbara at October 11, 2004 01:00 PMGreat article! Permission to repost was inferred in the text. I have posted it to The Realm of Be*ing forum at DelphiForums.com, and also on my blog, with reference to the original posting and authorship, of course. I found it as a link posted to CERES Yahoogroup.
Hugs,
Moss
I just learned about shareholder derivative lawsuits this week. (Yay!)
Some shareholder has to either:
Only very rarely will courts second-guess even really dumb decisions by Directors. I think, though, that programming practices which could jeopardize the entire enterprise might just make the cut.
I don't know whether the FEC has much injunction power over this kind of thing, but if they don't, they really should.
Posted by Matt Davis at October 11, 2004 01:11 PMI just learned about shareholder derivative lawsuits this week. (Yay!)
Some shareholder has to either:
Only very rarely will courts second-guess even really dumb decisions by Directors. I think, though, that programming practices which could jeopardize the entire enterprise might just make the cut.
I don't know whether the FEC has much injunction power over this kind of thing, but if they don't, they really should.
Posted by Matt Davis at October 11, 2004 01:14 PM
From blog poster "5 Cents" over at Kos' site, here's a contact list of Sinclair Broadcasting's institutional investors. If pressure is applied to one of them, they'll either a) privately tell sinclair to knock it off, or b) sell their position, sending this stock down the tubes.
Earnest Partners @ http://www.earnestpartners.com/default.asp?P=149858
SHARES HELD: 4,946,278
Gabelli Asset Management Co (gamco) http://www.gabelli.com /
SHARES HELD: 3,640,000
Westfield Capital Management Co http://www.westfieldcapital.com /
SHARES HELD: 2,616,950
Morgan Stanley Investment Management http://www.morganstanley.com /
SHARES HELD: 2,526,303
Neuberger Berman http://www.nb.com/home /
SHARES HELD: 2,266,809
Putnam Investment Mgmt http://www.putnam.com /
SHARES HELD: 2,081,861
Perry Corp WEBSITE UNKNOWN
SHARES HELD: 1,911,452
Barclays Global Investors Intl http://www.barclaysglobal.com /
SHARES HELD: 1,801,161
Blackrock Inc / Ny http://www.blackrock.com /
SHARES HELD: 1,428,435
Janus Capital Corp >anus.com/Janus/Retail/JanusUmbrellaHomePage >http://ww3.janus.com/Janus/Retail/JanusUmbrellaHomePage
SHARES HELD: 1,417,887
Correction- found that list of institutional investors over at Atrios. Posted by "5 Cents."
Posted by old grizzly at October 11, 2004 01:27 PMBut acknowledging that news standards call for fairness, Mr. Hyman said an invitation has been extended to Mr. Kerry to respond after the documentary is shown. "There are certainly serious allegations that are leveled; we would very much like to get his response," he said.If Sinclair is able to run this crap then Kerry should take them up on their offer to respond. He should point out clearly the errors, lies and distortions in the "documentary". He should take ownership of everything he said about the war back then. He said what was needed to be said. He should be proud of his actions rather than running away from them. Posted by Jason at October 11, 2004 01:29 PM
It reminds me of an old song, Burn down the mission if we all want to stay alive....
Or buy stock and take over control the company, or at least raise some hell as a shareholder.
I personally am too old to play with matches.
Posted by JOHN O at October 11, 2004 01:29 PMha. Here is a response I got to a complaint I sent to the Sinclair-owned FOX station in Madison (of all places):
***
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event
featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam.
The
program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted
event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content
are
premature and are based on ill-informed sources. Massachusetts Senator
John
Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by
calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at (202) 712-3000.
You
may call this station's parent company headquarters at (410) 568-1780
if
you would like to make further comments on this matter. Thank you.
***
So now they think the New York Times et al. are ill-informed...
Wow, what a threat, is there something that the Kerry Campaign would not want seen here!
Posted by Rusty at October 11, 2004 01:44 PMWow, what a threat, is there something that the Kerry Campaign would not want seen here!
Posted by Rusty at October 11, 2004 01:44 PMWow, what a threat, is there something that the Kerry Campaign would not want seen here!
Posted by Rusty at October 11, 2004 01:44 PM**Characterizations regarding the content
are premature and are based on ill-informed sources**
Right. Because the title "Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" really is awfully vague about its intentions.
Posted by jood at October 11, 2004 01:51 PMGood job, LC. Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.
Posted by Mustang Bobby at October 11, 2004 02:09 PMSee this list. Start writing. If you invest with them even better.
Earnest Partners @ http://www.earnestpartners.com/default.asp?P=149858
SHARES HELD: 4,946,278
Gabelli Asset Management Co (gamco) http://www.gabelli.com /
SHARES HELD: 3,640,000
Westfield Capital Management Co http://www.westfieldcapital.com /
SHARES HELD: 2,616,950
Morgan Stanley Investment Management http://www.morganstanley.com /
SHARES HELD: 2,526,303
Neuberger Berman http://www.nb.com/home /
SHARES HELD: 2,266,809
Putnam Investment Mgmt http://www.putnam.com /
SHARES HELD: 2,081,861
Perry Corp WEBSITE UNKNOWN
SHARES HELD: 1,911,452
Barclays Global Investors Intl http://www.barclaysglobal.com /
SHARES HELD: 1,801,161
Blackrock Inc / Ny http://www.blackrock.com /
SHARES HELD: 1,428,435
Janus Capital Corp >anus.com/Janus/Retail/JanusUmbrellaHomePage >http://ww3.janus.com/Janus/Retail/JanusUmbrellaHomePage
SHARES HELD: 1,417,887
Rusty, just wondering why wouldn't you want to know about those fake Niger claims. Why wouldn't Dubya want us to see that story. As a matter of fact why don't they just come out and tell us all about it before the election. Inquiring minds want to know. We have yet to be told the truth about this bogus claim from our leaders that they used to lie their way into war. Why is Duyba hiding the truth???
As for Kerry, the whole propaganda movie has to do with his anti-war protests. John Kerry has not hidden anything about his antiwar protests. You can find tons of information online about these activities. There a many decent books about his activities, Nixon FBI investigation on him during that period.
This stunt will backfire Rusty if Sinclair goes through with it. Can you spell overreach? Well I may not have the best faith in the wisdom of the average American, but most Americans can tell when someone is pulling a fast one on them and this politically motivated action by Sinclair is an easy one for voters to spot. Most Voters are not chumps and know propaganda when they see it.
Posted by at October 11, 2004 02:25 PMadso You can search the FCC website for stations, and get their license info. I searched for Ch. 53 WPGH and found that their license is not up for renewal until 08/01/2007. Apparently because of a senior moment I failed to search for Ch. 22 WCWB,which is the Sinclair sister station. I will go back and search that. Assuming the renewal date is too far off, I would be interested in filing an objection that would be on record when that time comes.
jasonwhere did that Sinclair quote come from? Seems to me if that's the company's take on what the program is about--i.e., something that merits a response by Kerry, a candidate for political office--it's virtually an admission that the program constitutes electioneering in violation of the law.
Whether or not Kerry is elected, it seems to me that media control and influence is the first place that should be targeted by activists. I'm a lawyer--communications law not my area--and I intend to get involved on a pro bono basis wherever I can.
If Kerry loses,however, I'm going to concentrate on impeachment of Bush first.
In conjunction with this angle of attack, I suggest, by virtue of the ownership of one share of Sinclair Broadcast Group stock:
1. Contact the investor relations representative and indicate that as a shareholder you are concerned that management is engaging in political activity to the prospective detriment of the business.
2. Contact the major institutional shareholders and voice the same concerns. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SBGI
Just a thought on how to amplify the impact of the process.
Posted by at October 11, 2004 02:38 PMFrom what I understand, the only media attorneys that you would need are ones from D.C. because the FCC hearings would be held here. The complainants and challengers would come from the local markets, but if you can find a friendly media law firm in DC you'll help yourselves a lot.
Posted by LioneleHutz at October 11, 2004 02:50 PMIs there some way that Going Upriver could be shown on TV? This is, I expect, the true response film to the one that Sinclair plans to show. Kerry's character and leadership gifts, especially during the Vietnam Veterans' activities in Washington, shine.
It might even change some formerly hostile veterans' minds.
Marjorie
Posted by Marjorie Madigan at October 11, 2004 03:04 PMI'm arranging a student protest of the Sacramento Sinclair Station. Can you recommend a day to have the protest? Is Saturday an effective day? Would Sunday be better? Or should we hold it during the work week... say, this Friday?
(new at this)
Posted by NaomiHart at October 11, 2004 03:21 PMNorthern California Students are planning on protesting the Sinclair Station in Sacramento! But we need help choosing a day and time!
Suggestions?
We were thinking this Saturday at 12:00pm -- is there a better time?
Posted by Naomi Hart at October 11, 2004 03:26 PMIf Sinclair proceeds with this, the list of their advertisers should be broadcasted. We can have a nation wide drive to boycott their products.
Posted by sinclear at October 11, 2004 03:43 PMNaomi:
My understanding is that Sinclair has ordered its affiliates to run the smear sometime between October 24 and 27, Sunday through Wednesday of that week before the election. Anything you do on a Friday usually gets ignored, and you want to call attention to it far enough in advance so that additional letters and emails can be sent to the station and be part of the public record, so that when KOVR-13 runs it anyway, that can be shown to the FCC as part of KOVR's file at the time of their license renewal in late 2005.
So I would suggest doing it at Noon on Thursday, the 21st. This will give you enough time to put it together and get your own media coverage from KOVR's competitors in town (they'll love covering a black eye for a competitor!), and ensure that it will run on the Thursday evening news several times and into the weekend.
Thanks for your energy and hard work.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 11, 2004 03:49 PMRE: Illegal Action by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (Letter & Response below)
This letter went out to:
Alaina C. Marx
Human Resources Manager
Programming Coordinator
WICS/WICD
Phone: (217)753-5620
Fax: (217)522-6720
The Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a
quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt
regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that
attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War.
Whether or not a person agrees with the sentiment contained in this movie,
airing a blatantly partisan film, as scheduled content, over PUBLIC AIRWAYS
is against FCC regulations and FEC election law.
I ask your help in preventing this illegal action of the Sinclair Broadcast
Group, so that my family will not be forced to boycott your advertisers.
Thank you,
Electioneering Restrictions and Disclosure Under The Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA), state: "funds from corporations (whether nonprofit or
for-profit entities) and unions may not be used to pay for 'electioneering
communications', which are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications
that:
- refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate;
- are broadcast within 60 days before the general election of the candidate
or within 30 days before the party primary, convention, or caucus that
nominates the candidate;
- are targeted to the "relevant electorate," i.e., over 50,000 persons in
the State or district that the candidate seeks to represent.
Exemptions are provided for news stories, commentaries, editorials, and
candidate debates and forums. BCRA gives the FEC authority to make
additional exemptions, so long as they do not promote, support, attack, or
oppose a Federal candidate."
Alaina C. Marx wrote:
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at (202) 712-3000. You may call this station's parent company headquarters at (410) 568-1780 if you would like to make further comments on this matter.
What the carp?!?! She didn't even address the issue and is now baiting Kerry?!?!
RE: Illegal Action by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (Letter & Response below)
This letter went out to:
Alaina C. Marx
Human Resources Manager
Programming Coordinator
WICS/WICD
Phone: (217)753-5620
Fax: (217)522-6720
The Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a
quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt
regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that
attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War.
Whether or not a person agrees with the sentiment contained in this movie,
airing a blatantly partisan film, as scheduled content, over PUBLIC AIRWAYS
is against FCC regulations and FEC election law.
I ask your help in preventing this illegal action of the Sinclair Broadcast
Group, so that my family will not be forced to boycott your advertisers.
Thank you,
Electioneering Restrictions and Disclosure Under The Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA), state: "funds from corporations (whether nonprofit or
for-profit entities) and unions may not be used to pay for 'electioneering
communications', which are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications
that:
- refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate;
- are broadcast within 60 days before the general election of the candidate
or within 30 days before the party primary, convention, or caucus that
nominates the candidate;
- are targeted to the "relevant electorate," i.e., over 50,000 persons in
the State or district that the candidate seeks to represent.
Exemptions are provided for news stories, commentaries, editorials, and
candidate debates and forums. BCRA gives the FEC authority to make
additional exemptions, so long as they do not promote, support, attack, or
oppose a Federal candidate."
Alaina C. Marx wrote:
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources. Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at (202) 712-3000. You may call this station's parent company headquarters at (410) 568-1780 if you would like to make further comments on this matter.
What the carp?!?! She didn't even address the issue and is now baiting Kerry?!?!
Corporations should not be directly interfering in the outcomes of our elections.
There will be a protest Thursday October 21st at 12:00pm. We will need to make signs, and bring a lot of spirit. I will call and contact local radio stations and newspapers with our plans if enough volunteers jump on board. Email me (nhart@ucsc.edu) if you can participate, need a ride or can offer one. Suggestions welcome. Let's do this!
Protest site:
2713 KOVR Drive
West Sacramento, CA 95605
(916)374-1313
Protest date:
Thursday, October 21st -- 12:00pm
Posted by Naomi Hart at October 11, 2004 04:12 PMI live in Baltimore, who has the exact dates of the sinclair demons arrest for prostitution solicitation, ill get the mug shots.
Posted by Marty at October 11, 2004 04:52 PMI think another effective tool is to boycot the advertisers and sponsors of their affiliates.
Sponsors of Nashville affiliates are
Taco Bell part of Yum Brand Foods, Hardee's, Crye Leike Realtors, Logan's Roadhouse,
DT McCalls, LA Weight Loss, American Sleep, Foot EFX, Kar Plus, Steinway Piano, Dickson Auto Parts, Alexander Furniture, Lenox Village, Grahm Ford, Grandview Remodel, Toyota Corp.
The stock is trending down. There is a real grasssroots movement to pressure the fund managers and people are selling or rolling over their mutual funds that hold Sinclair stock.
Posted by ga6thdem at October 11, 2004 05:44 PMHit them in their pocketbook, contact their advertisers:
link
Tell them you will boycott until they pull their Sinclair advertising. Then do it
An anonymous commenter left this comment earlier that I think Steve should pick up on. (It was helpful to me, especially since I'm using a machine that doesn't have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, nor will it allow me to install it.)
I found the directions at the link you sent somewhat confusing and could even lead someone's objection ignored. The following link includes more specific information about what you need and what is helpful in your informal objection. Please take a look before you file anything.
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/renewal.html
The most valuable information is in the final two paragraphs. They suggest that you include the following information with your filing:
1) The station's call sign,
2) The station's facility ID number,
3) the license renewal application file number
The FCC provides a database where you can look this information up: http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/app_sear.htm
Here is the information the request for the two stations in Raleigh:
Call Sign: WLFL
Facility ID:73205
File Number: BRCT-20040730ARF
Call Sign: WRDC
Facility ID: 54963
File Number: BRCT-20040730ARG
I work in the local tv market of Raleigh, where some of the proposed license challenging stuff is going on. I have good friends who work at one of the local Sinclair affiliates. Let me tell you, they're NOT really concerned about the license challenges that you've proposed. I mean, what's the point? If they air it, then fine, challenge away, I'm all for taking revenge on them. But the goal should be to shut down the broadcast before it happens.
What they're deathly afraid of is the stink of this thing will somehow waft over to their advertisers. That's of course why they're not selling local ad time for this show. Having worked in the ad department of Sinclair's competitor, I know that local Sinclair stations make over 60% of their ad revenue from their nightly 6pm newscast. That's their bread and butter. You make a concerted effort to go after their top advertisers on the 5pm/6pm news hour and you'll have the executives spiking this show so fast it'll be amazing.
Posted by Heynewt at October 11, 2004 06:15 PMThis whole Sinclair thing is exactly what this election is about. Mind Control. The GOP Media is going to try and steal this election, just like the 2000 election. We let it happen in 2000..........forewarned is a call to arms.
Posted by T2 at October 11, 2004 06:37 PMLet's slow down here. Are we just doing what Rove wants? Are we taking our proverbial guns off Bush to go after Sinclair, leaving Bush laughing at us?
I wonder if this Sinclair crap will really have much impact. Fox has been blasting rightwing propaganda just as bad and blatant at this faux-documentary for years.
Those who are going to drink the Kool Aid on this have already done so.
Every effort spent attacking Sinclair is an effort that is not directed at attacking Bush. Every letter to advertisers against Sinclair is not a letter to your local paper attacking Bush.
People are reacting, not acting. Shrinks call it being reactive: letting your behavior be dictated by the actions of others. We are going on defense instead of staying on offense.
This is something Rove has proved very good at. He gets us all riled up chasing off in different directions, instead of maintaining focus on knocking Bush off. The Kerry campaign seems to get it. Maybe that's how Kerry survived Vietman, when he had real bullets to deal with.
I know, Sinclair's actions seem beyond unfair. But let's think about where our energies are best directed. Let's keep the focus on the liar in the oval office.
Posted by Alan S at October 11, 2004 06:55 PMAre we just doing what Rove wants? Are we taking our proverbial guns off Bush to go after Sinclair, leaving Bush laughing at us?
No.
In a close election, a smear ad mere days before the balloting could destroy Kerry.
Anything we can do to enjoin these ads, we should do. Kerry's doing his part; this kind of heavy-handed uprising is our part. There is no one thing we should be doing. There are only three weeks left.
Posted by Matt Davis at October 11, 2004 07:00 PMMarty,
Sinclair executive David Smith was picked up on the prostitution charge on Aug. 13, 1996. It was reported in the news on the 15th.
Posted by old grizzly at October 11, 2004 07:55 PMI've sent the following to Smith and Defoe, figured I'd post it in the hopes that some of you internet speedsters could send it on to investers of this Sinclare broadcasting. (I got stuck). There are 2 places where you have to change the name (one of them is in the middle).
Dear Mr. :
Regarding the showing of the film, "Stolen Honor", I believe that you need to consider carefully, as an investor, your part in the unfolding history of our nation. The "Great Generation" made very large sacrifices in combating fascism and now here we are with YOU giving aid and comfort to an insidious enemy of democracy. You really need to check yourself! Please read the following:
The 14 characteristics of fascism are:
1.Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2.Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3.Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4.Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5.Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.
6.Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7.Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8.Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9.Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10.Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .
11.Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free _expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.
12.Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13.Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14.Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Mr. , did you recognise anything in the above? Please read on:
Classic Fascism versus "Friendly" Fascism
questionsquestions.net commentary, 15 September 2002
Dissidents have begun to use the "F-word" in regards to the Bush Administration's rush into militarism abroad and flagrant attacks on civil liberties at home. Justified comparisons are being made between the fog of official lies surrounding the 9/11 "terrorist" attacks and the Nazi's infamous 1933 burning of the Reichstag. A hidden danger in this response to the current offenses, however, is the tendency to downplay the much more subtle but insidious advances towards tyranny that the US system has been making for years.
In his provocative 1980 book Friendly Fascism, Betram Gross argued that fascism in the US could come about not through the obvious heavy-handed demagogery and violence of the classic early 20th-century fascist states, but instead through an exceedingly gradual, velvet-glove approach which preserves the outer appearances of freedom and democratic institutions. Although his analysis does not touch on all of the aspects of criminal and covert government that we must contend with, many of his predictions have turned out to be quite prophetic over the past two decades.
The Bush Administration has shown traits of both overt "classic fascism" and modern "friendly fascism." It would be a mistake to focus only on the more aggressive and blunt moves that have been made by this administration at the expense of obscuring the continuing "friendly fascism" trend in America, which was already a very strong presence in the Clinton era and before. It would also be great mistake to see the current root dangers of tyranny as emerging solely from the hot-blooded political fringes, or from fanatical grassroots extremists, when the real abiding danger is from the seemingly respectable corporate center.
The following comparative chart, from Gross' Friendly Fascism, illustrates the difficulty of tossing around the term "fascism" in our current political environment without first dealing with some of the baggage attached to it:
CLASSIC FASCISM: A tight Government-Big Business oligarchy with charismatic dictator or figurehead, and expansionist, scapegoating, and nationalistic ideologies.
FRIENDLY FASCISM: An integrated Big business—Big Government power structure with new technocratic ideologies and more advanced arts of ruling and fooling the public.
CLASSIC FASCISM: Liquidation or minimalization of multiparty conflict and open subversion, with little use of democratic machinery and human rights.
FRIENDLY FASCISM: Subtle subversion, through manipulative use and control of democratic machinery, parties, and human rights.
CLASSIC FASCISM: Negative sanctions through ruthless, widespread, and high-cost terror; direct action against selected scapegoats.
FRIENDLY FASCISM: Direct terror applie through low-level violence and professionalized, low-cost escalation, with indirect terror through ethnic conflicts, multiple scapegoats, and organized disorder.
CLASSIC FASCISM: Ceaseless propaganda, backed up by spies and informers, to consolidate elite support and mobilize masses.
FRIENDLY FASCISM: Informational offensives backed by high-technology monitoring, to manage minds of elites and immobilize masses.
CLASSIC FASCISM: Widespread benefits through more jobs, stabilized prices, domestic spoils, foreign booty, and upward mobility for the most faithful.
FRIENDLY FASCISM: Rationed rewards of power and money for elites, extended professionalism, accelerated consumerism for some, and social services, conditional on the recipients' good behavior.
CLASSIC FASCISM: Anxiety relief through participatory spectacles, mass action, and genuine bloodletting.
FRIENDLY FASCISM: More varied relief through sex, drugs, madness, and cults, as well as alcolholism, gambling, sports, and ultraviolent drama. *
Sincerely,
What is air time worth? Can an FEC case be made that Sinclair is making an unreported in-kind contribution in excess of the legal maximums?
Posted by Phil Wolff at October 11, 2004 08:11 PMPhil:
That exactly is the point that Josh Marshall is making, and the same point that I think the DNC may be making in the coming days.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 11, 2004 09:18 PMDoes anyone have the names of the Top Advertisers Sinclair has and their website addresses, if so please email them to me.
Posted by Joe at October 11, 2004 09:59 PMIt would seem that this is no different than the NYTimes endorsing a candidate. It's a news organization giving an opinion.
Posted by dude at October 11, 2004 10:35 PMHoly Cow, DanR. Looks like Europe is my old soon to be new family home.
Posted by phidipides at October 11, 2004 10:51 PMDude, you make a choice to access the NYT through a subscription or its internet website, mediums that are paid for by the NYT. Sinclair is using the taxpayer-provided public airwaves subsidized at below true market cost to beam propaganda masquerading as news into your home on regular (not PPV cable) TV whether you want to get it or not, without demonstrating how they meet their public interest requirements in doing so.
And allowing Kerry to come on and defend himself after the propaganda has been aired in a stacked environment doesn't make this news, rather it's the Spanish Inquisition.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 11, 2004 11:02 PMSoto:
And allowing Kerry to come on and defend himself after the propaganda has been aired in a stacked environment doesn't make this news, rather it's the Spanish Inquisition.
Is that anything like making the final question in a major debate (posed to both candidates) a request to one of them to confess his three worst mistakes? That is to ask, when did you stop beating your wife?
By all means, make this Stolen Valor thing as huge as you can. Every protest, piece of hate mail, complaint to an affiliate, and wasted breath only does one thing: piques the public's interest. People are going to turn in just to see what all the fuss is about.
By the way, these distinctions about paid movies vs. public airwaves are false since the enormous public interest in Fahrenheit 9/11 was aided and abetted by Big Media ---using those sacrosanctified "publicly-owned" airwaves to do so.
Posted by Toby Petzold at October 11, 2004 11:34 PMusing those sacrosanctified "publicly-owned" airwaves to do so.
Drivel. You've compared a pomegranate to a pomeranian. Faux news had me very interested in F/911. Becomes a different matter if NBC forces it to play on all affiliates at 8:00 p.m.
People are going to turn in just to see what all the fuss is about.
True. And what they'll hear is a gaggle of Vietnam Vets whining about Kerry outing them. My questions are: Who were these people raping; What villages did they burn; Who did they murder; Which children did they have sex with; and, Who's water buffalo did they kill? The film revolves around the thought that Kerry should have been quiet. Anyone alive during that period knew what these guys were doing, because the same guys would brag about it when they got home.
Posted by phidipides at October 12, 2004 06:19 AMDon't Whine About Sinclair -- Kerry Should Fight Back
I think research must be made at the front end whether this "documentary" can be stopped. Even if it can be stopped, serious analysis should be made as to whether the effort should be made to stop it or whether such an effort might actually hurt the campaign. Trying to stop it makes it appear that Kerry has something to hide about his courageous, legitimate anti-Vietnam war period.
Instead, the pro-Kerry forces need to go on the offensive. If people listened to Kerry after he came home from Vietnam as a thrice-wounded veteran with 2 medals for heroism with two tours in the military, there would have been over 20,000 fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial. The prisoners of war would have come home years earlier and endured less suffering and the results of the Vietnam war would have been the same. John Kerry showed leadership and deep human compassion by his anti Vietnam War actions.
The Kerry forces should also concentrate on the facts in this "documentary" so the lies of the Swift Boat for Truth people -- that Kerry denigrated the average soldier when he tried to save all of their lives after his heroic tour of duty in Vietnam -- are obliterated with a clear, concise factual account of what Kerry actually said and did.
Finally the Kerry record in Vietnam should be graphically compared to that of the young George Bush -- a drunk driving, cocaine using, womanizing, jerk who got by because of his family's connections -- including getting into Ivy League univeristies. Even if George Bush did finally give up cocaine, alcohol and womanizing when he was 40 and found God -- Kerry's actions at the same time in his life were wholly responsible. It's also critical to point out in this comparison that then, like now, Bush supported the war but wouldn't put his neck on the line. I don't see his children volunteering to be on the front lines for daddy's Iraq quagmire even though they support the war.
The Vietnam period was an incredibly divisive period in our history. It's understandable that some who served might criticize Kerry for his courageous anti-war stand. But as a leader, Kerry recognized the war couldn't be won and as a human being he couldn't sit silent and allow the war to continue to drain the lives and limbs of his friends and brothers who would be killed and maimed into the indefinite future in a war that couldn't be won.
If it's going to happen anyway, then the pro-Kerry forces shouldn't spend a great deal of time whining about the fact Sinclair is going to do air the "documentary". Instead Kerry's people should demand equal air time to broadcast something along the lines described above. We need to take the offensive.
Posted by Joel Myron at October 12, 2004 06:30 AMI think research must be made at the front end whether this "documentary" can be stopped. Even if it can be stopped, serious analysis should be made as to whether the effort should be made to stop it or whether such an effort might actually hurt the campaign. Trying to stop it makes it appear that Kerry has something to hide about his courageous, legitimate anti-Vietnam war period.
Instead, the pro-Kerry forces need to go on the offensive. If people listened to Kerry after he came home from Vietnam as a thrice-wounded veteran with 2 medals for heroism with two tours in the military, there would have been over 20,000 fewer names on the Vietnam Memorial. The prisoners of war would have come home years earlier and endured less suffering and the results of the Vietnam war would have been the same. John Kerry showed leadership and deep human compassion by his anti Vietnam War actions.
The Kerry forces should also concentrate on the facts in this "documentary" so the lies of the Swift Boat for Truth people -- that Kerry denigrated the average soldier when he tried to save all of their lives after his heroic tour of duty in Vietnam -- are obliterated with a clear, concise factual account of what Kerry actually said and did.
Finally the Kerry record in Vietnam should be graphically compared to that of the young George Bush -- a drunk driving, cocaine using, womanizing, jerk who got by because of his family's connections -- including getting into Ivy League univeristies. Even if George Bush did finally give up cocaine, alcohol and womanizing when he was 40 and found God -- Kerry's actions at the same time in his life were wholly responsible. It's also critical to point out in this comparison that then, like now, Bush supported the war but wouldn't put his neck on the line. I don't see his children volunteering to be on the front lines for daddy's Iraq quagmire even though they support the war.
The Vietnam period was an incredibly divisive period in our history. It's understandable that some who served might criticize Kerry for his courageous anti-war stand. But as a leader, Kerry recognized the war couldn't be won and as a human being he couldn't sit silent and allow the war to continue to drain the lives and limbs of his friends and brothers who would be killed and maimed into the indefinite future in a war that couldn't be won.
If it's going to happen anyway, then the pro-Kerry forces shouldn't spend a great deal of time whining about the fact Sinclair is going to do air the "documentary". Instead Kerry's people should demand equal air time to broadcast something along the lines described above. We need to take the offensive.
Posted by Joel Myron at October 12, 2004 06:32 AMDon't know if this is "ringing" or not, but...
The Sinclair station in Minneapolis (KMWB 23) has a poll up asking: "Do you think Sinclair Broadcast Group should run the documentary?"
results thus far: No 66%, yes 34%.
http://www.kmwb23.com/minneapolis_mn/
Enjoy!
Posted by Sparky at October 12, 2004 06:37 AMDon't know if this is "ringing" or not, but...
The Sinclair station in Minneapolis (KMWB 23) has a poll up asking: "Do you think Sinclair Broadcast Group should run the documentary?"
results thus far: No 66%, yes 34%.
http://www.kmwb23.com/minneapolis_mn/
Enjoy!
Posted by Sparky at October 12, 2004 06:38 AMsinclair group's website, central news, also has a webpoll box on its home page - http://www.newscentral.tv/ and on its contact page http://www.newscentral.tv/station/contact_talent.shtml - to vote on whether they should run the film. it's currently at 37% yes and 63% no.
bink at daily kos (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/12/84719/978) has some information on sinclair's mark hyman insisting that if the film is a bush campaign donation, then the bombs in iraq are a kerry donation.
okay, then.
Posted by mquinn02 at October 12, 2004 08:06 AMMark Hyman is a hypcrote. I had a homosexual affair with him.
Posted by Steve at October 12, 2004 09:59 AMA proposed boycott can be effective if it's aimed at the correct businesses. Local broadcast affiliates depend on local advertisers to keep the operation viable. Organize, get a list of local advertisers and let them know that if they continue to advertise on Sinclair stations you will follow through with a boycott of their businesses through the next presidential term, no matter what the outcome.
Local businesses are more prone to loss of business than major corporations. Their pressure on Sinclair affiliates will most definitely reverberate back to corporate office. But this must be done in mass numbers to be effective.
Posted by Drew at October 12, 2004 10:08 AMAnd are they going to give Kerry 90 minutes to rebute without commercial interuption? This is just more BUSHIT and more of a reason to GET OUT THE VOTE in your area!!
Here is a response I got to a complaint I sent to the Sinclair-owned FOX station in Madison (of all places):
***
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event
featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam.
The
program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted
event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content
are
premature and are based on ill-informed sources. Massachusetts Senator
John
Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by
calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at (202) 712-3000.
You
may call this station's parent company headquarters at (410) 568-1780
if
you would like to make further comments on this matter. Thank you.
***
So now they think the New York Times et al. are ill-informed...
Re Sinclair -
Haven't seen this mentioned - perhaps because apparently someone checked and was NOT able to corroborate it - from back in July -
Scroll halfway down (or search for "Sinclair") on this page:
(which goes to some very conspiratorial looking stuff) to Al Martin's "I got a real bad feeling"
"...They’re not taking any new advertising [for Jan 2005]. Then another announcement by Sinclair Broadcasting said the same thing -- that Sinclair wouldn’t take any advertisement for the month of January either..."
Whether it means anything, I don't know. But somehow today it seems less farfetched.
Posted by Anon TinfoilHat at October 12, 2004 12:49 PMForward the revolution!
Posted by RanDomino at October 12, 2004 01:00 PMGrow up. The NY post openly endorses Kerry. There's daily Bush bashes on every network save Fox News. If you don't want to see this documentary don't watch it.
Posted by John at October 12, 2004 01:14 PMPlease tell your friends who are Democrats and Independents that you support FAIR REPORTING OVER PUBLIC AIRWAVES.
Also please email the people below and let them know you are AGAINST Sinclair Broadcasting airing this program -- especially the FCC and ask your friends to email too.
- Find your Representative here: House Reps.
- Contact John McCain: McCain
- FCC Chairman Powell: FCC Powell
Airing of the Anti Kerry "Stolen Honor" "Documentary" is illegal as it is against the FCC regulations and FEC election law. The mainstream media has given up their responsibility for responsible journalism in this election. It's up to us - average people - to hold their feet to the fire.
HERE ARE THE FACTS YOU CAN SITE:
Airing a blatantly partisan film that attacks a specific candidate, as scheduled content, over PUBLIC AIRWAYS is against FCC regulations and FEC election law.
Electioneering Restrictions and Disclosure Under The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), state: "funds from corporations (whether nonprofit or for-profit entities) and unions may not be used to pay for 'electioneering communications', which are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that:
- refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate;
- are broadcast within 60 days before the general election of the candidate or within 30 days before the party primary, convention, or caucus that nominates the candidate;
- are targeted to the "relevant electorate," i.e., over 50,000 persons in the State or district that the candidate seeks to represent.
Exemptions are provided for news stories, commentaries, editorials, and candidate debates and forums. BCRA gives the FEC authority to make additional exemptions, so long as they do not promote, support, attack, or oppose a Federal candidate."
Let Sinclair Broadcasting know that they are operating outside of the law, and that you will boycott any advertiser who supports their efforts. Contact the Sinclair station near you. Go to the Sinclair Station List to find the station in your area!
Posted by carleen at October 12, 2004 02:18 PMI'm in So Cal, no affliates here but we're no where near being a swing state.
Still, I sent you money. Everyone else...send some cash.
Posted by Debra at October 12, 2004 04:24 PMI agree with those saying we need to use more offense, less defense.
Before I had no interest in seeing Going Upriver. Now I think we ought to push it as the balance to this Sinclair hit piece.
Could we get another network to air Going Upriver?
Or maybe we could get Moveon to organize national house party showings of it with advance copies of the DVD.
Posted by R at October 12, 2004 04:43 PMNO SMALL POTATOES
Get a list of the top ten advertisers across the Sinclair system (little Ma and Pa car dealerships aren't going to do it)
Contact all the top Democrat-friendly groups AFL/CIO, PUSH, Sierra Club, Moveon.Org etc. but NOT the Democratic Party itsellf, because that could get complicated.
An all-out boycott on the top ten advertisers if this program is aired at any time before the election. That, plus the effect on the stock price when Wall Street gets wind of this might be enough.
We have to fight back with the same ferocity as the enemy this time. In Russia Putin controls the media, in Italy Berlusconi *owns* the media. Four more years of W and we won't be able to sneer at those countries any more.
For some reason two sites have links to a list of Sinclair Advertisers but neither link works.
Posted by James at October 12, 2004 04:45 PMDoes anyone have Steve Soto's email?
Posted by Hawkins at October 12, 2004 06:41 PMAnyone interested in a local boycott in Cincinnati OH ? Only one local advertiser on the 64 website : USS Nightmare
Posted by Madman at October 12, 2004 08:36 PMThis link tells you who advertises on Sinclair stations so you can contact them, boycott them, and bug them into pulling their ads, hopefully:
http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/additem.aspx
Usually calling is best....
Cheers,
Robyn
It's wonderful watching all you Libs squirm! After 30 years of having it your way in the media you're all being outed. Your freaky canidates with their bizzare policies and twisted pasts finally have to face the light of day. Learn to live with it cry babys, there is so much more to come. Get out your Che Guevera/Walter Mondale crying towels because even with all of the Democratic vote fraud you're about to be whooped up on. Protest away :-) I've sent Sinclair my message of support and sent an e-mail to FCC commissioner Copp telling him to butt out of Sinclair's business and get busy investigating Dan the Forger Rather and his incompotent croonies at CBS. Keep on cryin' and whining. It's very enjoyable sitting here smoking my cigars and watching you lefties go through apoplectic meltdown. At least if you're in here posting you're not out vandalizing Republican campaign offices with your worthless union thug bretheren. WHINE ON CHUMPS!
Posted by BigPhat Cigar at October 12, 2004 11:06 PM"bizzare"?
"bretheren"?
"canidates"? (running backs for the Redskins?)
Who exactly are these "incompotent croonies" (double sic) of which you speak?
Posted by Nick Temple at October 13, 2004 06:27 AMI'm sure Sinclair takes great comfort in knowing that illiterate morons like you support their agenda, BigPhat. After all, you're the only people who believe this tripe.
Posted by Tukla in Iowa at October 13, 2004 07:14 AM--
BOYCOTT Cable TV. BOYCOTT Cable TV. What one person can do.
When you cannot stop giving them money you see how vulnerable you are giving them power over you.
A drug addict can only hurt the drug pusher by stop giving money. TV is addictive, it is hard to quit, but there is free TV, to taper off with.
Every cable channel gets paid by you whether you watched it or not.
When you BOYCOTT Cable TV because of one bad apple in the barrel, all the other channels join you to push the loser Sinclair out of the bundle they are free-riding in.
When you make an effort, make a small sacrifice, it gives your words more power to encourage others. Besides, you're here, obviously you can watch TV on the internet or keep up with the important parts on TV, (if any happen). My favorite is to read the rightwing fascists when I say BOYCOTT Cable TV; they say Oh no, you wouldn't, you can't, it doesn't work, go ahead they dare you, feggedaboudit, no, no, oohhhh help me I'm meelllting. Ha! die righties, I'm not paying for your poison to feed American minds and destroying childhoods anymore!
Cable channels get more money from subscribers -- about 10 times more -- than from advertisers buying commercials. Money from subscribers who mostly aren't even watching.
Call your cable co today! Say "I pay no more!" "Drop FOXzism. Drop Sinclair. Then get back to me." You stop paying, they usually keep on sending the pictures.
Save yourself a ton of money. Save your country from fascism. Save humankind.
BOYCOTT Cable TV.
--
Posted by Meremark at October 13, 2004 08:50 AM--
One comment from Maryland asked for the dates of this information.
----------------------------------
Sinclair Broadcasting's David Smith Busted In Prostitution Sting
author: reposted
[THIS IS THE GUY WHO BANNED THE 'NIGHTLINE' BROADCAST OF K.I.A. SOLDIERS IN 8 CITIES LAST NIGHT, AND WROTE A LETTER DEFENDING HIS DECISION TO SEN. JOHN MCCAIN.]
David Deniston Smith, president and chief executive officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., was charged with committing an unnatural and perverted sex act in a company-owned Mercedes. He was arrested in an undercover sting a Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes.
Police said Mary DiPaulo, 31, ran across the street to a 1992 Mercedes, registered to Sinclair, and got in on the passenger side. Police followed the car onto the Jones Falls Expressway, where they said they witnessed the two engage in oral sex while Smith drove north.
[there are many reference sub-links in these collected sources, see original link: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_04_25_atrios_archive.html#108335351404593578]
Republican Values
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania)
David D. Smith, president and chief executive officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group, was arrested this week in his hometown of Baltimore and charged with a misdemeanor sex offense. Sinclair owns WPGH, the Fox affiliate in Pittsburgh, and programs most of WPTT.
The Baltimore Sun reported that Smith, 45, was arrested Tuesday night in an undercover sting at a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes.
On Thursday night, Sinclair issued a statement that Smith's arrest was unrelated to company business and ''The company will continue to operate under the direction of its current management.''
...more
Broadcasting official charged in sex stakeout
Sinclair president, woman arrested in company car
Published on: August 15, 1996
Edition: FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 2B
Byline: SUN STAFFPeter Hermann
372
The president of Baltimore-based Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., which owns the local Fox television affiliate, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with committing a perverted sex act in a company-owned Mercedes, city police said.
David Deniston Smith, 45, of the 800 block of Hillstead Drive in Timonium, who also is Sinclair's chief executive, was arrested in an undercover sting at Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes, Baltimore police said yesterday.
Smith and Mary DiPaulo, 31, were charged with committing an unnatural and perverted sex act. Smith was held overnight at the Central Booking and Intake Center and released on personal recognizance at 2 p.m. yesterday. DiPaulo's bail status was not available.
Officials at WBFF-TV (Fox 45) and Sinclair, one of the fastest-growing broadcasting companies in the nation with 28 television and 34 radio stations, would not comment yesterday. The company had $126 million in sales in the first half of this year.
Police said undercover Officer Gary Bowman, on a prostitution detail, was talking to DiPaulo about 9: 15 p.m. in a car at St. Paul and Read streets. She left the undercover car after telling Bowman that ``she had just seen her regular date driving in the area,'' according to court documents.
Police said DiPaulo ran across the street to a 1992 Mercedes, registered to Sinclair, and got in on the passenger side. Police followed the car onto the Jones Falls Expressway, where they said they witnessed the two engage in oral sex while Smith drove north.
Police said they followed the car back to Read and St. Paul streets, where they arrested Smith and DiPaulo, who lives in the 700 block of Washington Blvd.
-Atrios 3:31 PM
Comments (43) | Trackback (1)
Racist
Josh Marshall is right that erecting the straw racist to tar critics of what's going on in Iraq is repugnant.
And, the characterization of the US as a "white" country is even worse.
-Atrios 2:24 PM
Comments (31) | Trackback (1)
Steno Steno Sue
Swopa slices and dices Steno Sue Schmidt.
-Atrios 1:00 PM
Comments (6) | Trackback (0)
Morford
Some fine fine hate.
-Atrios 12:46 PM
Comments (5) | Trackback (1)
From CAP
About Sinclair:
Tonight, ABC's "Nightline" will pay tribute to U.S. troops killed in Iraq by airing a 40 minute special - the names of the fallen will be read by anchor Ted Koppel as their photographs appear on screen. But Sinclair Broadcast Group - the country's largest owner of TV stations - will not allow its ABC affiliates to air the show. In a statement, Sinclair claims the special "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." While Sinclair claims it is pre-empting Nightline because it is an attempt to "influence public opinion" the record shows that Sinclair media has repeatedly leveraged its control over the airwaves to manipulate public opinion in favor of the President Bush's right-wing agenda.
SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS: In September 2001, Sinclair Broadcasting required its affiliates to airmessages "conveying full support" for the Bush Administration. At a Baltimore affiliate, WBFF "officials equired news and sports anchors, even a weather forecaster, to read the messages" which included statements such as "[the station] wants you to know that we stand 100% behind our President." Several WBFF staffers objected on the grounds that reading the statements would "erode their reputations as objective journalists" because it made them appear to be "endorsing specific government actions."
SINCLAIR REFUSES TO AIR AD HIGHLIGHTING 2003 BUSH ERROR: In July 2003, Sinclair broadcasting refused to allow WMSN TV - its FOX affiliate in Madison, WI - to air a DNC advertisement that featured a clip of President Bush making the false claim "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Three other Madison stations, including ABC, NBC and CBS, readily agreed to air the ad. The Madison CBS affiliate, WISC, said the advertisement was "no worse than any other political ad."
SINCLAIR PRODUCES CENTRALIZED RIGHT-WING CONTENT FOR 'LOCAL STATIONS': In a controversial business practice, Sinclair broadcasting has fired much of the staff for the local affiliates it owns and produces content for its local stations from a central facility outside Baltimore and airs it on "local" newsbraodcasts. The centralized content features nightly commentary by Sinclair corporate communications chief Mark Hyman. Hyman regularly refers to the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," the so-called liberal media as "hate-American crowd," and progressives as "the lonely left" On one recent commentary, Hyman called members of Congress who voted against a recent resolution affirming the righteousness of the Iraq war "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military." You can see all of Hyman's commentary's this month HERE.
(Read more from American Progress about the problems of media consolidation.)
SINCLAIR AIRS FAKE NEWS BROADCASTS PRODUCED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION: In March, it was discovered that the Bush Administration was producing "television news stories, written and paid for by the government, which have the appearance of legitimate news segments delivered by independent reporters" and distributed them to local newscasts as a way of promoting Administration policies - including their ill-conceived Medicare prescription drug law. On the broadcasts, a public relations professional named Karen Ryan pretended to be a reporter. Among the stations who aired the Administration propaganda as news: WPGH in Pittsburgh "the Sinclair Broadcasting station that fired much of its news staff in favor of feeds from a centralized newsroom in Baltimore."
SINCLAIR EXECUTIVES MAJOR BUSH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS: Sinclair executives have contributed more than $16,500 to President Bush since 2000. This year, Sinclair CEO David Smith gave President Bush the maximum $2000 contribution. Before soft money contributions became i legal, Sinclair Broadcasting gave more than $130,000 to the President's political allies bu no money to his political opponents.
WOLFOWITZ NEEDS TO WATCH NIGHTLINE TONIGHT: One person who should be sure to tune into Nightline: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Appearing yesterday before a congressional committee Wolfowitz was asked how many soldiers had died in Iraq. Revealing a shocking insensitivity about the extent of the casualties in Iraq in the highest reaches of the Pentagon, Wolfowitz replied "It's approximately 500, of which - I can get the exact numbers - approximately 350 are combat deaths." In fact, 722 American troops have died during operations in Iraq - 521 from combat.
Wolfowitz should be strapped into the chair, Clockwork Orange style.
Here's the CAP homepage.
homepage: homepage: http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004_04_25_atrios_archive.html#108335351404593578
Posted by Meremark at October 13, 2004 09:20 AMLINK TO NEW SINCLAIR BOYCOTT SITE
We're a group of folks in Seattle who are trying to rally a million folks to stage a boycott of the major television networks that partner with Sinclair Broadcast Group.
All you have to do to join us is visit the following link and send a protest email to the list we provide.
Help us make sure NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, the FCC, the major print media, analysts who follow Sinclair receive a million protest emails!
TELL YOUR FRIENDS! THANKS!
http://newsgobbler.typepad.com/boycott_networks/
Posted by Franklin Fortensky at October 13, 2004 11:55 AMSounds like a Democratic smear campaign is being launched at David Deniston Smith. Liberals are so predictable! He was targeted for driving while white in a Mercedes in Baltimore.That sounds like a good liberal excuse. Besides I thought liberals maintained that sex between two consenting adults was a private matter. I guess that only applies to Barney Frank and Slick Willie when he's sticking cigars up Monica's wazoo. No wonder you don't mind the 2 faces of John Kerry. When the chips are down you prove that you're nothing but sleazy, elitist thugs. I might be a little slow with my spelling ( It's not my fault. I'm a product of the public school system and the deadbeat teachers and their Nazi union.)but I do know what the meaning of "is" is. That's more than the big Democratic hero could figure out.
Posted by BigPhatCigar at October 13, 2004 12:32 PMSounds like a Democratic smear campaign is being launched at David Deniston Smith. Liberals are so predictable! He was targeted for driving while white in a Mercedes in Baltimore.That sounds like a good liberal excuse. Besides I thought liberals maintained that sex between two consenting adults was a private matter. I guess that only applies to Barney Frank and Slick Willie when he's sticking cigars up Monica's wazoo. No wonder you don't mind the 2 faces of John Kerry. When the chips are down you prove that you're nothing but sleazy, elitist thugs. I might be a little slow with my spelling ( It's not my fault. I'm a product of the public school system and the deadbeat teachers and their Nazi union.)but I do know what the meaning of "is" is. That's more than the big Democratic hero could figure out.
Posted by BigPhatCigar at October 13, 2004 12:33 PMSounds like a Democratic smear campaign is being launched at David Deniston Smith. Liberals are so predictable! He was targeted for driving while white in a Mercedes in Baltimore.That sounds like a good liberal excuse. Besides I thought liberals maintained that sex between two consenting adults was a private matter. I guess that only applies to Barney Frank and Slick Willie when he's sticking cigars up Monica's wazoo. No wonder you don't mind the 2 faces of John Kerry. When the chips are down you prove that you're nothing but sleazy, elitist thugs. I might be a little slow with my spelling ( It's not my fault. I'm a product of the public school system and the deadbeat teachers and their Nazi union.)but I do know what the meaning of "is" is. That's more than the big Democratic hero could figure out.
Posted by BigPhatCigar at October 13, 2004 12:33 PMSounds like a Democratic smear campaign is being launched at David Deniston Smith. Liberals are so predictable! He was targeted for driving while white in a Mercedes in Baltimore.That sounds like a good liberal excuse. Besides I thought liberals maintained that sex between two consenting adults was a private matter. I guess that only applies to Barney Frank and Slick Willie when he's sticking cigars up Monica's wazoo. No wonder you don't mind the 2 faces of John Kerry. When the chips are down you prove that you're nothing but sleazy, elitist thugs. I might be a little slow with my spelling ( It's not my fault. I'm a product of the public school system and the deadbeat teachers and their Nazi union.)but I do know what the meaning of "is" is. That's more than the big Democratic hero could figure out.
Posted by BigPhatCigar at October 13, 2004 12:34 PMDoesn't this broadcast come under the FCC's ruling on "Equal Time"?
Given the fact that this infomercial's entire focus is ANTI Kerry shouldn't the Democrats be immediately allowed an equal amount of airtime on the Sinclare airwaves?
Posted by J0e at October 13, 2004 02:16 PMActually, I wouldn't mind Sinclair broadcasting the Kerry bash if they gave equal time to Bush's "lost year." Just why, exactly, did Bush do that year of community service in Houston? What was "the trouble in Houston" his father alluded to when he got him onto the congressional campaign in Alabama? Why didn't he show up for that physical? Couldn't he pass a blood test? Was it . . .cocaine?
Posted by middle american at October 13, 2004 11:55 PMF911 has made Moore a very wealthy man. He is also a man of integrity, I believe.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if Moore wrote an open letter to Sinclair offering a FREE airing of F911, to counter-balance their hit piece?
Condition: F911 would run, uninterrupted, immediately after "Stolen Honor" on all (and only) Sinclair stations --a ratings bonanza.
This would set up an intriguing ideology vs. greed conflict for the Smith Bros. Would they "take the money and run," or would they stand by their boy?
Either way, they lose --shown as ruled by greed or as (duh) destroyers of "fairness in broadcasting" on We the People's airwaves.
Either way, we (and Moore) win.
Moore's contractual obligations might not allow this (but perhaps he could twist his partner's arms --heck, it might benefit them, too).
"6.Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common."
What do you think the FCC is? What do you think is the very purpose of nationalizing the airwaves but to have the government control mass media and limit independent advocacy of political viewpoints and to limit the ability of people to participate in the marketplace of ideas?
You guys approve of the FCC holding ownership of the entire spectrum and using it to shut down political advocacy over the airwaves? Would you approve of the "public" nationalizing the nation's entire paper supply so that the owners of printing presses can be subjected to the same rules? Why do you think that sort of thing is the least bit acceptable in the republic that the Revolutionary heroes fought for in 1776?
Posted by Ken at October 14, 2004 11:40 AMIn Maine we are phoning LOCAL ADVERTISERS and there will be reeeeeaaally sloooooow customers with either lots of change or really large bills at local businesses who stay on with them.
GO LOCAL. Sinclair doesn't care what we think, but local business people can't afford this crap. Hannaford Supermarkets alreay pulled out!
Make a quick list of local advertisers and their 800 #'s and sendsendsend!!!
Good luck!
Posted by DemDiva at October 14, 2004 05:51 PMpiss on all of you lefties. abc, nbc, cbs twice, are all democrat megaphones. kitty kelly and dan rathers documents was your shot at the ''truth''
Posted by jimbob at October 15, 2004 07:01 AMI am astounded at Democratic efforts to stifle truth--fascinating.
I understand that the film will not be narrated but rather reflect actual statements made by Sen. Kerry. So you have a problem with that?
Posted by Ken at October 15, 2004 10:52 AMSeems like the lefties are getting a taste of their own medicine and they don't like it.
Posted by at October 15, 2004 02:40 PMSeems like the lefties are getting a taste of their own medicine and they don't like it.
Posted by Doug at October 15, 2004 02:40 PMNote that ABC is not the only large network being bumped. In Maine WGME (Sinclair owned) airs CBS programming. It is a CBS program which will be preempted by Stolen Honor, here. Check on that in your own locales.
Posted by Jayne Chandler at October 15, 2004 03:01 PMNote that ABC is not the only large network being bumped. In Maine WGME (Sinclair owned) airs CBS programming. It is a CBS program which will be preempted by Stolen Honor, here. Check on that in your own locales.
Posted by Jayne Chandler at October 15, 2004 03:01 PMDear fellow Americans:
I hope that all of you who value a free press will join with me to stop Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc, (SBG) from illegally using corporate resources--write, call, march.
The FCC has the power and duty to order SBG to cease and desist from this ongoing campaign that is in violation of the law. As a part of this continuing campaign Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. plans to show a film that denegrates a candidate for public office, John Kerry. This is nothing new, they have been doing this regularly over their 62 TV stations. Please see below:
Sam Osborne
Dear Federal Communication Commissioner Powell,
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc's demand to KGAN TV, Cedar Rapids, Iowa to
air the anti-Kerry film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," is a
continuation of their illegal use of corporate resources in an effort to
affect this presidential election. They must be instructed to
immediately cease and desist from their illegal activity. Find below
complaint as to such activity filed with the FEC on September 28, 2004,
and with your office today by mail and earlier vie email.
Sam Osborne
Box 147 -- 654 East Main
West Branch, IA 52358
(319) 643-5388
Islewood@aol.com
NOTICE OF FORMAL COMPLAINT
October 15, 2004
Commissioner Michael J. Copps
Federal Communication Commission
Washington, DC 20463
Dear Commissioners:
I hereby file formal complaint against Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. of
Baltimore, Maryland for violating federal law by using their corporate
resources in a fashion that affects the federal election for the
presidency.
This complaint is directed toward the doings of Sinclair Broadcast Group,
Inc. officials Fred Smith and Mark Hyman, and any and all corporate
officials who have participated in or authorized the illegal use of
corporate funds to affect the 2004 election for the presidency. Please
see attached germane Federal Communication Regulations.
Federal law prohibits a corporation from using its recourses in an effort
to affect federal elections. In spite of this prohibition, Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc. has been airing political spots on KGAN in Cedar
Rapids and other TV stations throughout the country that blatantly
disparage the presidential candidacy of John Kerry. Via their corporate
resources and using Mark Hyman's office, I have heard them make the
following comments over KGAN TV broadcast: "Simply put, John Kerry is a
deeply flawed man who has had a lengthy political career free from serious
scrutiny. But that has changed. While the partisan press has given him a
free ride, those who know better, know better. John Kerry is a gundecking
sea lawyer." And, "John Kerry may make a good president. Just not for
the U.S." And, "It also casts serious doubt on the character of a man
(Kerry) who wants to be Commander-in-Chief."
Not long ago these same officials at Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (SBG)
barred their ABC affiliates from airing program material produced by a
legitimate news entity, Nightline. The ban stopped nothing more than the
airing of a tributary reading of the names of brave American service men
and women who have died in service to our country. The leadership at
Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc. justified this prohibition by contending
that ABC was disguising political statements as news content.
This is a corporation that in addition to owning 62 television stations
also owns an investment group that holds substantial equity in various
non-broadcasts properties. In conveying its political-attack messages
Sinclair uses its Vice President for Corporate Relations, Mark Hyman.
Hyman's duties are defined by the corporation to include developing
strategic policy, managing Federal, state and local legislative and
regulatory relations, public and media affairs, and community outreach and
charitable activities.
In this political climate, perpetrating executives at SBG may think that
they can do this because they can get away with it. Will the FEC show
itself to be a 9/11 Commission, or can those who attempt to skirt the law
count on cowardice and a couple partisan winks? I have done my part as
best I can; it is now up to you.
I subscribe and swear that this complaint is issued by me and is signed
herewith by me, Sam Osborne,
Sam Osborne
Box 147 - 654 East Main
West Branch, IA 52358
(319) 643-5388
This document is subscribed and sworn before me on this ___ day of _____,
20 ____.
cc Sen. John McCain, Sen. Russell Feingold, The Des Moines Register, The
Iowa City Press-Citizen, The Daily Iowan, Cedar Rapids Gazette, The Quad
City Times, 60 Minutes, NBC News, ABC News, Newsweek, Time Magazine, The
New York Times, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The LA Times, The
Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Detroit Free Press, USA Today, The
Philadelphia Enquirer, The Minneapolis Star Tribune, Univ. of Michigan
Journal, The Daily Ilini, CNN News.
Federal Communication Commission regulation promulgated pursiant to laws
of the United States of American:
Sec. 114.2 Prohibitions on contributions and expenditures.
(a) National banks and corporations organized by authority of any law of
Congress are prohibited from making a contribution, as defined in 11 CFR
114.1(a), in connection with any election to any political office,
including local, State and Federal offices, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, including any local, State or Federal
office. National banks and corporations organized by authority of any law
of Congress are prohibited form making expenditures as defined in 11 FR
114.1(a) for communications to those outside the restricted class
expressly advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly
identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified
political party, with respect to an election to any political office,
including any local, State or Federal office.
Sec. 114.1 Definitions.
(a) For purposes of part 114 and section 12(h) of the Public Utility
Holding Company Act (15 U.S.C. 79l(h))--
(1) The terms contribution and expenditure shall include any direct or
indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money,
or any services, or anything of value (except a loan of money by a State
bank, a federally chartered depository institution (including a national
bank) or a depository institution whose deposits and accounts are insured
by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union
Administration, if such loan is made in accordance with 11 CFR 100.82(a)
through (d)) to any candidate, political party or committee, organization,
or any other person in connection with any election to any of the offices
referred to in 11 CFR 114.2 (a) or (b) as applicable.
Sec. 110.11 Communications; advertising; disclaimers (2 U.S.C 441d).
(a) Scope. This section applies only to public communications, defined for
this section to include the communications at 11 CFR 100.26 plus
unsolicited electronic mail of more than 500 substantially similar
communications and Internet websites of political committees available to
the general public, and electioneering communications as defined in 11 CFR
100.29. The following types of such communications must include
disclaimers, as specified in this section:
(1) All public communications for which a political committee makes a
disbursement.
(2) All public communications by any person that expressly advocate the
election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.
(3) All public communications by any person that solicit any contribution.
(4) All electioneering communications by any person.
It is way overdue to cut out a one sided affair of having news channels tell us how good Mr. Kerry is. He says, "I have a plan". He has no plan except to raise taxes, raise soc. sec. primiums, broaden the terrior against us. The conflict with Iraq was long over due. He says, "President Bush rushed us to war". That is totally untrue. President Bush gave Iraq too much time to have the weapons inspectors in Iraq. The dictator attacked his neighbors. used biological warfare against his own people.
Saddam's own sons killed, raped, and tortured many citizens. He used oil for food program for his own use. The countries surrounded Iraq were in grave danger because of this sadistic person.
John Kerry has said, "President Bush is a liar".
Terrible language from a senator.
Two of more agresis offenses by GOP, President Bush, and FOX are the lifting of pharses out of context to imply something other than what the original statement meant. There are probably a lot more.
1. Chris Matthews interviewed John Kerry on _______ on __/__/__. Kerry answered a question with a 23 word answer. It concerned rather he was an anti war candidate.
Kerry: "Yes. I am in the sense that I ...." to the effect he did not believe (or approve) of how the President took us to war.
Fox news ran only the first three words of Kerry's reply implicating he had answered Yes he is anti war.
_______: "Yes. I am."
Chris Matthews complained about the distortion of his interview with Kerry on _______ on __/__/__.
When I send this I will fill in the blanks later and also send this to you.
Kerry testified to Senate Intelligence Committee with a 6 page single spaced presentation. In it he began by noting he was speaking not as John Kerry but as a representative of an over 1,000 Vet group in Detroit which was only a small fraction of the greater group of Vietnam Vets. He also explained he was complaining and accusing the national leaders of sending these vets into a horrible situation where they were abused in the worst way. He indicated that some 150 of these Detroit Vets had spoken as to war crimes.
He also listed the kinds of attrocities in these war crimes as reported by these 150 Vietnam Vets many of which were highly decorated and honorabley discharged from the services.
In the conclusion he summed it up They feel they were used in the worst way by thier country's officials.
The charge made by so many GOP groups is that Kerry said they committed attrocities of a horrible nature when all he said was the particular 150 individuals he was speaking for spoke of attrocites in Viet Nam and lift specific pharases from whole sentences and paragraphs to indicate and advertise some somewhat different meanings and facts that can be checked on the net at famousspeeches ___________ in all 6 single spaced pages.
Unless I am very wrong the same misleading accusations are made in the Stolen Honor presentation.
As I indicated I will send where this comes from and dates and ect. in my next post.
It is late here and I am retireing. You probably already know of what I have mentioned but just to be sure I will provide more detailed info later.
Louis
Two of more agresis offenses by GOP, President Bush, and FOX are the lifting of pharses out of context to imply something other than what the original statement meant. There are probably a lot more.
1. Chris Matthews interviewed John Kerry on _______ on __/__/__. Kerry answered a question with a 23 word answer. It concerned rather he was an anti war candidate.
Kerry: "Yes. I am in the sense that I ...." to the effect he did not believe (or approve) of how the President took us to war.
Fox news ran only the first three words of Kerry's reply implicating he had answered Yes he is anti war.
_______: "Yes. I am."
Chris Matthews complained about the distortion of his interview with Kerry on _______ on __/__/__.
When I send this I will fill in the blanks later and also send this to you.
Kerry testified to Senate Intelligence Committee with a 6 page single spaced presentation. In it he began by noting he was speaking not as John Kerry but as a representative of an over 1,000 Vet group in Detroit which was only a small fraction of the greater group of Vietnam Vets. He also explained he was complaining and accusing the national leaders of sending these vets into a horrible situation where they were abused in the worst way. He indicated that some 150 of these Detroit Vets had spoken as to war crimes.
He also listed the kinds of attrocities in these war crimes as reported by these 150 Vietnam Vets many of which were highly decorated and honorabley discharged from the services.
In the conclusion he summed it up They feel they were used in the worst way by thier country's officials.
The charge made by so many GOP groups is that Kerry said they committed attrocities of a horrible nature when all he said was the particular 150 individuals he was speaking for spoke of attrocites in Viet Nam and lift specific pharases from whole sentences and paragraphs to indicate and advertise some somewhat different meanings and facts that can be checked on the net at famousspeeches ___________ in all 6 single spaced pages.
Unless I am very wrong the same misleading accusations are made in the Stolen Honor presentation.
As I indicated I will send where this comes from and dates and ect. in my next post.
It is late here and I am retireing. You probably already know of what I have mentioned but just to be sure I will provide more detailed info later.
Louis
Two of more agresis offenses by GOP, President Bush, and FOX are the lifting of pharses out of context to imply something other than what the original statement meant. There are probably a lot more.
1. Chris Matthews interviewed John Kerry on _______ on __/__/__. Kerry answered a question with a 23 word answer. It concerned rather he was an anti war candidate.
Kerry: "Yes. I am in the sense that I ...." to the effect he did not believe (or approve) of how the President took us to war.
Fox news ran only the first three words of Kerry's reply implicating he had answered Yes he is anti war.
_______: "Yes. I am."
Chris Matthews complained about the distortion of his interview with Kerry on _______ on __/__/__.
When I send this I will fill in the blanks later and also send this to you.
Kerry testified to Senate Intelligence Committee with a 6 page single spaced presentation. In it he began by noting he was speaking not as John Kerry but as a representative of an over 1,000 Vet group in Detroit which was only a small fraction of the greater group of Vietnam Vets. He also explained he was complaining and accusing the national leaders of sending these vets into a horrible situation where they were abused in the worst way. He indicated that some 150 of these Detroit Vets had spoken as to war crimes.
He also listed the kinds of attrocities in these war crimes as reported by these 150 Vietnam Vets many of which were highly decorated and honorabley discharged from the services.
In the conclusion he summed it up They feel they were used in the worst way by thier country's officials.
The charge made by so many GOP groups is that Kerry said they committed attrocities of a horrible nature when all he said was the particular 150 individuals he was speaking for spoke of attrocites in Viet Nam and lift specific pharases from whole sentences and paragraphs to indicate and advertise some somewhat different meanings and facts that can be checked on the net at famousspeeches ___________ in all 6 single spaced pages.
Unless I am very wrong the same misleading accusations are made in the Stolen Honor presentation.
As I indicated I will send where this comes from and dates and ect. in my next post.
It is late here and I am retireing. You probably already know of what I have mentioned but just to be sure I will provide more detailed info later.
Louis
Two of more agresis offenses by GOP, President Bush, and FOX are the lifting of pharses out of context to imply something other than what the original statement meant. There are probably a lot more.
1. Chris Matthews interviewed John Kerry on _______ on __/__/__. Kerry answered a question with a 23 word answer. It concerned rather he was an anti war candidate.
Kerry: "Yes. I am in the sense that I ...." to the effect he did not believe (or approve) of how the President took us to war.
Fox news ran only the first three words of Kerry's reply implicating he had answered Yes he is anti war.
_______: "Yes. I am."
Chris Matthews complained about the distortion of his interview with Kerry on _______ on __/__/__.
When I send this I will fill in the blanks later and also send this to you.
Kerry testified to Senate Intelligence Committee with a 6 page single spaced presentation. In it he began by noting he was speaking not as John Kerry but as a representative of an over 1,000 Vet group in Detroit which was only a small fraction of the greater group of Vietnam Vets. He also explained he was complaining and accusing the national leaders of sending these vets into a horrible situation where they were abused in the worst way. He indicated that some 150 of these Detroit Vets had spoken as to war crimes.
He also listed the kinds of attrocities in these war crimes as reported by these 150 Vietnam Vets many of which were highly decorated and honorabley discharged from the services.
In the conclusion he summed it up They feel they were used in the worst way by thier country's officials.
The charge made by so many GOP groups is that Kerry said they committed attrocities of a horrible nature when all he said was the particular 150 individuals he was speaking for spoke of attrocites in Viet Nam and lift specific pharases from whole sentences and paragraphs to indicate and advertise some somewhat different meanings and facts that can be checked on the net at famousspeeches ___________ in all 6 single spaced pages.
Unless I am very wrong the same misleading accusations are made in the Stolen Honor presentation.
As I indicated I will send where this comes from and dates and ect. in my next post.
It is late here and I am retireing. You probably already know of what I have mentioned but just to be sure I will provide more detailed info later.
Louis
Leave Sinclair alone, some of us want the truth and not the hyped up MOORE crap! You are all hyprocrites - you cheer Moore help him make $$$$$
what kind of people are you
this is a free country RIGHT!
Posted by cajiedog at October 16, 2004 08:28 PMJOHN KERRY has setup George W. Bush
if Kerry wins - and goofs up in the whitehouse, he will say
I didn't Do it - George did, didn't i tell you in my campaign.
Posted by cajiedog at October 16, 2004 08:33 PMKerry was invited onto the show to comment for 15 minutes. Please contact his campaign and urge him to show up and rebut any claims he believes are false. As of now, it appears that he is afraid to do so.
Posted by monfreid at October 17, 2004 12:55 AMMaybe "60 Minutes" should run the story as well. Then no one will know if they should believe it.
Posted by Duek at October 17, 2004 05:51 AMIf Kerry says he is a hero and 100 other vets say different, don't we owe it ourselves to at least listen to what they have to say. Are we that closed minded we choose not to hear anything. Kerry did retract some facts already about his record maybe we will hear more. Stop shouting and just listen !!
Posted by A Voter at October 17, 2004 10:26 AMI want equal access. Where can I watch the film if I don't have a Sinclair station in my market?
Posted by tallglassofmilk at October 17, 2004 02:04 PMI disagree.
I think I should have the right to see this.
I grew up during Vietnam. I have friends that went. I was not in favor of that war. Who was?
But in fairness, this man is running for President. I was told that at least 20 minutes
of this is Kerry speaking. Don't I have the right to know what was said before the election?
Both sides should be ashamed of themselves. I find the bickering and slander of both sides offensive.
I have a Dish system and I get many college\public broadcasting channels that all air anti Bush programing 24 by 7. In fact some of it boarders on hatred. I am no lover of GW but this kind of stuff is beyond the pale on both sides.
CenterCoaster
Posted by Center Coaster at October 18, 2004 02:31 AMKerry is a criminal and it should be shown why so many think so. You lefties should get some clear views on things. The hate coming from your side is most amusing. When Bush wins by a landslide hopefully it will bring out the lies rthat polls tell and degrade those like they should be. Kerry was a wus who awarded hisself a purple heart for scratching hisself just to get out of Vietnam. There were 3 people on his boat. One was there for his 1st day and was prolly hurt for his lack of war expeariance and Kerry's being a chicken SH$$. When he ran for cover he flipped the guy off the boat. Bring on all the anti kerry shows there are as the world should know of the kind of traitorous actions he took and why he is a criminal and a creep at the center of his core.
Posted by REAPER at October 18, 2004 05:39 AMWHY ARE LIBERALS ONLY HAPPY WHEN FACTS AND OPINIONS SUPPORTING THEIR FRAGILE POSITIONS ARE ALLOWED IN THE MEDIA?
SINCLAIR WOULD AIR A DOCUMENTARY SHOWING HOW MANY US VETERANS FEEL ABOUT KERRY AND WHY.
BUSH HAS WEATHERED THE REAL 9/11 AND THE MOORE 9/11. IT'S PATHETIC THAT THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND EXTREMIST KERRY SUPPORTERS WANT TO CENSOR US WAR VETERANS. THREATENING TO SHUT DOWN STATIONS THAT PROVIDE POINTS OF VIEW DIFFERING FROM YOURS IS MORE WORTHY OF COMMUNISTS AND FACISTS THAN TRUE 'LIBERALS'.
ON THE OTHERHAND, WAS THE CBS STORY BASED ON OBVIOUSLY FAKED DOCUMENTS SUGGESTIVE OF BIAS? WAS THE RESPONSE THAT CBS STANDS BY ITS STORY -- BASED ON FAKED FACTS -- SUGGESTIVE OF BIAS?
WAS THE ABC INTERVIEW OF VIETCONG TESTIFYING ABOUT KERRY'S SERVICE, WITHOUT REPONSE OPPORTUNITY FOR US VETERANS, NOT LUDICROUSLY BIASED? (IT APPEARS THAT ENEMIES OF THE US SUPPORT KERRY OVER BUSH... SHOULD THAT BE A SURPRISE?)
WHERE IS THAT FAMOUS 'TOLERANCE' OF THE LIBERALS? WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TOLERANT OF, FOR EXAMPLE, PLO TERRORISTS HAVING A CONFERNECE AT DUKE UNIVERSITY, BUT NOT TOLERANT OF US WAR VETERANS SPEAKING OUT ABOUT PERSONAL EXPERIENCES WITH KERRY?
WELL, I GUESS WE SHOULD NOT JUDGE ALL LIBERALS BY THE EXTREMISTS ON THIS LEFTCOAST WEBSITE...
Posted by CORNELL at October 18, 2004 07:46 AMTake a hike to all you liberals who are trying to turn this country into a pure socialistic society that only wants to hear from assholes like "Micheal Moore". It's about time the American people get a true and balanced report on a geniune individual like the true American George Bush; while exposing John Kerry who is the true hypocrite and traitor that he is. I bet this won't be posted on your comments board. Go Sinclair we desperately need your truth and honesty for a change from the overwhelming liberal local news media(s).
Posted by Greg at October 18, 2004 01:06 PMHurrah for Sinclair!!! Let freedom reign!
Posted by Courtney Smith at October 18, 2004 01:49 PMHurrah for Sinclair!! Let freedom reign!
Posted by Courtney Smith at October 18, 2004 01:51 PMhey right wingers - you throw around these labels about liberals but at times show an amazing ignorance and inability to research for yourself. the fact that kerry is being labeled "the 3rd most liberal..." by the most radically rightwing white house in decades is laughable. read 80'a era reagan concepts and count the contradictions to the current policies of george w bush.
calling a liberal a socialist is mean but at least based in some fact. after all, radical leftism does start to take socialistic tones.
calling a liberal a facist is stupid and in effect opposite from the truth. the bush administration and the ever shrinking corporate power structure in america is looking more and more fascist every passing week.
thanks for reading,
raz
Where was all of the outrage from the left coast when the CBS hit piece was done?
It seems that we have more in common than you think.
I am outraged when my candidate is attacked.
You are outraged when your candidate is attacked.
Instead of mouthing off without looking at the complete picture, just ask yourself one thing.
Why does Kerry refuse to respond?
Forget Dems or Repubs.
Try thinking for yourself instead of parroting party lines.
Hey, thanks for letting me know what channel it's on here! I'll be watching it.
Happy Trails:)
Any fair minded citizen will recognize the danger of allowing this broadcast to proceed. We have laws designed to assure fairness and decency of our public airwaves which most reputable broadcasters will respect. Clearly the desire to gain the benefits of high political office mean more than respect for law to Sinclair and those who are behind this venture. To these people winning the election is all that matters.
Our legal system properly prohibits prior restraint of speech so this broadcast, regardless of its truth, will no doubt proceed. We can show our disgust and also our respect for the law by joining in the nationwide effort to convince Sinclair's advertisors to cancel their support of Sinclair. Already this campaign has begun to affect Sinclair's stock price. I encourage everyone to visit:
http://www.boycottsbg.com/
This site has a complete list of all Sinclair advertisors with addresses,e-mail and phone numbers. You can help by boycotting those advertisors who refuse to withdraw their support.
I would gladly attach my name and address but, in light of the preceding obviously organized messages which fail to appreciate the real issues of this matter, I cannot risk the hatred which has become so common in recent days.
Posted by concerned citizen at October 18, 2004 08:24 PMChallenging a station's license can be very effective if done in a serious, organized manner. It happened in my city about 20 years ago -- the community really got behind the effort -- and believe me, that CBS affiliate shaped up quickly and dramatically rather than find itself out of business.
Local communities have a right and duty to stand up for FAIR coverage of public issues rather than suffer from one-sided, distorted, vicious propaganda.
The people who smear a man who voluntarily joined the Navy during wartime, then volunteered for the most dangerous duty in Vietnam (75 to 90 percent casualties on the Swift boats), then based on his experiences came back and tried to prevent more deaths ... well, it's sad and pathetic.
I hope most Americans have a little more respect for those who are courageous enough to serve their country, whether that service is risking one's life in war or fighting to end a tragic mistake -- or in Kerry's case, both.
Turn the channel.
Enough said.
Rightcoaster,
Don't have an abortion.
Enough said.
Muckcat,
Don't buy an assault weapon, don't go to a right wing church, don't send your kids to private school. But do send post cards to Saddam in jail, and to the hundreds of terrorists in Guantonamo. Also, burn an American flag - First Amendment you know. Of course the First amendment only applies to flag burning and pornography, not to average folks who have serious concerns about a left wing presidential candidate - right?
hyporites.
Posted by at October 19, 2004 04:51 AMWhat is the problem? I fully agree with airing the documentary on Kerry. He just should be given equal time to address the contents covered. NOT to make fuzzy statements or accusations about any thing but what is presented. He did NOT spend a "TOUR" in Vietnam. Only slightly over 4 months of a 12 month tour.
And I don't want to hear your supporters compare his time with Bush's during the war. Remember Clinton?????
Another Vietnam Infantry Vet
Lee Hopper
Posted by Leo Hopper at October 19, 2004 11:53 AMWhat's the matter? The Dems. have been using every tactic to smear Bush so what does a little truth about Kerry hurt. Thank you Sinclair Broadcasting.
Posted by Ken Hostnick at October 19, 2004 03:35 PMI hear on the news Sinclair has backed off . Happy now? Burn any books lately?
Posted by Sokitumi at October 19, 2004 06:40 PMAs it turns out, it was never Sinclair Broadcastings intention to air the POW film detailing the injurious effects of Kerry's anti-Americanism, which resulted in the torture of American POW's. It was rabid rumor. And while the domestic terrorists on this website plotted the end to free speech (except their own); they only showed the hate and methodical hypocrisy of the extreme left. While they cheer Michael Moore's cutting and pasting together of strips of film to smear the President, they somehow find self righteousness when it comes attacking a real documentary about their man. While hatred of the President is based on hearsay, fiction, urban myth and propaganda, mention of Sen. Kerry's unimpressive 20 years in the Senate is off limits. This hypocrisy doesn't help our country; it only tears it down.
Posted by Fuji at October 19, 2004 09:01 PMThis is different from the 100 million Farenheit 9-11, dozen anti-Bush on the NY Times best seller, new soldier anti-war book of letters, ACT and TMF, Move0n.org Move0nPac and their lame attempt to host the Bush=Hitler video for 30 days after claiming they deleted it, the ABC memo saying coverage does not have to be equal, the forged CBS documents...
Please.
Posted by Brian at October 19, 2004 10:49 PMThe broadcast will be airing and SB has only backed off a little. Stop the rumor that this was all a rumor.
Posted by MisterM at October 20, 2004 04:30 AMIn all the media coverage of Sinclair’s controversial intention to televise Carlton Sherwood’s anti-Kerry film, “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal,” I am amazed that no one has suggested the simplest and fairest of solutions. Go ahead and screen the film, but immediately afterward run George Butler’s “Going Upriver: the Long War of John Kerry,” which is a highly sober film approving of Kerry’s actions during and after his time in Vietnam. Certainly Butler would welcome the attention and would grant permission, and this would be a win-win situation, because it allows both sides equal air time. Let viewers make up their own minds.
Posted by Undisclosed at October 20, 2004 08:24 AMIn all the media coverage of Sinclair’s controversial intention to televise Carlton Sherwood’s anti-Kerry film, “Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal,” I am amazed that no one has suggested the simplest and fairest of solutions. Go ahead and screen the film, but immediately afterward run George Butler’s “Going Upriver: the Long War of John Kerry,” which is a highly sober film approving of Kerry’s actions during and after his time in Vietnam. Certainly Butler would welcome the attention and would grant permission, and this would be a win-win situation, because it allows both sides equal air time. Let viewers make up their own minds.
Posted by Undisclosed at October 20, 2004 08:26 AMSorry, but if Michael Moore get to air his propaganda, it must be balanced by the truth. The democrats are the most evil people. They think they have all the rights in the world -- including that to take away everyone else's. Truth must prevail. We all know Kerry was running away during "the attack" and somehow some of his crew convinced him to return. But his first reaction was to run and hide. And he always wanted to be president. Even his protests were done with that goal in mind. It's all part of his grand scheme for power. He has no care for others at all. He cares about himself. If he thinks the tax cuts were so bad, why did he keep his? Nothing says he HAD to keep it. And anyone check recently where a lot of ingredients for Heinz food comes from? Try Chile, Mexico, etc. And how about where a lot of their stuff is bottled? Try Canada and Mexico. Talk about keeping jobs here. Air the film. Know the truth.
Posted by Don & Carol at October 20, 2004 08:40 AMI just have to laugh at all this controversy against the documentary. I mean how many people against the airing of this program have actually seen it? If you have and you have a specific grip followed by documentation that controverts the documentary then you have something to talk about. However, I bet most supporters of the website stopsinclair.com which was created and supported by radioleft have not even seen the documentary. But hey there's good news... you can view it by purchasing it www.stolenhonor.com
Oh, and to the majority of stopsinclair supporters don't bother trying to tell me you already saw the documentary...remember you are desparately trying to prevent Americans from viewing it making up their own minds...just like you supposively did. Ironic, huh.
Posted by Courtney Smith at October 20, 2004 09:38 AMDemocrats had their chance to put out a piece on Bush and now Republicans come up with a better way to get the true message to the public about Kerry and all of the sudden its not fair. You still don't have to watch just like I didn't pay to see that movie.
And to the point that I don't have to have an abortion, abortion is the slaughtering of babies that somebody needs to stop. Your talking about murdering babies, I'm talking a televion program.
Posted by Martin at October 20, 2004 09:56 AMMemo to the Left Coast - Pull the log out of you own eye before you try to pluck the splinter out of ours.
You are ignoring the CBS Forgery and the ABC Memo and Michael Moore's hype 911.
Posted by Robert at October 20, 2004 10:13 AMThe writer of this article has forgotten that Michael Moore's message of Bush hatred has also been "beamed" into people's homes non-stop show after show after talk show after newscast after newscast. On Leno the other night Moore had the nerve to challenge Sinclair broadcasting to air his show to show that they were unbiased. Michael Mooron oughta carry a copy of FahrenHYPE 911 to his next college campus engagement to show he's unbiased.
FAT chance. (no insult intnended Michael)
The writer of this article has forgotten that Michael Moore's message of Bush hatred has also been "beamed" into people's homes non-stop show after show after talk show after newscast after newscast. On Leno the other night Moore had the nerve to challenge Sinclair broadcasting to air his show to show that they were unbiased. Michael Mooron oughta carry a copy of FahrenHYPE 911 to his next college campus engagement to show he's unbiased.
FAT chance. (no insult intnended Michael)
You people seriously need to get a life. You're all just pissed off because you're afraid that whatever they air will have a negative impact on Kerry's votes. You hear something said by a newspaper, or a website, or whatever, and jump up to make life difficult for anyone who does not do what you want them to.
I thought this was the land of the free? When did it become the publics right to tell a company who they can and can not advertize with? When did you people gain the right to take away the First Amendment rights of a broadcasting group?
Beyond that, where is your proof that what they are airing will smear Kerry in any way? Have any of you seen it? No.
You've got 2 choices, either watch it, or don't watch it. But with all the talking about it, I'm willing to bet that 10 times as many people will be tuning in now, as would have if all you people had done nothing. I wasn't planning to watch, but now I will.
What were you thinking? Oh, right. You weren't thinking. Either you are all Bush supporters trying to get everyone to watch the program, and think negatively of Kerry (in which case, good job, it's working), or you are all VERY stupid Kerry supporters.
Posted by Undecided Party Voter at October 20, 2004 11:01 AMIt is ok for CBS to commit (fraudulent docs ring a bell?) fraud in the name of Kerry. Liberals, you all looked the other way when that happend. There might even be a connection to the kerry campaign with this one. This event alone demonstraits the left leannings of the mainstream media. What's weird is how liberals have allways been in supportof the first amendment. Somehow you seem to forget that when poeple speak against you or your ideals.
Posted by fred at October 20, 2004 11:20 AMHow does this differ from Farenheit 9/11???? If you didn't like Farenheit 9/11 you didn't have to go see it or rent the video....s
Posted by roy grant at October 20, 2004 11:58 AMThe blogging community must unite to fight these injustices. My blog is on it: www.nwprogressive.org/weblog
Posted by Andrew at October 20, 2004 12:00 PMIt is simple to me. I will personally boycott any company that advertises on Sinclair. I will encourage anyone I can to do the same.
It is violation of the public trust to do what Sinclair is doing. Pretty typical of the Neo-Cons. True conservatives are fair.
Posted by Joe at October 20, 2004 01:21 PMI know this is a waste of time, but why is it that this story, dealing with established history, and with Kerry given the opportunity to respond to it, is so objectionable, when CBS can attempt to ALTER history with forged documents, and that's "news?"
Oh, wait, the Democrat mantra: "That's different."
And why is it that only the Democrats (and their butt-buddy "news" services) object to having both sides heard?
Oh, wait, I forgot: If hearing the facts proved just how wrong your knee-jerk decisions were, you might have to take a look at just what a closed-minded ignorant person you are.
Posted by Brian at October 20, 2004 01:56 PMsomething to ponder-christ works in small ways to confound the wicked,pridefull,and foolish men of the world- the wicked shall be found on the LEFT hand of god and the rightous on god's RIGHT hand. (hope you smart enough to figure this one out)
and just one more thing if liberals want to try to deny that party affiliation with the media then they are simply in self denial and ignorance-"out of touch"-maybe. that and if you all are so worried about this anti-kerry show going down what have you got to hide-you front like kerry is blameless and is going to same the world-so if you're so shure what have you got to lose? but what is sickening most of all is that kerry and edwards are the best you people could come up with-ha ha ha. come on- you people readings this could likely do a better job governing than both of em combined. sorry guys-peace (oh and by the way, we're having a blast picking on the poor liberals out here in the northwest-hee hee) later
Posted by mike at October 20, 2004 02:00 PMWhat are you guys so afraid of? The Truth perhaps? Why is it that John Kerry has repeatedly and stubbornly refused to release ALL of his military records?? Is he afraid that the actual facts of that time will come out? If he is so proud of his Vietnam Vet status and is running for President on it, then why doesn't he reveal ALL of it? As well as the data regarding his after Vietnam activities?
What is he afraid of? What are you afraid of?
Posted by Gulf Coast at October 20, 2004 02:34 PMmuckcat: Use your brains instead of your stomach to think.
Enough said.
Posted by Another Right Coaster at October 20, 2004 05:21 PMAs I always say, "thank GOD for the information age. The left coast media no longer has a monopoly on the truth. We are watching the demise of our liberal America haters.
Posted by Lew Lindamood at October 20, 2004 06:25 PMWow, gotten a bit hot in here hasn't it? . I'm old enough to remember when a political discussion did not invariably begin or end with the words "liar," "darn liberal," or "fascist."
Before I make my comments, allow me to introduce myself. I'm a 54 yr. old white male I did not serve in Vietnam, only because the draft was run by lottery, and the war ended 4 numbers shy of when I would have been drafted. I was eligible for a college deferment, but dropped it after a year. I voted for Nixon once. I voted for Reagan once. I voted for Bush senior once. I am registered as a Democrat only so that I could vote against Ted Kennedy in the primary if he were ever to run for president, but I vote for whoever I feel is best for the country. If Hillary ever runs, I'll vote against her! I did not, and do not expect to vote for Bush junior. Why is unimportant, as I'm sure everyone here has their minds already made up on their own candidate. I'm anti abortion, anti gun control, own guns, been married to the same woman for 30 years, attend church every week, am angry about many of the social programs, and have owned my own business, so don't even think of calling me "liberal."
That said, the ONLY issues here are whether or not Sinclair Broadcasting has the right to use PUBLIC airwaves to broadcast a show that all posters to this board seem to feel will rightly or wrongly slam Kerry two weeks before the election, and whether Sinclair's show is propaganda or news. The law is quite clear that if the show is propaganda, it would be illegal to broadcast it over public airways two weeks before the election Will their show be news? We won't know till we see it, will we? Considering the pressure they're getting, it just might be news. It is pretty sure to be 35 year old news though - - also pretty sure to be presented as emotionally as possible. The trouble is, Sinclair has a very strong right leaning, pro-Bush history. If it is propaganda, once aired, there will be no way to push that genie back into the bottle. Further, that close to the election, there will be no time for rebuttals. Several posters said that the show should be aired so that people can sort it out for themselves and make up their own minds. Considering how different the candidates are, I suspect that the sharp people who haven't been able to make up their minds yet would be the type easily swayed by a very emotional anti Kerry documentary. I don't think there will be a lot of thinking contributing to their decisions. With the polls being as close as they are around the country, this one show, whether fact or propaganda, could easily decide who our next president will be.
True, Kerry has been invited to be on Sinclar's show. He'd have to be awfull stupid to go on a right leaning show for which Sinclair says "the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized." That is like inviting Bush to be on a show hosted by Al Franken. It's not going to happen folks.
Pretty big stakes when one considers the history of Sinclair Broadcasting.
To my friends on the right, I don't think I care to have my next president chosen by Mega-broadcasting, Inc, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Miller, Jay Lenno OR Al Franken. The generations before us fought and many died to give us the right to protest, and the right to vote with our dollars. We certainly have the right to boycott Sinclair's advertisers for any reason we choose.
To my friends on the left, take heart. Over 4 years, the price of a house has nearly doubled, gasoline is up over 60%. Food is up, electricity is up. After the election, interest rates will have to go up. If Bush gets another 4 years, when the interest rates go up, the housing market crashes, the great recession hits us, and Iraq becomes our new Vietnam, at least it won't be blamed on Kerry or the d**m liberals.
Posted by don'tlikeanyofthem at October 20, 2004 10:26 PMHey, dontlike - get down with your bad self. :) Well said.
Posted by katie d at October 21, 2004 06:29 AMLeft Wing media, Right Wing media, whatever. Kerry asked for this by promoting his 4 month tour of Viet Nam as a cornerstone of his campaign. How many times has he harped about "fighting to defend this country as a young man"? He refuses to sign a form 180 to release his military records. He didn't get an Honorable Discharge until the Clinton administration (very odd). He got a very early out from Viet Nam, 4 mos, possibly recommended himself for a few medals, colleted 3 Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star without sustaining any serious bodily harm. Sounds like Kerry's the one with inside connections, not GWB. And whether you like the Swift Boat Veterans or not, a ton of them who were in battles with Kerry only yards from his boat are swearing to the exact opposite of Kerry's alleged heroic actions. AND STILL KERRY FLAUNTS HIS 4 MONTH GRAND TOUR. He's just asking for this and he'll continue to get it. Remember, this is the guy that was supposed to live up to obligations as a Naval reservist, and was still a reserve officer when he met with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives in France while hostilities were ongoing in Viet Nam. Never mind confirming he actually performed his reservist duties. I seriously doubt anyone at all believes he did. AND HE STILL FOCUSES ON AND DRAWS ATTENTION TO HIS MILITARY SERVICE. The news media, if it can even be called that, is not unbiased, never has been, never will be. Because of Kerry's own actions and statements the examination of his military history can and should be considered a newsworthy item. If he did not wish it to be he never should have faced the camera at the Demo Convention, saluted and proclaimed he was "reporting for duty"; never should have continued at every conceivable opportunity to demand the public take his personal word on his military performance rather than releasing his records for all to see. John Kerry asked for all this and more.
Posted by admittedconservative at October 21, 2004 02:15 PMGentlemen:
What would be the problem with Sinclair Broadcasting Group airing a newsworthy program such as this? Fact is, They're not actually airing "Stolen Honor" in it's entirety, which they should do. John Kerry has many things to answer for, including treason against the United States, lying before a Senate investigative committee, consorting with the enemy (In France, 1971, while still a commissioned Navy reserve officer), among other reasonable charges. His awards? All bogus! His Commanding Officer publicly stated that he turned down Kerry's request for a Purple Heart because the scratch wasn't worthy of a medal and that it was self inflicted due to Kerry's misuse of an M-79. (He fired it against the bank of the river a few yards away and it exploded causing a piece of shrapnel to hit him-- DUH!) He stated also thet there was NO enemy fire!! Further, the CNN editorial accused Sinclair executives of contributing $68,000 to campaign support (97% to republicans) which they said was biased. They said, along with the DNC, that this program was an illegal contribution to the RNC campaign. $68,000-- that is not much compared to the $Millions$ that the criminal George Soros has contributed and continues to contribute to the Kerry campaign, doesn't it? But they, being the good liberal biased media they are, wouldn't dare report that, would they? It might hurt little Johnny's feelings and his bid for the White House. I really don't want to see the US as a subject of the UN, so I say "FLUSH THE JOHNS".
Amazing how you liberals cry when someone wants to show something that you do not agree with. You own the mainstream media (print and tv). If the dems take the White House, I fear for this country. What other free speech will they muzzle and intimidate with their band of trial lawyers. Open your eyes and get educated.
Posted by Carol at October 22, 2004 05:39 AMI find it hypocritical of liberals to whine and cry about "Stolen Honor". F911 is a twist of half-truths and contains many lies. When the conservatives complained, all of you liberals cried "Free Speech". Now that the conservatives have something to say, you all want to supress it.
I'm sick of the slamming and smack-talk from both parties. If either party has a film, it should be put on the air with equal air-time.
In closing, Sinclair may be right-leaning, but there is still the extreme bias of ABC, NBC and CBS as well as Dan Rathers and 60-Minutes who will air every single anti-Bush person, and refusing to interview anti-Kerry people.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Posted by Independant at October 22, 2004 10:28 AMOne last thing. Don't cry about Sincair forcing a political issue. NPR is a left-leaning group, and my tax dollar goes to pay for it. As a member of NEITHER party, it still irks me that tax-dollars go to a group that is supposed to not support any one political group. By saying good things about one party, and bad things about another, its more of a violation of laws or regulations than Sinclair could ever come close to.
Posted by Independant at October 22, 2004 10:32 AMI AM SO ANGRY!
How do I find out who the sponsors are for the SINCLAIR BROADCASTING STATION, IN PARTICULAR, THE SPONSORS OF THE UPCOMING SMEAR ON KERRY?
I just sent the following letter to sinclair broadcasting in protest and I would like to continue doing whatever I can to undermine this company.
signe
Date: October 22, 2004 11:01:03 AM PDT
To: comments@sbgi.net
Subject: your friday broadcast
Your program is not news and you have no right to broadcast your biased political add on the public airways. It is obvious that our public airways are no longer public and are now in the hands of zealots and political partisans. There is too much power concentrated in your media outlet and I will take every chance to speak OUT against you. I shall also search out your sponsors and boycott their products. I will make it a point to undermine your corporation at every opportunity . What you say about Kerry is lies, not even the truth. You are un american (or maybe this is what america is really about- big corporations spinning and distorting the truth to keep in power ) You should be ashamed that you are part of this effort to lie, cheat and do whatever necessary to keep the power in the Bush administration. It is aparant that you and your republican friends could not win this election any other way.
Posted by signe davis at October 22, 2004 11:35 AMQuit whinning and just don't watch it if you can't handle hearing the truth.
I was there...I know the truth!!
As one poster said.....change the channel.
Get over it!
My Dear Liberal Friends,
This is Michael Moore. Now, we can't have it both ways here. It is called the First Amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When my dumb, fat, ugly, unwashed ass got the great idea to earn millions by exploiting the deaths of US military (and slam Bush while I'm at it), I relied on the first amendment to help me get away with it.
Now, Signe Davis and the rest of you can spend your welfare checks anyway you want, but I doubt boycotting Sinclair or their advertisers is going to do any good. They will just be replaced by companies not so afraid of a few liberals standing around with signs (how do you think Rush Limbaugh gets advertisers, and chargers incredibly high rates by the way). What you need to do instead is go see my movie again, buy my DVD's and my books like the good, hate-filled mob of liberals that you are. And make me filthy rich beyond my wildest dreams.
In fact, I need for Bush to win, just think how many more movies I can make in the next four years. I could make F912, F913, and F914.
Then, I can do a hostile takeover of See's Candy and gorge myself to death in a fat pig, food orgy that will go down in history. I'll make a movie of that too and all you rocket scientists can go out there and watch it.
I watched the broadcast tonight. Sinclcair scammed both the right and the left.
Posted by ggmar at October 22, 2004 06:16 PMGee, I watched it and it was no more biased then CNN. What the hell was all the stink about? Nothing showed about Kerry that we didn't know. Kerry really missed some free airtime here. I think the liberals got thier panties in a bunch over nothing at all.
Posted by PatriotinPa. at October 22, 2004 09:49 PMInteresting chatter. Once again it comes down to name calling between the right and left. What amazes me is that people can't
focus on the real issue. Neither party, in years, has fielded a good candidate. In my opinion Reagan is the last president that
was worth anything. Wait I can hear the Democrats sharping their knives. Let me explain. Bush Sr was elected because the
Democrats had no one worth anything to run against him. Dukakas? Please. Clinton was one of the biggest embarrassments to
ever make it to the Whitehouse. Scandal after scandal. He then rode the coat tails of a booming economy based on vapor business.
Remember the roaring 20's? It was the same scenario. Buy stock on margins with money you don't have. BOOM.... Bush Jr/Gore
showed the world just how infantile two political candidates can be. And we wonder why the only respect most other countries
have for the USA is that we have the one of the most powerful militaries in the world.
As to the issue on hand. I am not a lawyer. But, the above complaint to the FCC states that "Federal law prohibits a
corporation from using its recourses (sic) in an effort to affect federal elections.". Hmmm interesting. Does that mean that
every time a corporation takes money from political candidate for a commercial then it is in fact breaking the law? After all,
the corporation is in fact using it's resources to affect a federal election. Or is that OK since they do it for all candidates?
But, what if they ran 51% of their commercials for one political party? What if a broadcasting corporation advertises Michael
Moore's Fahrenheit 911? Does it also have to advertise Stolen Honor? By law, if it shows Stolen Honor would it be required to
also show a Michael Moore film? If a corporation voted to put a sign on the side of it's headquarters saying "Kerry is a turd"
would it be illegal? After all, they are using their resources and it is in plain view of everyone and you can't turn it off.
The whole point is that a owner/CEO of a company should be able to dictate what his company does or doesn't do. An owners/CEO
actions are ruled by a number of factors. Here are three.
1. If it is illegal then they have to answer to the courts. Of course nothing much happened to Janet Jackson and the Enron
thugs are still running around free. What about Microsoft. Nothing happened there either. So it doesn't look like there
will be much to answer to from this bunch.
2. Public opinion. Well something might happen here if the public wasn't so apathetic to everything that goes on. Most people
can't get out to vote but think they have the RIGHT to complain about what happens. Well I guess they do have the right, after all
our Constitution says they do. But their opinion means nothing to me because they are too lazy to express their opinion where it
matters.
3. Money. The advertisers can bail on a network if they want to. But, then again, controversy brings viewers. Viewers bring
money. If they are airing the show commercial free, do you wonder how many advertisers are lining up to get spots before and
after the broadcast?
So it all comes down to this. Vote with the remote. If you don't like the program then turn to another channel. The other
networks will benefit from it by increased viewers. Their advertisers will benefit also. Boycott the stations. Just because
they are airing no commercials during the program doesn't mean that they can keep that up forever.
Oh, yeah, some background on myself. I am 44 and a single father. I am registered independent. I care about one thing only,
seeing that my kids are protected, fed, loved and that they enjoy a good education. I consider it the responsibility of myself
and no one else. I will do what ever is necessary to fulfill my responsibility. That is why I have voted in every election
since I was 18. Why don't you do the same?
Crying "foul" about the piece aired @8 PM EST on Friday, Oct. 22, sounds as if you must have been too afraid of what you might learn about Sen. Kerry. I found it to be a well balanced piece of journalism. Worth the viewing!
Posted by Mike at October 23, 2004 10:01 AMhee hee hee, what a hoot! I love to see the left get GOREd for a change.
If a REPUBLICAN were a traitor, such as YOUR hero, the left would be screaming. As it is, Kerry is the best you can put forward, and that is a shame. It is a shame that a "man" such as Kerry could even be considered for the job. Hell, if he steals the election, and has the USA join the WorldCourt, he just might be the first defendant for his war crimes.
Posted by Dan Blather at October 23, 2004 04:32 PMAs usual the Liberal left will fight to the death the constitutional right to free speech as long as it is agreement with their opinions, if not they rally to supress the opposition because they are aware it is impossible to deceive people when the truth is presented.
Posted by westdale at October 23, 2004 05:17 PMThe show Friday night was fair and balanced. The cry from the leftists is unfounded. A viewer can change the channel if they want. Stockholders in Sinclair can sell their stock if they don't like company policy. The media already has a liberal slant, what is wrong with letting us see a documentary that shows a unsavory side of John Skerry? It has been my experience that the so-called liberals are far more likely to prevent freedom of speech. Vote for Bush.
Posted by Rebel at October 23, 2004 05:41 PMGod help us if Kerry is elected!! How can ANYONE seriously consider voting for someone who, without doubt, caused the killing of American soldiers - by causing the war to be extended, who aided and abetted the enemy in time of war, who voted against most ALL of our military weapons systems, who will stop our research that keeps us strong and free, and ad nauseum!
Better think about it! --- now go bash me.
How can anyone even consider voting for someone of Kerry's history --- anti-american all the way. Aided and abetted the Communist in Viet Nam, and Paris. Voted against most of the weapons that make us strong, and therefore keeps us free, wants to stop research on weapons systems, and apparently would let the UN tell us what to do. Poor misguided people. Don't get me wrong I don't care for Bush either, but if we are't protected from terrorist, nothing else much matters!! --- now go bash me!
Posted by DUH! at October 23, 2004 06:54 PMSorry 'bout the double post! My Apologies
Posted by DUH! at October 23, 2004 06:57 PMSorry 'bout the double post! My Apologies
Posted by DUH! at October 23, 2004 06:57 PMOne story refutting Kerrys half truths and you guys run to the government. It must be panic time,for this to happen. You should be celebrating free speech,but you are trying to surpress,why?
Posted by lance sundown at October 24, 2004 02:38 PMOne story refutting Kerrys half truths and you guys run to the government. It must be panic time,for this to happen. You should be celebrating free speech,but you are trying to surpress,why?
Posted by lance sundown at October 24, 2004 02:38 PMI am amazed at how many people can call something propaganda trash before ever viewing it? Since when do we need someone to shield us from having the chance to judge for ourselves? What is of greater concern to me is why this can only be shown if someone purchases air time instead of being the explosive news story that it is? For those so quick to label this as trash, are you really saying that the two Medal of Honor recipients who participated in the program are liars. In fact, By making such blanket statements, you're not trashing President Bush, you're calling real heroes liars without even giving them the benefit of your having actually viewed the piece. I think that is unconscionable and irresponsible.
Posted by Dan at October 29, 2004 02:13 PMAn Open Letter to Mark Hyman from "The Counterpoint"
Mr. Hyman,
You’re correct in your latest commentary that the First Amendment ensures Americans the right to free speech. But with any right comes responsibility and accountability. The First Amendment does not ensure the right to speak without being criticized. In fact, the purpose of the First Amendment is to allow people to loudly and vocally disagree with speech they find abhorrent. The storm of criticism that descended on Sinclair Broadcasting is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when drafting the First Amendment.
You bemoan the complaints made by members of Congress about the decision of Sinclair Broadcasting to air the film “Stolen Honor.” But remember that these are the elected representatives of the people. They speak for their constituents. Do we not have the right as citizens to have our elected representatives speak on our behalf? Moreover, as you well know, these complaints came to nothing. The FCC, headed by a man who has shown a great deal of friendliness to Sinclair Broadcasting, did nothing in response to these complaints. You leave the impression in your editorial that these complaints limited the right of those who made the film to speak out. They didn’t. It was Sinclair Broadcasting who ultimately altered plans to air the entire film commercial-free. Sinclair was not forced to make this decision. It’s disingenuous to suggest others are culpable for a decision that you made.
Which leads to the following question: why did Sinclair change its plans regarding the airing of “Stolen Honor”? You lay the blame at the feet of Democrats in Congress, other media outlets, and the Kerry campaign. But the criticism came from many more sources than this. Even your own chief political reporter, Jon Lieberman, said that airing the film was a political, rather than journalistic, act. And what did Mr. Lieberman get for voicing his honest opinion? A pink slip. Apparently the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment stop at the door of Sinclair Broadcasting.
I know from personal experience that the groundswell of protest came from the grassroots. Of the dozens and dozens of people I know who signed petitions, wrote letters to advertisers, and picketed stations, none were told to do so by the Kerry campaign or anyone else. They spoke out because they believed what Sinclair was doing was wrong. That’s why advertisers pulled their spots. That’s why more than 100,000 names appeared on a petition protesting Sinclair’s actions. That’s why the value of Sinclair stock dropped like a stone. And that, ultimately, is why even Sinclair decided that their original plans to run the equivalent of a 60-minute campaign spot for Bush/Cheney ’04 were untenable.
Of course, that did not stop Sinclair from running a slightly altered version of the documentary. But why was it aired in the first place? What was newsworthy about this piece? You claim the charges in the film were new. But assertions that Kerry’s 1971 testimony had prolonged the war and led to mistreatment of prisoners had been bandied about (and refuted) for months. You claimed the men in the film were “credible.” But several of them have contradicted their own testimony in previous statements. You claimed that the group behind the film was unrelated to the discredited Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But they had in fact become part of the very same group, going so far as to release a statement to the media detailing the merger. How can it surprise you that the viewing public would find Sinclair’s actions overtly political and highly objectionable? No one says these individuals shouldn’t be allowed to speak out in any forum that will have them. But we the viewers object to having our public airwaves disingenuously used for private political purposes. And although it seems (to paraphrase the title of your recent commentary) that Sinclair is telling America to “shut up,” we won’t.
And this is ultimately the problem with Sinclair’s actions and their subsequent attempts to place the blame on others. You seem to have no feeling of accountability to your own viewers. You treat them as targets, not clients, aiming your political rhetoric at them in an attempt to alter their thinking and actions in a way that benefits you. According to your own viewer poll, roughly two-thirds of your audience said Sinclair shouldn’t run the documentary. Are they all part of the liberal elite? You refuse to acknowledge Sinclair’s responsibility for the controversy by coyly referring in your commentaries to the “brouhaha” over Senator Kerry’s “snub” of veterans, or the “spotlight” on critics of free speech. But the spotlight is on Sinclair Broadcasting, and the “brouhaha” is about a huge media company’s decision to use its ownership of television stations as a means of political activism.
If you believe in the rightness of your cause, why not publicly acknowledge your role in this controversy? Stop hiding behind the faux “local” feel you attempt to give “The Point,” as well as the rest of your newscast. Tell your viewers that you are a vice president of Sinclair Broadcasting, that your company runs the station on which you’re appearing, and that your editorial is coming from Baltimore, not Cedar Rapids, Madison, or Asheville. Describe and defend your company’s decision in the first-person, rather than obfuscating by making your commentaries appear as coming from a disinterested third party. What have you got to hide?
Let’s end where we started: on a point of agreement: yes, the recent controversy over Sinclair’s airing of “Stolen Honor” should give us “shivers up our spine” concerning free speech. But what’s scary is not that people, including some elected representatives, voiced concerns about Sinclair’s actions. What’s scary is the situation that prompted these concerns. We should be frightened about the idea of a single company owning multiple television stations in markets across the country. We should be frightened that this has occurred because of the relaxing of long-standing regulations by an FCC controlled by the political party to which Sinclair has given huge political donations. We should be frightened that for reasons of personal profit, Sinclair has destroyed the “local” voice of its stations and replaced it with a single, monotonous drone. We should be frightened that Sinclair makes every attempt to mislead its viewers into thinking they’re getting a local product when they are not. We should be frightened that our local stations are owned by a company that fires its employees if they voice an opinion they honestly believe reflects the best interest of the viewers. We should be frightened that Sinclair editorializes to its heart’s content, but doesn’t allow for anyone to offer an alternative point of view. Most of all, we should be frightened when a powerful company such as Sinclair uses its unprecedented control of the nation’s airwaves to force the political opinions of the handful of individuals who control it on its viewers, and then doesn’t even have the decency to be honest about its actions.
But the light in the darkness is the fact that no matter how much Sinclair bullies or hides, the people can and will speak out on its abuses. Although you might like to believe the deluge of criticism you’ve received is some left-wing plot, the truth is much more frightening for you: we’re catching on to your game. And as much as you might try to avoid it, you will have to take responsibility for your actions. Through the First Amendment, the very thing you claim to be fighting for, you will be held accountable by we the people.
Sincerely,
Ted Remington
“The Counterpoint”
http://thecounterpoint.blogspot.com
I need to echo Independant's comment. Apart from the obvious left-leaning bias of the general media, NPR is like a nationwide extension of the DNC. I try to catch a few minutes of NPR each day to hear what the anti-Bush topic for the day is. Throw in a little music and art, and of course Cartalk, and there you have NPR. Is this cool for a publicly funded radio station?
Posted by tomtrekkie at October 30, 2004 09:31 PM