Sectorgame

For those that don't know, there is a broadcasting corp out there that wants to have a anti kerry special to mirror those of the national media. Personally this is a good idea since I would like to see something about Kerry's military service for a change. However, Democrats are saying this is in part a illegal contribution to the RNC and Bush.
This is what the FCC had to say.

FCC COMMISSIONER STATEMENT ON SINCLAIR AIRING OF ANTI-KERRY SHOW
Tue Oct 12 2004 13:39:02 ET

FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS CRITICIZES SINCLAIR CORPORATE DECISION TO PREEMPT LOCAL STATIONS FOR POLITICAL BROADCAST

Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election.

Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”

END

So, what are your thoughts? Is this a case of FCC medeling?

Put on Michael Moore's latest straight afterwards and it sounds pretty fair.

Otherwise it sounds pretty partisan to me that there is a program examining Kerry's military record but not one explaining Bush's time spent AWOL.

Sinclair owns FOX, FOX is republican, FOX makes up Kerry quotes, therefor FOX sucks...

Well the fox thing was a joke and not a real news story that got published by accident. Until some one can prove other wise, then that is the official story.

Secondly, why should Sinclair have to be fair, when others have not. There point in doing this was the fact that no one media organization has been critical of John Kerry's service record.

They all have, just not as much as they've been critical of Bushes...

Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton to SINCLAIR Broadcasting: 'They better hope we don't win' [said on FOX NEWS DAYSIDE]...

LOL

redmenace wrote:Well the fox thing was a joke and not a real news story that got published by accident. Until some one can prove other wise, then that is the official story.

Secondly, why should Sinclair have to be fair, when others have not. There point in doing this was the fact that no one media organization has been critical of John Kerry's service record.

Oh come on, if that isn't the biggest load of BS ever...

You don't "accidentally" publish a newspaper article.

redmenace wrote:Well the fox thing was a joke and not a real news story that got published by accident. Until some one can prove other wise, then that is the official story.

Secondly, why should Sinclair have to be fair, when others have not. There point in doing this was the fact that no one media organization has been critical of John Kerry's service record.

It's not the medias job to be critical, though - possibly I'm influenced by the UK, where the TV media is duty bound to be neutral - but IMO the role of the media is to report facts and allow the user to evaluate them.

They have a role to report criticism, but to do so fairly, with regards to the validity or otherwise. The Kerry thing is a lot less clear and long-standing than Bush's own problems - your comparing what has been made into a fuzzy few month election issue versus several years of analysis of bush's policies.

If Bush has failed to do a good job, then of course it's going to look 'unfair' - there's simply more of a defined basis for criticism. You can't, for example, blame the media for bias over Iraq when a flood of official reports, commission findings and on-the-ground evidence indicates key failings.

Knight Templar wrote: Oh come on, if that isn't the biggest load of BS ever...

You don't "accidentally" publish a newspaper article.

Well accidents can and do happen in offices....but like I said, you need proof of deceipt before you start making accusations.

I am not saying that they have been looking in the past for quite a while for something to pin on the president from his days in the Air national guard. When he ran for govenor they tried the same BS. But I personally would like to here about Kerry's past. From what I understood he was doing a bunch of political posturing back when he returned from 'Nam which had some negative ramifications on POWs.

But, Aldo, the press has a right and a responciblity to be critical of the current presidency regaurdless of which political party he is apart of. However, the presidents gaurd duty really has no real bearing on his current presidency. That said, if you pry into the past like this for one canidate, then you should persistently criticize the others past aswell with the same vigor. It is fair in addition to being even handed and maintaining journalistic integrity and defying the accusations of bias.

redmenace wrote: But, Aldo, the press has a right and a responciblity to be critical of the current presidency regaurdless of which political party he is apart of. However, the presidents gaurd duty really has no real bearing on his current presidency. That said, if you pry into the past like this for one canidate, then you should persistently criticize the others past aswell with the same vigor. It is fair in addition to being even handed and maintaining journalistic integrity and defying the accusations of bias.

From my understanding, there are 2 different issues between Kerry / Bush 's vietnam records. One is (Kerry) contesting the legitamacy of the existing army documentation which gave Kerry the medal/s, the other is seeking the revealing of evidence that Bush served in the NG. i.e. one is a question of official army evidence vs personal testimonies, the other is an issue of a lack of evidence.

From what I understand, any anti-Kerry documentary would be a series of personal testimonies rather than presentation of documentary evidence - i.e. a 'he said she said' type affair. Obviously, it's hard to decide where this becomes a question of political bias blending into fact.

With regards to relevance, I think that it is simply down to the Iraq war - in a situation which many view as becoming Americas 'new Vietnam', is it better to go with a leader who has combat experience or not? i.e. if Bush didn't have the character to serve in vietnam, does he have the character & understanding to make the best decisions for the troops on the ground? and obviously, a secondary issue of trust - did Bush shirk from serving his country? (also the allegations that he was grounded for alcohol abuse, albeit I don't have th exact links to check how true that was)

However, I'd have to say I don't think it should be a key issue. I think the Democrats made a big mistake playing it up, in all honesty - surely the issue should be the present day and what has went wrong with the 'war on terror'?

finally, with regards to the program - from what i can tell it was blatantly styled as political propaganda intended to influence the election result. I don't think that sort of thing should be allowed in any democracy - for one thing, it reeks of a single corporation/individual being able to overtly affect the democratic process through using their powerful position.

I realise that you do have political adverts - but political adverts don't masquerade as factual documentaries and are regarded as such. For a sensible voter (a rare thing indeed...?), all a political advert should be able to do is make them think and check the facts.

aldo wrote: finally, with regards to the program - from what i can tell it was blatantly styled as political propaganda intended to influence the election result. I don't think that sort of thing should be allowed in any democracy - for one thing, it reeks of a single corporation/individual being able to overtly affect the democratic process through using their powerful position.

Well Corporations here in the US have freedom of speech. If Sinclair wants to air it, regaurdless of it is a partisan POS he has a right. As for influencing election results, sinclair I believe(I could be wrong) is saying that they already have been influenced by obviously blatantly biased reporting of CBS.

aldo wrote: With regards to relevance, I think that it is simply down to the Iraq war - in a situation which many view as becoming Americas 'new Vietnam', is it better to go with a leader who has combat experience or not? i.e. if Bush didn't have the character to serve in vietnam, does he have the character & understanding to make the best decisions for the troops on the ground? and obviously, a secondary issue of trust - did Bush shirk from serving his country? (also the allegations that he was grounded for alcohol abuse, albeit I don't have th exact links to check how true that was)

Well Kerry was involved in questionable situations other than just that of the purple hearts. From what I understand he made acusation of atrocities without any evidence. These accusations were then used against pows in interrigations. He was politically posturing himself after he got out. That sort of thing I hate and in my mind show him being a slime ball. He is a constant politician even back then, which is not to be seen as a compliment.

oops, don't like this forums at all.

Anonymous wrote:
Well Corporations here in the US have freedom of speech. If Sinclair wants to air it, regaurdless of it is a partisan POS he has a right. As for influencing election results, sinclair I believe(I could be wrong) is saying that they already have been influenced by obviously blatantly biased reporting of CBS.

Is there proof of bias? Have the FCC (who I presume are the regulatory committtee in the US) censored CBs for bias?

Also, in the UK the truth is considered more important in the TV and radio media (not so much in the press due to the freedom of active choice of what to read) than political reporting. I don;t consider forcing neutrality as hurting freedom of speech, rather I consider it the contrary by ensuring one side of a debate cannot dominate unfairly.

Anonymous wrote: Well Kerry was involved in questionable situations other than just that of the purple hearts. From what I understand he made acusation of atrocities without any evidence. These accusations were then used against pows in interrigations. He was politically posturing himself after he got out. That sort of thing I hate and in my mind show him being a slime ball. He is a constant politician even back then, which is not to be seen as a compliment.

It's well documented the US did commit atrocities in Vietnam, as Coalin Powell in particular would probably (?) admit.

In that context, Surely any accusations would have been regarded in the same context as any criminal allegation made by a purported eyewitness - investigated thoroughly. I think your viewing the past based upon your current view in the present - surely Kerry was not the only Vietnam vet to make these kinds of accusations after the wat?

I'm with you on the British media. I try to *avoid* American news sources for anything beyond local/state news, finding it too biased and too oriented towards entertainment for my tastes.

And yes, the documentation for the US atrocities is there. Kerry is not the only vet to have come home, influenced by what he saw at home and abroad, and protest the war.