Anti-Kerry Film to be aired during Primetime

I believe this is the start of the "October Surprise" that Karl Rove had in store during the last few weeks of the election.

The Sinclair group are staunch republican supporters that have donated thousands of dollars to Bush, and yes, are the ones who blocked their stations from airing ABC's tribute to the fallen heroes of the iraq war which was to read each soldier's name. They said it was "in the public interest not to air it". But apparently that doesn't apply to lies to bash kerry.

They've invited Kerry to speak on their stations, which of course the Kerry campaign said "no". This is how Sinclair plans to get around the federal law of equal air-time for candidates.

Democratic Underground's website has launched an effort to get the FCC and others to stop this digusting attempt to influence the election.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1020830

You can help by contacting the FCC as well.

Oh, and first ammendment rights don't include lies and libel. This show is trying to say that Kerry demoralized POW's during the vietnam war with his testimony to congress. Well, it wasn't kerry that demoralized the troops - it was our government and the war that did that.
 
I had read this morning that the Kerry campaign said it hadn't been contacted yet about appearing after the GOP propaganda. It would be hilarious if he did go on there and kick ass like he did in the first debate.

And Sinclair's excuse for not showing the Nightline piece listing all the names of the fallen soldiers was because they thought it was overtly political. Hypocrites.
 
Actually the First AMENDment does include libel and lies, or can be construed to include those, at least as regarding political speech....
http://factcheck.org/SpecialReports.aspx@docID=188.html

"in the few states that have tried laws against false political ads, they haven't been very effective...
But there's no such truth-in-advertising law governing federal candidates. They can legally lie about almost anything they want....
he Federal Comunications Act even requires broadcasters who run candidate ads to show them uncensored, even if the broadcasters believe their content to be offensive or false....
Stations can reject ads for any reason from political groups other than candidates....
All this should tell voters that -- legally -- it's pretty much up to them to sort out who's lying and who's not in a political campaign. Nobody said Democracy was supposed to be easy."

Now, when you get to a privately-made, private-financed film, run on a private station, well, there you go with that damn private ownership of business again. If a network wants to run a film that did not come from either candidate, without commercials, seems to me that would be within their rights. Especially if it's 'against' someone, instead of ''for' someone. And yes, I would say the same if a network wanted to do the same for F9/11.
There's still a little bit of free speech available, even though Mccain Feingold tried their best to obliterate it with their campaign finance 'reform.'

"
They've invited Kerry to speak on their stations, which of course the Kerry campaign said "no". This is how Sinclair plans to get around the federal law of equal air-time for candidates. '

Plans to get around the law? They offered, he said no. Sounds like full compliance, even above and beyond, to me; since Kerry's speaking would hopefully be more of 'Vote for Me' rather than 'Vote against Bush' [although maybe not.]

Have any of you seen the film? If not, how can you honestly say it's 'lies'? Or are you being the intolerant stereotyping liberals you claim Republicans are; since it's against Saint Kerry, it's obviously got to be a lie?

Who do we email or call if we want to voice our support for free speech, and the right for a company to make its own broadcast decisions?

Oh, and BTW, thanks for the link; I hadn't heard about this, since I don't watch much broadcast tv; I'll make sure to set the DVR to record it.
 
Libel is not covered by the 1st ammendment: http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/

Here's some highlights from this:

The heart of a libel suit is the claim that the plaintiff's reputation was injured. In some states, harm does not need to be shown if the statements in question concern a criminal offense, a loathsome disease, a female's unchastity, or matters harming a person's business, trade, profession or office. When any of these types of statements is involved, damage to the plaintiff's reputation is presumed.

In most states, damage to reputation also is presumed when accusations of fraud, incompetence or improper behavior are made about business or professional people.

Criminal libel laws are subject to the same constitutional requirements as civil libel law. Thus, a person charged with criminal libel of a public figure can be found guilty only if the allegedly defamatory statement is false and was made with actual malice.
 
I love this crying and whining.

When you have 60 Minutes run a story using false documents trying to smear a President, the head of ABC's political coverage saying both sides are not equally accountable and CNN on air personalities working for the Kerry campaign this is worth bitching about?

What's the matter, can't take a little turnabout? Whimps.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love this crying and whining.

When you have 60 Minutes run a story using false documents trying to smear a President, the head of ABC's political coverage saying both sides are not equally accountable and CNN on air personalities working for the Kerry campaign this is worth bitching about?

What's the matter, can't take a little turnabout? Whimps.[/quote]

Big difference between a CBS news report that thought it had the story, and didn't, and corrected itself, and a politically motivated smear film being aired without equal time for the opposition.

Also, the point of the ABC memo was that while Kerry sometimes gets facts wrong, the whole of the Bush campaign is based on smears, mischaracterizations, lies and slanders, and the news operation should keep that in mind when reporting. Smart advise, given every Repub post you ever make, PAD.

Which reminds me, you never did explain why you thought reducing terrorism to the level of a "nuisance" is a bad idea, PAD. Rather than doing these hit-and-run posts, how's about you actually follow up one of your assertions with a bit of reasoned discussion?
 
CBS was either fooled by the documents or didn't do their homework enough and was trying to get ratings. They came out and apologized for their mistake. I doubt Sinclair is preparing an apology for the day after they air this crap.

And CNN personalities working for the Kerry campaign - you mean Wolf Blitzer and Robert Novak? Oh wait. They're just right-wing nutcases in bed with the RNC.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I love this crying and whining.

When you have 60 Minutes run a story using false documents trying to smear a President, the head of ABC's political coverage saying both sides are not equally accountable and CNN on air personalities working for the Kerry campaign this is worth bitching about?

What's the matter, can't take a little turnabout? Whimps.[/quote]

Also PAD, those documents didn't bring anything new to the table. All they did was support known facts about W. If anyone can't take turnabout, that would be you. As soon as your post is shown to be a joke, you go run and hide.
 
What's the joke? Who's running and hiding?

I don't see what the big deal is here. You have CBS run with a story they should never have run with and then get hammered for failing to be objective. The head ABC political chief states that Bush is to be held more accountable than Kerry. That's two of the three major broadcast news organizations that have been exposed leaning left.

The two CNN talking heads I was referring to were James Carville and Paul Begala. I have no problems with commentators going to work for a campaign. That's what they did before they were commentators. However they should take a leave of absence for the duration just to maintain some semblance of propriety.

You're all crybabies. This is hardball season on both sides. If you can't take a kick in the balls stay out of the game.
 
Hey, idiot. Can you read? If you can, and you've read the coverage of ABC's memo, you'd be able to understand that what they're vying for is not to hold Kerry less accountable than Bush, but to hold them accountable equally, on the basis of the factual content of their statements.

The issue at hand is that Bush is lying through his teeth about virtually everything he says. As a result, "traditional" journalists have felt an artificial compunction to counter that with some time spend on "the other side's" lies. Problem is, they're nowhere near equivalent, and a lot of coverage has painted it as such. ABC's memo was an attempt to restore proper objectivity to their coverage - not the bullshit pseudo-objectivity he said/she said bullshit that's been passing for journalism these days.

Anyone with a brain could understand that.

Why am I not surprised you're confused?

seppo
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

You're all crybabies. This is hardball season on both sides. If you can't take a kick in the balls stay out of the game.[/quote]

You read my mind.
 
You know what's so funny helava is when politicians and talking heads take the superior, "I'm the smartest person in the room." tone like you so often do they lose elections, ratings and credibility. You can only lose one of those three things which you do daily.
 
If your implication is that I'll lose credibility because of my tone, then you're wrong. People lose credibility because they post bullshit. What's "funny" is that we have someone with the intellectual capacity of a chimp in the White House, and you believe he's a super-genius.

The Howard Hughes-esque Burns is a perfect fit for you. Completely, totally delusional.

seppo
 
Plans to get around the law? They offered, he said no. Sounds like full compliance, even above and beyond, to me; since Kerry's speaking would hopefully be more of 'Vote for Me' rather than 'Vote against Bush' [although maybe not.
Click to expand...
Do you really think that Kerry going on air, on a Republican station, cornered by a bunch of Republicans, after an hour video smearing him, is adequate?

You're all crybabies. This is hardball season on both sides. If you can't take a kick in the balls stay out of the game.
Click to expand...
Next time you bitch about something Kerry does, I'll be sure to use this line. Where are you on the other threads where your point has been completely destroyed, btw? Cut and run.

This is completely outrageous because they are essentially running an hour long uninterrupted Swift Vets ad, for free. Giving an hour or so of airtime to either the DNC or Kerry to do whatever they want with would be considered equal time, not offering to ambush Kerry.

If all a station has to do to provide free airtime to a political party is offer to have the candidate himself come on the air, you'd see this everywhere.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What's the joke? Who's running and hiding?

I don't see what the big deal is here. You have CBS run with a story they should never have run with and then get hammered for failing to be objective. The head ABC political chief states that Bush is to be held more accountable than Kerry. That's two of the three major broadcast news organizations that have been exposed leaning left.

The two CNN talking heads I was referring to were James Carville and Paul Begala. I have no problems with commentators going to work for a campaign. That's what they did before they were commentators. However they should take a leave of absence for the duration just to maintain some semblance of propriety.

You're all crybabies. This is hardball season on both sides. If you can't take a kick in the balls stay out of the game.[/quote]

Wrong again PAD. CBS should just not have used the memo, which they didn't verify. It still doesn't change the facts of W's missing time in the guard.
 
Ummmm, how can you now say the story was correct but the documents were forged? Here, I have these documents that say you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that the docs were forged, I think the story is true. Makes sense no?
 
No, it doesn't make sense. There is still plenty of evidence (or lack of counter-evidence on Bush's part) to question whether or not he fulfilled his National Guard duty. Those memos onlysupported the story, they weren't the entire basis for it. But the GOP has done a good job of spinning it that way.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Ummmm, how can you now say the story was correct but the documents were forged? Here, I have these documents that say you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that the docs were forged, I think the story is true. Makes sense no?[/quote]

The "forged" documents was not the basis for the story. Bush's own records support the story. If someone comes forth with a document saying Hitler killed Jews, and then later that document is proved to be fake. Are you now going to say Hitler didn't kill Jews?
 
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Ummmm, how can you now say the story was correct but the documents were forged? Here, I have these documents that say you're a pedophile. It doesn't matter that the docs were forged, I think the story is true. Makes sense no?[/quote]

The "forged" documents was not the basis for the story. Bush's own records support the story. If someone comes forth with a document saying Hitler killed Jews, and then later that document is proved to be fake. Are you now going to say Hitler didn't kill Jews?[/quote]

Maybe not the basis of the story pretaining to you're meaning of basis. However, they were the heart and catalyst for the story. That story wouldn't have existed without the forged documents (notice how I don't used quotes seeing how everyone on both sides pretty much agrees they're fake). Also, that analogy is useless...there's clear historical evidence that Hitler killed Jewish people (or at least ordered it to be done), so people would never assume that he didn't. Yet no one has been able to prove Bush's case either way (I'm not saying he did or didn't do his service btw) but those docments were certainly the center catalyst of that story and to say otherwise is just off.
 
There have been questions about Bush's military record ever since he started running for public office. He is the one who has failed to produce documents or fellow Guardsmen that say he completed his duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top