Blatant Propaganda: Swift Boat-type 'Documentary' to air days before Election...

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Politics has just hit a new low, and I'm sure its illegal.

NEW YORK — The conservative-leaning 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, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

...

Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

For Full Story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-sinclair9oct09,1,3472617.story

New York Times similar story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/politics/campaign/11film.html?ei=5006&en=a672757b8863ace3&ex=1098158400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

Watchdog website that is reacting:
http://www.sinclairwatch.org/

Sinclair's advertiser's if you're interested:
http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx

And feel free to ask McCain to denounce this, just as he did the original Swift Boat ads that broadcast prior:
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home

Sky Warrior Bob

[shiney]

Isn't there some requirement for "fair coverage" that would then require them to cover something in a positive light for Kerry or a negative for Bush? I forget if that's only relevant to news media or if it's relevant at all.

[reality_deviant]

This is a sobering example of what can happen when control of the media lies in the hands of only a few. I commend your dedication to keeping us informed, SWB.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Shiney,

Well there's going to be a forum of experts assembled after the documentary airs, and the Kerry campaign was invited to participate. (And if you can't tell, everything I put in Italics are intended to be read with heavy sarcasm.)

Of course, the forum won't be nearly as long as the documentary, and in one of the articles I read, the forum was put in place to specifically deal with the issue you raise Shiney. Plus, I wouldn't be suprised if the forum ran for only 15 minutes, while the documentary ran for at least an hour (I forget if the length was mentioned in one of the articles.)

Sky Warrior Bob

[reality_deviant]

The article stated that Kerry declined the "generous" invitation to speak after the documentary...who will be present on the forum?

[Sky Warrior Bob]

I don't think that's been settled upon. (But its doubtful they'll get any big name legitimate Democrats. Heck, I wouldn't be shocked if they only use people who claim to be Democrat, but obviously aren't.)

But then, I haven't been keeping tabs on this story minute by minute, if you're really interested, why not follow the Sinclair watchdog link. Or maybe check out http://www.airamericaradio.com and listen to a stream.

I can't help you out much more than that.

Sky Warrior Bob

[reality_deviant]

Duly noted, SWB.

I'm curious to see how this is going to play out...

[Anarchy_Balsac]

But if these veterans were to do the same on a televised campaign rally for bush, would you be just as upset?

[Lycanthrope]

Its a fair enough question. Personally I'm against any televised propaganda for presidential elections.

[Robot Jesus]

Interesting background facts

John Kerry won more than just his famed three purple harts
Bronze star
Reason for receiving: Lt. Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain, with disregard for his personal safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lt. Kerry's calmness, professionalism, and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the US Naval Service

Silver star
Reason for receiving: http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Silver_Star.pdf


Weeks after his famous congressional testimony john Kerry was invited to a talk show where he was set to debate another Vietnam vet on the topic of the war. Kerry moped the floor with him. And that man went on to lead the Swift Boat Captains for Truth.

[Raerlynn]

But if these veterans were to do the same on a televised campaign rally for bush, would you be just as upset?

You mean Michael Moore? Farenheit 9/11 is in AAFES (Army & Air Force Exchange Services, the Army and Air Force's private Walmart) stores. On DVD. Many many people are angry.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

But if these veterans were to do the same on a televised campaign rally for bush, would you be just as upset?

I wouldn't be shocked if they have, and wouldn't care. Campaign coverage is limited, and at least gets a commentator throughout its broadcast, who is presumbably not pro-Bush.

A full documentary, which runs at least one hour, if not two (or more) of straight anti-Kerry rhetoric is a completely different animal entirely. There's a big difference.

Sky Warrior Bob
(And the actual campaign rally would be limited to the people who signed the loyalty oath and/or were paid to be there.)


EDITED TO ADD:

We do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content. - Sinclair's statement, as to why they chose not to broadcast the Nightline tribute to the fallen that aired on April 30th, 2004.

Article regarding this story:
http://www.williambowles.info/media/nightline.html

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Sky Warrior Bob
(And the actual campaign rally would be limited to the people who signed the loyalty oath and/or were paid to be there.)

So you're saying they wouldn't possibly take volunteers who would do it for free?

We do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content. - Sinclair's statement, as to why they chose not to broadcast the Nightline tribute to the fallen that aired on April 30th, 2004.

Nightline is a news program, so it could be considered disguised as news, of course I haven't see it either. If it was as blatant as this one, then any reasonable person couldn't very well mistake it for a news story, and any gullible person would just believe the negative press it's getting and still not mistake it for one. So I'd hardly call it disguised as news, at least if it is, they're not fooling anybody.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

So you're saying they wouldn't possibly take volunteers who would do it for free?
I was commenting on the fact that anyone attending a Bush rally needs to sign a document stating that they intend to vote for Bush. Thus, it would be very unlikely, save for news coverage, that the pressence of the Vetrans would make much, if any difference.


So I'd hardly call it disguised as news, at least if it is, they're not fooling anybody.

Yet, if you read the articles in full, it becomes very apparent that they intend to run this documentary under the guise of news, perhaps in a 60 Minutes-type format.

Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

Moreover, several sources said Sinclair had told them it planned to classify the program as news, where the rules don't apply.

Sky Warrior Bob
Another Website that is against Sinclair:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group


Edited to Add Quote from This Article (http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-president.php?story=dispatch/2004/10/13/20041013-A4-00.html)
The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint at the Federal Election Commission against Sinclair, charging the company with making an illegal, in-kind contribution to President Bush’s reelection campaign.

Appearing on CNN’s American Morning yesterday, Mark Hyman, Sinclair vice president for corporate relations, dismissed the charge.

"If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry,"

[Drooling Iguana]

You mean Michael Moore? Farenheit 9/11 is in AAFES (Army & Air Force Exchange Services, the Army and Air Force's private Walmart) stores. On DVD. Many many people are angry.Having a partisan documentary available on DVD so that those who want to see it can watch it is hardly the same as pre-empting television programming on several channels during prime-time in order to show a piece of partisan propoganda.

[DarthZeth]

Tune in or Tune out. Behold the Power of the Remote! Just turn on ABC if you wanna see Dan Rather bash Bush. Tune into FoxNews if you want to see something with some Right english.

Frankly, if Kerry is going to stand up and salute and say "Lt John Forbes Kerry reporting for duty", and he's going to mention Vietnam 4 times in a debate... well, Vietnam is made an issue. By Kerry. And if the pointless issue of Vietnam is going to be used by Kerry to prop up Kerry, then its going to be used by anti-Kerry's to tear down Kerry. We never heard much about Bob Doles Military Record or G HW Bush's War record (both decorated WWII vets), So it was never an issue. I don't know why Bob Dole got injured. I do know that Lt Bush's Flying Cross was earned when he flew his damaged bomber over an enemy target, then bailed out with another crew member. He was the only one of three crewman to survive the mission.

Was Bush possibly being responsible for the death of his two crewmen made into a big campaign issue? NO! Bush 41 didn’t mention WWII in ads from his primary on down. He wasn’t presenting it as credential (because, frankly, combat experience is commendable, but it doesn’t help me decide who is better for the job.) so no one was debating it as a credential.

Now, there are two things I want to know in a candidate. 1) What policy are they going to try to implement? and 2) how good are they going to be in enacting it? Service or non-service in 'Nam doesn't help me answer these questions.

-10 points for Swift Vets for talking about 'Nam. but -10 points for Kerry for using it as a credential. y'all can indulge in the mudslinging if you wish, but its not going to tell you what the candidates stands for. only past actions and their stated ideals will do that. (not even stated ideals. politicians tell you what you WANT to hear first.)

[Muffin Mage]

Who here remembers the "documentary" that blew up in CBS's face about Bush's time during Vietnam?

Exactly.

And I apologize for the brevity, but I'd like to hope that my point is made.

[Robot Jesus]

The reason Kerry brought up Vietnam in am attempt to undermine bushes greatest strength. In the eyes of the American people Bush is a great warrior protecting them and Kerry is an ineffectual pansy. Kerry attempted to portray himself as the war hero he is. People didn’t make the connection and Kerry should have abandoned it, he didn’t. This gave Bush an opening. Out of nowhere an “independent” group of swift boat captains funded by the republican party, legally represented by a close friend of the president, shows up and says that even though they weren’t in actual combat together they believe Kerry didn’t deserve his metals. Somehow people swallow this and Kerry is painted as a shady coward while Bush wins points for condemning an action the he of course “had absolutely nothing to do with.”

[Viper Daimao]

But in this case instead of citing "unimpeachable source(s)" without names and documents that are forged, this news program can cite the federal register for direct quotes and the sources testifying to the after effects of those quotes are actually willing to appear on camera, with their identity being openly displayed instead of hidden. The possibly aggrieved party has even been invited to respond.

its just a documentary. F9-11 just came out on dvd, and that is much less of a documentary than this. The Sundance channel aired the "Concert for Change," a six-hour anti-Bush concert.

The bottom line is the McCain Feingold finance reform law has been an utter failure. its produced a sub rosa battle of rich guys and interest groups, its made the political discussion even "dirtier", and controversies like these undermine free speech.

[DarthZeth]

I don't GET why Kerry brought it up anyway. He talks about "Defending America" as part of the Navy. But then he says that Vietnam was a "Mistake". was he implying that defending America is a mistake? Or was he full of shit when he said 'Nam was a mistake? Or is he full of shit when he says that our involvement in 'Nam was 'defending America'? Those are the three conclusions I come to out of those two statements.

I also don't get why he makes stuff up. Christmas in Cambodia? Something that no one says happened is "seared" into his mind? I don't understand what he thinks he gets from that. I'm sure there are plenty of things he HAS done that he can highlight.

Either way, its all rhetoric. John Forbes Kerry is NOT going to hop in a swift vote to defend America these days. He IS going to try to implement Policy to defend America. So what really matters when it comes to whether or not he’s going to be good for America is his [i]policy/i].

This includes two major things. First, what votes he's made in congress. Now, Kerry's votes don't get good play when it comes to National Defense. he's voted down a lot of money that would have gone to the Armed Forces. But mind you, this is NOT in and of itself bad. Those bills MAY have been a waste of money. I'll point out the Crusader Artillery system that the Army didn't want, but political reasons made the Congress spend money on. The Army STILL doesn't want it, and the program has been discontinued. But political motivation isn't In and of itself bad, either. the Stryker armored vehicle was funded for political reasons... but its been doing quite well in action. Same with the M-16. It was adopted for largely political reasons... and has been the longest service battle rifle in US History (actually, i think the Springfield 03 takes that title, but much of its life it didn't service as the MAIN weapon for our troops).

So a vote for military spending very well might be a vote for waste. Likewise, a vote against military spending is not necessarily a vote for a weaker military. So try not to swallow the "he voted against $X million dollars of spending!" whole. try to figure out whether those votes actually made us stronger or weaker.

Then, of course, there is what he SAYS he'll do. Again, I don't trust a politician as far as i can throw one, but we can go over what he says he'll do (ie: go to the UN security council on Iran, bilateral talks with North Korea, etc).

but, uh, I don’t feel like going over what he says he'll do, nor contrast those claims against each other or his actions.

But my point is, Policy is what we are voting for. I like cruising around rivers in boats as much the next guy, but whether Bush can fly a jet or Kerry can pilot a boat does NOT effect me in ANY way. so, frankly, i don't give a damn about it. Its doesn't even matter if they lie about those things (unless you want to trust your politicians, I ‘spose)! The only reason I follow politics is because the consequence of ignoring politics is to be ruled by tyrants (or so my butchering of the quote goes).

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Zeth, nothing of what Kerry or any other Democrat said during the Democratic convention has anything to do with this documentary.

And unless you're trying to convince me that revenge is okay, as long as the other guy's asking for it, please limit your conversation to things other than Republican talking points. If I were to follow that same logic, then all of our problems in Iraq stem from Bush telling the insurgents to Bring it on!

This is an illegal action by the television standards & practices put in place, and from the chatter I'm begining to hear, its looking more & more like its doomed not to air. Why you'd go out of your way to defend such a blatantly devious & political move is beyond me.

Viper, I don't think its the problem of the McCain/Feingold bill, so much as the fact that both sides are desperate. Republicans are fighting to hold onto the power that they have & the Democrats smell blood. These last four years have not been the best four years by any measure, and Bush has not always made the right choices. You can either damn him for that, or accept him and hope he could do better with four more years.

I choose to damn him, as I see too many things to forgive. What you see is up to you & you alone, as it is the choice of every voter. I just hope that more see things from my perspective, since I'm rooting for Kerry.

Sky Warrior Bob

[Robot Jesus]

One of the major problems with the American parliamentary system is riders can be attached to any bill as it passes through the various houses of government. The best example of why this is a problem is of course from the Simpsons. In the episode where Springfield is about to be crushed by a comet, a bill to evacuate Springfield is in the congress.
SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR
Boo!
SPEAKER
Bill defeated.

Now if anyone had voted for that Bill they would have paid for it while running for reelection.
“my opponent would like you to think he’s a morally upstanding man but he voted to spend $30 million of the taxpayers dollars on porn”
Furthermore voting against a bill doesn’t mean your against the spirit of the bill but it can also mean you feel that the mechanics of the bill are faulty. They could encourage manipulation and corruption, or go too far, or not far enough.
That is why I pay very little attention to voting history.

[DarthZeth]

nothing of what Kerry or any other Democrat said during the Democratic convention has anything to do with this documentary.

Uh, Swift Vets didn't make 'nam an issue. Kerry did. He stood up and pretended to be a Hero. Now they are documentaries out contesting that "hero" status by showing his anti-war record.

Holy Hell! not a documentary that criticizes Kerry! how DASTARDLY!

And show a documentary on TV? What BASTARDS would do that? Show media on a Medium!

oh, but that's right. the Democratic National Convention says it illegal. so that MUST mean its illegal. But Dan Rather railing Bush on HIS Vietnam Record with fishy evidence? oh, well that doesn't even get Rather fired for journalistic misconduct, much less being labeled as a “campaign ad”.

listen: the whole thing is a unimportant issue. As I’ve said: Vietnam Doesn't Matter. Policy does.

But Mud is slung in elections. Don't get upset when you get a face full of it. Especially after piling it up yourself.

limit your conversation to things other than Republican talking points
odang, I lost my copy of my talking points. I guess I’m just so indoctrinated that these arguments that I’m thinking up as I type are the subtle results of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’s carefully plotted propaganda campaign.

or, wait, saying that Kerry's anti-war record from the 70s doesn't matter a lick isn't ON republican talking points, is it? I don't know, I haven’t seen them. If you have a copy, could you point me to them?

This is an illegal action…
you forgot "According to the DNC" in front of that. According to your own article, the DNC is claiming this documentary is a "campaign ad".

oh. so criticism of a candidate is a "campaign ad"? Then there have been maybe "campaign ads" on 20/20 and 60 minutes and the O'reilly factor and... oh, wait... political speech and freedom of the press is supposed to be protected by the constitution! I guess we forgot about that annoying document.

Besides, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law that outlawed showing adds 60 days before a general election is bullshit anyway. Primarily because it is the limit of free political speech, but also because it has loopholes for 527 and, yes, owners of Media! The Owners of Media get to choose what to show, since Ads are outlawed. That IS the failure of the McCain-Feingold "reforms". it completely removes you legal protections to political speech for all of us who don't own media companies. We can't run an ad to counterpoint a Dan Rather report, or run an ad to counter this Kerry "documentary". It binds and gags US. You and me.

The reason why this is being claimed "illegal" is the reason why the law they are saying it violates shouldn't exist.


and, actually, as Shiney asked in his post up there, there is something called the "fairness doctrine". The concept was that licensed broadcast companies couldn't be partisan. they had to have counter points to "controversial" issues. However, the FCC dissolved that rule in the 80s. They decided that the state ought not regulate free speech. apparently, our government has gone BACK to regulating free speech in perhaps more harmful ways. There was even talk about bringing the "fairness doctrine" back, and apply it to ALL media, cable included, despite the fact that the logic of the fairness doctrine was that airwaves were public property, not private property.

I might not like what's being said by any specific person, as you obviously don’t either. But as Voltaire said "I will defend to my death your right to be wrong". Freedom of Press is GOOD, even if some of the speech is retarded. It allows asshats like Moore and asshats like Oreilly and asshats like Swift Vets to speak up. But it also lets US speak up. And (as you know) I like speaking up.

[DarthZeth]

One of the major problems with the American parliamentary system is riders can be attached to any bill as it passes through the various houses of government. The best example of why this is a problem is of course from the Simpsons. In the episode where Springfield is about to be crushed by a comet, a bill to evacuate Springfield is in the congress.
SPEAKER
Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of--
CONGRESSMAN
Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
SPEAKER
All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
FLOOR
Boo!
SPEAKER
Bill defeated.

Now if anyone had voted for that Bill they would have paid for it while running for reelection.
“my opponent would like you to think he’s a morally upstanding man but he voted to spend $30 million of the taxpayers dollars on porn”
Furthermore voting against a bill doesn’t mean your against the spirit of the bill but it can also mean you feel that the mechanics of the bill are faulty. They could encourage manipulation and corruption, or go too far, or not far enough.
That is why I pay very little attention to voting history.

that's not how it works. If the AMENDMENT to the bill is defeated, the bill is still voted on. Some bills are defeated because shit amendments DO get tacked on. but voting down the amendment is not voting down the bill.

you're right, though. Voting against the bill might mean you disagree with the mechanics. Congress passes enough bad bills to make me think that voting down a bill purely on mechanics is extremely rare.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

I was commenting on the fact that anyone attending a Bush rally needs to sign a document stating that they intend to vote for Bush. Thus, it would be very unlikely, save for news coverage, that the pressence of the Vetrans would make much, if any difference.

They're clearly going to vote for bush anyway, so what's your point

Yet, if you read the articles in full, it becomes very apparent that they intend to run this documentary under the guise of news, perhaps in a 60 Minutes-type format.

And the fact that they're not fooling anybody somehow becomes irrelevant?

[Gorefiend]

DarthZeth, you have said it all!!! I wholeheartedly agree that who did what when won't affect the quality of a leader. So the fact that it has been used so much is just an example of how low politicians (and at times their supporters) will go. The important part is their policies. And, frankly, I've seen lots of crap on both sides. I.E. Kerry wants to turn over the US defense plan to the UN. I disagree. Meanwhile, Bush wants to keep on lowering taxes, getting in debt, and doing war around the world. That don't work either... by my thought leastaways...

As far as this blatant propaganda (which it is) I think that is COULD be compared to F9-11. But, then again, aren't both technically the same? (bashings of one party's supporters towards another party) So if they DO compare, then it, once again, shows what politics has become. A game of "how low can you get". Of course, there are some things respected, but I've yet to see a campaign, in the US or here in Ecuador, that depended so much on propaganda. I hope that this does not repeat itself. For the US's sake, if not for the world's.

And the fact that only Bush supporters are attending this Bush rally means that it will most certainly be biased. Therefore, it is unreliable. And, of course, it will bash Kerry and help Bush. Then again, it IS a Bush rally, so what do you expect. Unless we are talking about the "forum of experts", in which case it SHOULD be objective. Then again, nothing is or has ever truly been objective when it comes to politics.

Please inform me if any of the views I consider facts are just plain wrong. If they are, I will gladly edit/remove my message. Thanks.

[DarthZeth]

Meh. Yellow Journalism has been around for Ages. The stuff that was said in the 1860 election (Abe Lincoln's first election) was apparently twice as bad as the stuff we see today.

but then, there weren't government controls on broadcast media, either. Anyone could print and distribute a pamphlet or paper if they wanted.

Doesn't make it "good", but its not like politics is getting "lower". Politics IS low.

although I hear the Kennedy and Goldwater were good friends, and had actually agreed to campaign together (if Goldwater won his primary, i suppose.) But then Kennedy got, you know, shot. I wonder what our political landscape would be like today if he hadn’t been.

[adamark]

You (author of this thread) are mearly perturbed because you don't want negative images being shown of your beloved leader. Well, both sides have done one heck of a smear job on the other side's candidate. being an inde., i dislike both of these men, and also generally anyone who stands up for them. there's nothing worse than a "true believer." amen.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

They're clearly going to vote for bush anyway, so what's your point
Actually, that was my point entirely. I was suggesting that because these people were in Bush's pocket (or at least mostly), then the Vetrans pressence clearly would have little to no effect at the rally. I was part of my point in comparing the quality of news coverage versus this proposed documentary.


And the fact that they're not fooling anybody somehow becomes irrelevant?
To suggest that there won't be anyone gullible enough to take this as fact, is either naive or disregarding far too much. There will always be a few taken in. Especially amoung generations who grew up prior to TV's existance. And in an election, since every vote counts, this is a dispicable act indeed.


Frankly, if Kerry is going to stand up and salute and say "Lt John Forbes Kerry reporting for duty", and he's going to mention Vietnam 4 times in a debate... well, Vietnam is made an issue.

Uh, Swift Vets didn't make 'nam an issue. Kerry did. He stood up and pretended to be a Hero. Now they are documentaries out contesting that "hero" status by showing his anti-war record.

You're just going to stick to that story & repeat it over and over until somebody believes you, aren't you? No Democrats attacked Dole or Bush Sr. on their war records when they ran, and they didn't refrain from using said subject in their campaigns. If you're going to get into the attacks on Bush, I'll agree the 60 Minutes story went too far, but Bush's disappearing/reappearing trickle of records, could easily convince 60 Minutes there was something more sinister going on than there obviously was.

As for the legality issue, here's at least one person who shares the sentiment:
Letter from former FCC Chairman (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_10.php#003640)

Admittedly, that isn't much but legal actions have just started, nothing has been tried in the courts, legality hasn't been put to the test. But it frankly doesn't matter if the DNC filed the protest, and if you stick to that point Zeth, I'll make sure to save your post & quote you whenever the RNC emposes a similar action.

Sky Warrior Bob

[shiney]

"What a hypocrite you can be" - what the hell, Bob? Calm down. You're getting petty. Is this about the argument at hand or merely proving Zeth wrong? If you're talking about saving up quotes to prove hypocrisy in the future you're getting too deep into this.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

"What a hypocrite you can be" - what the hell, Bob? Calm down. You're getting petty. Is this about the argument at hand or merely proving Zeth wrong? If you're talking about saving up quotes to prove hypocrisy in the future you're getting too deep into this.

Perhaps I was a bit too over the top, but at the same time I felt it was rather petty of Zeth to denouce the legal arguement simply because DNC put it forward. I was essentially trying to discourage him from continuing to hammer, on what I feel is a illegit talking point.

Sky Warrior Bob

[DarthZeth]

You're just going to stick to that story & repeat it over and over until somebody believes you, aren't you?

uh, no, that's the truth. Kerry's VERY FIRST campaign ad had footage of him in Vietnam. The Swift Boat Vets for Truth came much later (apparently after Kerry's biography came out or some such).

And to the extent that Bush made HIS 'military record' an issue, he HAS been railed on it. Namely that his biography says some crap about how it was "born to fly" or some such. I've heard people make fun of that a whole bunch. But Bush's ads don't mention it all the time, and he doesn’t mention it in his speeches and his debates and his commercials.

In both instances, its all pointless hype. Counter-hype is equally pointless, but there it is. If you don't want to suffer counter-hype, don't use hype.


about legality:
I asked you to ad "The DNC Claims" before "That is an illegal action" because the DNC are the only ones who have said so thus far. Once a court steps in and agrees, then you get to say "that is illegal" with no qualifiers.

And you can go ahead and use that quote whenever I repeat something only the RNC says is so. Hell, go find a single statement I’ve took from the RNC ever anyway (I still don't have my Talking points, and you never pointed out where I could find them. you DID send us all to "talkingpointsmemo.com", but couldn’t find the list of RNC talking points. :( What am I going to do NOW? I don’t know what my opinions are going to be! Waah! Oh wait, I’m an opinionated ass with out anyone telling me what my opinions ought to be.) I suppose I might have repeated something the LP has said on occasion, though. So quote away. Because you missed the point.

the point being that these is apparently disagreement between what is "propaganda" and what is "documentary". Think back to Fahrenheit 9-11's release this summer. Half the people said "documentary" half the people said "propaganda". You (and the DNC) have labeled this program on Kerry's Anti-War "propaganda" because it attacks Kerry. I hear Moore plans on airing Fahrenheit 9-11 on TV sometime this month. IF the RNC sues, saying it is ”propaganda”, should they be disallowed by law to show it? I sure don’t think so! The antidote to bad speech is more speech. NOT censorship.


I, for one, think its quite all right to criticize a politician on TV. Call me a wacky Libertarian or a Right Wing Kook Constitutionalist or a Ultra-Liberal Civil Rights Activist if you want, but I value freedom of speech.

In the strict sense of Legality, if it does get deemed by a single judge (or panel of judges) as "propaganda" to criticize a candidate, then yes, it will be "illegal". (just filing suit against someone doesn't mean their actions are "illegal". If I sue you for breathing, that doesn't mean its illegal)

But then, read my former post about what I think of the laws in the first place. Freedom is far more important then control. I won't take away the freedom of the Swift Vets, Michael Moore, Al Franken, or Bill Oreilly. I can agree or disagree with all or none of them, but they ALL of the right to freedom of the press.(why not try "remembering" this one. I'm saying Al Franken, who I think is a worthless jokester, has the right to spread his "propaganda"... ON THE PUBLIC AIR WAVES! onos!) The McCain-Feingold "reforms" are a stain on the concept of the Freedom of Press (although it is interesting to watch the 527 suck money away form the central control of political parties, and the ensuing crap that gets funded. cases in point: MoveOn and Swift Vets).

And again, this "propaganda" or "documentary" doesn't actually matter, because its all pointless hype ANYWAY. A critics point out about Moore's movies, at very least, they are good entertainment.

edit: just cuz Talking Points are so popular these days, i'll make my own list of Talking Points from the ZNC (Zeth National Committee of one)

Vietnam is not a worthwhile campaign issue. Policy is.
Kerry is primarily responsible for the 'Nam hype
a suit filed does not equal illegality
the difference between "documentary" and "propaganda" seems to be pretty damn subjective
Al Franken is an asshat
Asshats have liberties, too
laws that limit the freedom of the press and any other censorships suck
the McCain-Feingold Reforms suck
and last but not least: I DONT READ FROM TALKING POINTS! (or websites called talkingpointsmemo.com)

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Actually, that was my point entirely. I was suggesting that because these people were in Bush's pocket (or at least mostly), then the Vetrans pressence clearly would have little to no effect at the rally. I was part of my point in comparing the quality of news coverage versus this proposed documentary.

So when people who are clearly going to vote for bush anyway speak anywhere but a campaign rally it has a much larger effect?

To suggest that there won't be anyone gullible enough to take this as fact, is either naive or disregarding far too much. There will always be a few taken in. Especially amoung generations who grew up prior to TV's existance. And in an election, since every vote counts, this is a dispicable act indeed.

Like I said above the gullible can just be fooled by all this talk going on about it(before and after it aires).

[DarthZeth]

from fortwayne.com (http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/nation/politics/9926957.htm)
FCC won’t block film criticizing Kerry’s past

Combined news services


The Federal Communications Commission won’t intervene to stop a broadcast company’s plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry’s anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations, the agency’s chairman said Thursday.

“Don’t look to us to block the airing of a program,” Michael Powell told reporters. “I don’t know of any precedent in which the commission could do that.”

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group’s plan to run the program, “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. “I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so,” he said.

He said he would consider the senators’ concerns but added that they might not amount to a formal complaint, which could trigger an investigation. FCC rules require that a formal complaint be considered only after a program has aired.

Sinclair, based outside Baltimore, has asked its 62 stations – many of them in competitive states in the presidential election – to pre-empt regular programming to run the documentary. It chronicles Kerry’s 1971 testimony before Congress and includes interviews with Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives who claim his testimony demeaned them and led their captors to hold them longer.


looks like the FCC is upholding that annoying First Amendment and its Freedom of Press.

[The Infallible]

they are peempting regual programming to show this on network television, while a moore film was just turned down by a pay-per-view network...

[Anarchy_Balsac]

looks like the FCC is upholding that annoying First Amendment and its Freedom of Press.

Yet while upholding the first ammedment they say nudity is unacceptable.

[DarthZeth]

hey, I never said the government is consistent.

although, look back at the laws from 1791. You'll see a lot of censorship laws for pornography and nudity on the books. And that was before the concept of "public airwaves". So the censorship of "smut" has been acceptable for a long time in America.

Then there's the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" concept from the 1910's that 'limits' free speech (that case was actually about guys passing out literature telling people to dodge the draft during WWI. Since dodging the draft was illegal, and there was a law on the books saying you can't pass out literature inciting people to break the law, the guys were convicted. It had NOTHING to do with theaters OR fire. And, the judge is on record a few years alter saying that his statement was a mistake. i also think a 1960's case over turned that decision. /history lesson)

either way, political speech ought not be stopped. That is THE point of the first amendment. If the first amendment protected porn, but not criticism of political candidates... I think it might be time to shoot the bastards.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

either way, political speech ought not be stopped. That is THE point of the first amendment. If the first amendment protected porn, but not criticism of political candidates... I think it might be time to shoot the bastards.

My point is that it should protect both.

[Wetflame]

This is ridiculous. If they had aired Fahrenheit 9/11 that closed to the election, there would have been a massive ruckus.

[Stover]

Just out of curiosity, if Sinclair had ordered its networks to air a "documentary" stating how Bush knew/planned for 9/11 without warning the American populace, who here would care?

Edit: to be more clear, this "documentary" would be the opposite of the one being aired against Kerry. About some equally hot-button topic, equally critical, and against Bush.

[Arlia Janet]

Well, the big way around this whole argument is to vote early. I voted yesterday, and I was influenced only by my own beliefs. Who did I vote for? It's none of your business. It is my belief that politics should not be discussed unless you are face to face with an undecided person, or you are a politician. Everything else just gets people mad at each other, which leads away from politics into personal attacks. I typically avoid the discussion forums just for this reason.

About censorship: The government cannot censor what you say but they can censor the method in which you say it. A message can also be censored if it presents a clear and present danger. The American mindset is that it is harmful for a child to view pornography. This is why it is censored.

[DarthZeth]

Just out of curiosity, if Sinclair had ordered its networks to air a "documentary" stating how Bush knew/planned for 9/11 without warning the American populace, who here would care?

Edit: to be more clear, this "documentary" would be the opposite of the one being aired against Kerry. About some equally hot-button topic, equally critical, and against Bush.

Both arguments have been continuously aired over public airwaves and private media for a while now.

And like I said earlier, I think Al Franken is an asshat. But I’m not about to send a JBT from the FCC to go shut him down. The best way to counter an Asshat's asshatery isn't with censorship, its with counter arguments. As my favorite Communist likes to say "the antidote to bad speech is more speech, not less speech"

[Stover]

A simple yes or no answer would have sufficed.

[Viper Daimao]

I would care. If some Moorian "Bush Knew 9/11" documentary were aired I for one would be mad at the documentary and attack it, not whoever aired it. I wouldnt be happy with whatever station aired it, and might choose to not watch that station but I wouldnt try to sue them or ban the program.

It seems to me that having the govt interfere and ban speech is closer to 1984 than anything Ashcroft or Bush have ever done.

[Anarchy_Balsac]

It seems to me that having the govt interfere and ban speech is closer to 1984 than anything Ashcroft or Bush have ever done.

About the same as Ashcroft if you ask me, but not anywhere near worse than Bush.

[Mental-Rectangle]

I would care. If some Moorian "Bush Knew 9/11" documentary were aired I for one would be mad at the documentary and attack it, not whoever aired it. I wouldnt be happy with whatever station aired it, and might choose to not watch that station but I wouldnt try to sue them or ban the program.

The outcome of the election might not be of as much importance to you as those of us that take last-ditch efforts to turn the tides seriously. The message is nothing new, just the voracity and accessibility with which it will be broadcast. Fahrenheit 9/11 was a summer blockbuster, leaving everyone plenty time to forget about it or get lost in the abundant debunking sites for it. THIS will be just before the election. It's sort of like laying off a disgruntled employee on a Friday (Office Space reference) so they don't get a chance to show up and confront it, because of the weekend.

Of course, if they take Osama out of his box next week, I think that'll have much more effect.

It seems to me that having the govt interfere and ban speech is closer to 1984 than anything Ashcroft or Bush have ever done.

I agree. Nothing should technically stop anyone from putting out any message at any time. It's their right to their opinion. But... these guys have had their party in complete control of the Federal government for three years. They have sympathies up in the most accessible media outlets. They've been sending out their message already for the entire election season. It's kind of a low-ball on their part. I think the only way it can be cushioned is if Kerry's campaign preempted it, and dismissed it as that, rather than making a fuss.

But... like Gore... they'll just make it a huge deal, and give it even more steam.

[DarthZeth]

They have sympathies up in the most accessible media outlets.

what?

EDIT: I’m sorry. this was an improper post.

I should have been more clear. I’m asking you to qualify that statement. Republicans have sympathies in the media? Is that why Dan Rather could barely decide which Bush attack to run?

[Viper Daimao]

I believe he went with both the fake MS word typewritten memos, and the fake draft email scare zeth.

Where you're wrong rectangle is attributing this all to some grand Rovian scheme of VRWC genius. the Republican party isnt controlling the media (far far from it) they arent coordinating the conservative 527s, they are just the republican party, and this Sinclair asking their stations to play the documentary has nothing to do with any coordinated conspiracy.

[DarthZeth]

of course there is no big secret "society" that is controlling the world. that thought is ridiculous! No ancient organization has members in every major government in the world. And they sure don't pull any strings whatsoever.

ignore the man behind the curtain. there are no infidels in baghdad.


i sure hope someone gets the joke

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Well, I took a bit of a hiatus from this forum because I took things a little too personal, but because a lot has been bandied around, I think I'll get back into this thread.

Basically, all I can say is that I compare this documentary the equivilant of yelling Fire! in a crouded theater. Its untruthful, and promotes nothing that would be considered acceptable free speech. (Wish I knew the Supreme Court case from which I'm vaguely pulling from here.)

Here's what I know of the Documentary's actual content.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410140001

I'm still against the stance that Kerry somehow asked to be attacked on his Vietnam service, just because he promoted it during the Democratic convention. Especially, considering what had been put forward by the Swift Boat Vetrans was mostly disproven.

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

And what if the Swiftboat Vets had put something like this (http://www.theliberalvoice.com/sounds/swiftboat.mp3) forward, would that have been just as legitimate?

SWB

[DarthZeth]

from an earlier post in this thread:
the "Fire in a Crowded Theater" concept from the 1910's that 'limits' free speech (that case was actually about guys passing out literature telling people to dodge the draft during WWI. Since dodging the draft was illegal, and there was a law on the books saying you can't pass out literature inciting people to break the law, the guys were convicted. It had NOTHING to do with theaters OR fire. And, the judge is on record a few years alter saying that his statement was a mistake. i also think a 1960's case over turned that decision. /history lesson)


the case is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was the justice who wrote that brief from which the quote came from. That decision was used as the basis to imprison many anti-war dissidents who opposed the draft and our involvement in WWI.

if I understand properly, Brandenburg v. Ohio in the 60's changed the fundamentals of the law, getting rid of the concept of obstructing security "by means of persuasion".



so, hmm, "untruthful, and promotes nothing that would be considered acceptable free speech."

I guess we should toss all the protestors with signs that say "Bush = Hitler" in jail then. Oh yeah, and lets gag John Edwards for saying that if he was elected, people like Christopher Reeves would get up and walk again.

Please. “promotes nothing that would be considered acceptable free speech”? you mean “promotes nothing that supports my favorite candidate”

[Sky Warrior Bob]

I was thinking a bit more along the lines of the three standards used for what is acceptable free speech. I vaguely recall such a test coming forth from this case. I think one of the tests was if something was art. Forget the other two...

The best website I've been able to pull on it is this:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstaminto.htm

The Hitler thing is a bad comparison, and its more of an insult thing than a statement of fact. Still, I'm not keen on supporting that statement.

But Edwards is another case entierly. As, I doubt that's his exact stance on Stem cells, and even if it was, that's just idealism. Since not much full research has been done, it can't be stated as to what can come of Stem cell research.

SWB

[DarthZeth]

You don't have to support the statement of "Bush = Hitler". i sure don't!

I just support the right of people to carry a sign that says it, as moronic as it may be.

[Rhana]

Y'know, as election date nears there will be more and more shocking stuff released by both sides. It's tradition, and good (if irritating) political tactics. It is recent enough to be fresh in people's minds as they vote, and there is little time for the other party to reply coherently/ the public to evaluate the claim.

I live right outside Washington, so I've been hearing this crap out of all corners for literally years. There was no gap between the recount mess and the reelection fiasco, so frankly, I'm sick of all of it.

However, I'd like to complement the people here for the character of the discussion. There are specific references, tension without flaming, and mods aren't using their position to slam someone they disagree with. Congrats.

Just my observations on the whole thing:
1. Both sides (the supporters, if not the officials) have and will continue to lie. Nobody's led a perfect life, so there's always something to hide, if not merely downplay.

2. The media can, does, and will lie as well. To be human is to have an opinion, even if you hate both sides. There are biases in the media, because the media is made up of humans. These go both ways.

3. As I stated in my first paragraph, claims are going to get more outrageous as the election nears. Personally I take everything in the last three months with a large grain of salt.

4. Because someone supports a candidate doesn't mean they are working fo that party. I've heard that Bush supporters are all working together in organization to discredit Kerry. I've heard the same thing about Kerry's supporters. Neither is true. It's quite possible that groups creating ads and campaigns like Swift Boat Veterans are entirely independent of the party opposing the candidate they're attacking (I didn't say that very well).

Note: I'm not saying Veterans are independent. I don't know, so don't yell at me for it. I'm just saying not all right-wing orgs are working from a master plan, just as I'm sure not all left-wing orgs aren't.


This isn't aimed at you guys. It's just something I've been wanting to get off my chest for a while. I'm getting really irritated with the kids here on campus who just parrot their respective news sources.
Yes, I'm a bitter cynical person. Feel free to flame. :cool:
And sorry for typing so much!

To close :
Ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times. No kidding!

[Mental-Rectangle]

Where you're wrong rectangle is attributing this all to some grand Rovian scheme of VRWC genius. the Republican party isnt controlling the media (far far from it) they arent coordinating the conservative 527s, they are just the republican party, and this Sinclair asking their stations to play the documentary has nothing to do with any coordinated conspiracy.

Note that I wasn't. I'll attribute your and Zeth's posts to knee-jerk reactions. You were assuming that by calling Sinclair biased, I'm calling all media biased. That's not true.

Though if you're defending Sinclair, why? It's relatively obvious that they pass a republican screen through many of their programs. The call for unanimous support for President Bush after 9/11 from its networks; the censorship of a Nightline edition that brought up Iraqi war casualties. And their stuff will air on stations from the likes of CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox, in place of normal programming. You can gripe about anti-Bush coverage in isolated, rather uninfluential cases, but this is more on the scale of a commercial-free force-feed.

If there were balance on the media for one biased program of this calibur, nobody would pitch a fit, but at the moment there's not going to be anything in the way.

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 11, 2004; Page A07

Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to preempt regular programming two weeks before the Nov. 2 election to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John F. Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War.

Sinclair has ordered its 62 stations, some of which are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin, to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" during prime-time hours next week. The Sinclair station group collectively reaches 24 percent of U.S. television households.

"Stolen Honor" focuses on Kerry's antiwar testimony to Congress in 1971 and its effect on American POWs in Vietnam. Kerry testified that U.S. forces routinely committed atrocities in Vietnam. The film, produced independently of Sinclair, includes interviews with former POWs who say their Vietnamese captors used Kerry's comments to undercut prisoner morale.

Sinclair, based in the Baltimore suburb of Hunt Valley, decided to air the film after it was rejected for airing by the major broadcast networks, vice president Mark Hyman said. "This is a powerful story," Hyman said. "The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending [the POWs] don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."

Kerry campaign spokesman David Wade yesterday called the film "lies" and "a smear" and characterized Sinclair as "another one of President Bush's powerful corporate friends trying to help him."

Hyman said Sinclair has invited Kerry to appear on a discussion program after the broadcast, but Kerry's campaign has declined. The invitation to Kerry could help Sinclair satisfy federal requirements to provide "equal time" to candidates in an election.

Sinclair's top executives, including members of the controlling Smith family, have been strong financial supporters of Bush's campaign. The company made news in April when it ordered seven of its ABC-affiliated stations not to air a "Nightline" segment that featured a reading of the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq; a Sinclair executive called that broadcast "contrary to the public interest."

Sinclair also is one of the few station-group owners that puts corporate opinion on its local newscasts. Hyman delivers conservative commentaries called "The Point."

The "Stolen Honor" documentary, which was released in early September, raises many of the same issues brought up by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry group that has run ads in battleground states criticizing Kerry's wartime record and antiwar activities, especially his 1971 testimony.

The documentary's producer -- a small production company in Harrisburg, Pa., headed by a former journalist, Carlton Sherwood -- has no official connection to the Swift boat group. However, one of the POWs in the film, Paul Galanti, has appeared in a Swift boat ad.

I should have been more clear. I’m asking you to qualify that statement. Republicans have sympathies in the media? Is that why Dan Rather could barely decide which Bush attack to run?

Are we talking about Dan Rather? Thanks. I know it might be difficult to understand that Rather was not showing bias, where Sinclair is, because the cases tilt in *gasp* someone other than your's favor. CBS is to blame for airing stories before they're confirmed, in order to avoid airing crank evidence such as this. Rather proceeded to aire an apology, clearly indicating that the attacks were invalid. Other networks also reported Rather's mess-up.

Thanks, anyway, for interpreting Osama-box as a joke. I don't like having to go back and root up the sarcasm I post hither and thither.

[DarthZeth]

you failed to qualify your statement the republicans "have sympathies up in the most accessible media outlets."

the Media is NOT republican friendly. In a 1996 survey of over a thousand journalists, only 15% said they were conservative/republican. The stated voting records of journalists slants way left. a 2001 study of members of the media (including radio networks, news magazines, TV networks, and newspapers) showed that they identify their affiliations as Democratic 7 times more then they identify themselves republican.

"sympathies up in the most accessible media outlets"? Rathergate is hardly the issue. the issue is that Rather was torn between two stories... that attacked bush! one of them had to do with the Uranium forgeries. The whole "African Uranium" thing was a HUGE story in the media. Rather STILL wants to play it up. REGARDLESS of the fact that Bush was vindicated on the issue by the Butler Report, an inquiry into British Intelligence, which stated in part that “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” was well-founded.”

There are numerous incidents. I could point to the New York Time’s 32 straight days of Front Page coverage over Abu Grhaib. I could point out that the New York Times had the front page headline “9/11 commission finds no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda” when the 9/11 commission only said that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 itself.

Hell, CNN even parroted an article about “No connection between Saddam and al qaeda”… despite that in the late 90’s, they ran an article about how Saddam offered amnesty to Bin Laden.

We can argue the degree until we’re blue in the face, but Bush having SYMPATHIES in the most accessible media outlets? That’s a joke! Maybe a handful of outlets, but most?

[Anarchy_Balsac]

Basically, all I can say is that I compare this documentary the equivilant of yelling Fire! in a crouded theater.

Ahem:

http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showthread.php?t=3591

[Mental-Rectangle]

you failed to qualify your statement the republicans "have sympathies up in the most accessible media outlets."

-edit- never mind. I misread what YOU said now. Mostly I was referring to Sinclair. The veterans that put together "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" managed to get a good broadcast deal with Sinclair, and at the present moment the stations airing it intend on presenting it as news, rather than an opinion piece that would fall under equal-time requirements. I can lend evidence toward Sinclair being conservative... such as 97% of their donations aimed at Republican campaigns, or interviews with their execs. I'm not suggesting at all that the media as a whole is conservative. There are pockets of both major parties, but you should know anyway that the main trend strays from actual conservatism or liberalism, and corresponds more with the major parties, which are neither.

I guess accessibility is what you're asking about. I'll google it later for you.

God though, we've gone over this argument every time I show up. I'm surprised you if still buy into the popular myth though, since you seem to be suggesting the media as a whole is liberal. The New York Times examples are more strawmen than evidence. Most people acknowledge a socially left slant in the NYTimes.

The CNN example contradicts your point. Their original stance was just corrected. You can find democrat supporting columnists, and field experts that put forward quite a range further left than the public on social issues. This statistic is often taken for granted, because economic views and accessibility of the columnist's views, as well as their ability to self-moderate, diminish the effect of the tilt. Economically... I don't think there's proportionally as much liberal stance as conservative, and here are some sites that go thoroughly into that area. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand though, so I wouldn't get too entrenched in it.
http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#state
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0615-14.htm
http://www.shepherd-express.com/shepherd/25/19/news_and_views/media_musings.html
NPR is the only outlet that has brought this up, to my knowledge.

[DarthZeth]

presenting it as news, rather than an opinion piece that would fall under equal-time requirements.

im pretty sure there are no equal time requirements. the Fairness Doctrine was done away with in the 80s. Unless there is something i missed...?

I'm not suggesting at all that the media as a whole is conservative.
oh, ok. you had just said "the most accessible media outlets". That lead me to think you were talking about the media on the whole. I'm sure Sinclair is slanted itself. (there IS that 15% that lean to the right. i don't expect them to be lily white objective)

The New York Times examples are more strawmen than evidence. Most people acknowledge a socially left slant in the NYTimes.

and the NY Times is a major source of new stories in all media. The stories that the NYT picks up are invariably picked up by most other newspapers, and often the nightly news (cable AND broadcast) will discuss the same thing as the Times. This isn’t some Great Conspiracy. It’s a matter of there being very few sources of reporting, and lots of papers that don’t want to miss the Big Story.

The CNN example contradicts your point. Their original stance was just corrected.
no, the original article was correct. Saddam did send envoys to Afghanistan in.. 98? to talk to Bin Laden.
"* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported." * (http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html)

ok, so Saddam's man went to meet with Bin Laden's men, but they aren’t SURE he was offered asylum. (They were probably just having a friendly visit, chatting over Tea?)

this is creeping off topic. I just didn’t think that slice of your argument was valid. But we agree that JBTs ought not shut people up.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Update: http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=9&aid=D85QUR500_story

[shiney]

Post limit! Bamf!