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

[Raerlynn]

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

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]

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

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

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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?

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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]

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

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.

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

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.

Originally Posted by LA Times Article

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.

Originally Posted by LA Times Article

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/...roadcast_Group


Edited to Add Quote from This Article

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]

Originally Posted by Raerlynn

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).