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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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]

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

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.

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

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.

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

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.

Originally Posted by DZ

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

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.