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

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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)

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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?

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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

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...

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

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.

Originally Posted by DarthZeth

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.