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

[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/proj...irstaminto.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.
And sorry for typing so much!

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

[Mental-Rectangle]

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

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?

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

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

Ahem:

http://www.nuklearforums.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/journali...vey.html#state
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0615-14.htm
http://www.shepherd-express.com/shep...a_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." *

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/newsartic...85QUR500_story