Sinclair to air anti Kerry documentary

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 12, 2004, 1:51 am

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/ne ... /index.htm

I consider myself to be pretty moderate. I don't particularly like Kerry or Bush, so I don't think I see this through liberal/conservative blinders. But, I find this to be pretty unethical, and I hold this up as evidence to refute the claims of overwhelming liberal bias in the media. I think if Sinclair goes through with this, they will be in clear violation of the equal time provision, and probably the McCain-Feingold campaign finanace reform.

Also, before anyone one claims this is just tit for tat for Farenheit 9/11, I would remind you that F9/11 was not air on the public air waves. Everyone that saw F9/11, atleast legally, paid to do so.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 12, 2004, 2:33 am

Jeeze. You guys get a major motion picture released at the box offices and now on DVD bashing Bush with outrageous claims and now you cry about this? There are no violations to see here. Move along!

A Bush campaign spokesman said the camp has nothing to do with Sinclair Broadcasting, the anti-Kerry film or Sinclair's plan to air the film just before this year's tight election.

Too bad. So sad.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » October 12, 2004, 3:30 am

Lol, look whos crying, seems like someone got desperate enough over Fahrenheit 9/11 that they had to make http://www.fahrenhype911.com

I saw the trailer, that was enough for me

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 12, 2004, 8:55 am

Hesten wrote:Lol, look whos crying, seems like someone got desperate enough over Fahrenheit 9/11 that they had to make http://www.fahrenhype911.com

I saw the trailer, that was enough for me

Yeah!!! We like our propaganda unchallenged!!!

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » October 12, 2004, 9:16 am

Yeah, it's a violation of equal time.
And just remember! Everyone that sees this - at least leagally - has the right to turn their TV's off!

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 12, 2004, 9:36 am

In defense of liberal or conservative propaganda, swift vote vets or texas or anyone else...everyone should have the right to say whatever the fuck they want to whenever the fuck they want to, all these laws built to supress propaganda is bullshit...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2004, 10:54 am

what is at issue is that the "airwaves" are public property leased to broadcasters through the Federal Communications Commission. As public property there are certain stipulations regarding election political campaigns, that the airwaves cannot be donated to one campaign disproportionately to another.

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really know much about this documentary other than it is supposed to be pretty unflattering to Kerry. Sinclair Broadcasting has been a substantial supporter of the Republican party, so this isn't really surprising (they were the stations that blocked the "Nightline" broadcast of the names of soldiers killed in Iraq).

At any rate, it should certainly be reviewed by the Federal Election Commission, and if it does legally constitute a campaign contribution under the manner in which FCC regulations have been consistently applied, then it should not air.

That being said, there is nothing stopping the Republican party or any private group who supports them from investing money in promoting the documentary and putting it in movie theaters or on DVD like "Fahrenheit 9/11".

If "F9/11" was shown in 80 media markets around the country on broadcast television on November 1st, the GOP would shit a bloody red brick.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 12, 2004, 10:56 am

I agree. Everyone should be able to buy air time to express whatever views they feel need to be expressed. However, that isn't what is happening here. Sinclair is forcing its affiliates it air propaganda during prime time. This is mass media manipulation. If we were to swing things around. What if Ted Turner (if he were still in control) were going to force all his media empire's affiliates to air F9/11 during prime time with no commercial interuptions shortly before the election, you know the GOP would be up in arms.

What you have here, is a company attempting to control what ideas and information people are able to see, without giving access to an opposing view point. Governments have attempted to control their citizenry in this way for centuries, probably as long as the idea of government has been around. Now we have a private corporation taking the first step toward doing the same thing. I realize this isn't as big a deal as I make out, Sinclair is hardly the only media outlet in our nation. I guess I'm just surprised by the lack contempt for Sinclairs actions.

And, a part of me agrees with Xzion, it is their network, they can air whatever the hell they want, but we already know that isn't true, that is why we have the FCC.

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » October 12, 2004, 10:58 am

Vor, you said it better than I ever could.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » October 12, 2004, 12:12 pm

Sinclair (wearing a Yoda Halloween costume) waves his hand: You will watch my propaganda.

General public replies (hopefully): Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » October 12, 2004, 3:46 pm

I honestly don't see how this is an issue at all.

Was just about every network doing several stories on Bush's National Guard service a violation? If a network made an hour long, glowing documentary on Kerry's service in Vietnam it would be obviously be pro-Kerry, because his service in Vietnam was for the most part honorable. Maybe you should all step back and examine why a documentary on what Kerry did after returning from Vietnam would be so "anti-Kerry"- maybe it's because what he did was actually contemptible, not because someone wants to spin it that way?

This is going to be a report on Kerry's shameful anti-war activities after returning from Vietnam- something NO major media network has stopped up to the plate to seriously cover (other than to discount the Swift Boat Vets). While it's obvious a lot of the allegations the Swift Boats made are BS, the fact remains many of them ARE motivated and infuriated by what Kerry said and did after returning from Vietnam- as are many other Vietnam vets. For instance, my dad is completely anti-Bush- he's said from the beginning we should never have gone into Iraq, and he gives me an earful anytime we talk about it. But he's also a Vietnam veteran who considers Kerry basically a traitor and unfit to ever be commander in chief because of what he did after returning from Vietnam. I'm glad someone is finally going to take this seriously.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 12, 2004, 3:55 pm

They'll get away with it for the same reason Moore did - it's a "documentary." Come on, would they even bother getting this far if they knew they legally couldn't get away with it? ;p

I'm sure it's no more trash than the Today show, the Apprentice, or Las Vegas as far as the standards of TV go.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 12, 2004, 4:07 pm

You are ignoring the issue, as per usual. The problem is not the material itself, it is the medium it is being conveyed on. Movie theatres and DVDs are paid entertainment services, for which the FCC has no jurisdiction over. Things that are broadcast on public airwaves are held to a higher standard. Honestly, the rules for campain finance are clear on this issue. Sinclair is perfectly within his rights to put this piece of propeganda on a cable station, as that is a pay service not on public airwaves and out of the scope of the FCC. Putting it on the public airwaves, however, is not permitted. Frankly, F911 should not be being advertised on broadcast stations this close to an election either.

And if you think the Republicans wouldn't be bitching if the tables were turned, you obviously have selectively blocked out all memory of their responses to the original release of F911 and the Reagan miniseries.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » October 12, 2004, 4:13 pm

No one is arguing that the makers of the "documentary" do not have the right to make it. The problem comes when the public air waves are used to manipulate an election. There are laws against any broadcaster doing this. I would honestly find it funny if I didn't think people could be so easily manipulated by television. I mean honestly this just seems like a zealot response after Kerry cut the gap to nothing after the first two debates. What boadcaster in the U.S. airs anything with no comercial interuptions in prime time?

If they air this I honestly hope that Kerry beats Bush and then appoints an FCC that is more interested in protecting the public from things like this than from NASCAR drivers saying the word shit on TV and breasts in Super Bowl half time shows.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 12, 2004, 4:14 pm

Crav, Jice... they're not smart enough to understand it.

All they see is Pro-Bush, Anti-Kerry. They're not able to take the personalities out of the discussion and apply the law to it impartially.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 12, 2004, 4:17 pm

Right or wrong there's a fundamental difference between an advertisement stuffed in between whatever you're choosing to watch and a documentary being broadcast that you have to make the choice to watch. There's no ignoring the issue here sparky, it's about the choice of the consumer to not watch it vs the inherent lack of choice present in an ad spot.

When's the last time any occurrence of either political party favoring event didn't spark bitching from the opposing party? What a totally obvious comment!

Crav · Post by **Crav** » October 12, 2004, 4:48 pm

The issue here is that it is illegal, if you want to argue that the law is wrong then please write your congressman and have them change it. However, until the law changes you have no ground to stand on. Honestly this smells of desperation from the right.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2004, 4:58 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Right or wrong there's a fundamental difference between an advertisement stuffed in between whatever you're choosing to watch and a documentary being broadcast that you have to make the choice to watch. There's no ignoring the issue here sparky, it's about the choice of the consumer to not watch it vs the inherent lack of choice present in an ad spot.

When's the last time any occurrence of either political party favoring event didn't spark bitching from the opposing party? What a totally obvious comment!

the point is not that you can change the channel.

There are laws that clearly govern "like kind contributions", and particularly govern the use of public property - FCC airwaves - to air campaign material.

Are you saying that the law should not be applied Rekaar because it supports your candidate?

That being said, if this program is found to be in compliance with the FCC guidelines, then obviously I have no problem with it airing. What I have heard about the program is that it is less of a documentary (ie: F9/11) than it is an attack on a political candidate.

Another funny thing, some Fox affiliates (like the one in Richmond, VA) owned by Sinclair will be forced to take this show instead of the baseball playoffs. I'm sure their advertisers will LOVE that.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 12, 2004, 5:03 pm

Rekaar. wrote:When's the last time any occurrence of either political party favoring event didn't spark bitching from the opposing party? What a totally obvious comment!

The point is that... WAIT FOR IT... People from both parties should be bitching about it because it has the potential to negatively affect both parties if actions like these are allowed.

Nice to see that even though you read my 'totally obvious comment', you totally missed the point.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 12, 2004, 5:21 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Another funny thing, some Fox affiliates (like the one in Richmond, VA) owned by Sinclair will be forced to take this show instead of the baseball playoffs. I'm sure their advertisers will LOVE that.

Yeah, they'll be pissed and then see Kerry's mug on the TV and associate him with their bad mood. It's all psychological man! Kerry caused them to miss the playoff game.

Bush is clearly the preferred president for players and fans of sports!

Xzion- · Post by **Xzion-** » October 12, 2004, 5:30 pm

Winnow wrote:
Voronwë wrote:
Another funny thing, some Fox affiliates (like the one in Richmond, VA) owned by Sinclair will be forced to take this show instead of the baseball playoffs. I'm sure their advertisers will LOVE that.
Yeah, they'll be pissed and then see Kerry's mug on the TV and associate him with their bad mood. It's all psychological man! Kerry caused them to miss the playoff game.

Bush is clearly the preferred president for players and fans of sports!

I would love to see Bush try to keep balance on a segway, let alone windsurf or snowboard

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2004, 5:33 pm

not to bite at your juvenile shenigans, because only a 15 year old would want to be friends with the football player to get some 'rub off' social status. Both guys are in great shape for their age and pretty athletic for regular guys. Kerry can play hockey, is a good skier, and actually can throw a baseball pretty well. GW Bush threw a damn good 2 seamer (for a ceremonial first pitch) in the first game in Yankee Stadium after 9/11.

i'm sure W has dropped a ball at one or two of the phony staged football throwing photo-ops that political candidates like to have.

of course when you have no record to run on, and when 70%+ of economists think the centerpiece of your tax plan is "Bad" or "Very Bad", i guess your supporters have to cling to something to keep them from wetting their bed.

In your case winnow, i guess what keeps the wee-wee at bay is the litter from AOL spamfilters.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 12, 2004, 5:39 pm

Voronwë wrote:not to bite at your juvenile shenigans, because only a 15 year old would want to be friends with the football player to get some 'rub off' social status. Both guys are in great shape for their age and pretty athletic for regular guys. Kerry can play hockey, is a good skier, and actually can throw a baseball pretty well. GW Bush threw a damn good 2 seamer (for a ceremonial first pitch) in the first game in Yankee Stadium after 9/11.

i'm sure W has dropped a ball at one or two of the phony staged football throwing photo-ops that political candidates like to have.

of course when you have no record to run on, and when 70%+ of economists think your tax plan is "Bad" or "Very Bad", i guess your supporters have to cling to something to keep them from wetting their bed.

In your case winnow, i guess what keeps the wee-wee at bay is the litter from AOL spamfilters.

Please, Voro, tell us how you feel. Don't hold anything back.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 12, 2004, 5:39 pm

oh wow
Voro from outta left field with the Political Bitch Slap.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2004, 6:07 pm

should source my factoid

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ ... id=3262965

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 12, 2004, 6:17 pm

Voro gets nasty when the Braves [glow=orange]lose![/glow]

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 12, 2004, 6:33 pm

Winnow wrote:Voro gets nasty when the Brave

hehe got that right

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 12, 2004, 6:46 pm

This is bullshit, Voronwe stated it better than I have time to right now but the point is that they are public and you don't have to PAY to get on them they are for everyone, you CAN NOT compare that to a movie you have to pay to go see... Hell you can't say FUCK on the air but they can show a one sided propaganda film right before an election?... Did I tell you that Bush's GF was a Nazi sympathizer? Makes sense dosen't it?...

Marb

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 13, 2004, 3:45 pm

i try not to own somebody twice on the same thread, but i'll make an exception for my old friend

check mate

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 13, 2004, 4:41 pm

Voronwë wrote:i try not to own somebody twice on the same thread, but i'll make an exception for my old friend

check mate

lol : )

Thanks Voro! I think Bush just picked up the gay vote with that picture!

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 4:52 pm

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 4:53 pm

noel wrote:
Rekaar. wrote:When's the last time any occurrence of either political party favoring event didn't spark bitching from the opposing party? What a totally obvious comment!
The point is that... WAIT FOR IT... People from both parties should be bitching about it because it has the potential to negatively affect both parties if actions like these are allowed.

Nice to see that even though you read my 'totally obvious comment', you totally missed the point.

I could care less if people want to air a documentary on the airwaves one way or the other. I could always play the liberal media bias here too, but let's skip that one for now. Dateline, Today, 60 Minutes...all have the same right to air whatever the hell they want in whatever air they want because they don't fall under the same rules as ads. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE IN A COUNTRY WHERE FREE SPEECH IS NUMBER 1. If they lie, misrepresent, or forge documents to get their point across then they should be held accountable for it, but in no way should the right of anyone to make their point of view heard be impinged because it negatively effects a political candidate. If it's true then we SHOULD know about it, that's the job of the media.

Have any of you seen Stolen Honor? Do you even know anything other than what you've been spoonfed about it? Did you know John Kerry was invited to participate in it and refute any claims made about him, but he declined? At the risk of sounding presumptuous...if he's scared of standing up to all these old men's war stories then how can I trust him to have the courage to stand up to terrorism? Is his position so indefensible that all he will do is throw insults over the wall and attempt to silence free speech with his attack dogs?

Fahrenheit 911 was so controversial not because it was critical of GW, but because it was such an outright fabrication and misrepresentation of everything the guy could find. He lied and everyone knows it - yet Michael Moore is still defended, invited to speak on college campuses, and welcomed by the media. Contrast that with what I know of Stolen Honor and I can't for the life of me understand where you can cry about the unfair hand you've been dealt as a Kerry supporter.

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 5:01 pm

First of all, fuck you for calling me a John Kerry supporter. I don't mean to be rude, but that's fucking insulting.

I can't stand Michael Moore. I've said on several occasions that the one good thing about Moore is that when you see him speak, or you see his movies, you know what you're getting. You can't say the same thing about almost every politician in the United States.

I don't care about 'Stolen Honor' because I don't care about Kerry's military record any more than I care about Bush's. NEITHER candidate has a military record worth noting and if you look back at my posting history you'll see that I've consistently said that their military records should be non-issues, and that they're just distractions from what should be the true focus of the election (i.e. Iraq, the economy, the environment, etc.).

Finally, you are obviously confused about what constitutes free speech. This isn't a free speech issue. No one is saying Sinclair can't make his statements. They're very simply questioning (with good reason) the use of the medium he wants to make his statements on.

This is not a free speech issue, it's not a Bush or Kerry issue. I'm not under any illusion that you'll suddenly understand the finer points of the difference, but I figured I'd try one more time to explain it.

I'd really appreciate it if you not make assumptions about my political views now or in the future. I think both Kerry and Bush are jackasses.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 13, 2004, 5:07 pm

you are confusing seperate issues Rekaar. F9/11 has not been broadcast on FCC controlled media. THere are laws regulating broadcast media that have been explained several times in this thread at least on their surface. It is irrelevant that Michael Moore is paid to do speaking engagements. Every US private sector citizen is free to collect a fee for a speaking engagement.

Furthermore, "Stolen Honor" uses a substantial number of the same people who are central to the proven false claims of Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. THis brings legitimate questions about the works veracity.

If "Stolen Honor" is indeed a documentary that is based on accurate facts then, I as well as most persons, have no problem with it airing.

What is central to this, is that it is quite possible a politically motivated attack on a candidate for office and is airing on broadcast television.

I think you are continueing to misunderstand the legal question here. There is no law stopping Mr. Sherwood from soliciting distribution for his film in movie theaters, or supplying it for sale on DVD. There is no law stopping Mr. Sherwood himself from collecting fees for discussing his work.

It would most likely be illegal to broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free during an election season on FCC controlled airwaves for the same reasons as this might be illegal.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 13, 2004, 5:30 pm

Rekaar: The point of contention between you and everyone else in this thread revolves around this statement of yours:

Dateline, Today, 60 Minutes...all have the same right to air whatever the hell they want in whatever air they want because they don't fall under the same rules as ads.

That is not true. There are laws regulating what Dateline, Today, and 60 Minutes can air regarding political candidates.

Voronwe and others are arguing that the airing of this movie in the manner described would violate those laws.

I'm pretty sure that you are simply denying that those laws exist. This is incorrect.

If you do understand these laws and are making an argument that they are invalid or illegitimate, you're having a hell of a time articulating your point coherently.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 6:02 pm

I'll be the first to admit it - I'm not an expert on this (or any) aspect of the law. I'm contending that it's clearly not illegal to do what they are going to do. They own what? 62ish tv stations nationwide? I would expect them to know the law better than you or I, and be on the right side of it. No one here really cares about the legality though.

What we care about is whether or not it should be ok to do this. I think it is for the reasons I mentioned. I'm not misunderstanding jack squat =p

If news documentaries are governed by the same rules from mccain-feingold as ads that's news to me, since they are totally separate issues. If you could source that in support I'd appreciate it. Just like the Carlyle Group or Kevin Bacon though, you could, if you really tried, tie any story ever aired to a political motivation. Or maybe it's just a brazen attempt to sway the elections. Either way it shouldn't matter at all. Before this election is over we'll be hearing about some opposing piece aired elsewhere.

Again as long as it's true, I think that's what the media is supposed to be doing in the first place.

It would most likely be illegal to broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 commercial free during an election season on FCC controlled airwaves for the same reasons as this might be illegal.

It would be unethical, but I doubt illegal.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 13, 2004, 6:09 pm

Key words in your post

*** as long as it is true ****

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 6:23 pm

Absolutely, that's my take. I don't appreciate anyone lying to support me nor do I think it's cool to lie against me. Maybe we should watch the footage and determine if it's true or not, then label it after we've educated ourselves =p

noel · Post by **noel** » October 13, 2004, 6:28 pm

I still can't believe you called me a Kerry supporter.

For the record I haven't seen F9/11 and I'm not really insterested in seeing it.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 6:42 pm

http://www.videopa.com/kerry/excerpt1.asx

One of several clips at http://www.stolenhonor.com

checking em out.

P.S. - Sorry about including you in that general statement, I kind of switched targets with my wild frothing accusations in the middle of my post!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 13, 2004, 7:50 pm

Rekaar wrote:I'll be the first to admit it - I'm not an expert on this (or any) aspect of the law. I'm contending that it's clearly not illegal to do what they are going to do.

I am also not an expert on these laws that you are so confident are not being violated. I do know these facts:

1. The airwaves are considered public property. The fact that TV stations (and radio stations) broadcast on these public airwaves allows them to be regulated. They can broadcast whatever they like on their own airwaves.

2. Laws exist that obligate TV (or radio) stations to provide equal time for candidates in political elections. The purpose of these laws is to prevent TV stations from using public property for political purposes.

Keeping these facts in mind, and keeping in mind that you have admitted to being completely ignorant of these laws, your statement that "it is clearly not illegal to do what they are going to do" strikes me as one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

Rekaar wrote:No one here really cares about the legality though.

I do. Clearly you don't. I can't speak for anyone elses motivations.

Rekaar wrote:If news documentaries are governed by the same rules from mccain-feingold as ads that's news to me, since they are totally separate issues.

They're not. They're governed by a different set of laws. Have you been reading this thread?

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 8:21 pm

Let's break it down for you:

They can do it.

They are doing it.

They can only do that because it's legal.

Keeping these facts in mind, and keeping in mind that you've admitted to being completely ignorant of these facts, your dispute is clearly the stupidest thing in this thread. Maybe you are the only one that really cares if it's legal though, but if it turns out I'm wrong on this score when there's a court ruling that prohibits the broadcast feel free to rub it in my face.

Meantime you're totally missing the crux of the discussion - which is not the legality but the ethics involved.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 13, 2004, 8:24 pm

They're doing it because they think they can get away with it, or they don't care about the consequences. People do a lot of things they know are illegal, why do you think a TV station is exempt?

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 8:35 pm

I don't think they're different, I think they did their homework. Something none of us have bothered to do =p

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 13, 2004, 8:45 pm

I'd like to weigh in here. I think Sinclair was wrong to decide not to air the anti-bush story about the slain soldiers in Iraq and yet decide to air the anti-kerry story.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 13, 2004, 8:50 pm

So your logic is that only legal actions are possible, and the fact that this action is being taken means it therefore must be legal?

I'm tempted to stop here, but I'll continue.

Law enforcement agencies generally do not take action based on threats or plans. If I walk into a shopping mall and say "tomorrow I will smoke a blunt in this shopping mall," I would not be arrested. At best, I would be told that I would be arrested if I followed through with my plan. However, if I came and smoked a blunt in the shopping mall the next day, I probably would be arrested.

I'm not entirely sure what agency is charged with upholding equal time laws. I'd imagine it's the FEC or the FCC. Neither is going to censure Sinclair for planning to air a documentary which violates their equal time laws. They might warn Sinclair that such an action would be a violation of these laws, but that's not a guarantee, and that's it.

Additionally, the FEC and the FCC have far less resources devoted to finding and censuring lawbreakers than do police departments. As such, they are often not in a position to prosecute lawbreakers, let alone in a position to pass out warnings ahead of time.

Furthermore, I don't need the Courts to block this action for my argument to be correct. All I need for my argument to be correct is the opinion of one credible legal scholar who believes that airing this documentary is illegal. Such an opinion would refute your statement that:

Rekaar. wrote:I'm contending that it's clearly not illegal to do what they are going to do.

Furthermore, you state:

Rekaar. wrote:Meantime you're totally missing the crux of the discussion - which is not the legality but the ethics involved.

This is clearly not true. If you notice, Kargyle raises the issue of legality in the very first post on this topic.

Kargyle wrote:I think if Sinclair goes through with this, they will be in clear violation of the equal time provision, and probably the McCain-Feingold campaign finanace reform.

Also, before anyone one claims this is just tit for tat for Farenheit 9/11, I would remind you that F9/11 was not air on the public air waves. Everyone that saw F9/11, atleast legally, paid to do so.

I have kindly bolded the relevant text for you.

In addition, the next post (Winnow) discussed the legality. Akaran discussed the legality. Xzion- discussed the legality. Voronwë discussed the legality. Kargyle (second post) discussed the legality again. So that's 5 of the first 8 posts on this topic that deal with legality, and the trend generally continues.

So, first off, you're wrong. Secondly, even if I were to assume that legality was not the main crux of the argument, that in no way makes it irrelevant or unworthy of discussion.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 13, 2004, 10:21 pm

omg stop before your head explodes in frustration

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 14, 2004, 11:31 am

It isn't an "equal time" law issue. Those laws don't exist anymore.

It has to do with providing services to campaigns.

Rekaar, i know you are not so naive as to think that a company wouldn't try something if it was against the law.

i mean you actually said the following:

i know it is legal because they wouldn't do it if it was against the law.

Are you on crack man?!

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » October 14, 2004, 12:17 pm

Rekaar. wrote:I don't think they're different, I think they did their homework. Something none of us have bothered to do =p

--^

In and of itself you're right, but take it in context!

At the same time though, this could just be a brilliant publicity stunt. The only action taken thus far is to reserve a broadcast slot.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 14, 2004, 1:00 pm

their advertisers are getting letters from people, and some are pulling out.

I guarantee you the sales managers at the local stations are absolutely shitting a fucking brick over this. They are licking their clients boots so bad they are shitting shoe polish.

the corporate interest in their support of the Bush campaign appears to be motivated (according to a USA Today news story) by wanting the FCC to relax limitations on being able to own multiple stations in the same media market. That way Sinclair can streamline expensive parts of its operational expenditures like newsgathering, etc.

Advertisers are pulling out over this, because right, wrong or indifferent, many companies want no association with controversy. Like Kobe losing his Sprite endorsement even though the court case was thrown out.

But the local stations are probably really hating life right now, because their cash flows are being jeopardized if they lose advertisers, and that effects the bonuses of the sales staffs, etc. I guarantee you there are some seriously pissed off people in those sales departments.