Quote:
|
Originally Posted by balderdash111
Well ok, then. I'm not a media attorney (are you? you seem to know a lot about media law)
|
No, I'm a photojournalist, which means I get yelled at by media attorneys a lot. I've picked up a few things
Quote:
|
but the argument against the broadcast would have to focus on what you implicitly acknowledge - no matter what something is on its face, you have to look past that to see the truth.
|
I do not disagree that Sinclair is attempting to influence the election, nor do I disagree that they're attempting to benefit the Bush campaign. Where I disagree is when people say that it violates campaign finance laws. It does not.
To those of you who think it does, are you suggesting that Rush Limbaugh is in violation of campaign finance laws because he broadcasts his opinion to millions of people? What about Al Franken? It seems to me that the argument here is "you can say anything you want about the candidates unless a lot of people hear you, in which case it's illegal." The constitution simply doesn't see it that way. It does not put a population limit on our freedoms.
Quote:
|
I don't pretend to know the details of the rules, but suffice to say that you can't use the First Amendment as a defense to violating campaign finance laws.
|
Sinclair is not contributing money to the campaign. They're airing a documentary. They have the right to do that. Any attempt to tell the media what it can and can't broadcast is an attempt to censor the media. That starts you right down a slippery slope to state-controlled media, which makes democracy impossible.
I don't like what Sinclair is doing. I think it's dispicable, but they have the right to do it.
Quote:
|
Anyway, back to the original point. What is the difference between a one-sided documentary and a two hour political add? I don't know. Do you?
|
Yes. The rights to air the documentary were bought by the station. The opportunity to air the advertisement is bought by the candidate. In the latter, the station is paid to air something. In the former, the station pays to air something.
The main difference being that if a candidate pays the station to air something, the same amount of time at the same price must be sold to the opposing candidate if the opposing candidate wishes to buy it.
Quote:
|
I don't think it's a big stretch for a court to look at this as, in essence, a massive in-kind political contribution. Look at the backgrounds of the film-makers. Look at the political activities of Sinclair. (Rather than link to various sources, take a look at TalkingPointsMemo.com, where Josh Marshall has put together a lot of information). I don't think any can argue that this piece is basically a 1-hour attack add against Kerry.
|
No, and I don't think anyone will argue that. However, as our laws are now, the station has the right to do it. The constitution does not say that media outlets must remain neutral. It does not say that media outlets may not express opinion.
If you claim that Sinclair is in violation of campaign finance laws because it is expressing an anti-kerry opinion, then you must also claim that Al Franken is in violation of campaign finance laws because he expresses an anti-Bush opinion on his radio show.
Quote:
|
I assume you meant to say that if the documentary's focus was not on promoting one candidate, it was exempt from equal time. Obviously, this documentary is focused on one candidate, but on attacking him, not supporting him. Is that the rule?
|
No, in fact documentaries and entertainment films fall under the same regulations - if it
focuses on one candidate, then it may fall under equal time. This is why stations couldn't air Arnold Shwarzenegger movies in California while he was running for governor - they focused on him and they'd then have to make the same amount of time available for free (since Arnold didn't pay to air the movies) to the other candidates.
In fact, that makes it rather interesting, because if anything, the fact that Sinclair is running a documentary which focuses on Kerry, there MAY be an argument that they'd have to give Bush 2 hours of free advertising. That's why I really don't think it'd be wise for the Kerry side to make too much noise about this