Like I stated, all it takes is one shareholder to say that the board broke the rules of conduct (implicitly using the company to further their personal agenda and not the company's) and the SEC has a great case.

Just 1 share and find a good lawyer and say by putting that show on they purposely disenfranchised a large share of the customer base and therefore profits may go down.

I think this is a publicity stunt. I don't see them airing it. I see them saying that some court has prevented it or some such nonsense and then claiming Kerry is evil and didn't want anyone to see this.

What's truly sad is the precedent this is setting. We are destroying our own election system, and we don't seem to truly care.

Shakran, I think you are parsing some of your comments too thinly. But I've done it in the past and I don't want to get caught up in splitting hairs.


I would rather like to know whether you are aware of the ownership relationship between Sinclair and this unnamed network:

Does he have controlling interest in some way?
How has the consolidation of media corporations relate to this?
If Sinclair has some kind of economic or controlling interest in the network,
or if the network is really more dependent on the stations to air their product, rather than the inverse as you phrased it,
how does that alter, if it does, your analyses?


I am unaware of the answers to these questions. But I have heard enough officials expressing concern about the consolidation of the media and its impact on this situation to consider a different reading of the facts.

It differs from your "accepted". I have yet to see you or anyone else prove that the media is balanced in terms of left and right so your claims of "put up or shut up" are without merit. There are plenty of threads in Politics which discuss this point and the case has NEVER been made that the media is completely without bias.

Your insinuation that "If you offer nothing in support of your opinion that media outside a vacuum is liberal, there is no truth in your claim." is additionally without merit. I can make the claim that the sky is blue with no evidence to back it up and that does not mean that it's false.

You make judgement calls on a daily basis "Bush lied" etc with NO EVIDENCE but you seem to find no reason to think "there is no truth in your claim".

I am so sorry that you are "none too pleased" with my propagations. It's ironic that you offer little to no evidence of your continual Bush bashing but my assertions need to somehow meet a higher standard than those you set for yourself.

Excerpt from McCain Feingold.
It DOES appear to me that this slander piece would fit nicely under the category of "Electioneering Communication" As it will be a standalone piece and not reported in a media program such as Dateline or 60 Minutes, it qualifies as electioneering. It's pretty damned cut and dry actually.
ILLEGAL.

There's a difference there. Microsoft would be forcing people to accept content. It's already lost that battle (even though it seems to have gotten away with it despite the finding against Microsoft) with the bundling IE with Windows case.

Sinclair isn't forcing you to do anything. They're not gonna tie you up and prop your eyelids open with toothpicks to make sure you watch their documentary. If you don't like it, watch something else.

Read the last sentence! That specifically exempts stations like Sinclairs from the rule! Sinclair's making the statement. Sinclair is a media outlet. The law doesn't say it HAS to be in a news program to be exempted. It just says it HAS to be said BY the media outlet.


1) It's not a he, it's a they. Sinclair is a media conglomerate, not a man. It was started by 4 brothers, one of whom was named Julian Sinclair Smith.

2) Pretty heavilly I'd say. No one would care if it was one Sinclair station, but they own or control 62 stations. That's why people are so pissy about this.

3) They have no controlling interest in the network. And by the network I mean ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB, and UPN, because their various stations are affiliated with different networks. The networks are dependent on local stations to air their programming. It's a relationship that works well because only the network has the cash it takes to produce all the sitcoms, soaps, reality shows, etc that you watch every day. The local stations affiliate with a network and pay for those programs. They ALWAYS have the option to decline to broadcast programming. Every once in awhile you hear about some station, usually in the bible belt, that refuses to broadcast an episode of a series because they consider it morally offensive. Sometimes a local station will refuse to broadcast a specific show because their ratings plummet when they show it and they lose money on it.

The only exception is an O&O station - one that's owned and operated by the network. WCCO in Minneapolis and KPIX in San Francisco are examples. They're owned and operated by CBS, which means they must air whatever CBS tells them to air.

None of Sinclair's stations are network O&O's, so they don't have to air anything they don't want to.




That's a whole 'nother topic. Media consolidation is bad for the public, but unfortunately it's totally legal. I don't think it should be, and not just because of situations like this. Ever notice how radio stations suck compared to 20 years ago? That's cause most of them are programmed from thousands of miles away from your home town by some media conglomerate. You may or may not even have a local DJ. The songs you're listening to are piped in from the conglomerate who has no CLUE what people in your town want to listen to. It's sapped the art out of radio programming, and now no matter where you go in the country, you'll find a radio station that sounds exactly - right down to the bumper music - like one in your home town.

So yes, you're right that media consolidation is a very bad idea. Unfortunately, it's a perfectly legal idea so there isn't much that can be done about it at this point.



By the way, the following quote recently appeared on Sinclair's website:

Food for thought, but on the surface, that REALLY blows the campaign finance violation arguments, doesn't it.

It all depends on how truethful they are about it being on "prisoners of war in Vietnam

thank you, great article, the media is so liberal today with the exception of Fox News

unnecessary comment removed.

Oh and BTW, Fox News is a known ultra conservative "news" outlet. It's run by Murdoch, who is a staunch republican supporter.

It's impressive that you can create such nonsense. In every instance that I have "bashed" Bush, I have provided a reason and defended that reason when asked to do so. Never have I claimed that Bush has lied - because it is impossible to defend such an opinion: a lie is only a lie when it is admitted, in all other instances, a false statement is not a lie.

And again - it is not the necessary position to prove that the media is in general not biased towards the left because the DEFAULT position of media in general is non-bias. That is the foundation of democracy, the freedom of speech. To claim it is otherwise is the position that REQUIRES defense. Yet you offer none and then attempt to equate your refusal to defend your position with your imaginary perception of my "little to no evidence of my continual Bush bashing".

It's as if you are arguing, at night time, that the sky is green and refusing to defend it and then you deny my claim that the sky is blue because I can't walk outside and prove it.

I disagree with you there. I think you can be caught in a lie. For example, if I say I'm 70 years old, it's a lie even if I don't admit that it's a lie. I know I'm not 70 years old and one look at me will get YOU to know that I know I'm not 70 years old.

Now, I submit that Bush lies.

He lied about the yellowcake (we now know that he was told before that speech that the yellowcake intelligence was likely false, yet he presented it as true anyway).

He lied tonight about never having said he wasn't concerned about bin Laden. He did say that. Understand that I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt by saying that he lied, because he either lied or he's such an abjectly vacuous moron that he can't remember from day to day what he's said. Most politicians lie, but at least they aren't too stupid to remember what they've said.

No, this is not a lie because there is a possibility (however slight, it exists) that your do not accurately remember your age.

I could say that Bush is a liar because he, just tonight, denied having claimed he never said he was not concerned with Bin Laden - but there is an undeniable and unknowable possibility that he simply forgot that he said that (which, truth be told, I believe he probably did forget).

while there's always the possibility that he "simply forgot," at what point do you say, based on all the evidence, he seems to be lying, beyond resonable doubt?

Reasonable doubt is subjective (as you can see by our differing opinions on the likelyhood that Bush did not recall having ever said that Bin Laden was not a concern). Objectively, a lie is only a lie if it is admitted.

A lie requires intention. A false statement requires intention, incorrect knowledge or misremembered events.

I can not be certain that Bush has lied. I can be certain that he has made false statements.

I wonder if bill clinton forgot he got a BJ.

Bush seems to have a lot of excuses for having wrong information. I don't see how he can not know what he has said when it is all over the media, i don't know how he can not know what companies he owns, ect

Clinton Lied about his sexual deeds....plain and simple.


Bush either lied or......has a lack of functional neural connections.....guess I would think the latter is a bigger problem in the leader of the free world.

I can't wait to watch it and let it guide my vote.

Opie,

Your belief that a lie can only exist if it's admitted to is representative of the rest of your assertions. You've backed up this belief with as much evidence as all the others and that is to say you haven't.

This is more then a little rude.

I apologize for your failure to comprehend the logic of my assertion.

No, it's more than a little truthful.

He calls for evidence for my assertions and provides ZERO in defense of his belief around when a lie exists.

But his assertion that my beliefs are "nonsense" are completely civil. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't expect any other response.

Edit: perhaps his statement was not very civil but your blanket assertion seemed to be a general smear. Anyway, feel free to respond but I have no interest in debating any point like this. Too friggin' tedious.

It is not possible to prove something is a lie. You can prove it is false, but you cannot prove it was intentionally false. Unless the intention is admitted.

/evidence by virtue of logic

Careful folks.

We all know what happens if it can't be kept civil and adult.

These days, when I scan the new posts in Politics, if Lebell is the last poster I instantly wonder if the thread has been locked.

Naw...you just have to look for that little lock graphic to see if the thread's been locked :D

Too bad about Opie...
Media is anything that is not word of mouth as far as I'm concerned. Books, TV, radio, internet; all of them are media. The media in mainstream tv seems to be biased at times. I'm assuming we are talking about tv and magazines here.

Books: Books are permament. You buy it, and you can read it over and over again, each time finding new truths to it. That is great, but books are just as likely to be biased as any other media. A lot of people forget that. You go out and buy a book by Pat Robertson, for example. He is a brilliant man, and has some good ideas about things, but you have to remember that he is human, too. He has his opinion about things, and those opinions are put in his books.

Tv: we have all of these news networks that just sprung up over the last maybe 6 or 7 years. They run news 24 hours a day, and are owned by father companies. These father companies are already experienced in media, and can have agendas. What worries me, though, is how a lot of people take everything thaty's said on TV as gospel truth. I know that you can get a lot of information through media, but a lot of it has a spin. We have to be able to discern what truth is out of our own personal experiences.

Radio: most people just listen to radio for music, but I've found it's a great place to find grass roots progamming. Why would anyone want to listen to grass roots? Basically, because they are not run by a corporation. Things like NPR and Free Speech Radio are strong advocates of free speech and honestly try to tell us what might have been left out by CNN or the Washington Post.

Internet: this is the single greatest source of information in history thus far. It is a tool for people to circumvent normal rules of information sharing. It is full of bias from end to end, and everything inbetween.

Just trying to get the post back on track.

As always you are more than welcome to offer evidence that my "blanket assertion" is wrong. But since you don't want to debate it there's no point.

sweet sweet

I saw in Sunday's paper that Bill O'Reiley came out in support of Dan Rather and said that most of the ill will directed his way during the election was unfounded. Being the arch-conservative that O'Reiley is he bravely waited until after the election and well after the scandal to speak his mind. Next he's going to let us know he thinks the space shuttle is unsafe, that cigarettes cause cancer, and that the Cardinals should have invested in better pitching, thanks Bill!