OpieCunningham

I do have a problem with Sinclair, but it has nothing to do with conservative bias - it has to do with the consolidation of media ownership. Which is independent of political affiliation.

Which is exactly my point: you're a hypocrite. First of all, Soros is not media - he's a rich person. There are rich people on all sides of the political spectrum, look at the numbers and you'll find conservatives get more money than liberals - so Soros is a moot point. You'd like to be able to complain about him because he supports your opposition - but you actually have no basis for complaint, which brings us to: Second of all, it's all well and good for you to claim that NBC/CBS/ABC are the inverse of Fox, but as I stated, that's nothing more than the conservative intention to shift the center.

The question you have posed, you have failed to answer yourself: do you oppose Sinclair's power play of conservative bias? If not, you have no business even asking the question (or the reverse) of anyone else.

Lebell

Fair enough

Bullshit.

First, Soros can spend all his billions to elect Kerry and I wouldn't give a damn.

What I DO care about, is that Soros campaigned for "finance reform", silencing voices like the NRA, but then used a loop hole to funnel as much as he wanted to make his own voice heard.

So the charge that I'd "like to be able to complain about him because he supports (my) opposition" is utter bullshit.

As to your second "point", that is your opinion, and only your opinion, which you are welcome to, but certainly not "fact".


What the hell is a "power play of conservative bias"?

It seems to me that your last paragraph is smokescreen, as my question was logical and on topic, but apparently not to your liking.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

OpieCunningham

OK, so then your issue with Soros has nothing to do with the topic of media bias. So I do not believe you when you deny you complain about him because he supports your opposition when you attempt to use him as some type of example in a discussion about media bias.

Exactly. And yet how often have I been subjected to "facts" which "prove" that NBC/CBS/ABC are the inverse of Fox?

And yet you still have not answered your own question. Who's got the smoke screen? You have no business asking such a question until you answer it, in reverse, yourself.

onetime2

The slant of the media is day in/day out leftward leaning. The very reason that Fox News seems so slanted to the right is the fundamental slant seen in mainstream media for decades is so left. I do not blame the media for this slant nor do I blame the "left". A popular career path for "left" leaning individuals has been the media since the days of Woodward/Bernstein. "Right" leaning individuals followed a much more business oriented path in the sixties, seventies, and eighties.

Sinclair broadcasting a onetime viewing of a "right" leaning film in no way counteracts or dispells the leftward leaning media tendency.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

roachboy

you might provide even a scrap of credible documentation on this claim concerning the medai, onetime.
something other than reed irvine (this would be a criteria for seperating the credible from the not credible).
or you could try providing anything like specific analysis, instead of the general left people went one way, right people another line, which described nothing at all.
you might say something about the kind of programming you monitored, over how long, what you found....specifically.
at this point, the right canard about "left media biais" hold no water at all.
unless you have something systematic you refer to--i'd be pleased to see it.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

sob

I'd be a lot more willing to believe this was a "tribute" if Koppel planned to interview some of the people who served with these heroes, and ask them if they thought the war is necessary.

Besides, I'm still trying to figure out when the Democrats became so concerned about our military. After Clinton made military budget cuts hugely in excess of recommendations, after voting against equipping our troops properly, and after trying to disenfranchise them in 2000, all of a sudden the Democrats are the saviors of the military?

Every time anyone calls F/911 a "documentary," the speaker's liberal bias is revealed.

Distortions and outright lies do not constitute a "documentary."

Rekna

The idea is that if this is a documentary then so is f911

sob

I have met over thirty former "guests" of the Hanoi Hilton. One is a friend of mine.

He got his eye socket caved in with a rifle butt while his torturer quoted Kerry as "proof" that he was a "war criminal." That might not have felt good, even if he HADN'T already been shot.

Kerry will only say that his comments at the time were "a little over the top."

Would you like to guess whether my friend thinks Kerry would be a good president?

As Ollie North said, this isn't political. These Vietnam vets have been waiting thirty years to repay Kerry for what he did to them.

Rekna

I guess I don't see the problem with telling the world about what went on in vietnam. If the internet had existed back then.....

hawktro

the media is very slanted to the left....it is true....they try not to show it, but they are

shakran

No, I'm a photojournalist, which means I get yelled at by media attorneys a lot. I've picked up a few things



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.


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.


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.



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.



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

Rekna

The problem is the documentary is being presented as fact not opinion (as talk shows clearly are). If they want to maintain neutrality they better show F911 also.

As for your last equal time statement it breaks the spirit of the law. And your analysis is completely flawed.

shakran

It doesn't matter. Equal time does not differentiate between fact and opinion - otherwise political ads for one candidate which are purely factual (in 1992 I lowered the deficit by 6%, for example) would not trigger the equal time provision.


Care to educate me, or are you just gonna toss out jabs without justification?

OpieCunningham

That's a good question. Almost as good as the question: When did the Republicans decide it was a good idea to spend America's money helping other nations defeat their dictators for no American benefit?

Somehow, that argument is presented in the "The World Is Better Off Without Saddam" statement, yet Republicans are still harping about Clinton wasting our time and money in Kosovo. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to reconcile the two.

OpieCunningham

You apparently have no concept of what a documentary happens to be. There is no such thing as a non-biased documentary. Period.

pan6467

Just a quick question I had the same one for F9/11. Does the more you talk of this before it comes out not give it free advertising? If you talk of banning and boycotting aren't you getting many people wondering what they shouldn't see?

I"m sure there will be someone on the Dems side that will come forward and figure out a way to air a bad Bush "documentary" perhaps the same night in either the same cities or they may go and hit ALL the cities.

Looking at Sinclair's map in Ohio, for Northern Ohio all they have is WSYX and WTTE in Columbus, I don't see it hitting that many fence sitters.

One thing I've noticed about this election, is people once they've decided haven't even flinched. I don't think there are enough undecideds left and what there are left I think this move will piss them off more than get them to vote for Bush.

I truly believe in the nations observances and that they can see through BS. Which this documentary is. I really believe it will be more harmful to Bush than anything he could say.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Rekna

So your saying SBVFT could put tuns of anti-kerry adds in the media and since they focus on kerry the media would have to offer bush equal time for pro-bush adds? Find me a judge that wouldn't rule agaisnt this usage.

Here is the exploit. Sinclare could give some group free airtime that is anti-kerry. Thus because of equal time they have to give bush equal time and give him time for pro-adds for FREE. If you don't see how stupid that sounds....

shakran

no I'm not. I'm saying if the arguments for the Sinclair documentary violating campaign finance laws were valid (which they're not - let me make it abundantly clear - those arguments are full of shit) then it would be violating them due to the focus on Kerry, not Bush, therefore Bush would get free advertising. Again, that's not the case because the documentary is not violating campaign finance laws.

I'm just reporting the language of the law here. I'm not agreeing with it, nor am I defending Sinclair for tossing journalistic responsibility out the window.

I don't support the Sinclair documentary, but unfortunately, it's not illegal.

Frankly I'd like to see the fairness doctrine reinstated. Some of y'all might not remember that since it died under Reagan, but it required stations to present ALL sides of a story equally. If it were still here, Sinclair could never get away with airing this doc without airing the Kerry viewpoint as well.

smooth

What kerry did to him? What exactly did kerry do to him?

Do both you and your friend believe that he wouldn't have had his eye busted out by a military enemy if kerry hadn't made his testimony?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

shakran

Gee I would think your friend would take a look at his destroyed eye and think to himself "Hmmm. I look like this because some asshole told me to go fight in a war that had nothing to do with my country's security. Now we're in another one. Maybe the asshole that ordered this one oughta be kicked out so more young kids don't get their eye sockets smashed out while fighting in wars they have no business being sent into."

But that's just me.

onetime2

Why?

You have your opinions and I have mine. You hardly offer evidence in the majority of your posts, why should I be any different?

You are certainly not going to be convinced by any facts that I have to offer and I am most certainly entitled to post my feelings about the subjects posted here.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

maximusveritas

smooth and shakran have said most of what i was going to say, but I'll add this:

I feel sorry for your friend and anyone else who suffered as a result of that war. I completely understand that he had an experience worse than many of us could even imagine. He was wronged and he is entitled to blame those parties responsible, but he's blaming the wrong guy.

The blame belongs with the people who sent him to fight over there, the people who saw that things were going wrong but told us everything was fine, that our goal was noble and in reach. Now perhaps those people were of some comfort to our troops, allowing them to believe that their tremendous sacrifice would be worth it, that they were fighting for the good of their country, and that the end was in sight. Meanwhile, however, more and more of these brave young men were killed and maimed.

It took other brave men like John Kerry to say the things that needed to be said and put pressure on the government to wake up to reality. Perhaps what he said was unpopular with the government and military commanders, but it helped to save the lives of our troops. Without men like Kerry, we might still be in Vietnam and another young man like your friend would be getting tortured as we speak.

Rekna

I have to disagree, judges interpret laws based on the spirt of the law not just on the language. So even if the language of the law said that this would be the case the spirit does not and a judge would rule so.

shakran

That may be true, but the case would not come before a judge because it's not a violation of campaign finance law, so the point is moot.

Or are you saying the spirit of the law says that Sinclair IS violating campaign finance law?

Well I disagree with you there. I think the spirit of the first ammendment says that the government cannot deny anyone the right to express his views. Sinclair's owner wants to express his views, and the government has no right to stop him.

Rekna

Remember the bill of rights only goes as far as infringing on other rights. I think the right for the nation to have a fair election trumps the right to free speech.

OpieCunningham

Why? Because you are making a claim that differs from the accepted. By default, media in a vacuum is non-biased. If you offer nothing in support of your opinion that media outside a vacuum is liberal, there is no truth in your claim. If you intend to demonstrate that your opinion has value, you must support it with facts and reason. If you do not intend to demonstrate that your opinion has value, you have no reason to state your opinion other than the purpose of propogation of a valueless opinion. Further, your opinion which you either refuse to substantiate or are unable to substantiate is clearly affecting your judgement, and in so far as that affects the politics of the country I live in, you affect my life.

I'm none too pleased to know that you are propogating an unsubstantiated opinion, which if it is as I suspect, baseless, leads to the manipulation of political discourse in this country by virtue of shifting the conceptualized "center".

In essence: put up or shut up.

Rekna

Also as for going in front of a judge all it takes is some lawyer to file the papers and a judge could quickly bar the showing of the film until he has a chance to rule on the case (which could easily be done after the election.... quick and dirty politics there).

shakran

The bill of rights tells the government what rights it CANNOT infringe upon. Freedom of expression is one of them. The right of the people to express ideas is absolute and may not be violated for any reason.

I know that you think it should be otherwise, but the fact is that it is not, and it should not be.

If we were to say "you have the right to free speech. . . well except when it would influence elections" then we would be violating the very concepts of freedom that the president for which we are holding elections is supposed to uphold.

The equal time requirements ensure equal access to mass media so that candidates can express their views. They do not restrict a candidate from expressing his ideas. They certainly do not restrict a non-candidate from expressing his ideas about anything he wants - political or otherwise.



We're arguing a pointless argument. I'm stating the law as it is, and you're stating the law as you feel it should be. Whether you're correct or not in your idea that the law would be better if it were as you believe it should be is not at issue here. The law is what it is.

Rekna

Your wrong the bill of rights is not unlimited. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't threaten to kill the president, you can't lie about someone else (slander).

The right to bear arms is not absolute, you can't own RPGs, felons can't own weapons, ect.

All rights have exceptions.

shakran

This one's gonna be long. Bear with me.

You can yell fire in a crowded theater and you will not be punished for your word. You will be punished for inciting a general panic. The government will not prevent you from yelling it, but you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. In fact, if I yelled "fire" in a crowded theater, and no one believed there actually was a fire, and no one moved from their seat, I would not be guilty of a crime. The ushers would, however, have the right to make me leave the theater since I'd be disturbing the patrons.

Let me give you another example. If I called a hit man and told him "I want my wife killed" I would not be punished for what I said. I would be punished for the actions I attempted to cause.

In other words, I'd be punished for conspiring to have my wife killed, not for expressing an idea - i.e. I can call you up and say "I want my wife killed" but if I know you are not a hit man and I am not trying to get you to kill my wife I won't get punished (except by my wife if she finds out ) However, the fact that I knowingly contacted a hit man and the purpose of the statement "I want my wife killed" was to actually get my wife killed, then I could be punished for trying to have her killed.

Because the threat is an assault, not because of the speech itself.

I can say "I want the president to die" or "I wish someone would kill the president." If, however, I say "I'm going to kill the president" then I am committing a crime - not of speech, but of assault. An assault is defined as a threat to do harm to another. Obviously, threatening to kill the president falls under the definition of assault. The main difference between me saying "I'm going to kill the president" and me saying "I'm going to kill my boss" is that my boss does not have the secret service to swoop down on me and take care of the situation.

Being even more precise, there is a law that says you can not threaten to kill the president. However, in Watts v. United States, 1969, the supreme court found that it's only a crime to threaten to kill the president if you actually mean that you intend to kill the president. i.e. I can say "I feel like killing Bush" or even "I'm going to kill Bush" - but unless a prosecutor can establish that I actually INTEND to kill him (which obviously I do not) then I am not guilty of anything but poor taste.



Oh sure you can. Bush lies about Kerry all the time. I don't see him being prosecuted. (yes I know that falls under the public figure exemption). I can lie about you right now. I can say you're a child molester if I want to, and my speech is protected. However, the consequences of my speech are not protected.

In other words, if I said you were a child molester, and it got out, and you then didn't get a job because the employer thought you were a child molester, you could sue me for slander and/or defamation of character.

If, however, I said you were a child molester, and no one believed me, and your life was not negatively effected in any way because of what I said, then I'm free and clear.

I should also note that libel and slander and defamation of character are torts, not crimes, and as such fall under civil, not criminal, law. In other words, even if you sued me for what I said and you won, I still would not be guilty of a crime.

You should also be aware, btw, that one of the requirements for proving a libel/slander/defamation case is that the person you are claiming libeled you was negligent in the libel. In other words, they have to have known, or been in a situation where a reasonable and prudent person would have known or suspected that the statement was true. That means that if I read the AP wires tomorrow and it says "Rekna is a child molestor" and I then tell someone, I cannot be held accountable for the libel because the AP is a respected and trusted news organization, meaning a resonable and prudent person reading the AP would have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement.



hehe. Don't even get me started there. If you want a strict interpretation of the 2nd, it limits all firearms to those in a well regulated militia.

hannukah harry

nevermind...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Ustwo

I'll get you started

Its pretty cut and dry. You don't need to be in a 'well regulated militia'. Its two seperate thoughts. We need a militia, we need the people to armed to form a militia, so the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The only argument is that a militia is outdated (I don't agree with this thought, but liberals think that way), the right to bear arms is clear as day and does not require you to be in a milita to do so.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rekna

I think you should read up on more legal findings. Look up the McCain-Fengold Act. Look up the cases on abortion activists who were posting private information of people getting abortions. Rights only go as far as infringing on other peoples rights.

For instance if freedom of speech was absolute lieing under oath should not be a crime. But lieing under oath would eliminate the right to a fair trail. There are limits on the bill of rights and how far they extend.

shakran

read my last post for the fire-in-a-theater analysis - - I'm not retyping all that

libel / slander / defamation of character are torts, not crimes. They do not violate the first amendment. You have the right to say anything you want, but you must be responsible for the consequences of your actions.

We don't know if this documentary is full of slander since it hasn't aired yet. I wouldn't be surprised if it's chock full of it. However, that would not violate the first amendment, and in order for any action to be taken, the one slandered (Kerry) would have to file a slander / defamation lawsuit against the producers of the documentary, which of course he won't do if he's smart.


You're right. But that's a big if, and it doesn't violate them.

That's very true. However, no one is forcing Sinclair to broadcast this documentary. Sinclair is broadcasting the film on its own stations of its own voilition. Perhaps there's a bit of confusion here. Sinclair is showing the documentary, preempting the network programming. That doesn't mean it's wronging the network. Networks affiliate themselves with local stations so that their programming can get out, but local stations ALWAYS reserve the right to preempt the network and broadcast their own programming. That's how they're able to break in with breaking news or tornado warnings - they're preempting the network.

Now, if the network thinks the affiliate is abusing the power of preemption, then the network is free to pull its affiliation with that station. This would be rather bad for the station because suddenly the station would be responsible for producing ALL of the programming for the whole day - generally the station only has to produce the news shows, and (more and more rarely these days) local kids shows.

In other words, Sinclair is taking a big risk here, because if it pisses off the network too much it stands to lose all but about 4 hours worth of programming, which means 20 hours of every day fail to make them money. They'd be broke within 2 weeks.

However, they're not violating any laws.



I'm not sure who "he" is. if you mean Bush, he's not doing anything. He didn't make the documentary. He didn't force Sinclair to show it. He didn't even ask Sinclair or pay Sinclair to show it.



You're dead wrong, but this is not the thread to argue it. Feel free to start another and I'll be happy to debate you for the next 3 months

Rekna

shakran your argument keeps coming down to this logic.

It isn't illegal for me to rape your mom and cut off her head but I need to be prepared for the consiquences of my actions.

You can't say it isn't illegal to do X and then follow that by saying you can be charged with a crime for doing X.

Laws don't stop me from doing anything which is what your arguments are hinging on.

shakran

I'm not saying that rights do NOT go only as far as infringing on others' rights.

I think I've figured out what we're arguing about here - you think the Sinclair broadcast is making the election unfair.

How?

Surely it's not because a station is broadcasting an anti-Kerry opinion to the benefit of Bush, because then it'll balance out with Al Franken broadcasting an anti-Bush opinion to the benefit of Kerry.


Dennis Miller has said he's voting for Bush this year. He's said it many times on his show on CNBC. Is he violating the country's right to a fair election?

Rush Limbaugh blathers on about the evil democrats daily. Is he violating our right to a fair election?

By the way, where in the constitution does it say "you have freedom of speech and expression as long as it doesn't express an opinion about anything that the country might vote on?"


Read again. it IS illegal for you to rape my mom and cut off her head. It is NOT illegal for you to SAY "I want your mom to be raped and her head to be cut off."

If, however, you contract with a hitman and tell him you want my mom raped and her head to be cut off, and he then goes and does it, then you're guilty of conspiracy. You have crossed the line from opinion speech (I think your mom should be raped) to ordering the rape of my mom. HUGE difference. This is why when the cops go undercover to catch people trying to hire hitmen, they MUST get the suspect to say "I want you to kill him and I will give you money for it," and then they MUST collect money from the suspect. Otherwise, it's just speech.





But actually your last sentence is technically correct. Laws do not prevent crimes. They establish what is a crime and establish what the punishment range for that crime will be. There are laws against speeding, but I speed every day. If I'm caught, however, I have to pay a fine. The law didn't prevent me from speeding, but it punished me after the fact.

Rekna

Read the McCain-Fengold Act.

As for your examples those are cleary situations where people are presenting their own opinions.

With sinclare we have a very large number of news outlets reporting something as "fact" 2 weeks before the election that is not fact but instead just a 2 hour SBVFT add.

Is it wrong for a corperation to flex it's market power? (the answer is yes). We have a situation here where Sinclare is flexing it's market power to spread lies and change the election. This would not be a problem if Sinclare didn't hold such a large portion of the market but it has market power and now it is flexing it.

shakran

I've read it.

Sinclair is presenting the opinion of its owner. It's dispicable, it's wrong, and I feel sorry for the journalists working at Sinclair stations. It's not, however illegal.

You're falling into the "you have rights until you get big, and then we'll cut your legs off" trap.

You're saying it'd be OK for Sinclair to air this documentary if they only reached 50,000 people, but since they reach millions, it's illegal. The law does not place quantities on crimes. You don't get 9 free murders before finally being convicted for the 10th. By the same token, you don't only get prosecuted if your message reaches more than a set number of people.

I mean hell by that argument TFP could be in violation of campaign finance laws. I've been expressing anti-Bush opinions since I started posting here. TFP is read by a HELL of a lot of people. Does that mean Halx is breaking the law by allowing us to speak our mind? I think not.

Finally, as I've said before, anyone who thinks all documentaries are or must be factual or even journalistic is in fantasyland. I can't think of one single political documentary I've seen that didn't have a slant one way or the other. There is no law or regulation requiring documentaries to be fair, balanced, or even accurate.


Sinclair is not guilty of a crime. It is guilty of a complete lack of any hint of morality, but it's not a crime to be an asshole.

Besides, I'm predicting this will backfire, not only on the message they want to get out, but on the stations themselves. Viewers will NOT be happy that the network is being so obviously biased. They'll turn to other stations.

Fine by me. One of my market's competitors is a Sinclair station. It'll just help us get that much farther ahead of 'em in ratings

Rekna

If microsoft changed everyones desktop to anti kerry or anti bush adds tomorrow would that be a crime?

As a buisness grows in market power it definatly does affect which laws apply to it. A buisness that gains a certain percentage of a market has to abide by more stringent laws or else it becomes a monopoly.

I hope all of Sinclares advertisers pull out because of this and their stock drops like mad.

hannukah harry

i was referring to sinclair. but it doesn't matter. while i was reading the thread/typing, you posted your long response... bad timing, it answered my questions.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer