Damn Liberal Media
 

Finally....proof of the Liberal slant of the mass media.

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

Anti-Kerry film sparks DNC response
Sinclair Broadcast Group orders its 62 stations to show movie next week; DNC files FEC complaint.
October 11, 2004: 4:21 PM EDT
By Katie Benner, CNN/Money staff writer

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Sinclair Broadcast Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the nation, plans to air a documentary that accuses Sen. John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War, a newspaper reported Monday.

The reported plan prompted the Democratic National Committee to file a complaint against Sinclair with the Federal Election Commission.

Sinclair has ordered all 62 of its stations to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" without commercials in prime-time next week, the Washington Post reported, just two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.


Sinclair's television group, which includes affiliates of all the major networks, reaches nearly a quarter of all U.S. television households, according to the company's Web site. A dozen of Sinclair's stations are in the critical swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin.

Affiliates owned by the major television networks reach a larger percentage of U.S. homes because they are in the largest markets.

Calls to Sinclair by CNN/Money were not returned Monday.

This is the first time the DNC has filed a legal motion against a media organization, said group spokesman Jano Cabrera. Earlier this year, said a DNC statement, Sinclair-owned stations refused to air DNC ads criticizing President Bush.

The complaint to be filed with the FEC states it is inappropriate for the Sinclair Broadcasting Group to air partisan propaganda in the last 10 days of an election campaign, said Cabrera.

No one from the FEC was available to comment on the DNC complaint.

"We have received thousands of e-mails, people outraged by the very idea a company like Sinclair would direct stations to air a partisan film," said Wes Boyd, founder of political watchdog MoveOn.org.

"If they do air a partisan film, we'll challenge the FCC and the licenses of the local stations that broadcast the film because local stations have a responsibility to the community to air real news, not partisan messages," said Boyd.

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."
Campaign violation?

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.

Sinclair executives have shown support for the Bush campaign. Sinclair CEO David Smith contributed the legal limit of $2,000 Bush-Cheney 2004, and vice president Frederick Smith gave $175,000 to the RNC and maxed out his Bush-Cheney contribution.

FEC records show that two other top level Sinclair executives gave the maximum amount they could to Bush-Cheney.

Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97 percent of it going to Republicans, since the beginning of the year, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog group, has written a letter to Sinclair asking the company to cancel reported plans to air the film between now and the Nov. 2 election. The Post reports the movie is about Kerry's antiwar testimony to Congress in 1971 and was produced independently of Sinclair.

"Sinclair's plan to air anti-Kerry propaganda before the election is an abuse of the public airwaves for what appears to be partisan political purposes," Media Matters CEO David Brock said in the letter.

The letter warned Sinclair that its plan could constitute a violation of broadcast regulations requiring equal time for political candidates, as well as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, the group said.

Federal campaign finance law states it is illegal for a corporation to contribute anything of value to a federal campaign or a national political committee, including broadcast communications, said Cabrera.

Kerry's team said Sinclair was clearly trying to manipulate the outcome of the election because of the broadcaster's ties to the Bush administration.

"This is another example of President Bush's powerful corporate friends doing his dirty work," said Chad Clanton, a spokesman with the Kerry campaign.

"They know Kerry (will not bow) to their corporate interests, so they're willing to break journalistic principles to try and stop him.

If you support Sinclares right to air this would you also support it if they were airing F911 instead?

As far as I'm concerned, they have the right to air whatever the hell they want. I have the right to choose whether to watch or not.

Very good point. I admit I was all bent out of shape on this until you made that point and I had to think what I, a Kerry supporter, would think if NBC aired f911 at the end of October. I wouldn't complain a bit (though privately - or on TFP! - I'd acknowledge that it probably violates federal election laws).

Absolutely.

While I may not like or support MM, I support his right to free speech, just like I support a theater's right to show (or not show) his propaganda.

But doesn't the fact that one corporation owns at least 62 television stations and is using its position to show an anti-Kerry documentary 2 weeks before the election kind of go against the notion of a liberal mass media?

I will agree, however, that CNNs wording "..orders its 62 stations to show...." does throw a sinister spin on what Sinclair and every other station owner does on a daily basis with every show they air.

I think it is widely agreed that the true media bias lay in print and internet, and CNN. Although there is MTV which is basically a front for the DNC.

IMHO, the question here is one of how we are to define political advertising. Airing biased programming that supports a political view isn't really advertising. It is editorialising, but Equal Time seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Just my 2 bits...

My concerns are

1) time. It is to close to the election to let people appropeatly fact check it.
2) The American media will believe anything that is called a documentary on cable TV.

I think this would have been a lot more appropriate if it was aired a few months ago. This close to the election is fishy to me.

They can think whatever they want, but they better be careful when they broadcast propaganda through MY air to influence MY democracy. The airwaves are publicly owned, and regulated by the government, for good reason.

In addition, this action represents a de facto violation of the spirit if not the letter of campaign finance law. The time on air that Sinclair is giving away is worth literally millions of dollars. It's a gift to the Bush people (beyond the $200,000 they've already gotten from Sinclair).

Third, I would object in much the same way if a liberal broadcaster opted to run Farenheit days before an election by force.

And no, I won't be watching it. Sinclair doesn't own a station in my area. It's unfortunate, as I'd be calling them twice a day every day to complain until they changed their mind.

How is it fishy? Obviously the owner(s) of Sinclair want Bush to get re-elected, and with the polls neck and neck, they decided to throw their hat into the ring.

It is fishy because of the piece is either a) a documentry or b) propaganda.

A journalists duty is to inform you of the facts not to convince people what are the "facts".

By placing it so close to the election they are creating a situation where they could easily miss represent the facts and no one would have a chance to truely counter the invalid claims.

Again think about F911. While many of you say you would support him airing it on public TV i don't think if the role was truely reversed you would have taken the same stance. Moore miss represents a lot of facts, if he put it so close to the election (and it had not been aired before so no one had counters made to the information) there could be a very seious problem.

http://www.canyon-news.com/artman/pu...ticle_1943.php

ABC NEWS director has ordered them to spin for Kerry. First CBS now this. Please tell me how there is no liberal media. It doesn't take a genius reading between the lines of that memo to see what it means.

Ustwo you must have read a different document then the one you posted because no where does it say ABC ordered spin for Kerry.

In fact it sounds like the memo states we need to be fair about our coverage and bring out distortions that the canidates use. It just so happens that Bush has most of his foundation in distortions.

So Ustow, you now believe in memos putting a spin on anything in Bush's favor but any memo against him or in favor of Kerry is a false, fake, product of the 'liberal media" that's determined to take Bush down.

Ummmm all I can say is....

Huh?

I'd have just said 'Huh' but it was to short.

What liberal media? All the broadcast networks are owned by megacorporations. Fox News is THE most watched cable news channel. Rush Limbaugh reaches tens of millions of fans every week, despite being outed as a drug addict, then jumping right back on the air spouting stuff legions follow as gospel. The "liberal media", which is still held up as a boogieman, a specter hiding in your closet waiting to ban bibles and serving as a mass-disinformation wing of the homosexual agenda, is an endangered species and dying a none-too-slow death. Bill O'Reilly is the new Walter Cronkite, everyone is too suspicious of mainstream anchors to take them seriously anymore. But O'Reilly, he wouldn't possibly mislead us. I don't really care that the liberal media is going down, I make up my own damn mind, I only wish that it would stop being flogged after it finally breathes its last gasp.

If this network wants to air their propaganda piece days before the election- fine, in exchange for a lift on the ban on nudity for every network not airing their "documentary". And I wanna hear cursing too, dammit. Comedy Central's "Secret Stash" is a good start. I want to see more of that, and I don't want any angry moral outrage letter writing campaigns started because of it. Tit for tat, everybody gets to see what they want to see on TV.

in order to complain, you must first prove that the documentary promotes something that is either false or deceptive... otherwise it's just journalism a step above that practiced by CBS.

Here is SINCLAIR's hypocrasy (Highlights added by me):


Sinclair's Shame


by Staff | May 03 '04


With calculated and gross audacity, Sinclair Broadcasting last Friday was planning to deny millions of viewers the opportunity to see Nightline . Why? Because Ted Koppel planned to read the names of all the U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq while their pictures scrolled on the screen.

On one level, Sinclair, owner of eight ABC affiliates and, with 62 outlets, owner of the most stations in the country, simply exercised its prerogative to preempt the network. That is the right of responsible broadcasters, and it is much in the news these days (see page 54). So is the abuse of that right, which is what we have here.

"Mr. Koppel and Nightline are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and, in doing so, to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq," said Sinclair of its decision. "Based on published reports, we are aware of the spouse of one soldier who died in Iraq who opposes the reading of her husband's name to oppose our military action. We suspect she is not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of Nightline this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming."

So it was politics? ABC denied that. It said the special was meant to "honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

But it was politics. It turns out David Smith's Sinclair Broadcasting Group has contributed $65,434 to political campaigns—98% of that to Republican candidates. That is a political statement that's made at the bank.

While Sinclair was hypocritically draping itself in the flag last week, senator, soldier, patriot, war hero—and Republican—John McCain was reading Sinclair President Smith the riot act: "War is an awful but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."

Frankly, we see sacrifice, not subterfuge, in the moving images Nightline planned. The Washington Post ran a three-page spread on April's war dead last week, and ABC points out that it aired a similar roll call of names after 9/11. The so-called liberal media gets slammed for not paying enough attention to the sacrifice of the troops, then for paying too much attention to it.

Sinclair has simply replaced Nightline 's worthy tribute with its own political agenda. The broadcaster certainly has the freedom to program to its local communities but, by yanking the show, serves its own wrong-headed interests—not the public's.

Coincidentally, legislators—Democrats and Republicans—right now are fighting to strengthen the ability of station owners to preempt network programming. It's a worthy goal. But this is a horrendous example.

We hope, by the time you read this, Sinclair has been shamed into reversing its decision. It would be good for its viewers and good for broadcasters. Not to mention, patriotic.
=====================

LINK: http://www.keepmedia.com/Register.do?oliID=225

Go figure. THEY FLATLY REFUSED to air the names of the soldiers who died in honor for us, but will air this crap. I find that self righteous, hypocritical and above all unethical. Damned straight if they air the Bush propaganda about Kerry I'm writing my congressmen. I'll even go further, I'll be more inclined to vote for the Dem. Senatorial candidate Fingerhut instead of the GOP incumbant Voinivich (whom I do admire to some degree.)

I also truly believe if Sinclair chooses to do this MM has every right to find a network to air F/911 the night before the election. In fact I would donate money so that if he had to he could buy the air time, like Perot had to in '92.

Money won't get you there. Remeber the Reagan show that was pushed off the airwaves onto cable by conservative protestation? That was just a few months ago.

The group that produced the "documentary" to be aired on the Sinclair stations has merged with the Swift Boat Vets.

http://www.stolenhonor.com/news/view.asp?id=14&page=

Journalism? Yeah right.

No, it doesn't. A station can air anything it wants provided it does not violate FCC rules (profanity, pornography, stuff like that.)


Federal election laws do not trump the constitution, and the constitution specifically says that government is not allowed to limit freedom of speech. Station owners can use their freedom of speech to say anything they want on their stations.

While what Sinclair is doing is a violation of journalistic ethics, it is NOT a violation of the law.

The more I read into this the worse it sounds. Sinclare is using it's power as a media giant to change the election. If they are allowed to do this I could see them getting sued for slander and then having it pushed under the cover by the Bush admin. After all this administration has a horrible track record on going after big buisnesses that are currupt (Enron, Halbirtun, ect)

I agree Rekna.

If you're pissed off about this, as I am, do something about it. Contact Sinclair's advertisers and let them know you will boycott their products unless they pull out advertising or pressure Sinclair to reverse its decision to air the anti-Kerry propaganda.

http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/Default.aspx

If Senator Kerry is "above reproach", he should not have anything to lose from this documentary. I hope that the American voter is smart enough to sort out any unsupported bullshit that may be presented. The opinions that have been written and spoken lately may be proof that my hopes are for not.

I have to agree with those that see the double standard here, even on both sides. I think that everything was done to make F 9/11 and huge movie, and the same is being done for this.

But those who are now complain that the Conservative Media is destroying the world need to realize that 5 years ago there wasn’t FNC and an O’Reilly, so all the mass media sources were Liberal biased. And conservative people complained about it.

Now the tables have turned and the liberals don’t like it. I think it’s your turn in hot seat.

Actually, I'm being perhaps a bit more subtle than you give me credit for. My theory is that is in effect a very large paid donation by corporation, possibly in violation of contribution laws. It also violates the rules surrounding equal time

Huh nothing. You come across one memo "proving" that there is a slant towards liberals in the media and when I question the fact that you accept it as truth but when the tables are turned proving something bad about conservatives you reject, contradict and deny it flat out saying it isn't true. Sounds like a double standard and the current policy of the moron in office to me.

What I am gathering from what I have been reading is Sinclair is using the system to skirt the laws.

"News story" means it's not technically and cannot be considered a political program. A donation? I don't see how it could be.

"Equal time" easily gotten around by extending Kerry an invite. If he refuses they can argue (not a lawyer but IMO) they offered him equal time for a rebuttal but he refused.

Now then, as with the Right wing hate spewers talking about Christopher Reeve this program could very easily backfire. I think Swift Boats ran everything into the ground so much people started resenting it and seeing it for what it was. Therefore by airing this program (which is just giving Bush's base a blowjob) it may piss off more fence sitters then recruit them for Bush.

I personally think it would be a mistake all the way around for Sinclair to air it.

1) not going to change Kerry's base

2) just going to piss off more undecideds then what they'll recruit

3) will show the company's true bias and will affect any stations they do have in liberal markets.

4) better have all the facts straight because I am quite sure CBS, ABC, NBC, UPN or the WB can sue or pull the affiliation liscense by airing something the main network doesn't approve of.... (especially if Kerry is elected)

5) If Bush loses, SInclair may have the FCC truly breathing down their necks.

6) I am sure there are liberal shareholders that could claim this is violating the company's rules that say.... "A. Conflict of interests
It is the policy of the Corporation to prohibit its directors and employees from engaging in any activity or practice in conflict with the interests of the Corporation. All directors and employees must avoid conflicts between their personal interests and the interests of the Corporation in dealing with fellow employees, other organizations, clients, or individuals seeking to do business with the Corporation. Situations should be avoided where it would be reasonable for an objective observer to believe that the judgment or loyalty of the director or employee may be compromised by his or her own, or an immediate family member's (spouse, parent, child, sibling or domestic partner) external relationship. Conflicts of interests can take many forms, not all of which can be detailed in this Code. Some examples of conflicts of interest that should always be avoided are as follow" (as found in Sinclair's code of Business conduct and ethics LINK: http://www.sbgi.net/business/code.shtml )

Sorry, but if I was a shareholder and they aired something this divisive before the election that could change the outcome unnaturally. I would sue because that was in the "Board members" interest and not the company's as it would definately affect the audience (customer base). IE: You are choosing to piss off a segment of the customer base for your own personal gain and not the company's.

This suit is then filed with the SEC and NASDAQ and with the FCC looking into it, Sinclair could go belly up from all the legal bills.

See, business should not get political because people's opinions change in cycles. And you as a business get caught on the wrong side of that cycle you could lose everything. Especially, if the other side is very vindictive and doesn't forget very easily.

Your theory does not hold water when held up to media law.

It is not legally a paid donation. It is legally a documentary. FYI documentary does not mean NEWS PROGRAM, it means MOVIE. Anyone who thinks that every documentary out there is produced by journalists and is an unbiased source of news information is sorely mistaken. In fact, the majority of political documentaries have a slant one way or the other, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that Sinclair has an opinion - speech - it wishes to broadcast. The constitution says the government cannot take Sinclair's right to broadcast that speech away.

It does not violate the equal time rule because the Bush campaign did not buy the timeslot to air this documentary, nor did they produce it and were then given the airtime for free. Since they didn't buy it, weren't given it, and in fact have absolutely nothing to do with the production of the documentary, the stations have no legal obligation to offer the Kerry campaign the opportunity to buy/be given the same amount of time.

The equal time rule says that if a station sells one minute of advertising to Bush, it cannot refuse to sell one minute of advertising to Kerry. In 1959, congress exempted news broadcasts and documentaries from the equal time rule, as long as the documentary's primary focus is not one of the candidates.

Obviosly this documentary hasn't been seen, so it's hard to say for sure, but it appears the primary focus of this documentary will not be Bush. Kerry will therefore have no grounds to demand equal time.


Plus, even if Kerry had the grounds to demand it, the station still hasn't violated the equal time restrictions until it broadcasts it, and then REFUSES to give Kerry the equal time.

How did you get from the first sentence to your conclusion?

Well ok, then. I'm not a media attorney (are you? you seem to know a lot about media law), 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.

FYI, though, the First Amendment is not as clear cut on this issue as you think. There is an ongoing tension between First Amendment rights and campaign finance laws, and the courts have struggled with it. What it comes down to today is that yes, everyone has the right to speak their mind, but the government may put restrictions on invididuals and corporations contributing to political campaigns. 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.

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? 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.

Is BC04 behind it? I doubt it. They're not stupid enough to order something like that (b/c it would be a clear violation of laws if they did it).

Calling it a "news program" and using that to get around campaign finance laws is pure form over substance.

On th equal time rule, I will yield to you since you apparently know more about it than I do. I can understand smooth's confusion on what you said, though. 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?

Besides, I think the equal time argument is a non-starter, since the Kerry campaign doesn't want to dignify the documentary with an in-kind response.

Noone has to worry about this thing affecting the election. The slander WON'T play. Net activists set up a boycott of all Sinclair advertisers only hours after the news broke. Sylvan Learning Center is the first advertiser to pull all their money out of that POS. I'm sure more will follow. The biggie will be if Toyota decides to back out.

If ABC/NBC/or CBS decided to push F-911 to their affiliates throughout the country, days before the election (or ever), the right-wingers would be creating a shit-storm of epic proportions. The event would be held up as the prime and irrefutable example of the Liberal Media.

One would think that because this is an anti-Kerry documentary, the fair and balanced right-wingers would now claim an exorbitant conservative bias in the media. One would think.

I've never taken the media bias indignation seriously. It's nothing but the conservatives attempting to shift the center towards the right. And now we have an event they cannot deny as 100% contrary to their claims.

All your bias belong to us.

I was able to hear some of the show today. The maker of the film was being interviewed on a local talk show. He came right out and said "This is not an anti-kerry film." Directly after that he said..... "All of this is because of Kerry and his ilk."

C'mon, guys..... This is just absolutely partisan and ridiculous. The parts of the show that I was actually able to hear were nothing but a blame fest on Kerry. It truly does seem that absolutely every bad thing that happened following the return of troops from vietnam was at the hands of Kerry, according to this film.

It's character assasination.

Fuckin' right on.

Perhaps.

But the real question is would you?

If the answer is "no", then you really have no basis for a complaint.

And the same goes for those who protest Sinclair's spending money to get Bush elected while not protesting the money George Soros is spending to get Kerry elected.

Not even close.

I have never claimed any overwhelming bias in the media in either direction - but it's clear that most conservatives have done exactly that.

I'm not complaining about Sinclair - I'm pointing out the absolute and unquestionable hypocrisy of any and all conservatives who have claimed a liberal bias - and I'm pointing out that if they do so in the future, they're ignoring the reality that has come smashing down upon the claim.

Your first line didn't answer the question, but I will assume from the rest of your post that you have no problem with what Sinclair is doing.

As to the charge of "liberal bias" which seems to be at the heart of your complaint, I will counter that for every Sinclair there are two Soros in the media, for every Fox, there are three NBC/CBS/ABC's, etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

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.

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.....

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

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 ;)

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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....

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

nevermind...

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.

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.

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 ;)

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.

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.

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.

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 :D

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.

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.

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: