tecoyah

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.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

Rekna

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

whocarz

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.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

balderdash111

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).

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Lebell

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.

__________________
"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!

JumpinJesus

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 can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Mojo_PeiPei

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.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Glorp

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...

Rekna

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.

Scipio

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.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

whocarz

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.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

Rekna

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.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
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

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.

Flyguy

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.

Ustwo

Ummmm all I can say is....

Huh?

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

__________________
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.

farcryer

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.

irateplatypus

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.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

pan6467

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.

__________________
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?"

smooth

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 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

Scipio

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.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

shakran

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.

Rekna

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)

pan6467

I agree Rekna.

__________________
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?"

maximusveritas

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

Boo

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.

__________________
Back button again, I must be getting old.

wnker85

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.

balderdash111

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

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Flyguy

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.

pan6467

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.

__________________
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?"

shakran

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.

smooth

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

__________________
"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

balderdash111

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.

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Superbelt

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.

OpieCunningham

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.

Paxton_Free

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.

Paxton_Free

Fuckin' right on.

Lebell

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.

__________________
"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

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.

Lebell

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.

__________________
"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!