Anti Kerry film cut - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 10-20-2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Anti-Kerry film cut
October 20, 2004 - 7:52PM

Facing a public outcry, a US media conglomerate has backed down from its plan to air in its entirety what was billed as a lengthy expose of John Kerry's role in the Vietnam War, less than two weeks before the November 2 vote.

But Sinclair Broadcast Group, which reaches about a quarter of US households, will on Friday broadcast an hour-long special on what it described as attempts by various organisations to use the media to influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

Some of the allegations against the Democratic presidential candidate will be in the program, the company, which has made no secret of its support for the incumbent George Bush, acknowledged late yesterday.

"Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary Stolen Honour in its entirety," the group said in a statement.

"At no time did Sinclair ever publicly announce that it intended to do so."

The now shelved documentary, Stolen Honour: Wounds That Never Heal, harshly criticised Mr Kerry's appearance before Congress in 1971, when he returned from Vietnam as a decorated officer and vehemently denounced the war.

The 90-minute program, featuring statements from ex-Vietnam prisoners of war and their families that Mr Kerry betrayed his comrades and prolonged their captivity, has drawn a furious response from Democrats.

In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, Democratic National Committee general counsel Joseph Sandler said the broadcast plans amounted to an illegal "corporate in-kind contribution" to the Republican president.

It said Sinclair was forcing its television stations - many of which are in crucial swing states - to cancel their regular programming to run the documentary made by an ex-reporter with no prior experience in such filmmaking.

AFP

REF: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...51763989.html#

And so it goes...

Mr Mephisto

OpieCunningham · 10-20-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

But Sinclair Broadcast Group, which reaches about a quarter of US households, will on Friday broadcast an hour-long special on what it described as attempts by various organisations to use the media to influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.

Hahahahahah!!!

Mephisto2 · 10-20-2004, 12:36 PM

Actually, I didn't notice that contradiction myself until you mentioned it.

LOL

Funny really...

Mr Mephisto

alto92 · 10-20-2004, 12:45 PM

it's funny in that "i know she was 14, but she told me she was 18" kind of way...it's too bad that it's so commonplace for the media outlets, figureheads, politicians, and corporations to display such gross and obvious....i dont even know what to call it...lies? deception? a campaign of misinformation to maintain an image? it's creepy in that karl rove kind of way...

yoyoyobro · 10-20-2004, 01:57 PM

I think it has something to do with their stock dropping HUGE

onetime2 · 10-20-2004, 02:08 PM

Hmmm, I wonder where all the liberal outrage that blossomed around Michael Moore's claims of censorship when his Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't immediately picked up is in this case?

I do no think this is censorship just as I do not think Moore's claims were. But those who did claim censorship before should be consistent in their application of labels. Will anyone stand up and be counted?

Stompy · 10-20-2004, 02:11 PM

hahahaha they REALLY think a movie about him denouncing the vietnam war will turn people AWAY from him?!

Doesn't the majority of americans already believe that vietnam was a complete waste of time? Last time I checked, that answer was yes. Hm, not much to sway there!

Mephisto2 · 10-20-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Hmmm, I wonder where all the liberal outrage that blossomed around Michael Moore's claims of censorship when his Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't immediately picked up is in this case?

I do no think this is censorship just as I do not think Moore's claims were. But those who did claim censorship before should be consistent in their application of labels. Will anyone stand up and be counted?

How about this then?

Quote:

TV channel goes cold on Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
By Los Angeles Times
October 21, 2004

Michael Moore's scathing anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 won't make it to television before the US election after all. The television channel In Demand has cancelled a "Michael Moore pre-election special" scheduled for November 1, during which the film was to have aired.

The Fellowship Adventure Group, which is handling Moore's documentary, is contemplating legal action maintaining that the pay-per-view service violated its contract. Proceeds from the broadcast were to go to the Fallen Heroes Fund.

In Demand, which is owned by Time Warner, Comcast and Cox Communications, said the move was in response to "legitimate business and legal concerns", calling any legal action "entirely baseless and groundless".

-Los Angeles Times

REF: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...html?from=top5

My point is that the "liberals" (and why is that a negative term?) and the conservatives can both whine about their shows being cancelled.

Personally, I think the anti-Kerry one was a bit more insidious, as it was dressed up as a documentary, whilst everyone knows Moore has an agenda, but that's just my opinion.

Mr Mephisto

pan6467 · 10-20-2004, 02:40 PM

To be honest I think MM's got pulled for no other reason than IT WASN"T GOING TO MAKE MONEY for In-Demand. Anyone who wanted to see it already has. I truly don't believe In-Demand would have made enough on the movie to pay MM and make a profit.

As for Sinclair, perhaps the whole thing was a tease just to see what the response would be. It is funny they are still going to do something. I'm sure it will focus more heavily on Kerry's media than Bush's. But, maybe, perhaps, possibly, the people will see it as propaganda and too one sided and be turned off by it causing a backlash against Bush. Perhaps the true reason it isn't being aired.

Mephisto2 · 10-20-2004, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

To be honest I think MM's got pulled for no other reason than IT WASN"T GOING TO MAKE MONEY for In-Demand. Anyone who wanted to see it already has. I truly don't believe In-Demand would have made enough on the movie to pay MM and make a profit.

I disagree. I want to see it and haven't. I think it would have made money.

Quote:

As for Sinclair, perhaps the whole thing was a tease just to see what the response would be. It is funny they are still going to do something. I'm sure it will focus more heavily on Kerry's media than Bush's. But, maybe, perhaps, possibly, the people will see it as propaganda and too one sided and be turned off by it causing a backlash against Bush. Perhaps the true reason it isn't being aired.

A tease that cost them millions of dollars? lol

Mr Mephisto

MSD · 10-20-2004, 02:53 PM

Uh oh, they changed their minds when there was a negative reaction from the public. Did they flip-flop, or is that term only appropriate when liberals do it?

aliali · 10-20-2004, 02:58 PM

Just curious, has anyone seen both FH911 and Stolen Honour in their entirety? I haven't, but guess that neither is appropriately called a documentary. MM does not deserve credit for lying and deceiving because the Anti-Kerry show was "dressed up" as a documentary. MM has been dressing up deceitful, agenda driven partisan junk-food for years all the while dressing it up as "documentary." Hey, same thing with Pat Robertson and his anti-Clinton videos 8 years ago. Whether or not you like the taste of it, garbage is garbage.

As to Sinclair, if it is legal to run the show and you want to run the show but don't have the guts, that's not called censorship. It's called being a bunch of corporate weenies. A show on how the media is trying to influence the election??? All they need there is a mirror and some stock footage, any footage, from CBS News.

pan6467 · 10-20-2004, 03:02 PM

Could always look at it this way. In-Demand says they are going to air F 9/11 right before the election.

Sinclair says, "Fine, we'll air this anti-Kerry documentary."

In-Demand says, "you pull yours we'll pull ours." And hence it is done.

Funny the anouncements to air were basically around the same time. And the annoncements they were pulled air around the same time.......coincidence?

pan6467 · 10-20-2004, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I disagree. I want to see it and haven't. I think it would have made money.

A tease that cost them millions of dollars? lol

Mr Mephisto

Is F 9/11 out on DVD yet? For $9.95 you could almost buy it, you definately can rent it for a week.

I don't know how it cost them millions. I understand what you are saying, but if it were a tease they expected sponsors to put pressure on, but not do anything if they didn't air it. Their stock went down but has pretty much rebounded.

So for that tease they got free advertising over what staions they owned, and the thing they were planning on airing all along.

Situations like these, I just try to see things from all sides and throw out the different possibilities I see. I have no life what can I say.

My best bet is the conspiracy.... "you don't air yours, I won't air mine" and BOTH sides can say censorship, the other side is preventing you from seeing the truth....yada yada yada. The only buyers will be die hard partisans.

Another valid point (and you Libertarians will love this one), if both parties keep destroying each other a 3rd party is going to come in and take over. People will get tired of the BS.

OpieCunningham · 10-20-2004, 05:00 PM

It would be nice if someday people would understand that a documentary is never an objective report. Which would also help people understand that they should NEVER be treated as if they are.

MM's film is a documentary. Stolen Honor is a documentary.

Neither one is News.

cthulu23 · 10-20-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Could always look at it this way. In-Demand says they are going to air F 9/11 right before the election.

Sinclair says, "Fine, we'll air this anti-Kerry documentary."

In-Demand says, "you pull yours we'll pull ours." And hence it is done.

Funny the anouncements to air were basically around the same time. And the annoncements they were pulled air around the same time.......coincidence?

There have been concerted efforts to pressure Sinclair into pulling the movie just as there was probably pressure applied to In-Demand. Maybe the fact that 80 advertisers have pulled their ads and the falling company stock price had something to do with the truncation of the airing by sinclair.

Opie: I hear you on that. This redefinition of the term "documentary" for political goals irritates me mightily.

irateplatypus · 10-21-2004, 02:01 AM

semantics strike again.

you'll rarely hear liberal partisan hack's work described as anti-bush...

opie and chthulu, please excuse posters for using something more similar to the dictionary definition of documentary and not your own.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

Superbelt · 10-21-2004, 03:27 AM

Actually Pan, it cost them millions because of a widespread boycott campaign that has to date convinced over 80 advertisers to cancel their air time. That plus a sharp nose dive in their stock price because of the advertiser fears and possibility of legal action because of blatantly illegal partisan hackery. That is how it has cost them millions of dollars.

cthulu23 · 10-21-2004, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

semantics strike again.

you'll rarely hear liberal partisan hack's work described as anti-bush...

opie and chthulu, please excuse posters for using something more similar to the dictionary definitions of documentary and not your own.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

I'm sure that the creators of both Stolen Honor and F9/11 consider their works "factual," so I guess that they do fit one of the dictionary definitions.

I won't go too deeply into this as everyone here is probably sick of this argument. Suffice it to say that the history of documentaries contradicts your semantic assumption. But don't just take it from me....here's what Ebert had to say:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157177/posts

Quote:

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Documentarians are not journalists and have no ethical obligation to remain objective.

Let's make a deal...when F9/11 fades from memory, can we fans of documentaries have our word back?

pan6467 · 10-21-2004, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Actually Pan, it cost them millions because of a widespread boycott campaign that has to date convinced over 80 advertisers to cancel their air time. That plus a sharp nose dive in their stock price because of the advertiser fears and possibility of legal action because of blatantly illegal partisan hackery. That is how it has cost them millions of dollars.

I didn't think they'd lose (or had lost) any advertising revenue yet. As for stock, it's only a loss when you sell. And I thought I read yesterday where the stock went back up.

So I take back my conspiracy and see it was probably totally financial.

Lebell · 10-21-2004, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Uh oh, they changed their minds when there was a negative reaction from the public. Did they flip-flop, or is that term only appropriate when liberals do it?

Last time I checked, most businesses will 'flip-flop' when money's involved.

As to the film, I really don't have a problem with either this or F9/11 being broadcast.

OpieCunningham · 10-21-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

semantics strike again.

you'll rarely hear liberal partisan hack's work described as anti-bush...

opie and chthulu, please excuse posters for using something more similar to the dictionary definition of documentary and not your own.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary

Indeed, the dictionary definition includes objectivity - but in that case, there is no such thing as a documentary film, as there is no such thing as an objective informational film. Facts are always left out, regardless of intention. Which makes it inherently subjective.

In essence - the dictionary is wrong and as long as people think a documentary can be objective, they are lying to themselves and doing themselves a disservice.

onetime2 · 10-21-2004, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

How about this then?

REF: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...html?from=top5

My point is that the "liberals" (and why is that a negative term?) and the conservatives can both whine about their shows being cancelled.

Personally, I think the anti-Kerry one was a bit more insidious, as it was dressed up as a documentary, whilst everyone knows Moore has an agenda, but that's just my opinion.

Mr Mephisto

My point Meph is that there were multiple threads with many cries of censorship when Moore was making his claims. People all over the wonderful politics board here cried foul because people stood up and let their voices be heard. I do not see those same people making the same claims they made then. Perhaps they're no longer around. Or perhaps they are wholly inconsistent in their application of their "principles".

The fact that Moore gets booted too has no relevance to my statement.

Mephisto2 · 10-21-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

My point Meph is that there were multiple threads with many cries of censorship when Moore was making his claims. People all over the wonderful politics board here cried foul because people stood up and let their voices be heard. I do not see those same people making the same claims they made then. Perhaps they're no longer around. Or perhaps they are wholly inconsistent in their application of their "principles".

The fact that Moore gets booted too has no relevance to my statement.

Well there is a slight difference between one station offering a subscription service to watch a film that is known to be partisan, and a whole network claiming to show a documentary, to transmit a documentary, that purports to be objective.

But I understand where you're coming from.

Mr Mephisto

smooth · 10-22-2004, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

My point Meph is that there were multiple threads with many cries of censorship when Moore was making his claims. People all over the wonderful politics board here cried foul because people stood up and let their voices be heard. I do not see those same people making the same claims they made then. Perhaps they're no longer around. Or perhaps they are wholly inconsistent in their application of their "principles".

The fact that Moore gets booted too has no relevance to my statement.

ah, how sad, selective memory, retrospective reinterpretation:

Mephisto, you know by now that people read things the way their preconceived assumptions guide them to.

Here's one of those fabled statements:

Quote:

Miramax already invested the money. Disney is refusing to release the film, not fund it.

IT isn't an indy film, either. Miramax is a mainstream production studio.

One issue may be relevant here: should a corporation be able to buy things and then sit on them? I suppose one could argue the right to do that, but people defending such a "right" are singing a hollow tune to me.

It seems pretty obvious to me that one sells production rights to a studio with the belief that it will eventually be viewed by the public. If minds are changing now, Moore should be allowed to re-sell it to someone else (or release it over the net...oops).

I also wanted to point out the irony of the film's title. Regardless of whether Disney has the right to cancel the film, they are censoring it. Fahrenheit 451 -- woot, woot!

from here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ore+censorship

I still stand by my assertion. I can draw a distinction between an outside entity explicitly squashing the release of something (censorship) and what happened here: people complained about the film, stocks dropped, and advertisers pulled their shit. Ulitimately, however, the people who were going to release the documentary decided not to air it themselves. IF you want to call this censorship, go ahead, but it was self-imposed. Moore didn't decide not to release his movie, Disney did that and, originally, wasn't going to give up the rights for anyone else to release it.

Now, the same arguments happened with the Dixie Chicks, wherein conservative hypocrites argued that people burning CD's, shouted the girls down, physically threatened them, and basically ran amok during public appearances were all just instances of 'free expression' rather than censorship. But now it's a problem--with a dash of lib bashing based in fantasia, to boot.

Common sense dictates...hopefully

Lebell · 10-22-2004, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

ah, how sad, selective memory, retrospective reinterpretation:

Mephisto, you know by now that people read things the way their preconceived assumptions guide them to.

To continue in that vein, your referenced post was also thoroughly refuted when MM admitted that the whole Disney thing was a stunt to get more publicity.

10-20-2004, 02:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Hmmm, I wonder where all the liberal outrage that blossomed around Michael Moore's claims of censorship when his Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't immediately picked up is in this case? I do no think this is censorship just as I do not think Moore's claims were. But those who did claim censorship before should be consistent in their application of labels. Will anyone stand up and be counted? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-20-2004, 02:11 PM	#7 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	hahahaha they REALLY think a movie about him denouncing the vietnam war will turn people AWAY from him?! Doesn't the majority of americans already believe that vietnam was a complete waste of time? Last time I checked, that answer was yes. Hm, not much to sway there! __________________ I love lamp.

10-20-2004, 02:40 PM	#9 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	To be honest I think MM's got pulled for no other reason than IT WASN"T GOING TO MAKE MONEY for In-Demand. Anyone who wanted to see it already has. I truly don't believe In-Demand would have made enough on the movie to pay MM and make a profit. As for Sinclair, perhaps the whole thing was a tease just to see what the response would be. It is funny they are still going to do something. I'm sure it will focus more heavily on Kerry's media than Bush's. But, maybe, perhaps, possibly, the people will see it as propaganda and too one sided and be turned off by it causing a backlash against Bush. Perhaps the true reason it isn't being aired. __________________ 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?"

10-20-2004, 03:02 PM	#13 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Could always look at it this way. In-Demand says they are going to air F 9/11 right before the election. Sinclair says, "Fine, we'll air this anti-Kerry documentary." In-Demand says, "you pull yours we'll pull ours." And hence it is done. Funny the anouncements to air were basically around the same time. And the annoncements they were pulled air around the same time.......coincidence? __________________ 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?"

10-21-2004, 02:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	semantics strike again. you'll rarely hear liberal partisan hack's work described as anti-bush... opie and chthulu, please excuse posters for using something more similar to the dictionary definition of documentary and not your own. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=documentary __________________ 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

10-20-2004, 12:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Actually, I didn't notice that contradiction myself until you mentioned it. LOL Funny really... Mr Mephisto

10-20-2004, 12:45 PM	#4 (permalink)
alto92 Upright	it's funny in that "i know she was 14, but she told me she was 18" kind of way...it's too bad that it's so commonplace for the media outlets, figureheads, politicians, and corporations to display such gross and obvious....i dont even know what to call it...lies? deception? a campaign of misinformation to maintain an image? it's creepy in that karl rove kind of way...

10-20-2004, 01:57 PM	#5 (permalink)
yoyoyobro Tilted	I think it has something to do with their stock dropping HUGE

10-20-2004, 02:53 PM	#11 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Uh oh, they changed their minds when there was a negative reaction from the public. Did they flip-flop, or is that term only appropriate when liberals do it?

10-20-2004, 02:58 PM	#12 (permalink)
aliali Insane Location: Missouri	Just curious, has anyone seen both FH911 and Stolen Honour in their entirety? I haven't, but guess that neither is appropriately called a documentary. MM does not deserve credit for lying and deceiving because the Anti-Kerry show was "dressed up" as a documentary. MM has been dressing up deceitful, agenda driven partisan junk-food for years all the while dressing it up as "documentary." Hey, same thing with Pat Robertson and his anti-Clinton videos 8 years ago. Whether or not you like the taste of it, garbage is garbage. As to Sinclair, if it is legal to run the show and you want to run the show but don't have the guts, that's not called censorship. It's called being a bunch of corporate weenies. A show on how the media is trying to influence the election??? All they need there is a mirror and some stock footage, any footage, from CBS News.

10-20-2004, 05:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	It would be nice if someday people would understand that a documentary is never an objective report. Which would also help people understand that they should NEVER be treated as if they are. MM's film is a documentary. Stolen Honor is a documentary. Neither one is News.

10-21-2004, 03:27 AM	#18 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Actually Pan, it cost them millions because of a widespread boycott campaign that has to date convinced over 80 advertisers to cancel their air time. That plus a sharp nose dive in their stock price because of the advertiser fears and possibility of legal action because of blatantly illegal partisan hackery. That is how it has cost them millions of dollars.