Protest Sinclair Broadcasting and Pay per View

oopppsss

 

Quote: There are no real news. Moore did not give objective, legitamate points in 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine, why should Bush?


You aren't grasping the issue here. Michael Moore made a for profit movie to be played in movie theaters, this is a mandate by a major communications company to air an anti-Kerry "documentary" before the election. Bush did not pay for this movie, its as if the president of NBC gave a bunch of money to Bushes campaign, and then made the TV stations across the country air it.


These stations are supposed to represent an unbiased opinion, the same is not true in the movie theater.

I would not support networks playing Farenheit 9-11 prior to the election either.

 

There is not much you can do, this is an election year, and theoretricly, networks are required to air election campaign commercials... this could be easily counted as one long commercial. People still have a choice here. If this would have truly troubled Kerry's campiagn, then he would have aired something himself.

I am sure that his campaign analysists are intelligent enough to see if this is a thread.

Bush probebly "paid" them by giving them back the donations, or taking this as a donation. Anyhow, Sinclair is privately owned, so they do have every right to air this. This is not an ethic issue.

 

I agree that it will not harm Kerry, after all, he actually went and fought in Vietnam while Bush went AWOL from the national guard. If I were on Bushes campaign I wouldn't want them to make military service an issue at all, becuae no matter what, Kerry served, and Bush did not.


And you are correct about the way Bush "paid"

they most likely want Bush in office to get laws and regulations bent their way.

 

Well, yes, Bush will clearly be a better president for the multi-millionaire network heads, and they are doing all that they can to make him win, and rightfully so.

I do not think that past military service is relevent at all.

What either candidate did 20 years ago will NOT determine how that candidate will rule the country.

 

If you don't want to watch the movie, don't watch it. Nobody is forcing anyone else to watch the film, Sinclair Broadcasting is simply exercising their right (whether you agree with it or not). Not that it matters anyway, 99% of voters have already made up their minds anyway. Plus, I'm sure some other company like HBO will buy or accept the rights to F9/11. Hell, it was nominated for an oscar wasn't it?

 

What people aren't even addressing is that showing this film may not even be LEGAL. Showing the film may represent an unofficial campaign donation, for one. Secondly, if Sinclair does not permit Michael Moore to show F-9/11 or some other extremely anti-Bush film to be shown, it is violating the "equal time" laws regarding political speech prior to an election. No station is permitted to air blatantly anti-candidate programming close to election time unless EQUAL TIME is given to the other side. Sinclair is in breach of this rule - one radio pundit today suggested that folks get in touch with local liberal groups and that these groups demand equal time on their local sinclair stations. Theoretically, if they refuse, they can be held liable and be the target of a massive lawsuit.

 

HBO have showed Bowling for Columbine, a liberal film that could be taken as campiagn material. THey might also show 9/11... must they also show the bush film because of this?

 

Sinclair owns the stations but the programming is in the public airways for all to see. There will always be issues of ethics and decency in the public airways, regardless of the nature of the ownership.

Sinclair or CBS could also show F911 for free a few days before the election. Most would consider it a shrewd tactic, even though technically it is not against the law.

The corporate cable networks in the U.S. are very supportive of Bush, and they are on 24/7 every day of the year basically promoting his agenda. The problem in the U.S. now is that there are only a handful of large corporations that have the ability to dictate the material on many TV and radio stations, as well as books and magazines. (Time-Warner, Viacom, Fox, Sinclair). It's not good that the media industry is becoming monopolized.

 

Thank you Pear Tree for the wonder lists. They will be most useful. I certainly don't know what Sinclairs purpose behind the "send us your comments" is, but I took advantage of it. Telling them I would boycott their stations as well as their advertisers if they did not give equal time to an opposing view. I informed them that I thought that such political bias in a media source was unacceptable.


Forcing and offering are two different things here. They are forcing stations to air this program...Michael Moore forced no one to see his movie. Sinclairs program is free, Moore's not. BTW, when Michael Moore offered his movie for free to Sinclair, and if they accept (unlikely) then he wil NOT be eligible for an academy award. This is what he said last night on Leno. Has something to do with rules about the documentary not being seen on TV or something.

I noticed in Pear Tree's list that there are alot of "Financial Institutions". The most signifigant contributors to Bush's campaign came from financial institutions....

 

Yes, this is true, but they are taking regularly scheduled programs off the air, that PEOPLE watch and most of them will be stuck watching them. Michael Moore didn't force people to see his movie. The Sinclair group ORDERED Their many television stations to take off regularly scheduled programs to air this so called "news documentary"

 

exactly!

 

You're welcome

If anything, alot of people dropping a line to those companies would at least send the message that the cats out of the bag. The running modus operandi has seemed to be one of ducking,dodging, and hiding.

I'm still down with the boycott.

 

I don't think that it is that big of a deal to air it. On Sinclair's homepage it says they only reach 24% of American households anyway. Also, how many minds can this really change. You would not only have to be really straddling the fence, but also not care about any of the major issues for this to change your mind.

 

They are airing it in key states for the undecided voters. I read that on a news article when it first came out. Therefore, it may have a huge impact on voters, remember the Swift Veterans for Truth, what impact they had on Kerry, he was ahead until they put that doubt in the minds of people, even tho, they were found out to be lying..There is even a Swift Vet person in the documentary.

 

How many people really give a shit about Kerry's old war record?

 

I don't but according to the news article I read recently people do..

 

• October 18, 2004 | 4:15 p.m. ET
Update on Sinclair's sin (David Shuster)

A week ago, I wrote about the decision by the Sinclair Broadcast Corporation to air a factually inaccurate and journalistically reprehensible film on its 62 television stations. My colleague Joe Trippi has spoken articulately (on this blog and in his new book) about the "bottom up power" of the Internet in putting the heat on organizations.

For those of you wondering where the battle stands with Sinclair, here is an update:

* Thanks to sites such as www.boycottsbg.com, Sinclair's advertisers continue to face a relentless barrage of calls and criticism.
* Last week, Sinclair's stock price fell by 6 percent.
* The film's producer, (Carlton Sherwood with Red, White, and Blue Productions) is now being sued for libel by a highly decorated Vietnam vet named Kenneth J. Campbell. (Campbell says the film's footage of him at a 1971 war protest with the accompanying narration leaves viewers with the false perception Campbell had lied about his military service.)
* The legislation Sinclair is counting on to improve its long term financial difficulty is in deep trouble. (Senators of both parties say the Sinclair controversy has single handedly reversed whatever momentum existed to ease big media ownership.)

Despite all of this, Sinclair still intends to broadcast "Stolen Honor," in its entirety, as soon as this week. Sinclair continues to describe the film as "news," even though it was released (and picked apart) at a press conference six weeks ago.

"Stolen Honor" has several prominent factual errors: First, former American POWs are quoted on camera as saying, "we stayed two more years because of the demonstrators like Fonda and Kerry... I figure they owe us two years." I have no doubt that some POW's feel that way. Others, however do not. And they are not included in the film. The film also disregards historical facts— the war stopped when the Nixon administration, in 1973, negotiated an end. History shows it was the lack of a settlement before then, not any protests, that kept the North Vietnamese fighting.

Secondly, part of John Kerry's original testimony, as depicted in the film, is edited so that it begins in mid-sentence. This editing makes it seem that John Kerry was making dramatic and specific eye witness allegations when in fact he always attributed those allegations to the testimony of other U.S. soldiers.

Third, the film only features former POWs who say John Kerry's name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we've spoken to dozens of POWs who've spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and they never heard John Kerry's name mentioned once.

Sinclair seems unconcerned with the factual errors in the film, the pressure on Sinclair's advertisers, or the lack of confidence the market now seems to have in Sinclair's management. But even if Sinclair's executives don't care... investors will. And whether you support John Kerry or oppose him... now is not a great time to be an investor in a company as reckless as the Sinclair Broadcast Corporation.

Here is the update that I just now read, if anyone is interested in reading it.

 

Nice! Thx for the update.

 

Don't forget that Sinclair refused to air a "Nightline" show dedicated to reading the names of all our fallen troops because "it might have political motives"...