Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[Ned]

You Dems are complaining now. But what does George Soros have up his sleeve?

[rah]

Equal time should be allocated after almost every Doonsbury cartoon in the paper.

[Ned]

I haven't seen a Doonsbury cartoon in some time. But, I can fully understand why Republicans would be justified in "equal time" based on his politics.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by rah
Equal time should be allocated after almost every Doonsbury cartoon in the paper.

Papers don't have that law. This is an issue of the broadcast organizations, which are technically renting public property and have to obey certain public good concerns because of it.

-Drachasor

[Ming]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Papers don't have that law. This is an issue of the broadcast organizations, which are technically renting public property and have to obey certain public good concerns because of it.

-Drachasor

If it's considered a documentary, it violates NO rules. It's no different than a station airing a news report.
And we can let the lawyers figure out if the equal time laws apply.

As far as "effecting the political process"... so does a documentary appearing in the theaters, or on pay TV, or op ed pieces in the newspapers, or news reports like CBS did, or political cartoons... they all effect the political process. If you are going to be outraged by one, be outraged by all, and not just selectively because your candidate is being picked on

There is nothing wrong with corporate dictating programming... If you have a problem with that, maybe we should outlaw the opinion page in newspapers... political cartoons, politcal comedians, news reports...

[Imran Siddiqui]

If it's considered a documentary, it violates NO rules. It's no different than a station airing a news report.

So F9/11 played by, say, NBC the week before the election would be ok? Of course not! Documentaries are not for news purposes, they are for propaganda purposes most of the time. They all have a political purpose.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
It is the same in the sense that a media outlet or individual is promoting their agenda... Whether it's a movie, op ed piece, determining what news stories get a play, the bias or pov that the news piece takes... it's all about an individual or corporation slanting the news to meet their agenda.

First of all- marketing something people have to pay for upfront is in no way the same as something on a broadcast network. If you want, go see Celsius 44.4 with your own money- not the same thing at all as someone licensed by the state and leasing the space acting this way.
Second- remember the old "the views expressed in this program do not represent the views of the management" signs? Assuming as you do that it was driven out of a search for politics and not from a search for cheap sensationalist ratings, the decision again was made by a small gorup of editors in one show.
This is the corporate OWnership demanding schedules be interrupted to air this- this is an bovious statement of "This message is fully backed and approved by the leadership of this company"

And I'm astounded that some people can't see how all of these are really the same thing... the intent of all of them are identical... the actual delivery of the message is all that's different.

Yes, and a skiff and the Titanic are both really the same thing-ships..... as for the intent: 60 Minutes 2 is a weekly show-the producers have to fill an hour a week with stuff- they decided to do 15-20 minutes on this story to get ratings, and did it on a fully pre-scheduled show. If you watch 60 Minutes 2, then you would see this. If you regularly don't watch it, fine.

Here we have the Ownership of a corporation ordering its broadcasters to interrupt their normal schedules to play an obviously partisan show (which is even less news and more opinion-given that nothing can be used to propel the central charge). Now, yes, people get to watch others things-they have choice- but their regular watching choices have been pre-empted and disrupted.

I love the outrage here... again, both sides have been equally bad... from FOX to CBS... What's absurd is that some people support when their side does it, and then get morally outraged when the other side does the same thing...

Even if we grant the CBS-Fox News comparison you make- what Sinclair is doing goes well beyond what anyone else has done in terms of putting obviously partisan statements ont he air- and they have a history, like when they attacked nightline.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
If it's considered a documentary, it violates NO rules. It's no different than a station airing a news report.
And we can let the lawyers figure out if the equal time laws apply.

How on earth could the central charge-that Kerry's anti-war activism prolongued the war, be made? This guy went to Hanoi and got the documentation saying the north delayed the secret Paris talks due to John Kerry? Please...

As far as "effecting the political process"... so does a documentary appearing in the theaters, or on pay TV, or op ed pieces in the newspapers, or news reports like CBS did, or political cartoons... they all effect the political process. If you are going to be outraged by one, be outraged by all, and not just selectively because your candidate is being picked on

People pay for newspapers, have to pay to get into movei theaters. Broadcast media is free. That is the fundamental difference you seem unable to grasp. People are free to seel whatever they want in a fully private medium. The same rules do not apply to people leasing a public good from the government.

There is nothing wrong with corporate dictating programming... If you have a problem with that, maybe we should outlaw the opinion page in newspapers... political cartoons, politcal comedians, news reports...

Again, Broadcasters are using a public resource. Different set of rules-just like a private school can display any bible verse they want, but a public one can't.

[rah]

I personally see no difference between this and the 60 minutes piece. Which most anti bush people kept saying wasn't that big of a deal.

If anyone can tell me that Dan Rather wasn't foaming at the mouth about the possibility of harpooning the presidents chances with his piece, then I'll believe differently.
While some affiliates have some control over picking up network feeds, the ones in the major population centers that CBS owns, don't have the right to choose not to air what is given them.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
First of all- marketing something people have to pay for upfront is in no way the same as something on a broadcast network. If you want, go see Celsius 44.4 with your own money- not the same thing at all as someone licensed by the state and leasing the space acting this way.

Yeah... it's not the same, I've already admitted that.
But with "free broadcast" you have the right to make the choice NOT to watch. No different than the choice you make going to pay for a movie.

Second- remember the old "the views expressed in this program do not represent the views of the management" signs? Assuming as you do that it was driven out of a search for politics and not from a search for cheap sensationalist ratings, the decision again was made by a small gorup of editors in one show.

I don't think I've ever seen that line on ANY news program on the networks... Documentaries, don't include it either. Everybody seems to be ingoring the fact that program being discussed is no more than a documentary... something that appears all the time over the air and on cable... While the lawyers can argue about equal time, it's possible they will lose... because frankly, if you read through what the program is, it isn't a political ad... just a recap of what has happened in the past. Yeah, it slams, Kerry, and yeah, I don't doubt why they are doing it... and yeah, it is for political reasons... but so are News reports that attack either bush or kerry... op ed pieces, and all forms of media.

This is the corporate OWnership demanding schedules be interrupted to air this- this is an bovious statement of "This message is fully backed and approved by the leadership of this company"

Your point... Ownership MAKES program decisions. "Schedules interrupted"... HUH, they dictate the schedule... They own the stations and its their right to schedule what they want... as long as it doesn't break FCC rules, which this probably doesn't!

Yes, and a skiff and the Titanic are both really the same thing-ships..... as for the intent: 60 Minutes 2 is a weekly show-the producers have to fill an hour a week with stuff- they decided to do 15-20 minutes on this story to get ratings, and did it on a fully pre-scheduled show. If you watch 60 Minutes 2, then you would see this. If you regularly don't watch it, fine.

Your point of this?

Here we have the Ownership of a corporation ordering its broadcasters to interrupt their normal schedules to play an obviously partisan show (which is even less news and more opinion-given that nothing can be used to propel the central charge). Now, yes, people get to watch others things-they have choice- but their regular watching choices have been pre-empted and disrupted.

Again... you make it sound like the ownership and broadcasters are two different things... THEY AREN'T.
You seem to be arguing that owners can't make their own programming decisions... Normal programming gets pre-empted all the time... big deal... turn the channel if you don't like it.

Even if we grant the CBS-Fox News comparison you make- what Sinclair is doing goes well beyond what anyone else has done in terms of putting obviously partisan statements ont he air- and they have a history, like when they attacked nightline.

Big deal... over the air, in movie theaters, in newspapers, on stage... what's the difference. You seem to be making a big deal since this is "over the air"... and that makes it worse than all other equally as bad editorial messages... It isn't. Everybody is doing, why pick on one and not the others.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
I personally see no difference between this and the 60 minutes piece. Which most anti bush people kept saying wasn't that big of a deal.

Saying Bush was treated differently cause of his connections? Was that really news to ANYONE?

If anyone can tell me that Dan Rather wasn't foaming at the mouth about the possibility of harpooning the presidents chances with his piece, then I'll believe differently.

Believe what you want to believe-Dan Rather is not the owner of CBS, and he did not demand that stations change their regular line-up to put on a one hour program, as opposed to a 15-20 minute piece in a single show.

While some affiliates have some control over picking up network feeds, the ones in the major population centers that CBS owns, don't have the right to choose not to air what is given them.

60 Minutes 2 is a regularly scheduled show- it has a certain viewership- the only extraordinary piece here was the failure of CBS to back up the documents it had- had they run a similar Bush in the reserves piece with existing evidence no one would have cared, and there would have been no "scandal".

Sinclair is demanding broadcasters change pre-empt their schedule (only done for breaking news or breaking presidential speeches) in order to run a program whose propagandistic value makes the CBS piece look like My Pet Goat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Once again, if F9/11 played on NBC the weekend before the election would those on the right be as forgiving?

[CygnusZ]

Big deal... over the air, in movie theaters, in newspapers, on stage... what's the difference. You seem to be making a big deal since this is "over the air"... and that makes it worse than all other equally as bad editorial messages... It isn't. Everybody is doing, why pick on one and not the others.

Ok, here's why it's different. There are a liimited number of wavelength frequencies on which public television can be seen. As such, the court has ruled that television shows on the airwaves are therefore subject to the highest level of regulation. The result are policies such as giving equal coverage to both sides on a political issue, censorship considerations, serving the public good etc etc. You can complain that this doesn't apply anymore, but you should already know that's flat out wrong. If viewers truly had unlimited choice then it would be legimiate for there to be cursing and nudity on the airwaves. Cable suffers fewers regulations because there are greater number of potential channels, with pay cable having literarly no limits.

Of course other forms of media face a similar control provided that they're using a limited public resource. Radio comes to mind. But do books fall under this? Is there a law against cursing a lot in books? Having books containing pictures of naked women engaged in sexual acts? There is an exception for child pornography, due to concerns of the abuse that surrounds that industry, yet it is legal to have artistic depictions of minors engaged in sexual acts. Books are only limited by the supply of paper in the world. Newspapers have similar freedom. Movies became a self-regulated industry to avoid government regulation. As opportunities for participation within a medium grows so does personal freedom. Limit resources though are directed towards a public good.

[rah]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Once again, if F9/11 played on NBC the weekend before the election would those on the right be as forgiving?

It couldn't be much worse than the millions spent for advertising the special DVD release a month from the election. No politics there. I guess it couldn't wait for the Christmas buying season. Maybe CBS, but not NBC

and

Saying Bush was treated differently cause of his connections? Was that really news to ANYONE?

If dan liked Bush, do you think he would have aired the story without checking things out a bit more. You're the naive one if you think differently. but as I said it's not a big thing thing since you're ant-bush.
And while Dan doesn't own CBS, to think that he doesn't have considerable influence there is another example of vision with blinders on.

And yes, all the examples are disgusting to me. But once you let that cat out of the bag, it's hard to complaining about the other side.

I have never spoken out against F911 prior here. Freedom of speach and all that. But the way the democrats have embraced it and heralded it and with the timing of the dvd release, I don't think they have much right to complain about seemingly similar things. But they will.

[DanS]

Personally, I don't think Sinclair should be airing the anti-Kerry special, even if they are able to do so. I don't want big businesses so heavily involved in the elections.

It's the same thing with moveon.org. Soros is able to spend an unlimited amount of money on the campaign, but should not even have spent how much he did. I don't want billionaires so heavily involved in the elections.