Announcement

**Shi Huangdi** · October 12, 2004, 00:51

Going by the fairness rule, ABC News should be required to play an hour of Bush ads after it does the news.

**chequita guevara** · October 12, 2004, 00:52

Originally posted by Oerdin
If the Congress can pass laws regulating campaign contributions, when and where ads can be placed, who can place those ads, and a whole lot else then why shouldn't this type of political ad also fall under the same rules?

I'll bet a court will say it already does.

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · October 12, 2004, 00:57

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Going by the fairness rule, ABC News should be required to play an hour of Bush ads after it does the news.

**St Leo** · October 12, 2004, 01:28

Equal time for Nader!

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · October 12, 2004, 01:31

Badnarik

**Ming** · October 12, 2004, 07:47

Originally posted by Guynemer
It's an outrage that a corporate entity is forcing its free broadcast stations it owns to show a political campaign tool without equal time to other side.

Yeah... it's an outrage that the owners of broadcast stations can't show what they want as long as it doesn't violate FCC regulations... yeah, a true outrage...

Legally and morally different than a pay-per-view cable station or a theatrical showing of a movie.

more...

CBS can air a false report on Bush... Fox news can kiss Bush's ass until the end of the earth, the Liberal media can slam Bush all they want, Editorial pages in Newspapers can trash or support any candidates they want... yeah, a true moral outrage here...

**MikeH** · October 12, 2004, 07:57

Didn't CBS get slammed for that report?

**Ming** · October 12, 2004, 08:50

Originally posted by MikeH
Didn't CBS get slammed for that report?

Yeah... after it was determinded it was false... But nobody had a problem with them airing a report pretty much saying Bush was pond scum... Maybe they should give equal time to Bush

The media already airs political propaganda... always has, always will. Again, the equal time rule is a different issue here, but in terms of being morally outraged because a network wants to run a movie slamming a candidate... face it... media companies have agendas...

**DaShi** · October 12, 2004, 08:57

Corporations shouldn't be treated like people.

**Sprayber** · October 12, 2004, 08:57

Originally posted by Ming

Yeah... after it was determinded it was false... But nobody had a problem with them airing a report pretty much saying Bush was pond scum... Maybe they should give equal time to Bush

The media already airs political propaganda... always has, always will. Again, the equal time rule is a different issue here, but in terms of being morally outraged because a network wants to run a movie slamming a candidate... face it... media companies have agendas...

oh no Ming, it's morally wrong. It's an outrage. Why it's positivly something to get into a huff about.

**GePap** · October 12, 2004, 09:51

Originally posted by Ming

Yeah... it's an outrage that the owners of broadcast stations can't show what they want as long as it doesn't violate FCC regulations... yeah, a true outrage...

It is questionable that this does NOT violate FCC regulations, of campaign finance regulations.

CBS can air a false report on Bush... Fox news can kiss Bush's ass until the end of the earth, the Liberal media can slam Bush all they want, Editorial pages in Newspapers can trash or support any candidates they want... yeah, a true moral outrage here...

I am really always surprised such camparisons. The producers of one CBS newshow did not do all their fact checking to run a 'sensentionalist piece" 15 minutes long on an old story about Bush having used priviliage to get out of too much duty. You guys think that is the same as the Ownership of the company ordering all stations to air a one hour documentary accusing one candidate of hacving prolonged a war and increased the suffering of others?

I mean, do you people actually, rationally looking at the two events, think them in any way analogous in scale or importance? I am trully astounded anyone could do so-because the difference is so obvious and apparent.

As for "the liberal media"- this action more than anything shows the fiction of that claim- would the "liberal media" ever do something this brazenly partisan? And I already stated that I believe comparions made already are absurd on their face.

**Ming** · October 12, 2004, 10:13

Originally posted by GePap
It is questionable that this does NOT violate FCC regulations, of campaign finance regulations.

Equal time regulations... maybe.
Campaign finance regulations... no way

I am really always surprised such camparisons. The producers of one CBS newshow did not do all their fact checking to run a 'sensentionalist piece" 15 minutes long on an old story about Bush having used priviliage to get out of too much duty. You guys think that is the same as the Ownership of the company ordering all stations to air a one hour documentary accusing one candidate of hacving prolonged a war and increased the suffering of others?

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.

I mean, do you people actually, rationally looking at the two events, think them in any way analogous in scale or importance? I am trully astounded anyone could do so-because the difference is so obvious and apparent.

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.

As for "the liberal media"- this action more than anything shows the fiction of that claim- would the "liberal media" ever do something this brazenly partisan? And I already stated that I believe comparions made already are absurd on their face.

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...

**MikeH** · October 12, 2004, 10:15

What's absurd is that in the US their media is considered by some people to be "Liberal".

**Ned** · October 12, 2004, 10:24

Originally posted by Berzerker

I believe voting for pro-war Presidents prolonged the war... How did the protestors prolong the war? That sounds like one of those oxy-morons, if Americans were fully supporting the policy, would it have ended earlier?
How? Complete victory? There was no such thing because of Cold War concerns...

Yeah, voting for Johnson did "prolong the war." Recall that Nixon was elected to end the war.

**Ned** · October 12, 2004, 10:27

Originally posted by Oerdin
Republicans got a lot of milage out of the lies told by "the swift boat veterens for truth". By the time journalists figured out the SBVfT were full of **** and funded by the Republican party they had almost knocked Kerry out of the race. It seems the Republicans have learned... It's ok to lie and make propaganda pieces but do it right before people vote so that when they are caught it is to late.

Oerdin, you really think Kerry was right to compare our armed forces in Vietnam to Ghengis Khan?

Announcement

Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment