Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[rah]

Despite my previous posts, I have to agree with you DAN. Freedom of speech is one thing, but it's getting out of hand. Money already has way too much influence in elections. While politics is all about money, something should be done.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by 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.

Agreed.

I think everyone here knows my position tho' regarding mainstream so called impartial media.

[DanS]

I agree that it's out of hand. Each side has its billionaires and its big corporations. We're a rich country and could spend an astounding sum on elections if we set our minds to it. However, I would hope that the billionaires and corporations could agree to do other things with their money, as they pretty much have done in the past.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
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.

You have a "choice" with EVERYTHING in life- if you house in burning down you could chose not to call the Fire Department-so what? The issue here is the nature of the broadcast: If I buy a TV I get all sorts of stations for free-that is great, and happens thanks to the government. If I care to pay, I get more stations..great. But the stations that air fro free have rules to follow.

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.

That is why the CBS event was a "scandal"- cause because since that line is missing, there is an assumption of a level of fact checking. CBS got memos, did not check their accuracy, and then boradcast them. Do you havce any pretension that the fact checking for this story went above that of the SBFT ads?

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!

You don;t know what rules it may break- but yes, how high the decsion came from matters.

Your point of this?

Qnatitative differences can equal qualitative differences

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.

At indidivual stations yes- on every station in a system? No, that is not a common occurance unless something huge occured.

Big deal... over the air, in movie theaters, in newspapers, on stage... what's the difference.

Last time I looked you don't get fined for "indecensy" anymore for a private theater play, or movie, and not in newspapers either actually. You do on broadcast TV. Obviously there is a 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.

Because again, there is a distinction. Me screaming an obcenity in a pron theater and in a church are not the same, even if the words were the same.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I agree that it's out of hand. Each side has its billionaires and its big corporations. We're a rich country. I would hope that the billionaires and corporations could agree to do other things with their money, as they pretty much have done in the past.

Nothing gives back like an investment in government influence.

[Ming]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
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.

Believe me when I say I understand the differences. Media is my profession, and I lecture on the subject to universities and the industry

You are making the simple mistake of considering this a "political" issue. It isn't. It is no more than a documentary on Kerry. It's not saying you shouldn't vote for him... it's just showing Kerry's actions in the past. Yeah, I know the intent behind it, and the reason they are doing it... but technically, it's a documentary, just like F911 is. The FCC had no restrictions against that. Lawyers may eventually argue that it is political, and that equal time requirements apply, but frankly, I don't think they can win that one based on the law.

If viewers truly had unlimited choice then it would be legimiate for there to be cursing and nudity on the airwaves.

A total misunderstanding of the rules... yes, things available freely over the air have restrictions on nudity. An unlimited number of choices over the air wouldn't change the current restrictions on nudity.

Cable suffers fewers regulations because there are greater number of potential channels, with pay cable having literarly no limits.

Also incorrect... they face fewer regulations because they are not available "over the air" for anybody to receive... it is the choice of the person to subscribe to such services, and has nothing to do with the number of channels or options.

I, like most of the recent posters, agree that this isn't "right"... however, I would say the same about movies like F911 and hatchet jobs like CBS did... Fox... and even programs like "Real time with Bill Maher", which spend their entire time saying you need to vote for Kerry.

The box is open, and while I would like to see it closed, that ain't going to happen. So I'm not going to whine when I see it happening to both candidates... I have no problem if people want to watch F911 on pay for view the day before the election, or buy the video tape... we ALL know why it's being shown, and being sold now.... it's about the election. I see no difference with the Kerry Documentary. You can't say one is ok and not the other.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming


You are making the simple mistake of considering this a "political" issue. It isn't. It is no more than a documentary on Kerry. It's not saying you shouldn't vote for him... it's just showing Kerry's actions in the past. Yeah, I know the intent behind it, and the reason they are doing it... but technically, it's a documentary, just like F911 is. The FCC had no restrictions against that. Lawyers may eventually argue that it is political, and that equal time requirements apply, but frankly, I don't think they can win that one based on the law.

The FCC pulled some ads for F9/11 after a republican complaint. If ads for Moore's work can be pulled, I am sure a program like this one can get pulled.

[Ming]

Originally posted by GePap
You have a "choice" with EVERYTHING in life- if you house in burning down you could chose not to call the Fire Department-so what? The issue here is the nature of the broadcast: If I buy a TV I get all sorts of stations for free-that is great, and happens thanks to the government. If I care to pay, I get more stations..great. But the stations that air fro free have rules to follow.

And what rule are they breaking?

That is why the CBS event was a "scandal"- cause because since that line is missing, there is an assumption of a level of fact checking. CBS got memos, did not check their accuracy, and then boradcast them. Do you havce any pretension that the fact checking for this story went above that of the SBFT ads?

And that has what to do with this?

You don;t know what rules it may break- but yes, how high the decsion came from matters.

Come back when there is "proof" that is against any rules... Based on the law, they are breaking no rules... but maybe some lawyers will prove otherwise.

And now you are saying it makes a difference because of where the decision comes from
I guess that makes F911 a true moral outrage since it came down from the top dog.

At indidivual stations yes- on every station in a system? No, that is not a common occurance unless something huge occured.

While it is not common, the owners can do what they damn well please in terms of programming unless it violates FCC rules.

Last time I looked you don't get fined for "indecensy" anymore for a private theater play, or movie, and not in newspapers either actually. You do on broadcast TV. Obviously there is a difference.

As I've said... yes, there is a difference between "over the air" TV and other medium... but we aren't talking indecensy here are we We are talking about nothing more harmless than a documentry... nothing against the rules here... and well within the rights of the owners to broadcast across THEIR network WHENEVER they please... But again, since it's anti Kerry, you seem to have a problem with it... but when "entertainment shows like Bill Maher spend the last three months totally campaigning against Bush under the guise of "entertainment", you don't have a problem with that...

Because again, there is a distinction. Me screaming an obcenity in a pron theater and in a church are not the same, even if the words were the same.

And please again remind us what obcenties have to do with this... we are talking about a harmless documentry... not screaming obcene things in pron theaters or churchs

[GePap]

As I said above, republicans filled a complaint against an ad for F9/11 for the crime of showing a clip of the president playing golf...republicans considered it damaging to the presidents image, hence "partisan", hence breaking the rules.

In the end the ad was pulled.

I fail to see how this program will be any less suspect- it has every reason to be far more suspect in fact.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Offhand (and likely out of date) , I seem to recall something in the regulations about the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act applying to documentaties; That if a a documentary is focuses primarily on a candidate, and favorably, it may triggger it in favour of the other candidate. I do no think that a unfavorable news documentary can trigger it. Unlike our august and well informed Ming, I opine that there may be more exposure under campaign finance (and related broadcast) laws than under 'equal time', but I agree that niether exposure is likely to to have result.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming

And please again remind us what obcenties have to do with this... we are talking about a harmless documentry... not screaming obcene things in pron theaters or churchs

If it were harmless, Sinclair, which has a long and blatant history of politicizing its operation (incluidng getting rid of all local news bureaus to replace them with a centralized news organization), would not force its stations to show it.

[Lefty Scaevola]

If, as is likely, this is produce as a special segment of an existing show that regualr does news segments, with interviews and discussion by such show's newspeople, I do not believe it will have any exposure under 'equal time ' at all, or even need the pre-clearance procedure.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
If, as is likely, this is produce as a special segment of an existing show that regualr does news segments, with interviews and discussion by such show's newspeople, I do not believe it will have any exposure under 'equal time ' at all, or even need the pre-clearance procedure.

Its not part of a regularly produced show-its a 1 hour independently produced documentary. After all, I have heard no mention of a syndicated news show doing it and it is obviously not a network news show doing it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by GePap


Its not part of a regularly produced show-its a 1 hour independently produced documentary. After all, I have heard no mention of a syndicated news show doing it and it is obviously not a network news show doing it.

With the exception of Fox that pretty much goes without saying.

[Lefty Scaevola]

You have yourself mentioned their cetralized news bureau which has taken over the function of much of the local channels news. It is the obvious candidate to produce and provide personnel for the show.