Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[GePap]

Right...... I mean, that mention of ABC and CBS and equating them to Sinclair- I guess that is about a right-wing bias as well?

[DinoDoc]

Ok it does look like you routinely read things that aren't there. Otherwise you wouldn't have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Ok it does look like you routinely read things that aren't there. Otherwise you wouldn't have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

Except you have no explained why it is the wrong conclusion to what you wrote.

[DinoDoc]

Because you're obviously to weded to your "Tinfoil hat liberal media" theory to see any other conclusion and I have a policy about throwing pearls before swine.

[Ned]

Can one imagine the demons from hell that will be unleashed if this monster Kerry is elected president? Even before he is elected, he is threatening to silence the opposition through intimidation, the raw use of goverment power to shut people up.

Dems, don't deny the obvious. Kerry is just like Putin.

[GePap]

Ah Ned, you provide some needed relief from DD

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Can one imagine the demons from hell that will be unleashed if this monster Kerry is elected president? Even before he is elected, he is threatening to silence the opposition through intimidation, the raw use of goverment power to shut people up.

Dems, don't deny the obvious. Kerry is just like Putin.

Dear GOD people, try to have some sense of calm and reason.

Kerry hasn't said a dang thing on this.

One guy in Kerry's campaign makes one off-hand remark and you act like Kerry wants to be the head of some communist dictatorship.

Try at least to pretend like you are trying to be objective.

I mean, the president and his staff are pretty horrid about how much access any media gets. They've taken a much more controlling stance than Clinton had, and very likely more than Kerry will have if he wins.

Semblance of balance

Actual balance

Jumping like crazed dogs on a bone over one off-hand remark: : :

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, your position was tenable until the NYTimes said what it said today in its lead editorial.

GePap, I can only estimate the level of your concern were Bush to threaten to pull CBS's license for the Dan Rather's false document piece. It would be more than tepid, I assure you.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, your position was tenable until the NYTimes said what it said today in its lead editorial.

GePap, I can only estimate the level of your concern were Bush to threaten to pull CBS's license for the Dan Rather's false document piece. It would be more than tepid, I assure you.

Point out to me where Kerry or his campaign is behind the 18 senators or the article.

As far as Rather's false-document piece, that is understandable. Some slip-up happened and they didn't check like it should have been. Dan Rather did apologize for it, afterall. I don't see Sinclair ever apologizing for this video.

-Drachasor

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned

GePap, I can only estimate the level of your concern were Bush to threaten to pull CBS's license for the Dan Rather's false document piece. It would be more than tepid, I assure you.

this is so funny- cause you see, it would be beyond absurd. Bad fact checking does NOt equal showing campaign propaganda. That "story" was around in 2000 and has enevr gone away. Of course, you are one of the people (saldy too many) who actually thought Dan Rather would have to quit, or that the story would affect the election- you were wrong then- you are wrong now.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Randome Though: If Equal time were to be invoked dose Nader get a 1-2 minute comercial to give him 1% of the total?

Another Randome Thought: Dose anyone care?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Point out to me where Kerry or his campaign is behind the 18 senators or the article.

As far as Rather's false-document piece, that is understandable. Some slip-up happened and they didn't check like it should have been. Dan Rather did apologize for it, afterall. I don't see Sinclair ever apologizing for this video.

-Drachasor

Unless you can show elsewhere, to date Rather has simply apologized for not being able to authenticate the documents not that they were indeed fabricated.

The difference being Rather clings to the essence of them being real just simply not provably so.

His delusional need to justify his biased axe wielding would be laughable were it not so unapparent to the punch drinking Bush haters.

As for Sinclair apologizing the difference betweenst the two is the Sinclair video would have to be investigated first and shown to be demonstratably false. Has that happened so far? (And realize I say this whilst maintaining my position that I don't think it should be shown)

[Drachasor]

As far as Rather is concerned, there is good evidence the basic story was true, just those documents weren't. As such apologizing only for the documents seems logical. Of course, the whole story seems a bit silly to me, since it doesn't really seem relevent to the campagin (but people try to make it so).

As for Sinclair...well...if you really think that John Kerry extended the war in Vietnam and made prisoners be held longer...then that is insane. With such insane charges like that, acting like it is going to be a reasonable documentary is ridiculous. And what do they base it on? Some extraordinary evidence for such an outrageous claim? The testimony of military generals? No, they base it on the statements of some vets and their wives. It simply can't back up the claims.

-Drachasor

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor
As far as Rather is concerned, there is good evidence the basic story was true, just those documents weren't. As such apologizing only for the documents seems logical. Of course, the whole story seems a bit silly to me, since it doesn't really seem relevent to the campagin (but people try to make it so).

For what seems the billionth time the central point re: the CBS fiasco was not so much that they attempted to inflate a meaningless story that meant less than a half a piss in the ocean when more meaty stories were begging some form of media attention 3 weeks earlier and being ignored, nor was it their sloppy research, nor was it their rush in order to provide a scoop (obviously negated by the fact it was meaningless), nor was it their cover up attempts, nor was it their attempts to queue in the Kerry campaign to coordinate their counter attack against Bush, nor was it after being conclusively proven that the documents were false that they sacrificed the first principal of journalism by sticking to the Kerry taling points and maintaining the story is true we just can't prove it....nope it was the entirety that condemns CBS as nothing more than an arm of the Kerry campaign.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor

As for Sinclair...well...if you really think that John Kerry extended the war in Vietnam and made prisoners be held longer...then that is insane. With such insane charges like that, acting like it is going to be a reasonable documentary is ridiculous. And what do they base it on? Some extraordinary evidence for such an outrageous claim? The testimony of military generals? No, they base it on the statements of some vets and their wives. It simply can't back up the claims.

Thanks for that in depth expose.