Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film

dr. what · Post by **dr. what** » 2004-10-09 03:00pm

Got this from L.A. Times but you need a subscription to see the story on-line.

A few other non-subscription outlets are running with the story--here's a few more links

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 589.htm?1c

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=2408468

http://www.nbc4.com/news/3797658/detail.html

NEW YORK — The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

The company made headlines in April when it ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel's "Nightline" roll call of military dead in Iraq, deeming it a political statement "disguised as news content." Sen. John McCain, the Republican from Arizona who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was among those who criticized Sinclair's decision not to air the "Nightline" program, which featured the names and pictures of more than 700 U.S. troops.

Even before the "Nightline" controversy, Sinclair drew criticism because of the combination of its highly centralized news operations, which often include conservative commentary, and its almost exclusively Republican political giving. In the 2004 political cycle, Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97% to Republicans, ranking it 12th among top radio and TV station group contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group.

Several sources said Sinclair had told them it planned to classify the program as news, where the [federal broadcasting rules regarding equal time] don't apply.

Calling it news, however, poses its own problems, said Keith Woods, dean of the faculty at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla., that teaches professional ethics. "To air a documentary intended to provide a one-sided view of Kerry's record and call it news — it's like calling Michael Moore's movie news," he said, adding that the closer to an election that a controversial news report is aired, the "higher the bar has to go" in terms of fairness.

Clearly, Sinclair's reach will bring a much wider audience to the film. The 42-minute film has only been available on DVD or for $4.99 through an Internet download, although fans had been mounting an Internet campaign to get it wider exposure.

"Stolen Honor" was made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and former reporter for the conservative Washington Times who is also the author of a book about the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. On the website for the film, he tells viewers, "Intended or not, Lt. Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that endured for 30 years in the popular culture.

Sherwood did not return calls seeking comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm confused--What would happen if some broadcasting group decided to air Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" days before the election, and labeled it "news" to evade federal equal time laws? Would there be any end to the screaming hurled from both left and right? No, there wouldn't. Yet here we have one of Sun Myung Moon's staff producing a piece of anti-Kerry propaganda, and a major corporation strong-arming the networks to promulgate this propaganda a few days before the election--

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-09 03:02pm

Yep, the US election system isn't just convoluted, melodramatic and quite overstretched, it's also a high-profile shit slinging contest.

Who has the most money, biggest lies and best media service available, wins.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-09 03:21pm

Look at the liberal media go.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-10-09 03:25pm

Oh, let's not forget the holy stink the conservatives made over The Reagans. REAL consistent there, folks.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-09 03:35pm

Durandal wrote:Look at the liberal media go.

They're not liberal, they're opportunistic fucktards who worship whoever has the gold at the moment...

CNN excerpt: Flip-Flopping Neocons? Can't possibly be! wrote:Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.

The company made headlines in April when it ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel's "Nightline" roll call of military dead in Iraq, deeming it a political statement "disguised as news content." Sen. John McCain, the Republican from Arizona who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was among those who criticized Sinclair's decision not to air the "Nightline" program, which featured the names and pictures of more than 700 U.S. troops.

AND YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS DECRY KERRY AS FLIPFLOPPING HYPOCRITES YOU-- FLIPFLOPPING HYPOCRITICAL SONS OF BITCHES!

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 04:05pm

It will get shot down by federal law. There is no way they can dress that up as news program, since it doesn't meet any of the definitions of news. Let them classify it as a documentary and make it meet Federal Broadcasting criteria and I'd say more power to them, it's there money, but this is completely shady.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-09 06:55pm

Durandal wrote:Look at the liberal media go.

And this just wipes clean the God awful record that the mainstream newspapers hold?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 06:58pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Durandal wrote:Look at the liberal media go.
And this just wipes clean the God awful record that the mainstream newspapers hold?

Hey look, a Rightwinger claiming mainstream media is liberal with no proof. Isn't it cute?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-09 07:48pm

SirNitram wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Durandal wrote:Look at the liberal media go.
And this just wipes clean the God awful record that the mainstream newspapers hold?
Hey look, a Rightwinger claiming mainstream media is liberal with no proof. Isn't it cute?

Why not read the New York Times?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-09 08:00pm

I wish people would stop using the term "liberal media." People in the media might have more liberal view points, but there's a thing called journalistic ethics. The correct term is ratings-whore. Which story is more interesting? Little Susan got her first box of crayons at school or the Vice President said "fuck you"?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 08:17pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
SirNitram wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:And this just wipes clean the God awful record that the mainstream newspapers hold?
Hey look, a Rightwinger claiming mainstream media is liberal with no proof. Isn't it cute?
Why not read the New York Times?

Are you going to try and actually present an argument, or just bleat?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-10 12:21am

SirNitram wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Hey look, a Rightwinger claiming mainstream media is liberal with no proof. Isn't it cute?
Why not read the New York Times?
Are you going to try and actually present an argument, or just bleat?

Judging by his past history, I'll go with 'bleat'.

So... who's up for veal brisket for dinner?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-10 12:23am

Talon Karrde wrote:
Durandal wrote:Look at the liberal media go.
And this just wipes clean the God awful record that the mainstream newspapers hold?

It's sad that we live in a world where the definition of "unbiased" is that you agree with one party precisely 50% of the time, and the other party the other 50% of the time.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-10 12:27am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:<snip the sheep>

So... who's up for veal brisket for dinner?

Isn't veal baby cow?

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-10 12:44am

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:<snip the sheep>

So... who's up for veal brisket for dinner?
Isn't veal baby cow?

Yup. I meant to say "Mutton".

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-10 04:12am

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:<snip the sheep>

So... who's up for veal brisket for dinner?
Isn't veal baby cow?
Yup. I meant to say "Mutton".

Nah...it's not mutton. Just lamb. Mutton would be mature sheep.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-10 05:57am

The Dark wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote: Isn't veal baby cow?
Yup. I meant to say "Mutton".
Nah...it's not mutton. Just lamb. Mutton would be mature sheep.

That pic is of a sheep, thus mutton.....as a Kiwi, I dont think I shall say more.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-11 01:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Durandal wrote:Look at the liberal media go.
And this just wipes clean the God awful record that the mainstream newspapers hold?
It's sad that we live in a world where the definition of "unbiased" is that you agree with one party precisely 50% of the time, and the other party the other 50% of the time.

I'm not saying they have to agree with each side equally. The only thing I have a problem with is when a news story is laced with subliminal liberal beliefs. Editorials, I have no problem with. That's what they are for, to display the the collective beliefs of the editorial staff. News reporting shouldn't be the same however.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 01:30pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's sad that we live in a world where the definition of "unbiased" is that you agree with one party precisely 50% of the time, and the other party the other 50% of the time.
I'm not saying they have to agree with each side equally. The only thing I have a problem with is when a news story is laced with subliminal liberal beliefs.

"Subliminal liberal beliefs" such as?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-11 01:35pm

Maybe if we slow down liberal newsfeeds we can see single-frame instances of placards saying "BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS", "VOTE KERRY" and "KILL THE GOP! KILL! KILL! KILL!".

Can't say I've seen them before.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-11 02:28pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's sad that we live in a world where the definition of "unbiased" is that you agree with one party precisely 50% of the time, and the other party the other 50% of the time.
I'm not saying they have to agree with each side equally. The only thing I have a problem with is when a news story is laced with subliminal liberal beliefs.
"Subliminal liberal beliefs" such as?

I'm just starting to read some research done by a couple of gentlemen. They did a study on mainstream liberal bias. If you want to check it out, mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

I've just started reading it so I don't know if it's credible yet or not.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-10-11 02:30pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Maybe if we slow down liberal newsfeeds we can see single-frame instances of placards saying "BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS", "VOTE KERRY" and "KILL THE GOP! KILL! KILL! KILL!".

Can't say I've seen them before.

That explains my urge to poison members of the RNC. Must burn those letters now, oh bother.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 02:30pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:"Subliminal liberal beliefs" such as?
I'm just starting to read some research done by a couple of gentlemen. They did a study on mainstream liberal bias. If you want to check it out, mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc

I've just started reading it so I don't know if it's credible yet or not.

That's not an answer to my question. Once again: "subliminal liberal beliefs" such as?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-11 02:32pm

You know the problem with right-wingnuts? They've successfully changed the litmus test for an argument or news report from "subjectivity vs objectivity" to "liberal vs conservative".

That way, they can dismiss anything which is liberal as intrinsically "biased" and therefore wrong, even if it is logical and objective.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-11 02:44pm

Darth Wong wrote:You know the problem with right-wingnuts? They've successfully changed the litmus test for an argument or news report from "subjectivity vs objectivity" to "liberal vs conservative".

That way, they can dismiss anything which is liberal as intrinsically "biased" and therefore wrong, even if it is logical and objective.

Well, from what I've seen from the report I'm reading so far, you can see this isn't the case.

Once again: "subliminal liberal beliefs" such as?

Such as references to liberal think tanks as un-biased sources on topics of interest.