Sinclair broadcasting
If you've been following the buzz, you are probably aware of Sinclair Broadcasting's intention to violate FCC regulations by forcing its affiliate stations to air a piece of anti-Kerry propaganda over the public airwaves just before the election (a Swift Boat mockumentary titled "Stolen Honor".)
Yesterday, Sinclair's Washington Bureau Chief, Jon Lieberman spoke out against the plans in
this Baltimore Sun article saying:
"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election.
For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news
coverage this close to an election."
Not surprisingly, Lieberman was jobless by the end of the day. Damn liberal media.
6 Comments:
isn't sinclair broadcasting part of the rupert murdoch friends and family program?
anyway, i agree w/the fact that if you air an anti kerry ad, you must...and let me repeat this for those who are not constitutional scholars - MUST air a similar program for the opposing party. So, if you want to air an anti kerry ad, you must air an an anti bush. now, i am a bush supporter, however am libertarian in philosophy just to let you know that i'm not some far right or far left whacko. the station should be allowed to air it - but should also allow some type of counter by the dems and kerry. kinda like after the state of the union address and the minority leader gives his 2 cents.
i understand your compromise. however, i dont think a station should air ANY propaganda. period. pro kerry or pro bush. even allowing the kerry campaign to have an hour of free time to 'balance' things out is not fair.
if you dont believe me, how would bush supporters feel if cbs broadcasted a movie about bush's drug abuse? would it even things out if it allowed the bush campaign an hour to defned itself. i dont think so.
airing this crap simply serves to legitimize it. and the swift boat attacks on kerry are not legitimate.
you cannot limit speech or opinions (as long as they are presented peacefully); right, wrong, or indifferent - sorry, that's the libertarian/constitutionalist in me. one cannot worry about how the public is influenced. we can't worry about what our neighbor thinks, we can only hope to present each side and allow every voter to form an opinion, again right wrong or indifferent.
in these instances, the actual one and the one you suggested about bush, i would say yes air both as long as they are based in fact and not made as the sunday abc movie of the week where sensationalism and emotion are more important than fact. Based on a true story (First Blood for example) and a true story are 2 different things. if the SBV have a documentary that is factual that they are putting out...air it but allow for something else to be aired immidiately after. every voice counts and apparently the SBV feel very strong about this issue - as many other vets do. Whether or not Kerry's assertions about 'Nam are correct, many feel betrayed as Kerry was detailing a few bad apples - as there are in any bunch (see Abu Gahrib). Bush's drug use isn't really a good parallel; i'd say use his national guard record if we're doing the comparision or the balanced airways. bring up his drug record (which is rediculous anyway...why was it such a big deal when the reps. brought up gore and clintons? everyone then at that time said it's not a big deal and we should not worry about what happened in the 60s and 70s...right? Bill obviously - or as far as we know - changed his ways and so did GWB - as far as we know with his 'born again' claims (i credit laura). so to bring us back on track...
would i air farenheit 9/11 on cbs? no - not w/o a balance. would i air it on hbo? yes no matter what.
you aren't recognizing the responsibility put upon those who are allowed to broadcast over the public airwaves. sinclair would and should be allowed to broadcast whatever filth it wants to, on cable. however, the program in question is going to be aired over the public airwaves. the fcc governs what can be put on such airwaves. of course, like everything else in government, the fcc is controlled by the extreme right wing of the GOP.
there are limits to free speech in the constitution. sinclair is free to produce programming of this nature. however, it cant use a domain of the public to air it.
additionally, you cannot simply say anything you want about somebody. it is against the law to slander or libel, ie use false speech to damage someone, in any forum, let alone the public airwaves. therefore, it is not lawful to broadcast something that is false and damaging against either candidate. while i havent seen this documentary, i suspect it contains much of the same falsehoods perpetrated by the swift boat veterans for truth. if not, then i'd agree that this part of the argument does not apply. the first part still stands.
to quote your prior post:
"you cannot simply say anything you want about somebody. it is against the law to slander or libel, ie use false speech to damage someone, in any forum, let alone the public airwaves. therefore, it is not lawful to broadcast something that is false and damaging against either candidate."
Tell that to Michael Moore and Dan Rather
i regret being in a position to defend either one, but rather committed a professional mistake by falling for evidence presented to him as true, and michael moore was extremely careful not to violate libel laws in his documentary fehrenheit 9/11.
like i said, i havent watched the 'stolen honor' rhetoric, so i cant comment on it specifically. but clearly some of the similar swift boat attacks were blatantly based on known falsehoods. its not slander if you believe your statements to be true. it is slander if you make stuff up specifically to damage another person.
as it stands today, sinclair has pulled the stolen honer piece and is going to present a different hour long piece that is based on stolen honor. how this is different, i dont know.
Post a Comment
<< Home