Anti-Kerry Film Sinclair Group

Whether Sinclair is credible or not, you guys are not answering the question about what is wrong with the media airing a program that discloses what Kerry said and did as a participant in the anti-war movement. You argue the merits of Kerry vs Bush service. You try to argue everything except the issue.

It's actually quite funny that a program that presumably will accurately track Kerry's anti-war movement participation is labeled "anti-Kerry." Chances are, the documentary will play clips of Kerry's actual testimony. If what Kerry said and did is heroic and patriotic, how is the documentary anti-Kerry?

Now I have heard that Sinclair also plans on showing interviews of the ex-POWs and their families who hate Kerry for what he did. If they also play interviews of Kerry folks who want to opine that his words are patriotic and heroic, where's the foul?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
If they also play interviews of Kerry folks who want to opine that his words are patriotic and heroic, where's the foul?
[/QUOTE]

No they won’t.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Whether Sinclair is credible or not, you guys are not answering the question about what is wrong with the media airing a program that discloses what Kerry said and did as a participant in the anti-war movement.

[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with airing such program, but it is hypocritical that Republicans were against the documentary/ movie about Ronald Reagan that supposed to be shown on CBS.

myvoice, Sinclair is not giving a fair shake to both candidates. You know it too, so lets cut the chase. They are doing what they want to do, and that is to help Bush get elected. Now, if they offer to play "Farenheit 9/11" right along with "Stolen Honor", then you have a point. There is a reason why Kerry's folks have refused to give Sinclair any interviews.

Anyway, I am a supporter of freedom of speech. Sinclair or whoever, can be a slimy sleazeball, but its their business.

:rotfl: :hehe: :rotfl:

sorry guys, please keep your discussion going, i just couldn’t help laugh at this.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
It's actually quite funny that a program that presumably will accurately track Kerry's anti-war movement participation is labeled "anti-Kerry." Chances are, the documentary will play clips of Kerry's actual testimony. If what Kerry said and did is heroic and patriotic, how is the documentary anti-Kerry?

Now I have heard that Sinclair also plans on showing interviews of the ex-POWs and their families who hate Kerry for what he did. If they also play interviews of Kerry folks who want to opine that his words are patriotic and heroic, where's the foul?
[/QUOTE]

"program that presumably will accurately"

myvoice, the show is called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" , you expect it to be accurate? In additional to that, the man who owns the production company of "Stolen Honor" has ties to Dubya and is in fact a Dubya appointee. The airing of it could very well break break campaign finance laws.

An interesting side story with Sinclair, it turns out David D. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group was arrested and charged with committing a "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker in 1996. I guess he puts the Sin in Sinclair.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
myvoice, Sinclair is not giving a fair shake to both candidates. You know it too, so lets cut the chase. They are doing what they want to do, and that is to help Bush get elected. Now, if they offer to play "Farenheit 9/11" right along with "Stolen Honor", then you have a point. There is a reason why Kerry's folks have refused to give Sinclair any interviews.

Anyway, I am a supporter of freedom of speech. Sinclair or whoever, can be a slimy sleazeball, but its their business.
[/QUOTE]

I've already voiced my opinion about airing Fareheit 911. Bring it on as long as it is segmented and equal time is offered to rebut.

** You write: "There is a reason why Kerry's folks have refused to give Sinclair any interviews." ** That is really fascinating. It is my understanding that Sinclair is offering to give equal time to Kerry to respond to the charges expected to be contained in the "documentary." Either because of dislike of the message or dislike of the messenger, Kerry won't appear. You've got no basis to claim foul play and bias if you are offered a platform to get your voice heard and decline the invitation.

This sounds sort of like the O'Reilly interview of Bush. O'Reilly has offered Kerry an interview too. Last I heard, Kerry was still declining. So the Kerry troopers dutifully run around screaming that O'Reilly is biased and want the interview with Bush dismissed.

The Kerry camp is just plain scared of having voters exposed to anything other than the Kerry who appears on those 90 minute debates. He needs to appear firm and resolute and non-contradictory for a mere 270 minutes of his life. I give his campaign team their props for this strategy. That 270 minutes is about all the information a whole bunch of voters will accumulate before deciding to vote and they will be the best 270 minutes of Kerry's career.

The challenge of the Bush campaign and their supporters will be to re-introduce the real John Kerry to the voters in the remaining debate free weeks of the campaign.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
An interesting side story with Sinclair, it turns out David D. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group was arrested and charged with committing a "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker in 1996. I guess he puts the Sin in Sinclair.
[/QUOTE]

Another good story of a Compassionate Conservative.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *

"program that presumably will accurately"

myvoice, the show is called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" , you expect it to be accurate? In additional to that, the man who owns the production company of "Stolen Honor" has ties to Dubya and is in fact a Dubya appointee. The airing of it could very well break break campaign finance laws.

An interesting side story with Sinclair, it turns out David D. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of Sinclair Broadcast Group was arrested and charged with committing a "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker in 1996. I guess he puts the Sin in Sinclair.
[/QUOTE]

UTD: Do you seriously doubt that among many Viet Nam veterans, POWs and their families that John Kerry's words and actions in the anti-war movement caused "Wounds that Never Heal?" Do you seriously doubt that many believe their loved ones had their "honor stolen?" Because a program is dedicated to publicizing those feelings does not make it "inacurate." It can be challenged as one-sided and biased but hardly inaccurate.

And the bias and one sided nature of the film can easily be counter-acted by inviting commentary and guests who believe Kerry's actions were patriotic. The news I heard suggested that just such an effort is being made. Whether the Kerry camp chooses to accept the invite is their decision.

As to committing a "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker, your attack is transparently wrong and starts from a false premise. It is not possible to commit an "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker. Once you've got the hooker, everything else is natural and permissible.

That would be four more months than George W...the overall period was more than two years in the military. This guy is pretty inspirational if you saw the documentary on Frontline. Remember, the Bushies are the same people who challenged John McCain's patriotism four years ago and went as far as to spread rumors about him having a black child in South Carolina.

There is no depth to which the Bush people will not go to win, even today Bush was quoted as saying "I will step on Kerry's throat." Doesn't sound very compassionate to me.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Kerrry was performing acts of heroism under enemy fire

Seminole, love you to death dude, but Kerry was only over there for four months.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Agent Smith: *

Another good story of a Compassionate Conservative.
[/QUOTE]

Not that the factor is a pervert...but......hmmmm..whats up with that now?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

UTD: Do you seriously doubt that among many Viet Nam veterans, POWs and their families that John Kerry's words and actions in the anti-war movement caused "Wounds that Never Heal?" Do you seriously doubt that many believe their loved ones had their "honor stolen?" Because a program is dedicated to publicizing those feelings does not make it "inacurate." It can be challenged as one-sided and biased but hardly inaccurate.

And the bias and one sided nature of the film can easily be counter-acted by inviting commentary and guests who believe Kerry's actions were patriotic. The news I heard suggested that just such an effort is being made. Whether the Kerry camp chooses to accept the invite is their decision.

As to committing a "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker, your attack is transparently wrong and starts from a false premise. It is not possible to commit an "unnatural and perverted sex act" with a hooker. Once you've got the hooker, everything else is natural and permissible.
[/QUOTE]

MV,

If I'm not mistaken...John Kerry was a leader to find MIA's and POW's.

This Sinclair insider admitted that this film is just "biased political propaganda” and saying so cost him his job.

Now there are allegations surfacing that insider-trading occured within the Sinclair Company. Their stock has taken a nice pounding as of late.

Sinclair fires reporter for criticizing anti-Kerry program

(CNN) – The Washington bureau chief for a chain of television stations that plans to run a documentary critical of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday he was fired for publicly criticizing the company’s decision to air the program.

In an interview published Monday, Jon Leiberman told The Baltimore Sun that Sinclair Broadcast Group’s decision to air the 45-minute film as a news program was “biased political propaganda.”

Leiberman later told CNN he was fired after the story hit newsstands.

“The reason for my firing was that I relayed what they called proprietary information from an in-house meeting and I divulged it to the media, which is against company policy,” he said.

Corporate spokesman Mark Hyman confirmed Leiberman’s dismissal and said the company did not comment on personnel matters.

Leiberman told CNN he had raised objections within the company to airing the film as a news program, and “just basically said, ‘I don’t want to be a part of it.’” He said he was warned not to go public with his objections and was canned when he did.

“I knew this was a possible consequence,” Leiberman said. “I really wanted them to just change the ways that they do things. I’ve been telling them for months that they need to change the way they do things.”

Sinclair has ordered its 62 television stations to run the 40-minute film “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” in which former U.S. prisoners of war criticize Kerry’s role in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

The film, by journalist Carlton Sherwood, is backed by the anti-Kerry veterans group Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth.

The group has accused Kerry of lying about his Vietnam combat record and harming U.S. prisoners as an antiwar activist by recounting allegations of war crimes by U.S. troops to a Senate committee.

Sinclair owns stations in the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin, and Democrats say Sinclair would be making an illegal campaign contribution to President Bush’s re-election effort by airing the film. But the company says it is a news program and has offered Kerry time to respond.

Hyman said Leiberman was breaking silence because of his “political views.”

“We have no further comment on the actions of a disgruntled employee or an ongoing personnel matter,” Hyman said in a statement to CNN. “Viewers can grade Leiberman’s opinion versus the reality when the finished product is aired.”

But Leiberman told the Sun his objection was not a matter of politics – “It’s about what’s right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election.”

The company has drawn attention within the industry with its “News Central” broadcasts, which beam centralized news programming from corporate headquarters for its stations. That programming includes conservative news commentary from Hyman.

Sinclair’s top executives are public supporters of the Bush campaign. They have donated at least $58,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign or the Republican National Committee for the 2004 election.

Leiberman said he had worked for Sinclair for four and a half years and founded the company’s Washington bureau 15 months ago.

“There was a lot of pressure from above and from the commentary department to put a certain slant on the news, and I fought that. I fought that for months,” he said.

There was no immediate reaction from Hyman to that allegation.

Sinclair Retreats on Kerry Film

Wed Oct 20, 7:55 AM ET

By Elizabeth Jensen Times Staff Writer

NEW YORK — Facing advertiser defections, a viewer boycott and a plummeting stock price, as well as strong opposition from Democrats, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. scrapped its plan to air a film that attacks the 1970s-era antiwar activities of Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), and will instead run a special produced by its news division incorporating parts of the movie.

The decision not to run all of "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" came after several shareholder complaints against the company were announced Tuesday, sending Sinclair shares down 3.5% after a nearly 8% slide Monday.

Sinclair, which owns or controls stations that reach nearly a quarter of all American homes with televisions, also scaled back the number of outlets that would air the revised program, called "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." It will air Friday on 40 of Sinclair's 62 stations, including three each in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Florida.

According to a Sinclair news release issued late Tuesday, the program would look at the use of documentaries to influence voting in the 2004 campaign, as well as at media bias and the content of "certain of these documentaries." "Stolen Honor" was the only film cited in the news release.

Sinclair's announcement caps 10 days in which the company found itself under assault as a symbol of the effects of media consolidation. Its plan to air the film — never announced publicly but communicated widely to its employees, its stations, its network partners and "Stolen Honor" filmmaker Carlton Sherwood — drew sharp criticism after it was disclosed in The Times, partly because the proposed air date fell so close to election day in an intensely fought presidential race.

Democratic senators and representatives protested to the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites), and the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) complained to the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) that the broadcast would be an improper in-kind contribution to the Bush reelection effort. FCC (news - web sites) Chairman Michael K. Powell said the agency wouldn't intervene.

Sinclair executives are top donors to the Republican Party, and the company has previously been criticized for eschewing localism in favor of a centralized news operation run from its Maryland headquarters. Critics and even some Sinclair employees said that approach had blurred the line between journalism and right-skewing commentary.

The Sinclair news department got the assignment to do the news program on Sunday, according to Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's Washington bureau chief. Leiberman was fired Monday for violating company policy by telling the Baltimore Sun he had refused to work on the program. In an interview with The Times, Leiberman said he thought the program should be labeled commentary, not news.

Critics said the new program would probably still represent a wide airing for the charges that Sherwood made in the 42-minute "Stolen Honor" — namely that Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities prolonged the ordeal of American prisoners.

"Why do you need to report this issue in a special on a Friday night in prime time before the election?" said Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department. Sinclair's centralized newscast seems "invented just for this purpose, when the bosses think some story is being neglected and they want to be sure it gets out to its stations," Rosen said.

Kerry's campaign, which had demanded equal time on Sinclair stations to counter "Stolen Honor," had turned down Sinclair's request to have the Democratic candidate appear to discuss the "Stolen Honor" charges.

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said of the new development: "It remains to be seen whether they decide to put their own narrow interest ahead of the public's trust."

Bill Kovach, founding director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, said the Sinclair case represented the "fear of the opponents of media consolidation — that ownership could do just this."

Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo.com, a Web log, had been encouraging the protests, said the activists forced Sinclair to change course: "This wouldn't have happened four years ago," he said, noting that "an infrastructure for mobilization" now existed among Democrats.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, said in a statement that the company had "backed down." "It seems as if the public pressure was more than it could bear," he said.

Sherwood, the filmmaker, said, "Of course I would have hoped that the entire film would have been aired," adding that the company's executives had his "highest respect for all the criticism and financial losses and difficulties they have had to endure as a result of this." He declined further comment until he could confer with Sinclair.

Sinclair executives didn't return calls for comment. According to the press release, the program will air at 8 p.m. Friday (7 p.m. Central time) on stations including Sinclair's only California outlet in Sacramento. Previously, Sinclair had told the networks with which it was affiliated that its stations would preempt network programming for "Stolen Honor" beginning Thursday.

The company said it would limit the airing of the special to one station in each city to "minimize the interruption of normally scheduled programming." The firm has been a beneficiary of relaxed federal limits on the number of stations one company can control in a market; Sinclair runs two or more outlets in 21 markets nationwide.

Sinclair's actions came after a day of increased shareholder pressure and evidence that the controversy was drawing wider attention to its already-sinking share price.

On Tuesday, Glickenhaus & Co., an investment firm holding 6,100 Sinclair shares, sent a letter to Sinclair's board and its chief executive, David D. Smith, asking that they immediately "provide those with views opposed to the allegations in the film an equal opportunity to respond." The letter threatened legal action to stop the broadcast otherwise, citing Sinclair's obligation to shareholders. The action was underwritten by the left-leaning advocacy group Media Matters for America.

Also Tuesday, William Lerach, a San Diego attorney with Democratic ties who represents major institutional investors, wrote to Sinclair on behalf of clients — the only one he would name was the 1199 Service Employees International Union Greater New York Pension Fund — saying it was "extremely troubled" by the company's recent downward revision of its expected third-quarter earnings, due out Nov. 4.

Lerach asked that the board take action against what he said was possible insider trading by three senior executives in the last year. Such a request is standard prelude to a shareholder suit, which Lerach said could be filed soon.

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, a Democrat, sent Sinclair a letter Tuesday in his capacity as trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which holds 256,000 Sinclair shares, questioning how the controversy "will improve performance and add to shareholder value."

Sinclair's Smith, in the press release, called the experience of preparing the special "trying for many of those involved. The company and many of its executives have endured personal attacks of the vilest nature," he said, as well as the boycott threats and calls for shareholders to sell stock.

"More shockingly," he said, "we have received threats of retribution from a member of Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign."

Kerry spokesman Clanton called the charge "ridiculous," saying, "The only threat here is Sinclair Broadcasting who's trying to use the airwaves for partisan political purposes."

Smith added in his statement, "We cannot in a free America yield to the misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence and trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not agree."

^^

Had the GOP or conservatives mounted such a campaign to supress the airing of a program near and dear to the Liberal Democrats’ hearts, we would hear a never ending hue and cry about censorship and violation of the First Amendment.

Boycott’s and shareholders selling stock is not the stuff of censorship and prior restraint, regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal campaign. It just reinforces that while you are free to make your speech, others are free to react to it and take action as they see fit also.

HOWEVER, the threat of retribution against Sinclair by a Kerry Administration if Kerry wins was totally out of line and is offensive. That does border on violating the law if not crossing the line. Nixon used government agencies to retaliate and punish his enemies. It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. :nook:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Whether Sinclair is credible or not, you guys are not answering the question about what is wrong with the media airing a program that discloses what Kerry said and did as a participant in the anti-war movement. You argue the merits of Kerry vs Bush service. You try to argue everything except the issue.

It's actually quite funny that a program that presumably will accurately track Kerry's anti-war movement participation is labeled "anti-Kerry." Chances are, the documentary will play clips of Kerry's actual testimony. If what Kerry said and did is heroic and patriotic, how is the documentary anti-Kerry?

Now I have heard that Sinclair also plans on showing interviews of the ex-POWs and their families who hate Kerry for what he did. If they also play interviews of Kerry folks who want to opine that his words are patriotic and heroic, where's the foul?
[/QUOTE]

I think Kerry serving and telling about it....definately outweighs Bush and Cheney running away from service.

And what befuddles me is.......men that ditched service are suddenly believed to be (by the RNC) grand military leaders?

What really befuddles me is that people actually believe that the Bush-Cheney folks are the grand leaders to fight terror?

Huh?

5 deferals....

likely didn't complete Guard service??

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Had the GOP or conservatives mounted such a campaign to supress the airing of a program near and dear to the Liberal Democrats' hearts, we would hear a never ending hue and cry about censorship and violation of the First Amendment.

[/QUOTE]
Well, lets not kid ourselves, right :) We all know this happens all the time. Did you so quickly forget the "Reagan" documentary that was produced by CBS, but some conservative groups thought that the documentary gives an unflattering picture of their leader, so they launched a similar campaign against CBS. Underpressure by conservative groups, CBS pulled it out of their regular schedule on the network.. and only showed it on ShowTime or some other cable channel.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Well, lets not kid ourselves, right :) We all know this happens all the time. Did you so quickly forget the "Reagan" documentary that was produced by CBS, but some conservative groups thought that the documentary gives an unflattering picture of their leader, so they launched a similar campaign against CBS. Underpressure by conservative groups, CBS pulled it out of their regular schedule on the network.. and only showed it on ShowTime or some other cable channel.
[/QUOTE]

I didn't forget about the Reagan Documentary (and I use the term documentatry lightly). Boycotts and pressure against advertisers wasn't "censorship" then and it's not now. It's generally left wing Liberals who claim censorship when something they want to air is attacked like this. BUT, I simply don't recall any GOP candidate for President or his campaign threatening to use the FCC to punish CBS if it aired the Reagan film. Do You???? That's the part I object to.

The thing is myvoice, NO ONE from the Kerry campaign have made any threats, Sinclair saying that it has happened doesn't mean it's true as their credibility has already been shown to be nil.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
The thing is myvoice, NO ONE from the Kerry campaign have made any threats, Sinclair saying that it has happened doesn't mean it's true as their credibility has already been shown to be nil.
[/QUOTE]

Not true UTD. I heard the Kerry campaign spokeman. The quote was pretty close to the following: "If they air that program, they had better hope we don't win the election." It was a pretty clear and implicit threat to have the FCC start an investigation or proceding against Sinclair if Kerry got elected.

myvoice, you said
[quote]
Had the GOP or conservatives mounted such a campaign to supress the airing of a program near and dear to the Liberal Democrats' hearts, we would hear a never ending hue and cry about censorship and violation of the First Amendment.

Boycott's and shareholders selling stock is not the stuff of censorship and prior restraint, regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal campaign. It just reinforces that while you are free to make your speech, others are free to react to it and take action as they see fit also.
[/quote]
Point is, this happens on both ways, and is not something limited to left or the right. Right now, we are in the final stages of a very close election. So, Sinclair's original intention of airing a rabid anti-Kerry documentary, and Kerry campaign's reaction is all motivated by elections. No point in pointing fingers at one or the other. This is how this game is played anyway.