mudcat.org: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: Sinclair breaking the law

Bobert 21 Oct 04 - 10:40 PM
Jack the Sailor 21 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM
GUEST,Brucie: 21 Oct 04 - 09:58 PM
Peace 21 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM
Bobert 21 Oct 04 - 04:41 PM
GUEST,Old Guy 21 Oct 04 - 04:09 PM
Bobert 21 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM
GUEST,Old Guy 21 Oct 04 - 03:12 PM
Bobert 21 Oct 04 - 12:09 PM
Amos 21 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM
Charley Noble 21 Oct 04 - 10:06 AM
GUEST,Old Guy 21 Oct 04 - 01:21 AM
dianavan 20 Oct 04 - 11:02 PM
Peace 20 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM
Sorcha 20 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM
Kim C 20 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM
Bobert 20 Oct 04 - 09:23 AM
McGrath of Harlow 20 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM
katlaughing 20 Oct 04 - 03:44 AM
Sorcha 20 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM
GUEST,peedeecee 20 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM
GUEST,peedeecee 20 Oct 04 - 01:31 AM
GUEST,Old Guy 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM
dianavan 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM
DougR 20 Oct 04 - 01:21 AM
Peace 20 Oct 04 - 12:46 AM
GUEST,Old Guy 20 Oct 04 - 12:43 AM
Bobert 19 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM
GUEST,Old Guy 19 Oct 04 - 09:03 PM
Peace 19 Oct 04 - 08:46 PM
Greg F. 19 Oct 04 - 08:38 PM
Bobert 19 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM
Amos 19 Oct 04 - 06:56 PM
Bobert 19 Oct 04 - 06:21 PM
GUEST,peedeecee 19 Oct 04 - 05:47 PM
Peace 19 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM
GUEST,Larry K 19 Oct 04 - 04:20 PM
Once Famous 19 Oct 04 - 04:03 PM
GUEST,peedeecee 19 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM
GUEST,peedeecee 19 Oct 04 - 01:37 AM
GUEST,Old Guy 19 Oct 04 - 12:13 AM
katlaughing 18 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 04 - 11:01 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM
Bobert 18 Oct 04 - 10:39 PM
dianavan 18 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM
Jack the Sailor 18 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM
SINSULL 18 Oct 04 - 07:52 PM
Peace 18 Oct 04 - 04:47 PM
GUEST 18 Oct 04 - 02:05 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:40 PM

Well, Donnie Rumsfield has allready said its too dangerous for real elections. When he was pinned down about the fact that countrywide elections can not take place he said "Nothin's perfect"...

Well, we agree on that...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

News Night with Aaron Brown on CNN is saying Iraq may be too dangerous for reporters.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Brucie:
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 09:58 PM


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 05:00 PM

OG: You ask lots of questions and don't give any answers. Assuming Bush has a functioning brain, do you think a blue funk of seven minutes is reasonable time for a President to sit and get lost in his thoughts while his country is, as he was told, under attack?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:41 PM

Well, given my drithers I'd rather have Saddam still in power and have the somw 1200 Americans and upwards of 20,000 Ieagis still alive, not to mention the tens upon thousands of folks who have been seriously injured.

But that doesn't seem to be an option.

In charge is a difficult question to answer because no matter who it is as soon as the US and the coilition of the cohersed leave, Iraq is going to fall into a bloody civil war...

You see, Old Guy, the only guy who was preventing the various factions from *having at it* was Saddam. Do I approve of his meathods? Well, no.

The problem with Alawi is that he does not represent the Iraqi people. He wasn't really elected by the Iraqi people but by a council of handpicked folks who are in general support of the US.

It's too bad Bush has so pissed off the iternational coommunity with his arrogance because it really makes it hard for an international group to be sold on helping stabilize Iraq while things shake out. Semocarcy is probably not a realistic goal here.

What could happen, but won't as long as the US continues to shrug its sholders at the Isreali/Palestinian war, is the implimentation of the Saudi Peoposal (Mitchell Proposal), which would open up communications in the Middle East and put more of the responsibility for stability in thre region on the regions various nations. But this will take a monumental change in philosphy in the US foriegn policies which the current John Wayne gang ain't interested in. They like the microphone but ain't much into listening to noone esle but themselves. That's what got them in this mess to begin with. Cloesed mindedness...

So, Old Guy, I can't give you an answer other than what I have presented. These things will have to come about in order for Iraq to answer it's own questions. Hand pickin' other folks leaders ain't my game.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 04:09 PM

Bobert:

Who do you think should be in Alawi's place? I think you should.

Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

Who says he "went bad", Old Guy?

He was always bad 'cept he went too long without supervision and support from his masters...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 03:12 PM

The first choice for Alawi's position was Adnan Pachachi but he turned the job down because of objections from others in the governing council. So Alawi has the position because of the members of the governing counsel.

Where are the facts about who wrote Alawi's speech?

Who wrote Kerry's famous Gengiss Kahn speech? Adam Walinsky anti-war activist and former speech writer for Robert F. Kennedy.

If Saddam was indeed our man that went bad, that is all the more reason to remove him.


Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 12:09 PM

Ahhhh, Amos, if Allawi can't cut it as "our man in Iraq" they can always bring back the last "our man in Iraq". He oughtta be well rested and ready to do what he did as long as we *needed* him: say "Yes, Sir, and when's pay day?"

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Amos
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM

OG:

Jon Stewart did a wonderful comment on the fact that Bush and Allawi were actually using the same speechwriter, andhe was serving as a mechnaism for the Bush campaign. Iraq is in a LOT more trouble than Allawi was allowed to comment on in that rose-colored speech.

It is pretty clear that Allawi is "our man in Iraq" but he may not be Iraq's man.

A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 10:06 AM

"Money" apparently is the bottom line, and I find it immensely satisfying to see Sinclair's evolving rationalizations (Sinclair attorney Barry Faber quoted in Portland Press Herald, p. A10, 10/20/04):

"There has been a misunderstanding of what our intention was in part because it wasn't clear to us what our intention was."

Nuff said!

Cheerily,
Charley Noble


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 21 Oct 04 - 01:21 AM

Bobert:

Yes. That way I can decide if those claims hold water.

Brucie:

What should Bush have done?

Scorchia:

I am just an old guy saying what I believe. I stayed out of the debate until I saw Kerry downing Alawi miuntes after he addressed congress. That did it for me. Now I state what I see wrong with Kerry. People hate Bush so much they don't even question Kerry. Maybe Bush is bad but Kerry is an impending asteroid collision. I am not a Democrat or republican. I vote for whom I like. I like Bush. So does pooty-poot *after* Beslan.

You do need to see everything pro and con pertaining to this election if you want to be informed.

KimC:

The dumb bastard should have used his Yugo. He could have saved some money.

Dianavan:

Yeah, I want a free ticket. That asshole is already bragging about the 500 mil he made on that "Documentary"

Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 11:02 PM

brucie - the first site wants money and the second is no longer available. I just want a list of those that advertise with Sinclair.

Not that it really matters to Sinclair. They have probably already decided that that the stockholders can 'bite it' because I'm sure whoever is running the show at Sinclair will probably be nicely rewarded for this 'dirty trick'.

d


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM

Excerpt from article on worldnetdaily site, October 19. To quote Dylan, "Money doesn't speak, it swears."

The letter of demand, obtained by WND, stated, "In light of the collapse of Sinclair's stock price and the apparent insider trading of senior executives and board members, we are also dismayed at the company's seemingly politically motivated determination to air a program that from all reports is a politically partisan criticism of one of the candidates for president."

The letter warned of additional stock decline and additional damage to the company's reputation and success.

"Our clients are more interested in the success of the company than they are in the political views of Sinclair's executives or Board of Directors," Lerach wrote, "and we are extremely concerned at the firestorm Sinclair has ignited – especially the boycott of Sinclair's advertisers as indicated at www.boycotsbg.com and www.stopsinclair.org."


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM

Huh. Can't find it in this thread, but I did mark it. Boycott


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Kim C
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:00 PM

"It should be mentioned that Sinclair's manager was caught soliciting a prostitute from his Mercedes."

Yes, but that was on his own personal time, and his personal life shouldn't have a bearing on how he does his business. ;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 09:23 AM

Fine, Old Guy. Would you support Sinclair providing an equal amount of pre election time for the Kerry folks to air on the same 86 or so Siclair stations in a similar time slot a "documentary" on Bush's Air National Guard duty, his alcoholism and his family's past ties to the Nazis?

If you can answer "yes" to this, with your same arguement you made that the viewers can make up their own minds, then you and I have a deal. If you can't then I'll stick with my observation that you are just another partisan Bushite who couldn't care less about fairness...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 07:55 AM

One good thing about English elections is that political TV adverts are not allowed. Just a limited number of Party Political Broadcasts, identified as such, and viewed (or not viewed) with a certain scorn.

I see that Sinclair have just sacked their chief political correspondent because he spoke out againsat this propaganda broadcast - TV chain sacks journalist who accused it of propaganda . Did someone say this was about "free speech"?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 03:44 AM

Sorcha, I missed the advertisers' links and don't see anything in brucie's postings. Please let me know which posting I missed, so that I might email them, too? Thanks, darlin'...

kat


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:49 AM

Still sick of it all, but I DO need to see F 9/11...I don't need to see Stolen Honor. Thanks, brucie for the link to the advertisers. I've e mailed all the ones (local) thru the C's.....and I'll get to the rest of them.

And, Old Guy, I don't really care which side of the fence who is on, I just don't like lies and trashing. Why are you a Guest here anyway? Just so you can stir up trouble and nobody knows who you are? Heavens forbid that anyone can PM you....or know who you really are.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM

As noted above, here is the reference.

Stolen Honor lawsuit


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:31 AM

DougR, a lot depends on whether the documentary consists of lies or of provable facts. The Kerry-Vietnam thing is coming apart at the seams now. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have been proved as liars -- even the so-called "documentary" that Sinclair is saying it will show is under threat of a lawsuit from a man who will apparently be featured in it. His claim is that they are not representing him truthfully. (Sorry, I'll find the reference and link it.)

The point is this: a lot of people believe that F9/11 was built on lies. Moore has defended every point he made in that film.

If Sinclair and those associated with the Stolen Honor film are prepared to back up and defend every point they make in the film, fair enough. But I'll bet you that they won't.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM

Brucie:

What should Bush have done?

Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:29 AM

The difference is that t.v. broadcasting can be timed to enter every American home at the crucial hour.

It might be fair if everyone got a free ticket to see Farenheit 911.

d


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: DougR
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 01:21 AM

Guest Frank: would the solicitation of a prostitute have been more acceptable had the Sinclair executive have been driving a Volkswagon?

Critical Mudcatters: ever heard of Freedom of Speech?

If a similar documentary had been produced (and it has of course) that was critical of GWB, would you be up on your high horse about that? I don't think so.

DougR


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:46 AM

The only thing the Dems have to do is show seven minutes of Bush sitting still while he digested the news that the Twin Towers had been attacked. That picture would be worth a billion words. The leader of the Free World. Riiiiggggggghhhhhhhhhhht.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 20 Oct 04 - 12:43 AM

Bobert:

Fairness is showing everything to everybody and letting them decide.

Un fairness is telling them that can't see all of the information because some one else says it is untrue and should not be shown.

I saw a political ad from Colorado. An actor dressed like one of the candidates was reaching into a coffin and taking the personal effects off of the corpse such as a wristwatch. The message was that the candidate was robbing the dead. There was a another one with the same actor at a house fire grabbing something.

Would you call this the dirtiest of the dirty? Should the public be kept from seeing such ads?

It seems that you are saying that any unfair political ad is acceptable but an unfair documentary film is not acceptable.

I say that to make such distinctions is censorship.

Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Censorship, Old Guy?

I'd like to know how you'd like it if it were Michael Moores' film that was going to be shown as a *documentary* while on a vast national network while yer guy was pluggin' away 30 second ads at a timel.

You wouldn't seem so righteous if that were the scenerio. But since it's your guy who will benefit most from this cheezey end around of fairness you sit there and want to shift your partianship onto me.

Firget it. The only person in this joint that doesn't see thru this is you ande maybe a couple other Bushites...

And this is from someone who just voted today (early) for Nadar... I couldn't care less about Kerry but your obvious glee in the posssibility that yer crook will pull a fast one on the other crook is downright disgusting.

This ain't about censorship. It's about thre dirtiest of the dirty when it comes to that fraternity rivalry that you folks got going.

Fir God's sake, show a little fairness. Yer guy is going to win without having to stoop to such dirtiness and evil. It's bad for the country...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:03 PM

Bobert:
"smear ad"

Are you interpreting the contents and delivering a verdict to me and the other people that want to see the film?

I really don't need any help evaluating the film. I only need help to stop self appointed censors like you blocking the film from me and others that want to see it.


Fair and balanced:

"Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University and Media Tenor October 19, 2004 Page 1

Summary Findings:

This study examines 2004 presidential election coverage from September 7 to October 1, 2004 on ABC's "World News Tonight", CBS's "Evening News" and NBC's "Nightly News" as well as "Special Report with Brit Hume" on the Fox News Channel.

* More News – Network news campaign coverage in September was up 40% over 2000 – 199 stories vs. 141.

* More Beef – The proportion of stories covering the campaign horse race dropped from 62% in 2000 to only 23% this year, a decline of 57%. Meanwhile, the proportion of stories dealing with policy issues rose from 50% in 2000 to 53% in 2004.

* More Beefs – Both candidates are getting more negative coverage than their counterparts in 2000. Evaluations were only 38% positive toward Kerry and 29% positive toward Bush, compared to 48% positive toward Gore and 33% positive toward Bush in 2000.

* Bite Size News – Candidate sound bites averaged under eight seconds in length.

* More Differences – All three networks gave Kerry 38% positive evalua-tions.

But ABC gave Bush only 20% positive, compared to 30% at NBC and 35% at CBS.

* Bent Toward Bush? – Fox News Channel's "Special Report" featured 31% positive evaluations of Bush compared to 21% positive toward Kerry. And Fox panelists' comments favored Bush by 50% positive to only 13% positive toward Kerry.

* "Fair and Balanced"? – In "Special Report" news segments, the coverage was balanced – 27% positive for Bush and 24% for Kerry. Fox was also more balanced in its issue coverage (30% positive for Bush vs. 28% for Kerry) than the broadcast network (41% positive for Kerry vs. 23% positive for Bush)."

Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:46 PM

Greg F:

Well said.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:38 PM

Actually, I agree with Larry K. I'm a liberal, but I agree that the balance hasn't been equal.

Too true. Since Bill Clinton took office the "balance"[sic] has been skewed in favor of the Neo-Cons and the Republiican agenda.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:48 PM

Word on the street is they are gettin' some pressure from some of thier stockholders who fear that this grotesque display of partisanship will negatively impact theis ability to keep their current accounts or attract new ones...

As far as I am concerned, this should be like Business 101. If you have clients who are from both parties then walk the line.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Amos
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:56 PM

Here's a cute dodge (NY Times):

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. , under widening scrutiny over plans to air a documentary about Sen. John Kerry's wartime activities 30 years ago, said Tuesday it would not show the program in its entirety.

"Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary 'Stolen Honor' in its entirety," the Baltimore-based company said in a statement.

Sinclair said it would air a special news program on Friday called "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" that would discuss the allegations surrounding Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities.



Slime? Or something else?


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 06:21 PM

Yes, Old Guy, if the socalled documentary is broken up into 30 second spots and some group is willing to pay for their airing, then let it rip. But that is not the case at all. And you know it.

You even said that you would not pay to see Michsle Moore's film. Fine. That's your choice. But to have a one hour smear ad disguised as a documentary brought free into your and your neigbor's houses is quite a different critter indeed.

You can argue otherwise but if you have even one ounce of logic wiring in yer brain you must know that your arguments are nuthin' but partisanship.

And this observation from a Green Party supporter and voter.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:47 PM

Actually, I agree with Larry K. I'm a liberal, but I agree that the balance hasn't been equal.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM

Larry K,

Have you spoken with Old Guy lately? He's on the rag about people's English usage. Strange fellow. Anyway, it would be cool to air 9/11 every day for a week before the election. IMO, of course. However, it will all come to nothing, because Bush will lose and Kerry will win. I do think the vote will be close, however.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:20 PM

I am still waiting for equal time on 60 minutes after the 4 interviews with the Bush Bashers.   I am still waiting for equal time on the morning shows which had Kitty Kelly for 3 days, but never once had the Swift Boats.   I am still waiting for equal time on CBS news after they put on forged doccuments.   I am still waiting for Farenhype 911 to get distribution in theatres.

Payback it a bitch.   Thank you Sinclair.   I hope they run it over and over.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 04:03 PM

It's not illegal and the FCC cannot stop it. It's Sinclair's stations and they can put on what they want. They DO own the air waves as long as they have the license to do so.

When Sinclair stations come up for annual license renewal, that is the time to bitch.

As I and many others had no interest in watching the Michael Moore editorialized docu-op-ed, there will be some who won't watch the Kerry one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM

Leiberman was indeed fired today. And the market is showing Sinclair its reaction.

Retribution, saith the market.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:37 AM

Well, someone at Sinclair has integrity. Jon Leiberman may no longer have a job by the time you read this, but someone will hire him and be lucky to have him. He has spoken out against Sinclair's intention to show the anti-Kerry film -- not for what the film states, but for the way the network is planning to show it: propaganda as "news."


"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," said Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter for more than a year. "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."

Leiberman spoke out yesterday after a mandatory staff meeting attended by Sinclair's corporate news division at company headquarters in Hunt Valley.

"I have nothing to gain here -- and really, I have a lot to lose," Leiberman said. "At the end of the day, though, all you really have is your credibility."

Sinclair staffers were told the show would be presented as news, not opinion, Leiberman said.

Some industry analysts have decried Sinclair's plans. "People in the news business are supposed to present both sides of the story," said American University communications professor Jane Hall, a media critic for Fox News Watch. "They are not supposed to have an agenda. They are not supposed to want to affect the outcome of the election with something they label news."

Leiberman said he was anguished by his decision to speak out. But, he said, the influence of commentator Mark Hyman and Chief Executive David D. Smith has been devastating. "There is going to be a concerted effort on the part of my colleagues to make this as balanced a program as they can," Leiberman said. "But the selection of the material -- dumping it on the news department, and giving them four days, and running it this close to the election -- it's indefensible, in my opinion."

Leiberman said he told Sinclair's vice president for news, Joseph DeFeo, that he would not contribute to the program and that DeFeo suggested the reporter could lose his job.

--------------
Good for him! Unfortunately, I can't make a link, as this piece was published in the Baltimore Sun, which requires a subscription. Perhaps an online search will bring up another source for the story.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST,Old Guy
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:13 AM

Bobert:

So if the documentary that the Democrats don't want me to see was broken up into 30 second segments and somebody of the documentary paid big bucks to have the segments aired on national TV it would be acceptable?

I think I can decide the validity of the film If I could see it. I could also decide on the validity of Farenheit 9/11 if I saw it but I am not about to put more money into Moore's pocket in order to see it.

I say all those documaenarys should be on national TV for all to watch and decide what is truth and what is a lie but he Democrats seem to know more about what the public should see than the public does.

They think can screen out the lies and present us only with the truth. They think they are our "keepers" looking out for us. They think we could not survive if it were not for them and we need them to protect us from the evil Republicans.

Here is what is presented to the public as truth by Democrats:
"There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told." M Moore speaking at the University
of Michigan's Power Center Oct 12 2003

Show us all the information. BRING IT ON as Kerry would say.

Old Guy


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:20 PM

You will find links to the stations which Sinclair owns and much more info on the subject in this previous thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:01 PM

NPR Story on the boycott.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4114144


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:57 PM

Dianavan, you will have to do more than that to be effective. try this link, it seems to be well organized.

Boycott


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:39 PM

Yo old guy.

Yer comparision between the so called 1 hour documentary against Kerry and the Moveon ads is clearly flawed.

First, there is a world of difference betweena 30 second as and a 1 hour program disguised as a documentary.

Now if you want a real comparasion, try Michael Moore's film being aired as a documentaryty about Bush against a 30 second spot by the Swift Boat Vets.

Get it now?

And I don't even like Kerry.

But let's keep the perspectives at least somewhat real here, old guy.

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:19 PM

SINSULL - Please post the list of advertisers and advertisements so that those of us in Canada can boycott those same services and suppliers (if they are available in Canada, that is).

Its such an easy and painless way to object. I mean how hard is it to take a pass on certain brand nemes and reach for another.

d


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 09:57 PM

Its not nearly that Sinsull. Sinclair is illegally trying to build media monopolies and Michael Powell is helping them. The only solution is to pray, vote Democrat and then, if the Dems get in, raise heck. Even that's not nearly enough but its all we can do.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 07:52 PM

Simple Solution: watch the programand keep a list of itssponsors AND Sinclair's major sponsors in your area.If you are not satisfied,boycott the sponsors and let them know why.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 04:47 PM

It ain't the substance; it's the timing.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Sinclair breaking the law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 02:05 PM

The cable network which had apparently signed a contract with Moore to air the film the night before the election as a special, has now cancelled it. Moore made that announcement on Leno last week. He also offered to let Sinclair show F9/11 for free, to "balance" the vet film.

I think all of this is a tempest in a teapot. The only appropriate place to address the airing of the film on Sinclair is at their license renewal time. Other than that, there are no laws that allow censorship of the film.

The Democrats who tried to get the FCC to censor the film were idiots, playing right into the hands of the Bush camp.

Again, the level of hysteria over this election is way out of proportion to the reality. I can't for the life of me figure out why the Democrats are getting so hysterical about this film. It's the same old stuff we saw on the commercials in August, the demographic of viewers of those networks hardly are up for grabs anyway, I mean, it doesn't make any sense for the Democrats to go so over the top on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 20 April 12:40 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.