Username: Password: lost p/w?
home | help | subscribe | search | register
Powell: No Action Anti-Kerry Film
Posted by FolkTom Barger in on October 15, 2004 at 8:52 AM



Hollywood Reporter
Oct. 15, 2004

FCC won't block anti-Kerry docu

WASHINGTON -- FCC chairman Michael Powell rejected lawmakers' requests that the commission stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing a documentary critical of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry. "Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Powell told reporters after the FCC's monthly meeting in Washington. Powell said action against the broadcast would violate free speech guarantees. Sinclair said it plans to pre-empt regular programming on its 62 stations for "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," about Kerry's anti-war activism in the 1970s. Prominent Democrats have demanded that Sinclair not air the show, which is planned for Wednesday through Oct. 24, depending on the station. The Democratic National Committee has asked the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Sinclair's decision to air the documentary, claiming that it's an in-kind campaign contribution. Sinclair insists the program is news. (Brooks Boliek


User Comments

DMemberStinkMonkey
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 8:58 AM
Yeah and Moore's bullshit was objective reporting in a documentary.
Folktomsong
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 9:02 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-fcc15oct15,1,865722.story
EDITORIAL
A Tone-Deaf Broadcaster

October 15, 2004

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Sinclair Broadcast Group, an owner of TV stations across the country and an advocate of lifting current federal limits on media ownership, is interrupting regularly scheduled programming on its stations nationwide next week to force them to air a documentary opposing John F. Kerry. If opponents of further media concentration had floated this as a hypothetical scenario to advance their cause, they would have been laughingly dismissed.

But with breathtaking political tone-deafness, Sinclair has come to their rescue. There is a strong case for revising the decades-old media ownership rules, but thanks to Sinclair, the case will be a tougher sell. It's no wonder investors rushed to sell shares in the ineptly managed media company after The Times first reported Sinclair's plans to compel most of its 62 stations to air "Stolen Honor." The 42-minute film claims, according to its producer, that Kerry's "lies, false testimony and distortions" about the Vietnam War encouraged the North Vietnamese to torture U.S. prisoners.

After The Times reported Saturday that Sinclair would air the show as a news broadcast next week, 17 Democratic senators asked Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell to investigate whether "current law and regulation" permitted broadcasters to air such "blatantly partisan" programming. They do, Powell responded Thursday. The federal Fairness Doctrine, which once demanded more or less equal broadcast time for differing political views, is pretty much dead at the hands of federal courts.

Viewers may recall that Sinclair, six months ago, barred its ABC affiliates from airing an episode of ABC's "Nightline" in which anchor Ted Koppel read the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Koppel's roll call, Sinclair said, was "a political statement disguised as news content." Now, it claims just the opposite for "Stolen Honor."

On Tuesday, some Democrats, recognizing that the FCC would probably be a dead end, filed a second appeal with the Federal Election Commission, arguing more narrowly that "Stolen Honor," produced with financial aid from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and aired without commercials, is a political ad and an illegal corporate campaign contribution by Sinclair to President Bush. The fly in that ointment is that the FEC is toothless by design, dominated by the political parties. Sinclair says it has asked Kerry to answer the film's charges after the broadcast, but that would be roughly equivalent to asking Bush to sit down to react to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Opponents of Sinclair are direly predicting that its anti-Kerry broadcast might throw the election to Bush, but that seems overblown even for those who relish big media conspiracy theories. If anything, the controversy is more likely to energize Kerry voters.
DMemberStinkMonkey
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 9:13 AM
WOW! They absolutely LOVED f911 but now that there's things like FarenHYPE 9/11 and this upcoming show they think it isn't fair.

Politics is so damned corrupt. After learning about Ashcroft pledging the "might" of the Justice Department to go after file traders Kerry had all but locked up my vote. I'm starting to think I should take the George Carlin route and middle finger them all.

Gotta make my choice soon if my ballot is to get stateside in time.
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 9:48 AM
StinkMonkey: People had to leave their homes and pay for a ticket to view Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore's motivations for making the movie were not concealed. He had an agenda. (Btw, I just bought the DVD last week).
Sinclair is using his broadcast powers to advance the Bush campaign. It is a political contribution. He is only willing to air anti-Kerry "news" on HIS 62 television stations. That's the problem. He's calling it a news program.
DMemberringmaster316ms
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 10:16 AM
was my source full of shit, or did the fcc at some point try to say that radio and tv werent protected by amendment one?
which would of course block their argument for no blocking the documentary.
Folktomsong
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 10:24 AM
Sinclair Fiddles While the FCC Sleeps

By Timothy Karr
Mediachannel.org

http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert278.shtml

NEW YORK, October 13, 2004 -- While Sinclair Broadcast Group is allowed to use the public airwaves for free, it shouldn't come at such a heavy cost to Americans.

Sinclair executives have threatened to abuse this most vital public trust by forcing upon Americans a piece of propaganda meant to serve their narrow business interests.

In repeated media appearances, Sinclair's vice president of corporate relations, Mark Hyman, has billed "Stolen Honor" as worthy of broadcast solely because of its "real news" value. But, Sinclair's track record on political contributions suggests that executives at the company have another agenda in mind.

In 2004, Sinclair executives have given overwhelmingly to those GOP candidates who have demonstrated their support for loosening media ownership restrictions, thereby allowing Sinclair to control more stations in more local markets across the country. Sinclair CEO and President David Smith personally gave $2,000, the maximum individual contribution, to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

The only "real news" we're witnessing here is a story of Big Media at its most despicable. It would be nice to be able to write off "Stolen Honor" as journalistic amateurism and turn our attention to more valid investigations of the issues this election year. But we live with a media system where the gatekeeper has allowed a single corporate entity not only to own "competing" media outlets in markets throughout the country, but also to seize control of the content on their airwaves in a heavy-handed attempt to influence this year's election outcome.

The "real news" is a Big Media system that has become a menace to our democracy. Americans granted these media companies our very first constitutional protection. In return, many media groups have short changed American democracy by putting their corporate interests before those of the public.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been lax in ensuring that bad actors such as Sinclair are held to a more meaningful set of public interest obligations, including a minimum of fair coverage of electoral and civic affairs. Free from the consequences of a more forceful FCC, media companies like Sinclair will continue to push their extreme bias onto the public.

It's now time that the public turns the tables on Sinclair. Along with the other groups here today, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy have issued a challenge that Sinclair uphold its obligation to the public interest by offering on all 62 of its stations an equal amount of pre-election, prime-viewing airtime for the broadcast of a program that is controlled by those representing an opposing view to "Stolen Honor."

But there's more that we can, and will, do. If Sinclair doesn't act now to repair its shoddy intentions on behalf of the public, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy pledge to mobilize local activists against the 62 stations that operate under Sinclair's banner. We already have more than 21,000 activists on the ground in Sinclair markets. More citizens across the nation are responding with a willingness to take action if this station group moves ahead with "Stolen Honor." Actions will include comprehensive monitoring of Sinclair stations, call-in campaigns to station general managers and news directors, public forums and meetings to reach others and educate the community about Sinclair's public interest obligations, and, if necessary, a formal challenge to Sinclair license renewals, station by station, when they come due.

I am confident that with some hard work, American citizens will win back their airwaves one station at a time. MediaChannel.org and Media for Democracy promise to stay involved every step of the way to help Americans settle the issue of who will control our media and to what end.

-- Timothy Karr is the executive director of MediaChannel.org and Media for Democracy 2004. The preceding is Karr's statement during an October 13 press conference on Sinclair Broadcasting Group convened by MediaChannel.org, Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, Media Access Project, Media for Democracy, and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ.
DMemberBaghdadBush
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:20 AM
Is this FCC chairman Michael Powell the son of Colin L. Powell What would you expect from him. It's all for Baghdad Bush. They have to do all they can to save Baghdad Bush

Not Baghdad Bob anymore
Now Baghdad Bush
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:36 AM
lachatte his motives make no difference. stinkmonkey is right. as for leaving their homes... there's such a thing as the off button on the remote or the channel changer. seems like when it's trash like Moores the anti bush crowd yells free speech, but when it's trash against the dems it needs to be censored. sounds like both political parties are full of hypocracy. FREE SPEECH!! unless it criticizes me.

DMemberburner97119
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:46 AM
seems to me if kerry has such a good record then no one should mind finding out what that record is
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:56 AM
Compmore, I said nothing about censorship. You misunderstood. I'm saying that it is a slanted documentary, just like Moore's movie. It's a political commercial masquerading as a NEWS program. It's not fair and balanced. It should not be portrayed as such.
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 12:04 PM
The FCC is allowing more monopolies to control what we see and hear. The FCC is pushing for censorship.
Comp, read Senator John McCain's response to Sinclair's refusal to air Nightline's program last April: http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1276
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 12:15 PM
Along with the other groups here today, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy have issued a challenge that Sinclair uphold its obligation to the public interest by offering on all 62 of its stations an equal amount of pre-election, prime-viewing airtime for the broadcast of a program that is controlled by those representing an opposing view to "Stolen Honor."
That's not censorship--it's fairness. I've seen programs on PBS and NBC about both candidates, but they aired them consecutively. To present only one side, no matter whose side it is, is simply unfair. And calling it "news" just makes the American media look worse than it already does. If that's at all possible.
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 12:16 PM
Lachatte, you have the patience of a saint.
DMemberBaghdadBush
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 12:29 PM
Also Sinclair cut out parts of these pieces. He is not showing the good parts of it. He has pick only things that will make John Kerry look bad. He has taken other things and added to it that is not a fair piece to be showing. If he wants to show it then let it be a pay for view. That is the only fair way.

Not Baghdad Bob anymore
Now Baghdad Bush
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 12:40 PM
lachatte you are 100% right and I'm sorry to give you the impression. I do think the FCC is correct in their ruling and my response is as much toward those howling about how terrible it is (the same crowd that aplauded farenheight 9-11) and their hyprocrosy. I should've made that more clear. sorry
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 12:42 PM
What was it someone wrote on this site once on one of the farenheight 9-11 threads? I think it was mroop. something to the effect that all documentarys are tainted and slanted toward a particular goal. If that's correct then there's really no pure true documentary out there. If I misquoted I'm sure I'll be corrected
DMemberYoItsDeluxSon
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 6:10 PM
"People had to leave their homes and pay for a ticket to view Fahrenheit 9/11."

Along with being forced to watch it in my class, and my teacher refusing to show my copy of Fahrenhype 9/11

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=80440

"D.J. Moore has two Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on his car and two Bush buttons on his backpack. Yesterday, when his advanced placement government class watched Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Hopkinton High School senior promised to bring the rebuttal film, entitled "Fahrenhype 9/11" to school for the next class"

Those students didnt have to pay anything when they were made to watch it for a class assignment, and oh look, no censorship.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 8:09 PM
What was your teacher's purpose in showing you the movie? Was it to turn you all into good little Democrats? Or was it to teach you to take the truth out of the rhetoric? Was it perhaps to teach you the difference between fact and opinion? Maybe he/she wanted you to understand how a documentary can be used to persuade, inform, or inflame? What was the purpose?
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 10:47 PM
Tom, is there a list of Sinclair Broadcasting stations and their advertisers?
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 10:55 PM
Lachatte-Google Sinclair, and there's a map and a list of all their affiliates. I don't know about their advertisers, you might have to check each station. But that would be a good project for tomorrow, wouldn't it?
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:38 PM
Thanks, ShadowMom.
YoItsDe...You didn't answer any of ShadowMom's questions.
I had never heard of "Fahrenhype 9/11". I've been doing searches and found this link among others: http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/

So far, in the past hour, I have read challenges to the free, playful Iraq (pre-invasion) that Moore filmed, that many soldiers in Iraq are glad to be there, that we really do have more than 2 guards on the Oregon coastline, that other wealthy, influential people are members of the Carlyle Group and claims that George Bush does read and was correct to remain seated in the classroom after the second plane had hit the World Trade Center.
So, critics of Michael Moore's movie say that he exaggerated. But the Bush Administration has exaggerated. They have stretched the truth, and their "hype" has resulted in over 1000 American deaths, countless injuries, and a huge deficit fighting a war that doesn't appear to have an end. And you're angry that you had to watch Michael Moore's movie?
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:48 PM
Lachatte--could you check your dmusic notes real quick?
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 15, 2004 @ 11:49 PM
"that many soldiers in Iraq are glad to be there,"

no one in their right mind is glad to be in war. they feel they had done the right thing and would do it again. My son is even considering volenteering to go back and help out.

"that we really do have more than 2 guards on the Oregon coastline,"

I live on the Oregon coast in Coos Bay Oregon. the national guard unit stationed here did go. and there are more up the coast

"George Bush does read and was correct to remain seated in the classroom after the second plane had hit the World Trade Center."

what else would he do. he was in the middle of something with little children. little children don't understand the severity. how do we know he didn't plan to stay longer and tried to wrap it up as diplomaticly as he could.

Goodness I can't believe this. I'm defending a guy I'm not going to vote for.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:14 AM
What did you say? You're not going to vote for him? Compmore, you get a big hug!!!!
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:16 AM
YOU SAY, "CHILDREN, I HAVE TO GO TAKE A PHONE CALL," AND LEAVE THE ROOM!! THE KIDS WON'T BE UPSET.
SHEESH. HE'S AN IDIOT FOR JUST SITTING THERE.
(screaming over)
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:16 AM
uh oh, my negativity may swing him back.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:36 AM
I know, Carla, I've seen the footage, too, in fact it was on tonight. I keep seeing a deer caught in the headlights. I think he was like most of us, though, who thought it would never happen. I know I didn't believe it at first, even though I saw it happen live on tv. Shock is different for everybody--some react swiftly, some don't. I don't really think Dubya does anything swiftly. Now be good, we got another vote away from Bush.. our job is done for tonight....
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:40 AM
You're too kind :) (Smile)
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:48 AM
I'm going third party. like I said in another thread. I'm ashamed of myself for throwing away what I believe and voting based on emotion. as much as I hate personal attacks on anyone reguardless who they are I have less respect for someone who doesn't stand by their convictions. I turned into one of those and I'm going to correct that.
DMemberLothar2
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:59 AM
Carla60626 stated:
YOU SAY, "CHILDREN, I HAVE TO GO TAKE A PHONE CALL," AND LEAVE THE ROOM!! THE KIDS WON'T BE UPSET.
SHEESH. HE'S AN IDIOT FOR JUST SITTING THERE

So what does that make John Kerry? He has stated that he sat for 40 minutes, unable to do anything after learning of the attacks on New York?
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:06 AM
1. I never heard that about Kerry
2. Kerry wasn't the president, and wasn't supposed to take charge of the situation. I'm sure if he was president, he would not have just sat there!
DMemberYoItsDeluxSon
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:11 AM
"YoItsDe...You didn't answer any of ShadowMom's questions"

Oh im sorry, ive been kind of busy, football games, you know i dont live on the internets, OMG I SAID INTERNETS INSTEAD OF INTERNET THAT MUST MAKE EVERYTHING I SAY IRREVALANT AND POINTLESS

and im pretty sure her inentions were to yes, convert us to be good little democrats, and this issue has already been brought up somewhat where i live, ( I live in Olympia, WA, its like mini-berkley)

oh and just because i love hearing you guys repeat "But the Bush Administration has exaggerated. They have stretched the truth, and their "hype" has resulted in over 1000 American deaths"

im sure you love us repeating this stuff

"we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" - Bill Clinton, Feburary 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Huissen is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction" - Ted Kennedy

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country"
- Al Gore

"He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorist, including al Qaeda members" - Hillary Clinton

" we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppressive regime... the threat of saddam huissen with weapons of mass desctruction is REAL." - John Kerry, Janurary 2003

but of course it was just bush who "stretched the truth"
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:26 AM
So what Bush sat and finished a meetin with a group of school kids. if that's all he's done bad then that's a pretty good record. if that's not all he's done bad then why do we dwell on trivial things. I really don't know what the heck he was suposed to do different in those fifteen minutes. He didn't act imeadiatly and was criticized, he finally acted then he was criticized. sounds like me trying to please me teenage daughter.

excellent point yoit'sdeluxson
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:27 AM
Fuck you George Bush!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap_top11oct15,1,556750.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Unit Refused Iraq Mission, Military Says

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN
Associated Press Writer

October 15, 2004, 10:29 PM CDT

WASHINGTON -- The Army is investigating up to 19 members of a supply platoon in Iraq who refused to go on a convoy mission, the military said Friday. Relatives of the soldiers said the troops considered the mission too dangerous, in part because their vehicles were in such poor shape.

Some of the troops' concerns were being addressed, military officials said. But a coalition spokesman in Baghdad noted that "a small number of the soldiers involved chose to express their concerns in an inappropriate manner, causing a temporary breakdown in discipline."

The reservists are from a fuel platoon that is part of the 343rd Quartermaster Company, based in Rock Hill, S.C. The unit delivers food, water and fuel on trucks in combat zones.

Teresa Hill of Dothan, Ala., who said her daughter, Amber McClenny, was among in the platoon, received a phone message from her early Thursday morning saying they had been detained by U.S. military authorities.

"This is a real, real, big emergency," McClenny said in her message. "I need you to contact someone. I mean, raise pure hell."

McClenny said in her message that her platoon had refused to go on a convoy to Taji, located north of Baghdad. "We had broken down trucks, non-armored vehicles and, um, we were carrying contaminated fuel. They are holding us against our will. We are now prisoners," she said.

Hill said she was later contacted by Spc. Tammy Reese in Iraq, who was calling families of the detainees.

"She told me (Amber) was being held in a tent with armed guards," said Hill, who spoke with her daughter Friday afternoon after her release. Her daughter said they are facing punishment ranging from a reprimand to a charge of mutiny.

The incident was first reported Friday by The Clarion-Ledger newspaper in Jackson, Miss. Family members told the newspaper that several platoon members had been confined, but the military did not confirm that.

A commanding general has ordered the unit to undergo a "safety-maintenance stand down," during which it will conduct no further missions as the unit's vehicles undergo safety inspections, the military said.

On Wednesday, 19 members of the platoon did not show up for a scheduled 7 a.m. meeting in Tallil, in southeastern Iraq, to prepare for the fuel convoy's departure a few hours later, the military statement said.

"An initial report indicated that some of the 19 soldiers (not all) refused to participate in the convoy as directed," the military statement says.

The mission was ultimately carried out by other soldiers from the 343rd, which has at least 120 soldiers, the military said.

Convoys in Iraq are frequently subject to ambushes and roadside bombings.

Staff Sgt. Christopher Stokes, a 37-year-old chemical engineer from Charlotte, N.C., went to Iraq with the 343rd but had to come home because of an injury. He said reservists were given inferior equipment and tensions in the company had been building since they were deployed in February.

"It wasn't really safe," he said. "The vehicles are not all that up to par anyway. The armor that they have is homemade. It's not really armor. It's like little steel rails."

A whole unit refusing to go on a mission in a war zone would be a significant breach of military discipline. The military statement called the incident "isolated" and called the 343rd an experienced unit that performed honorable service in nine months in Iraq.

U.S. military officials said the commanding general of the 13th Corps Support Command., Brig. Gen. James E. Chambers, had appointed his deputy, Col. Darrell Roll, to investigate. An investigative team under Roll is in Tallil, questioning soldiers about the incident, the military said.

"Preliminary findings indicate that there were several contributing factors that led to the late convoy incident and alleged refusal to participate by some soldiers," the military said. "It would be inappropriate to discuss those factors while the investigation continues."

Separately, the commander of the 300th Area Support Group, listed on a military Web site as Col. Pamela Adams, has ordered a criminal inquiry to determine if any soldiers committed crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and, if so, whether disciplinary measures are warranted.

Alabama Republicans Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Terry Everett have both requested more information from the Defense Department, their offices said.

The platoon has troops from Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi and South Carolina, said Hill.

Patricia McCook, of Jackson, Miss., said her husband, Staff Sgt. Larry O. McCook, was also among those detained. She said he told her in a telephone call that he did not feel comfortable taking his soldiers on another trip.

"He told me that three of the vehicles they were to use were 'deadlines' ... not safe to go in a hotbed like that," she said, the newspaper reported.
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:33 AM
and I'm sure that's alllllll George Bush's fault. I can see him on the phone to the pentagon
"hello general, I want to make sure none of our troops get adaquate protectiion over there."
DMemberQuietGuy
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:38 AM
Can I ask a question?



How is it that only "liberals" have to meet such high standards of objectivity and balance in what they say? Michael Moore gers slammed frequently for his "bias" and "agenda," but no one upholds high standards of balance and objectivity when dealing with "conservative" commentators. What about Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Ann Coulter, and Cal Thomas? Whine about them for a change!
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 1:43 AM
Sean Hannity I don't take seriously. he tries to talk tough but it just doesn't get across. Ann Coulter I can't stand and I don't even know who neal Boortz and Cal Thomas are. Now Bill Oriely is taking a beating lately.
Americanabillhudson
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 2:03 AM
The way I see it, going to see a film and pay money is one thing. If you don't want to see it, ok you don't have to.
Going on the airways is an other whole other thing. Who owns the airways? ( Maybe us). So if they can get "free" time on the TV, then why not hear the other side?
Still Pickin'
B.H.
Otherindependentm...
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 2:26 AM
Um, Sinclair gets a pass from the FCC about airing this biased piece??? ...but guess what folks, I heard that the "pay per view" planned airing of the Farenheight 9-11 film was NIXED due to Republican pressure on whichever company it was that planned to air it just prior to the election.

Double standards?
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 8:04 AM
I saw Michael Moore on Leno last night. That's what he said, Shmoo.
Folktomsong
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 8:07 AM
Here you go Lachatte. Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmem.com has been point man for the sinclair boycott. See tis:

This is very cool a boycott list against Sinclair Braodacsting, with phone numberts, contact names and email addresses.

http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx

A reply from a reader on talkingpointsmemo.com:
What they're deathly afraid of is the stink of this thing will somehow waft over to their advertisers. That's of course why they're not selling local ad time for this show. Having worked in the ad department of Sinclair's competitor, I know that local Sinclair stations make over 60% of their ad revenue from their nightly 6pm newscast. That's their bread and butter. You make a concerted effort to go after their top advertisers on the 5pm/6pm news hour and you'll have the executives spiking this show so fast it'll be amazing.

-- Josh Marshall


Tom says: Substitute the word "music business" below in considering
a shareholder's class action lawsuit against a corporation.

A suggestion from a reader ...

A stockholder in Sinclair Broadcast Group can file what's called a
"shareholder's derivative action" against the officers and directors
of the corporation, which is publically traded, to enjoin the
officers and directors from using corporate resources in ways that
do not benefit the shareholders. I believe Sinclair is incorporated
in Maryland, and if so that's probably where the action should be
brought. One stockholder has standing to sue and should request a
temporary restraining order before the pseudo-documentary airs to
prevent the officers and directors from misusing corporate property
to benefit their political agenda. The reason it is misuse of
corporate property is because ordering the local stations to air the
anti-Kerry propoganda will likely cause a loss of network
advertising revenue, may in fact violate the stations' contracts
with the networks they are affiliated with, and is almost sure to
embroil the corporation in costly legal battles, for example from
entities complaining that this is an illegal corporate campaign
contribution, or from angry consumers who will contest the stations'
license renewals. Against this, there has to be some plausible
benefit to the stockholders or the corporate action is unlawful and
could subject the officers and directors to personal liability for
any damage to the stockholders. They also could be stuck with the
legal fees of both the corporation and the stockholders who sued them.

Shareholders derivative actions are fairly complex; we need a
Maryland corporate lawyer type. I'm a lawyer in Texas and was
thinking to file the suit here but under Texas law, the acts of the
officers and directors are governed by the corporate law of the
state of incorporation, about which I know little. However, I do
know that as a general principle, corporate officials have a
fiduciary obligation to the stockholders, and everything they do is
supposed to be for the benefit of the same. Normally a court won't
second-guess the decisions unless the stockholder can show that
there is no plausible benefit to the corporation in the
complained-of act. What could the benefit be here?
AdvancedLachatte
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 9:24 AM
Thanks, Tom. I went to the Sinclair Broadcasting website and saw this warning about an e-mail spoof: http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/press/release_20041015_85.shtml

I wonder what it said.
DMemberLothar2
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 10:53 AM
Kerry failed to act on 9/11 tips

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37642

What Kerry did on 9/11

http://www.grassfire.org/7026/kerry.htm

And let's not forget that John Kerry is a United States Senator, and he could introduce legislation right now to follow the 9/11 commission, but he's made that a campaign point, that as president, he will act on the commission findings.
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 11:44 AM
good article lothar2. really shows the hyprocracy.
Advancedcarla60626
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 12:40 PM
You sure read the most authoritative sources. Keep abreast of Christian persecution?
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 2:12 PM

"Kerry [like Bush] failed to act on 9/11 tips."

That's not surprising. He and Bush are both members of an elite organization that acts in concert with other like-minded groups to arrange for eventual global government. The ultimate effect of 9/11 was/is to head us in that direction.

"The threat of unprecedented crises will be the international disaster keys that unlock the New World Order." --Former Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, current director of the Gorbachev Institute (a think-tank organization in California that's been promoting plans for a world-wide government)
This is the same 'gentleman' whom Reuters News Service had reported on previously, quoting these words from Mr. Gorbachev: “The victims of the 9-11 attacks in the United States will not have died in vain if world leaders use the crisis to create the new world order. . .”
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 2:16 PM

Some people will approach this election with their noses pinched when they cast their vote.
I sympathize with that. It's really a sad state of affairs when the two major parties don't want to give us decent choices for candidates.
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 3:16 PM
Geez, if Bush is headed for "eventual global government" don't you think he'll have to make a few more friends in the world first? He's running kind of thin on like-minded allies these days.
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 3:31 PM

But if a global government is to be preceded by international disasters of unprecedented crises (Gorbachev's words), then havoc should be expected. And, don't you think Bush is adept at wreaking that?
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 4:00 PM

I mean, he's likely very capable of messing things up badly enough to bring in conditions ripe for uprecedented crises, if that's what would be wanted.

DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 5:01 PM

Admittedly, this is a theory -- but not an implausible one.
Skeptics may plead that there's no certainty of disasters or of world government. That's a valid objection; it cannot be refuted. In fact, there's no guarantee the sun will shine tomorrow either. (My philosophy professor used to say that.)

But, have you considered the concept of the "doomsday clock"? (It's current setting is 7 minutes before midnight.)
One of the factors entering into the desire for world government is the hope that it could avert nuclear cataclysms that humankind might otherwise be more subject to. The delicate problem with that logic is how to get the nations of the world to submit to a global government. Circumstances might have to become (or be arranged to become) so dire, so dangerous, so imminently disastrous, that there would appear to be no other hope. That's when a glorious plan to save mankind might be inviting enough for acceptance.
Folktomsong
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 6:38 PM
Here's the definitive website (by McChesney) for Sinclair boycott and a history of their despicable actions. They are routinely refrred to in newsappers now as the Clear Channel of television.


see this


http://www.freepress.net/sinclair/links.php
Chief Op OfficerShadowMom
Date: October 16, 2004 @ 10:52 PM
Not only adept--I think he is a disaster. Maybe those people around him are the ones bent on world domination. Like Pinky and the Brain--George and Cheney is the Brain!!! That's why their act looked familiar!!
Advancedcompmore
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 12:49 AM
yes I like this simplistic view that one small group of people would be responsibile for the fall of civilization as we know it. takes the blame away from where it really belongs
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:11 AM

Oh, well, then, let's put the blame on a specific political party, why don't we -- what the hell.
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:13 AM

What do you mean "responsible for the fall of civilization as we know it"? My goodness, I thought they were trying to SAVE the world from destruction!
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 1:15 AM

Silly me; I guess I got it all mixed up.
DMemberDemandRelevance
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 10:16 AM
:) (Smile)
JazzJazzmary2U
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 8:16 PM
Yo, stink.. 911 was not forced onto TV stations.. I recall having to go pay money to see it.. but I gotta agree with you somewhat.. if you don't want to watch it, you can just change the channel.. now that was easy, wasn't it? Also, I think that Kerry will withstand this propaganda, both pro and con, anyway.

VOTE.
JazzJazzmary2U
Date: October 17, 2004 @ 8:21 PM
High Five! to Carla, Tomsong, and to SCHMOO!! you guys Playing Electric GuitarROCK!!!
You must be logged in to post replies to news articles.
Log in or register with the form at the top of the page.

 

 

 

search

news tree


advertising



 

 
© DMusic LLC - Advertising | Employment | TOS | Subscribe