Anti-Kerry film to air in prime-time

[DeeGeMe]

But how far will the DNC be able to get since Sinclair has said that they plan to air this as an "editorial" which isn't governed by the FCC? These people are beneath contempt but I don't know how we'll be able to stop them. That being said, I've already fired off e-mails, made phone calls, and made a complaint with the FCC.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

But how far will the DNC be able to get since Sinclair has said that they plan to air this as an "editorial" which isn't governed by the FCC? These people are beneath contempt but I don't know how we'll be able to stop them. That being said, I've already fired off e-mails, made phone calls, and made a complaint with the FCC.

How can it be an editorial if it was produced independently of Sinclair? AND - this is clearly an in-kind contribution to the Bush Cheney campaign and the FEC is going to have a hard time not seeing that. It doesn't make any sense to go after advertisers like some people are saying because it's being presented commercial-free.

[Hawkeye]

Can I ak how this is ANY different then what Farenheit 9/11 was as an Anti Bush film.

[Patti]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Can I ak how this is ANY different then what Farenheit 9/11 was as an Anti Bush film.

Big difference, Hawkeye. This is airing on national TV, free. If you wanted to see Fahrenheit 9/11, you had to go to the theatre and pay to see it. That plus forcing the stations to air this is plain wrong. It's also free advertising for Bush/Cheney, which has to violate all sorts of campaign rules. I'll defer to the experts here about that.

[Hawkeye]

oh that makes sense. This is quite wrong then.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

oh that makes sense. This is quite wrong then.

but the question to me is would the same people outraged by this be outraged with the same vehemence (letters, phone calls, etc.) if MM released F-911 next week I they would be - then great because fair is fair. Food for Thought.

BTW - I know nothing of this new tirade - I assume it is not really facts as much as opinion - and therein is the difference for me. MM is not my fav., but at least MM put the facts out there - almost all of it is true. I think there was one thing that was timewise incorrect, but the distinction was without a difference. Granted MM took some facts out of context and never explained them or never told you the other side of the story (I mean don't you think there are some mom's who are proud their son's died in service and are with W 100% - yet we do not see that) - but he did present facts - no two ways about that.

P.S. Dissention - I am not arguing with you again about my last paragraph

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

but the question to me is would the same people outraged by this be outraged with the same vehemence (letters, phone calls, etc.) if MM released F-911 next week I they would be - then great because fair is fair. Food for Thought.

Big difference. F9/11 was a theatrical release and just came out on video and DVD. The FEC ruled that if any advertisements for the video release mentioned Bush, they would then be in violation of FEC rules. Sony and Lion's Gate will not permit Moore to air it on television unless it goes to pay-per-view, but they have certain windows in which films have to wait a period of time before they are available for PPV, usually a month and a half. What is being done here is a broadcasting company with access to 25% of televisions in the US is airing an in-kind campaign contribution to the Bush campaign that knocks down Kerry for three hours. On the public airwaves. On stations that can be viewed without even having cable.

Now, if Sinclair was granted permission to air F9/11, I'd say do it. Air the anti-Kerry flick and the anti-Bush flick. But they will not do that because they are trying to influence the election in Bush's favor. And don't forget, this is the same company that censored Nightline because they felt the Nightline broadcast was "too partisan." Gimme a f*cking break, you GOP sluts.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BTW - I know nothing of this new tirade - I assume it is not really facts as much as opinion - and therein is the difference for me. MM is not my fav., but at least MM put the facts out there - almost all of it is true. I think there was one thing that was timewise incorrect, but the distinction was without a difference. Granted MM took some facts out of context and never explained them or never told you the other side of the story (I mean don't you think there are some mom's who are proud their son's died in service and are with W 100% - yet we do not see that) - but he did present facts - no two ways about that.

P.S. Dissention - I am not arguing with you again about my last paragraph

I know, but this isn't about Michael Moore. You cannot compare the two films.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by Patti

Big difference, Hawkeye. This is airing on national TV, free. If you wanted to see Fahrenheit 9/11, you had to go to the theatre and pay to see it. That plus forcing the stations to air this is plain wrong. It's also free advertising for Bush/Cheney, which has to violate all sorts of campaign rules. I'll defer to the experts here about that.

It's using public airwaves to make an in-kind contribution to a presidential campaign; it's wrong and the FEC will bar them from airing it. The "editorial" argument is bogus because the film was made independently from Sinclair and they had absolutely nothing to do with its being made. It would be like me, the owner of Dissention Boradcasting, an affiliate of ABC, taking Outfoxed and airing it as a company editorial. PLUS - they are airing it in place of ABC primetime programming without any advertisements. It's wrong.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

It's using public airwaves to make an in-kind contribution to a presidential campaign; it's wrong and the FEC will bar them from airing it. The "editorial" argument is bogus because the film was made independently from Sinclair and they had absolutely nothing to do with its being made. It would be like me, the owner of Dissention Boradcasting, an affiliate of ABC, taking Outfoxed and airing it as a company editorial. PLUS - they are airing it in place of ABC primetime programming without any advertisements. It's wrong.

I am unsure the FEC will see it that way as they certainly have not stopped some of other clear violations like Swift Boat Vets and Soros

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I am unsure the FEC will see it that way as they certainly have not stopped some of other clear violations like Swift Boat Vets and Soros

Yet again, big difference. Sinclair Broadcasting is not a 527 group, is it? And the 527 groups must stop running the ads for a period of time before the election, according to the FEC. When the FEC looks at the ties between Sinclair and the Bush campaign ($68,000 in donations), you don't think that they are going to see this broadcast as an in-kind contribution? Of course they will and the broadcast will be brought to a screeching hault.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Can I ak how this is ANY different then what Farenheit 9/11 was as an Anti Bush film.

The airwaves of our country are supposed to be used first and foremost for the public good. There used to be and equal time clause but it was done away with.
F 9/11 is an apples to oranges comparison becuase it was shown in a movie theater and if you wanted to see it, you drove to the movie theater, bought your ticket and saw it.
It wasn't being broadcast over the public airwaves into your home. This is blatant PROPAGANDA. Got it?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

The airwaves of our country are supposed to be used first and foremost for the public good. There used to be and equal time clause but it was done away with.

I was thinking about it last night and thought that what Sinclair is doing might violate the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment in McCain-Feingold. Sinclair is a corporation, so it would easily qualify.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

I was thinking about it last night and thought that what Sinclair is doing might violate the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment in McCain-Feingold. Sinclair is a corporation, so it would easily qualify.

I don't know. With Michael Powell running the FCC and the Dems not having the majority in the House and Senate, I don't know how far this will go. It's causing quite a stir and taking the attention (again) off of Iraq and the fact that oil is $54 a bbl today. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
F*cking fascists.

[DeeGeMe]

It's like the saying goes "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention!" What is it with this country that they are more concerned about voting for the next American Idol than voting for the next American president? How can people still be undecided about this election? There has never been a greater divide between the two candidates--the choice is so clear to those of us who have been paying attention. The bodies are piling up in Iraq. The rest of the world holds this president and his cabinet of war criminals in contempt. The economy is in the toilet--this will be the first president since Hoover to have a net loss of jobs while in office. Our constitutional rights are being stripped away from us one by one by one. Our media moves ever closer to becoming state-controlled, thanks to the stranglehold that media giants have on the news in this country. Oil is at a all-time high--does anyone not see this and understand that this joke of a president is responsible????? People--wake up before it's too late!

[Patti]

I emailed a complaint to the FCC. This is outrageous.