Anti-Kerry Film To Air on 1/4 Of America's TV's Nights Before Election

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
here in the south the michael moore film was banned so as today I has not seen it yet.


Not true. Where in the southern U.S. are you? I'm in rural Texas, and the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVDs are on the shelves at Wal-Mart right next to The Star Wars Trilogy DVDs and Disney's Aladdin DVDs... My friends in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Dallas, Texas, Austin, Texas, and New Orleans, Louisiana have also confirmed the same.

Besides, you could still order it from Amazon.com or any other online DVD retailer, and have it mailed to you...




posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
here in the south the michael moore film was banned so as today I has not seen it yet.



I live in Arkansas and the film is in every movie rental place and for sale in wal-mart and best buy.

It was also on in every movie theater around here, and you dont get much more redneck than here

So where was it banned?



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
here in the south the michael moore film was banned so as today I has not seen it yet.



Hey!! Don't forget about me! I live in Arizona; that's south! It's in every wal-mart, K-mart...oh hell..EVERYWHERE!



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   
As a journalist, i see where both sides are missing the point here.
Let me say that i am AGAINST media mega conglomerates...they DO wield too much power and influence in what gets aired, and often times their choice is $$$ over ethics. Its not the government censoring things you should fear, its the broadcasters themselves that do this way more often than you'd think.

In order for the equal time" clause to take effect here, either f911 or the anti kerry film would have had to have come directly from one of the parties war chests....in other words, the actual political campaigns would have had to finance or produce the program for equal time rule to be in effect.

Since BOTH of the films in question were NOT backed by official political campaigns, they would be exempt form being considered equal time, even tho they talk about political things/ideas...they arent speaking FOR/AS the voice of either candidate. They are independant programs that happen to have political slants. weather a documentary is news or not is questionable...i interpret documentary as educational programming not news. Besides, the stations DID offer to give Kerry time to come and rubuttle. If he chooses not to participate, that is his choice. Lets say Kerry DID come on after the movie to rebuttle...then sinclair would have to provide time equal to Kerry's time to the republicans in order to fuflill the equal time rules. (because kerry or his spokesperson DO come from the campaigns directly.) Note: Sinclair would not have to give Kerry time equal to the movie length. Also, sinclair would have to only give the same time as Kerry was on the air rebutting, to his opponents speaker.

It doesnt matter either way really as we're talking about a PRIVATE company. Yes they have a license from the gov to use public airwaves, and have some obligations under this aggreement. BUT
As a private company, they do have the right to choose what they wish to air or not. They can also do things that promote their companies overall political views....show or not show programs that it deems too graphic, pornographic, disturbing, or any other criteria THEY (the company) chooses to expouse. Do you think Disney is going to allow ABC to air programming that conflicts with their core values? Reguardless of topic?

The fact that moore and his films backers have not let their product go out to be viewed for free should be a clue about their priorities. Its all about the $$$ and far less about the message. If their political message was that important to them, they would let f911 go to air and not charge an arm and a leg for it or need ppv.

If sinclair group wants to risk financial profits to run this instead of prime time shows, they can take that risk. Your FAR better off writting to the sinclair stations advertisers instead of the station directly. A tv stations clients arent really its viewers, its their advertisers....viewers are a gauge used to determine how much $$$ they can charge for advertisment timeslots. Advertisers are really the income for the stations.

I certantly agree that Sinclair has put a label onto its self by doing obviously partisan things...well they will have to do business with this now attatched to them. So did CBS when they let Dan Rather run with a cooked story. They can and do have the right to express and support whatever views they wish as long as they dont violate the laws. In the case of BOTH of the programs in question, neither qualifies as needing "equal time".

Ultimatly i dont see the problem here...so what that a private company wants to go with a specific product (program) or not? Who cares if f911 or the anti kerry film are on ppv or regular tv? You as viewers can choose to tune in or not...to pay or not...in order to consume whatever media you wish.

A few quick notes
RANT,
While i usually oppose most anything James T Lesser says, I found NOTHING on this thread by him that contained language strong enough to get a warning. Perhaps in a non-mudpit thread he MIGHT have been close to the line, but here in the pit....everything he said in this thread has been tame.

TO ALL: Its not hypocracy by both sides being attempted here its CENSORSHIP of opposing voices they strive for. ANY of you that advocate silencing of either of these 2 films, especially for political resons, are supporting CENSORSHIP, and you should be ashamed that ignorance cant be denied when only SOME of the info gets reviewed because others have been silenced. Equality is a bitch isnt it? It means that while you get to hear your voice beiong heard, you must also tolorate someone elses voice also geting heard.

Rant again


SINCLAIR REFUSES TO LET LOCAL MARKETS SEE NIGHTLINE
So what? It was legal, and again as a private company, they can determine what products they want to air or not.




SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS:
Well again, its their station, their message. As employees that speak for the station...they can be required to dress a certain way, act in certain ways, and read the copy they are getting paid to look good reading.
If you dont like the work rules...the workers can seek employment elsewhere.



SINCLAIR REFUSES TO AIR AD HIGHLIGHTING 2003 BUSH ERROR
again..see private company controls over the type, duration, and message a show (product) has. It is the companies choice to determine what progeramming they offer, its your choice to change the channel.
They can refuse to sell ad time to anyone for just about any reason, just like any other retaiol store can refuse patronage for anythingbut an obvious discriminatory reason.




SINCLAIR PRODUCES CENTRALIZED RIGHT-WING CONTENT FOR 'LOCAL STATIONS': In a controversial business practice, Sinclair Broadcasting has fired much of the staff for the local affiliates it owns, instead producing content for its local stations from a central facility outside Baltimore which it then airs on "local" news broadcasts.
THIS is the EXACT reason im against further mega media conglomerations....i dont care WHAT message the programming has...i do care that moves tword media centralization are COSTING JOBS in this field.
So what they chose to issue right wing content...they can.
But this move to be centralized (hubbed) is wacking local jobs and affecting the quality and content of your local news. It is BAD for journalism and free speech. If you dont like sinclair now, just think how much you'll not like them when they take over more stations, wipe away the local staff, and generically produce your local news from a remote location. More of their voice on more channels, and less options to get around them.
(this is true for ALL major broadcasters that greedilly monopolize markets and centralize ops.)




SINCLAIR AIRS FAKE NEWS BROADCASTS PRODUCED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Sinclair wasnt the only one to air these things. We in the biz get PILES of V.N.R's (video news releases) each day. usually they are always one sided affairs meant to garner coverage for whatever issue the release came from, and its not always apparent WHO is really backing the fax your holding. This being said, if they knew the true source or not, of if they knew it was made to look like a news spot or not...it would be thier choice to run this segment or not. Too bad if you dont like their choice, just change the channel.

Rant says,


I'm frankly shocked our Liberty lovin' board members aren't collectively disgusted regardless of politcal affiliation.
I am shocked, but it has nothing to do with political affiliation, i really dont care about whos channel is spewing what slant....
I care that fewer and fewer options for differing views to be heard as more and more outlets (channels) get monopolized is going to continue to kill jobs in TV and limit what we see more and more.

The public airwaves,except for really basic rules, stop being public once the broadcaster gets his license from the feds. Then its a private business.
Free press? Nothings free!



posted on Oct, 14 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sarcasimo


Some of you might be thinking, "Well, wait a second, Michael Moore splashed his anti-Bush film in movie theaters across the country." That's true. But there is a huge difference between forcing voters to buy a ticket to watch a partisan film... and showing something partisan over the free television airwaves. If Sinclair wants to sponsor "Stolen Honor" in movie theaters across the country, more power to them. But television stations are a different matter regardless of your political leanings. Because remember, if it is Sinclair and "Stolen Honor" this Sunday, would you be comfortable with CBS and "Fahrenheit 9/11" next Sunday?


Well, once Moore's movie runs its course in rental and sales, you can bet it will end up on a network as the movie of the week. Moore and the producers have to make that decision when to sell it to them..of course it will have to mett FCC standards for content just like every other movie that is aired. I see no problem with the Kerry movie or F911 being broadcast on national TV is the station sees fit to run it. Both must comply with the same FCC standards and have a network that thinks their advertisers will pay to run it.

Everyone here knows F911 will be aired as soon as its other revenue makers have run their course. What say you then?... Oh, I'll bet it will be the old freedom of speech right. Seems some only drag it out when it suits their needs and have no problem calling for its suppression when it threatens their political agenda.

If Moore wants to air F911 on a network, I'm sure he won't have any trouble finding one willing. He and the other backers have to be the ones willing and at this point, they're just not ready. Oh and if you don't wish to watch the Kerry film, there's a button on your TV's remote which will fix that for you. Mandate what you watch and please allow the rest of us to do as well.



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Check this thread out,


www.abovetopsecret.com...
Can i say to liberals...I TOLD YOU SO? LOL



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Just read these mens complaints, it should make you really question Kerry's ability to be CiC...this is disgusting.



Warner then describes the use of Kerry’s testimony by his captors. He says, “Shortly thereafter he [his captor] showed me some statements from John Kerry. He said that John Kerry had helped organize the Winter Soldier hearings because he was so motivated because he had been an American officer, served in the U.S. Navy. And then he started reading some of the statements that John Kerry had made. I’m sorry I can’t quote them, but essentially he [Kerry] accused all of us in Vietnam of being criminals, that everything we had done was criminal.

"The North Vietnamese had told us from the time that they got their hands on us that we were criminals, that we were not covered by the Geneva Convention, so it was okay for them to do whatever they wanted to do to us. And they told us that they were going to put us on trial and some of us would be executed.”


www.newsmax.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Just briefly:

1) there is no point in pointing and counterpointing Fahrenheit/Fahrenhype 911 - why should the republicans response be one of defense whilst the Democrats attack. To me it seems fair that Stolen Honor and Fahrenheit 911 are both on the offensive... however fahrenheit 911 already had a huge run of deceit at box offices around the world. Stolen honor must fight to be viewed; and

2) Michael Moore knows that if he released his dvd/video or had it shown on PPV post elections day it would be in the discount bin. He is not pushing for release on PPV prior to elections day as an altruistic act.





top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join