It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
If you can't kill the message kill the messenger. Famous Democrat tactic, how classy
"Don't look to us to block the airing of a program," Powell told reporters after the FCC's monthly meeting in Washington.
President George W. Bush named Powell as Kennard's successor Monday in one of the first official acts of his new administration.
Originally posted by BlackJackal
If you can't kill the message kill the messenger. Famous Democrat tactic, how classy
thundercloud
So, is the point of this thread that only certain people should be allowed to make political movies?
lmgny
the Sinclair stock taken a hit, been downgraded by Lehman, Legg Mason and other Wall Street analysts, and media experts believe that shareholders will surely file a lawsuit because of mismanagement, but advertisers have begun to pull commercials on Sinclair affiliates.
Originally posted by lmgnyc
See it for yourself and make your own judgements (I'd wait for the free broadcast instead of wasting $4.99 for the download like I did), but considering the fact that several of these men are Swift Boat Vets, several of these men were involved in a GOP Vietnam Vet dog-and-pony show since the early 90's--campaigning for Bush Sr., Jeb Bush, & Bush Jr. long before Kerry was in the picture, every one involved in the production & marketing of this film is a Republican operative in one way or another, and the director of the film has refused to name his financiers, I think the motive here is obvious.
Originally posted by Nygdan
Is cowan the guy who's usually stammering when he speaks on fox news? Looks a little like him.
SINCLAIR BROADCASTING SHAREHOLDERS DEMAND OFFICERS RETURN PROFITS FROM INSIDER TRADING
Officers Who Ordered Stations to Show Anti-Kerry Film Also Sold Stocks at High Mark, then Drove Values Down
DETAILS:
Famed shareholder attorney William S. Lerach will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. today to discuss insider self-dealing by officers of Sinclair Broadcasting, the Baltimore-based television chain that is forcing its affiliates to show a propaganda film that attacks presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites). He will release a set of demands aimed at making Sinclair executives disgorge millions of dollars in unjustified profits taken out of the firm when stock prices were high during the past 12 months. Yesterday the company's stock fell a further 8 percent after being down more than 50 percent from the year's beginning, as advertisers pulled back to avoid the station's self-generated political controversy. Lerach and Patrick Daniels, San Diego-based partners in Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman Robbins, the nation's most successful securities litigation firm, will discuss actions it will take against Sinclair. Lerach Coughlin is a 140-member firm with offices in nine cities that has prosecuted hundreds of shareholder class action and derivative lawsuits, recovering more than $25 billion for clients. (For more on the firm go to: www.lerachlaw.com...)
Washington, DC, Oct. 19 (UPI) -- A veteran shown in a film critical of John F. Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism is suing the producer of the movie for libel, the New York Times said Tuesday.
In a suit filed Monday in Philadelphia, former U.S. Marine Kenneth J. Campbell says the film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," libels him by deceptively editing his statements.
The film accuses Kerry, the Democratic president nominee, of making up atrocities he later presented as fact to a U.S. Senate committee in 1971.
A lawyer for Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, said the film was selectively edited to remove footage that puts his statements in a different light.
"It edits little clips to make it look like they're just making up instances," Campbell's attorney David Kairys said.
Can it be true that the NRA is behind the Stolen Honor "documentary" attacking John Kerry to be aired in part or in its entirety by Sinclair Broadcasting?
We have received credible information from a source inside the NRA that the NRA is a significant funder of the Stolen Honor "documentary" which is scheduled to be aired on 62 stations owned by Sinclair Broadcasting in late October. This "documentary" is the source of much controversy as it is a blatant political attack on a presidential candidate days before an election and is being aired by a broadcast company owned by supporters of President Bush. They are characterizing it as "news" and claiming not to be subject to election laws.
The NRA has made no secret of its disdain for election laws and using its resources to try and get around these laws and impact the election. The NRA has a history of trying to circumvent these laws by attempting to buy TV stations, expressing desires to broadcast from Mexico or even from a ship offshore in international waters. By allegedly funding this "documentary" and working with an existing pro-Bush broadcaster to air it, they are succeeding where they have failed in the past. They need to be stopped from making this end-run around our nation's election laws.
Consider this:
The Assistant General Counsel of the NRA, James H. Warner, appears in the "documentary" as someone who is highly critical of John Kerry. Is this just a coincidence?
We have been told by a source inside the NRA (whom we cannot identify to protect him and his family) that the NRA is a significant funder of Stolen Honor. The producers of Stolen Honor, Red, White and Blue Productions, a for-profit company, brag on their website that they have received funding from "individuals and entities nationwide" and are actively soliciting contributions. Since when do for-profit companies or news organizations solicit donations?
There is no reporting of contributors by Red, White and Blue Productions. No accountability. Nothing. Is this just an attempt by the producers to circumvent campaign finance laws and allow their supporters to hide their identities? (more)