NEWS: FCC Won't Help Stop The Airing Of Documentary

The FCC refuses to get involved in stopping the airing of a documentary film about John Kerry and his anti-vietnam connections. Michael Powell told reporters that he didn't see any precident to stop the airing of the program. Democratic Senators wrote to Powell asking him to not allow Sinclair Broadcasting group to allow this to air. Powell responded by telling them there were no federal laws or rules against them showing this documentary.

---

Sinclair Broadcasting Group plans to run this documentary 2 weeks before the November 2nd election. 62 television stations were asked by Sinclair to prempt other programs to show "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal."

The documentary links Kerry to activist and actress Jane Fonda. It also shows interviews with Vietnam prisoners.

Diane Feinstein of California led the senators to ask the FCC to determine whether airing this program is "proper use of public airwaves." She also wanted an investigation on whether this went against rules stating equal air time for both candidates.





[edit on 15-10-2004 by WuvLove]

Isn't that a perversion of the term "documentary"? Since when is a political smear ad a documentary? When it is as long as a feature film? Is that the test? We'll see what its impact is. If those promoting and airing this thing break the law, will the Bush FCC and Justice Department prosecute them? Yank their license. Fine them into submission?

I say that a "political smear" can be called a documentary since Michael Moore and F/911.

Well, since it doesn't involve a nipple being flashed or the "s-word" being used in primetime, so the FCC doesn't care.

Besides, the FCC taking down an organization that has a blatant political agenda would just be hypocracy...

It isn't a documentary... it is a 2 hour long anti Kerry ad... and ought to be seen as such...
this means that the president has to disclose the entire funding of the program as a political contribution... if he doesn't he is violating political contribution laws...
Also, since it is a contribution from a media outlet, there is a vaild issue of equal coverage for the candidates... there might be a case for forcing sinclair to give the same amount of time to a pro Kerry ad...
but either way...
bye bye Sinclair... you were a great company when you existed... sorry for all your stock holders , who didn't have a say in how sinclair decided to cut it's own wrists...
big business needs to stay unbiased in campaigns, because you just don't know who will win...
I also would love to be in kerrys Legal department as this is running...
slander and liable in this late game could mean bookoos of financial damage...
maybe a write in campaign would convince these guys to release it via theatre release or DVD instead... here is the link to Sinclair comments weblink SINCLAIR COMMENTS

also, Sinclair broadcasting hit a yearly low stock price at the same time they made this announcement... it is still around 7.00 which is half the high value it had this year... if i was a stock broker, i would be cashing in on this deal...
another point, if you don't want to miss your favorite program with a boycott. Go to the website and see all the other products and services you can boycott instead.

Now im not saying I agree or diagree but they way they see it is this.

They can only act after there are complaints made from a broadcast. If it hasn't been broadcast then how can someone make a complaint about a program that they saw on TV?

haha, whatever, more liberal left fear mongering.

here is a story of POW's imprisoned whilst Kerry sowed his seeds of hatred toward the US.

Let the country see what these brave soldiers have to say about their comrade in arms.

haha, the left concerned about a documentary which fails to shed positive light on their candidate....

laughable

They did ask Kerry to participate. ABC went to vietnam to get the truth. And of course they found that Kerry was a brave hero. My Uncle who did two tours, still contends we won that war. We just wer'nt allowed to finish. It would be a free society today if the Anti-war lebs, would not have turned on there countryman. Know it is a poor communist society.

I saw this gentleman on O'Rielly last night (Yes I watched FOX ), he claims it is not Politically motivated, that is why Senator John McCain and others were not asked to be in it. If it is not Politically motivated, then I wonder how he would answer this question:

"If this is not Political, why not wait until the election is over for this to be aired?"

Makes me wonder...

Well, hopefully Michael Moore will see fit to provide F911 to television networks at no charge. Let's see if the Republicans keep singing the same song then.

if i understand your post correctly, your uncle is a wise man, you too have inherited some of his wisdom....as i too believe we won the viet nam war.

if one considers communism was on the march in southeast asia, and one looks at the map there now, those countries the US and it's allies saved from the communist advance of that era are in fact prosperous, whilst vietnam is in squalor.

one can easily see the same thing occuring in afghanistan, and iraq. if one has vision, as President Bush has, the establishment of democracy, and the halting of islamofacism, will save many countries, and millions of people, from living in conditions such as north korea and vietnam.

Be careful smoke... seems like you're playing fast-and-loose with cause and effect. The Soviet Union was largey responsible for the underpinnings of their satellite states --- much the same way the USA supports our 2nd and 3rd world allies. When the economy of the USSR crashed and subsequently the country itself, most of its satellites suddenly found their support and principal source of trade gone. I believe it's more of an economic rather than ideological phenomenon. As an example, look at the oil-rich countries in the Middle East. Certainly not democarcies but relatively high standards of living.

point well taken. it seems economic strength is vital to standard of living. is it then the oil which has provided the nations you mention with stability too? in the absence of the oil, what will those countries then have?

if one looks at the globe, one sees, on a whole, the democratic countries as having those relatively high standards of living yes? are not the poor of the world, and the destitute, trying to escape the dictatorships for the democracies?