iN Demand Breaks Moore PPV Deal Hours After FCC Okays Sinclair Free Broadcast

Oh how ironic!

Article and related related Sinclair news here

Moore's Pre-Election TV Special Nixed
10/16/2004 2:49:00 AM

NEW YORK, Oct 16, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- A cable pay-per-view company has decided not to show a three-hour election eve special with filmmaker Michael Moore that included a showing of his documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is sharply critical of President Bush.

The company, iN DEMAND, said Friday that its decision is due to "legitimate business and legal concerns." A spokesman would not elaborate.

Moore has just released his movie on DVD and was seeking a TV outlet for the film.

Earlier this week, trade publications said Moore was close to a deal with iN DEMAND for "The Michael Moore Pre-Election Special," which also would include interviews with politically active celebrities and admonitions to vote. The Nov. 1 special was to be available for $9.95.

Moore said Friday he signed a contract with the company in early September and is considering legal action. He said he believes iN DEMAND decided not to air the film because of pressure from "top Republican people."

"Apparently people have put pressure on them and they've broken a contract," Moore told The Associated Press.

"We've informed them of their legal responsibility and we all informed them that every corporate executive that has attempted to prohibit Americans from seeing this film has failed," Moore said. "There's been one struggle or another over this, but we've always come out on top because you can't tell Americans they can't watch this."

The New York-based iN DEMAND, owned by the Time Warner, Cox and Comcast cable companies, makes pay-per-view programming available in 28 million homes, or about one-quarter of the nation's homes with television.

In a statement, iN DEMAND said any legal action Moore might take against the company would be "entirely baseless and groundless."

*snip*

In an interview with a Maine television station that aired this week, former President George H.W. Bush called Moore a "slimeball" and an expletive.

Also Friday, Moore offered to let Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. air the movie for free. Such a deal would likely get a chilly reception at Sinclair, a broadcaster with a reputation for conservative politics that plans to air a critical documentary about John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities on dozens of TV stations two weeks before the election.

As ATSNN has reported, the FCC recently decided to allow Sinclair's pre-election free broadcast airing of the anti-Kerry film produced by Homeland Security contractor Carlton Sherwood, publicized and owned by Bush Appointee Charles Gerow and starring former Bush-Cheney campaign advisor Ken Cordier of SBVT 527 fame (a deeper look behind the curtain).

iN Demand's sudden reversal of talks and contracts with Michael Moore allowed Moore the ability to offer the movie for free to Sinclair Broadcasting on Friday. Perhaps Sinclair will have a decision for the public by Monday.

A bitter week of downtrading for Sinclair (SGBI) ended in it's nearing of a 52 week low coming just days after the FCC "victory" earlier in the week.

This scandal is far from over. It just got good.

Off the same stock watch link.

Kerry Campaign Seeks Equal Time Over Film
10/15/2004 7:00:00 PM

WASHINGTON, Oct 15, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, contending that Sinclair Broadcast Group wants to help President Bush by airing an anti-Kerry documentary two weeks before the election, asked on Friday that each station carrying the program provide a similar amount of time to Kerry supporters.

What a busy day Friday was!

This is good news. Now I won't have to download a DivX of it through a common p2p system. (painfully long download on dial-up )
I hope they do run F911 over the airwaves at least once.
Otherwise I'll just get my info off the web like the stubborn liberal I am. (no pun intended)



[edit on 16-10-2004 by Crysstaafur]

Of course Sinclair being the even-handed company they are said they are not politically biased in any way. Last night on Leno, Michael Moore announced that he would make Farenheit 911 available to Sinclair for FREE if they would show it on their stations. Let's see if they really are fair and unbiased or --- as most of us suspect --- they've just had their bluff called. People living in those markets should call the Sinclair affiliates and DEMAND that they air F911!

So InDemand decides not to air a film full of lies and half truths the day before elections and there's a problem.. why?

any political film has bias in it. The anti-kerry film is just as bad as the moore film.

One mans truth is another mans lie, remember this. It's all how you interpret the films from your viewpoint and ideology.

Moore is an extremely talented film-maker, he knows how to edit his films just so to impose his views on the viewer and derive an emtional reaction from them. This makes people either love him or loath him for his crafty editing.

At least he isnt Ann Coulter

A anti-bush film needs to be shown if an anti-kerry film is being shown. it's not fair game to try and persuade the masses with a completely one-sided film just before an election. It's just not democratic. So there needs to be an anti-bush film as well. And I can't think of one better than moore's hilarious Fahrenheit 9/11.

My major concern is that this is going to disillusion the population about their choices and not vote at all. Or it could be a landslide for nader (i wish)

thanks,
drfunk


[edit on 16-10-2004 by drfunk]

[edit on 16-10-2004 by drfunk]

Both programs are smear commercials that run movie length time. Niether one of these should be shown unless both are shown. I cant stand Michael Moore, but this isnt about who made what, its about equal time for each candidate. If one candidate gets 2 hours to smear his opponent, the the other candidate should recieve equal bashing time as well. Let them air both movies back to back. It will give me a reason to catch up on my gaming

Originally posted by jtma508
Of course Sinclair being the even-handed company they are said they are not politically biased in any way. Last night on Leno, Michael Moore announced that he would make Farenheit 911 available to Sinclair for FREE if they would show it on their stations. Let's see if they really are fair and unbiased or --- as most of us suspect --- they've just had their bluff called. People living in those markets should call the Sinclair affiliates and DEMAND that they air F911!

Nope. Not equal time. Stolen Honor runs for 45 minutes, while this latest incarnation of F911 runs for 3 hours.

Maybe if MM pays someone to run his film, it will get on the air.

BTW, can someone point me to the thread where the Kerry camp was crying foul over the politically motivated LIES in Rathergate, and demanding that CBS apologize and stop broadcasting stories about it?

I didn't think so.

Stolen Honor makes some very far-fetched claims and anybody with half a brain will view it as an attempt to smear Kerry. It is in no way, shape or form a documentary--it contains no facts. Sinclair's lame attempt at making it "news" by inviting Kerry to sit on a panel afterwards is ridiculous. There are no facts to dispute--he wasn't in the room when these guys were being tortured. Their claims that recordings of John Kerry's voice being played over and over and that transcripts of his testimony were used to torture them doesn't make sense--how was the Vietcong able to obtain such things in the jungle in 1971? For Kerry to sit there and argue with irate POWs that have no qualms about distorting the truth would be a mistake.

However, Kerry should get equal time on Sinclair, and it shouldn't be used to air Fahenheit 9/11. "Stolen Honor" is 45 minutes, and there is going to be a panel discussion afterwards, so that will probably equal about an hour and half. Instead of more smearing, Kerry should do something positive with the time, like a redux of the "Vote For Change" concert interspersed with his finer moments from the debates, campaign speeches and perhaps a short interview. I'm sure that Pearl Jam, Dave Matthews, Bruce Springsteen, REM, and Elvis Costello would get high ratings. I'll bet that Barbra Streisand & Neil Diamond would even draw some of the same viewers that watched Stolen Honor. And throughout the broadcast, Fox News-type headlines with the main points of Kerry's campaign platform should be scrolling across the bottom of the screen.

I think that would be much more interesting than some bleak propaganda that really says nothing about how George Bush will run the country and just highlights the fact that these POWs, along with the Swift Boat Vets, really need serious therapy.

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Their claims that recordings of John Kerry's voice being played over and over and that transcripts of his testimony were used to torture them doesn't make sense--how was the Vietcong able to obtain such things in the jungle in 1971?

I do believe that audio recording/playback technology was available last century.

However, Kerry should get equal time on Sinclair, and it shouldn't be used to air Fahenheit 9/11. "Stolen Honor" is 45 minutes, and there is going to be a panel discussion afterwards, so that will probably equal about an hour and half.

And throughout the broadcast, Fox News-type headlines with the main points of Kerry's campaign platform should be scrolling across the bottom of the screen.

So then you must agree that in all fairness, the lies and smears propagated by the Democrats should also be exposed for what they are, including:

Rathergate (scroll on CBS)
Halperin (scroll on ABC)
Carville (scroll on CNN)
Rangel/Hollings (entered into the Congressional Record)

don't you?

I think that would be much more interesting than some bleak propaganda that really says nothing about how George Bush will run the country and just highlights the fact that these POWs, along with the Swift Boat Vets, really need serious therapy.

They served our nation with honor. Better than a gigolo who stated his true reasons for protesting the war:

In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record.� -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)

Originally posted by jsobecky

I do believe that audio recording/playback technology was available last century.

In the jungle--or even in Hanoi--and available for immediate playback? These weren't the days of the Internet or portable cassette recorders. Kerry's testimony wasn't played on the radio or on TV in Vietnam. Even ten years ago to get back issues of newspapers you had to go to microfiche--these machines weren't available in Hanoi 30 years ago. The claims that these guys made just didn't make sense--how was it possible for the Vietcong to get multiple copies of Kerry's testimonials on tape--or even transcripts of testimonials in Vietnam in war time? Did the Vietcong write to the Senate or the Times? How were the tapes duplicated so that several of them heard the tapes while they were held in different places? It isn't believable.

Did you see 'Stolen Honor", BTW? I did. Their claims that out of the thousands of protesters, John Kerry's words were used SPECIFICALLY to torment them are bizarre and unfounded. There is no evidence other than 13 POWs telling wild stories--2 of which are Swift Boat Members. It is so obvious that when they saw that Kerry, a war protester, was running for president, they made up stories and financed this film.

So then you must agree that in all fairness, the lies and smears propagated by the Democrats should also be exposed for what they are, including:

Rathergate (scroll on CBS)
Halperin (scroll on ABC)
Carville (scroll on CNN)
Rangel/Hollings (entered into the Congressional Record)

I think that there have been an equal number of lies and smears propagated by both sides. I don't see how this argument is relevant in this context. Dan Rather has been disgraced. Halperin is equally culpable of journalistic poverty as Carl Cameron and Brit Hume. If anyone doesn't realize by now that James Carville is a Democratic mouthpiece, then they have had their head in the sand for the past ten years. The Rangel/Hollings draft bills were a political ploy--but compared to Karl Rove's tactics, this was child's play.

They served our nation with honor. Better than a gigolo who stated his true reasons for protesting the war:

In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record.� -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)

These guys served with honor, but have never dealt with the damage that was done to them psychologically in Vietnam. Instead, they have chosen to villify John Kerry, which entails dishonorable behavior. They deny that atrocities like the Mai Lai massacre happened--when there is proven evidence to the contrary and the military has even reluctantly admitted the crimes against civilians went above and beyond acts of war. John Kerry and others like him saw what was going on and wanted to stop it. Not every soldier was perpertrating these heinous crimes, but those that were needed to be stopped. Unfortunately, due to the mindset held by these former soldiers and the military, nothing was done. They would rather keep their mouths shut and let women and children be raped and decapitated rather than acknowledge that some U.S. soldiers--including officers-- were homicidal psychopaths. Thinking like this was the precursor to Abu Ghraib--perhaps if they listened to Kerry instead of calling him a traitor and changed the culture of the military, Abu Ghraib wouldn't have happened.

I feel sorry for these men because they were tortured, but I am disgusted by the fact that they protect a system that turned a blind eye to the murders that were occuring in Vietnam, but incredibly turned on whistle-blowers. Vietnam happened 30 years ago and these men need to seek help to get over it. They come off as angry, ranting lunatics making unbelievable claims and this piece is pure, political propaganda because it contains no facts.

Kerry has nothing to be afraid of in Stolen Honor--but he should use this as a boon in being able to obtain equal time.

So why doesn't Kerrys team whip up a movie that rebutes Stolen Honor just like FahrenHYPE was done? Then Sinclair could broadcast "Not stolen but maybe exaggerated honor" right after Stolen Honor aired.

I still do not believe that Sinclair will air Stolen Honor. Something will happen and they will change their mind. Maybe just the THREAT of airing it will have the outcome that Sinclair is looking for. Their stock has plummeted, their advertisors are pulling their ads, Sinclair will NOT go through with this.

Maybe someone should post a link to the thread that has the Sinclair contact info so people who are interested can write to Sinclair and ask that Stolen Honor not be aired.

Jemison

Kerry doesn't have to whip up a movie. He has people like Ted Koppel on ABC and the general leadership at that network trying to 'set the record straight' about him. Funny. ABC went to Vietnam, interviewed people with a Saddam like government watcher observing to make sure the interviewees only said what the government wanted them to, then apparently have a picture perfect memory of an even tfrom thirty plus years ago. Then ABC has the gall to ignore Kerry's own account of the encounter, as well as several books and articles written about it.

By all means, let's believe the communist dictatorship over the candidate's own words. After all, we have to be fair, right? (end sarcasm)

Originally posted by everlastingnoitall
Kerry doesn't have to whip up a movie. He has people like Ted Koppel on ABC and the general leadership at that network trying to 'set the record straight' about him. Funny. ABC went to Vietnam, interviewed people with a Saddam like government watcher observing to make sure the interviewees only said what the government wanted them to, then apparently have a picture perfect memory of an even tfrom thirty plus years ago. Then ABC has the gall to ignore Kerry's own account of the encounter, as well as several books and articles written about it.

By all means, let's believe the communist dictatorship over the candidate's own words. After all, we have to be fair, right? (end sarcasm)

Communist dictatorship? You mean* the SOUTH Vietnamese* US allies they just interviewed last night that debunked "Stolen Hour" already?

EDIT: Typos, also had Korea on the brain.

[edit on 16-10-2004 by RANT]

Hahahahaha!!!! It funny to see Bushies pull their heads out of their @$$es so fast they get whiplash just so they can defend the "honor"(pun intended) of a 45 minute lie. There is proof of what Kerry said, the MILITARY ADMITS TO IT! You people just don't get it, Kerry said it was done, Military said it was done, the news said it was done, the GOVERNMENT said it was done. There is proof it was done, why you still lie? SH is a complete lie, it is a 45 minute swift boat ad, which so far have been all lies, ALL OF THEM! Hell, they say they were forced to sign papers saying they did this, as part of the torture. Only one problem, they did it, IN AMERICA! Who was torturing them then? Wow, the Bu# the Bushies will believe. I have a Bigfoot in a cage you can buy for say, the rest of your brain?

I saw this last night on Leno, which was a great interview.

he knows how to edit his films just so to impose his views on the viewer and derive an emtional reaction from them

True. I cried on a couple of occasions. Even though I have a few issues with the film, I thought it was good overall.

At least he isnt Ann Coulter

Thank God

Originally posted by RANT
Oh how ironic!
Article
Moore's Pre-Election TV Special Nixed
10/16/2004 2:49:00 AM

In an interview with a Maine television station that aired this week, former President George H.W. Bush called Moore a "slimeball" and an expletive.

Well I think we are *all aware of what kind of Slimeball whore #ing, murdering(thousands dead by his order), sovereign-country invading(Iraq), legal rights removing(P.A. I & 2), coc aine using(Andrews A.F.B. and a rumored arrest in Maine covered up by then Daddy Pres.) drunken(Arrested in Maine ... again) illiterate (just listen to him) Asshole George W. Bush is.

*Except for Grady of course.

CS, how dare you tell the truth! You darn liberal just giving out the truth like it was candy.... thanks.

Anyways, F9/11 was a good MOVIE, maybe not a documentary, but movie? yes. If Bush&Co can have SH play then Moore should be allowed to have F9/11. What the Bushies don't get is that SH is on free tv, while F9/11 WAS going to be PPV. "See how YOU like it! You whine when SH is being played, but think it ok for F9/11 to play!" Yes, we do whine when SH, a 45 minute proven lie, is playing as news, on free tv while F9/11 WAS on PPV. I think Moore called Sinclair's bluff, they won't play it.

It sure is nice that we can all bash the same person Comradare through mud slinging. At least both sides can somewhat agree that Michael Moore is a worthless fleshbag who needs a shave. Oh yea, Ann C. sucks too

Originally posted by lmgnyc

Originally posted by jsobecky

I do believe that audio recording/playback technology was available last century.

In the jungle--or even in Hanoi--and available for immediate playback? These weren't the days of the Internet or portable cassette recorders.
:
How were the tapes duplicated so that several of them heard the tapes while they were held in different places? It isn't believable.

While this may or may not be the specific technology used, I present it here to illustrate your technical naivete:

The Eight Track tape recording system was popular from 1965 to the late 1970s. While today it has become an icon of obsolescence, it was a great commercial success and paved the way for all sorts of innovations in portable listening. The eight track tape consisted of an endless loop of standard 1/4-inch magnetic tape, housed in a plastic cartridge. On the tape were eight parallel soundtracks, corresponding to four stereo programs. For many people old enough to have owned an eight track system, it is a technology associated with the automobile and in-car listening. Ironically, however, it was first developed not by the auto industry, but by a leading aircraft manufacturer.

8 Track

Did you see 'Stolen Honor", BTW? I did. Their claims that out of the thousands of protesters, John Kerry's words were used SPECIFICALLY to torment them are bizarre and unfounded. There is no evidence other than 13 POWs telling wild stories--2 of which are Swift Boat Members. It is so obvious that when they saw that Kerry, a war protester, was running for president, they made up stories and financed this film.

You just answered your own question. They financed these truths precisely because he is now running for president, and not a harmless absentee Senator from Taxachusetts.

So then you must agree that in all fairness, the lies and smears propagated by the Democrats should also be exposed for what they are, including:

Rathergate (scroll on CBS)
Halperin (scroll on ABC)
Carville (scroll on CNN)
Rangel/Hollings (entered into the Congressional Record)

I don't see how this argument is relevant in this context.

You introduced it with the suggestion about Fox News. C'mon now, use the same logic that allows you to defend Kerry's tawdry comment about Mary Cheney.

They served our nation with honor. Better than a gigolo who stated his true reasons for protesting the war:

In a 2002 conversation, Kerry told me he thought it would be doubly advantageous that "I fought in Vietnam and I also fought against the Vietnam War," apparently not recognizing that some would see far too much political calculation in such a bifurcated record.� -- writes David Broder. (8/24/2004)

Unfortunately, due to the mindset held by these former soldiers and the military, nothing was done. They would rather keep their mouths shut and let women and children be raped and decapitated rather than acknowledge that some U.S. soldiers--including officers-- were homicidal psychopaths. Thinking like this was the precursor to Abu Ghraib--perhaps if they listened to Kerry instead of calling him a traitor and changed the culture of the military, Abu Ghraib wouldn't have happened.

You are way out of line with a statement like that. You child.

I notice you conveniently ignored Kerry's statement to Broder, which proves what a duplicitous flip-flopper he really is.

You back a pompous gigolo who publicy answered a citizen who asked him a valid question with, "That's not your business. That's my business." And you think he's up front with you now and will be in the future. Ha!