[Michelle]

Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this?

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/12/news...inclair_kerry/

[saltjunkie]

Well, as I was reading.. i was thinking...

Kerry's camp didnt mind the Moore 9/11 movie..

then they hit that nail right on the head...

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander!

[Michelle]

That was my thinking too, if they can put out the Fahrenheit 9/11 then why can't Sinclair Broadcasting show theirs? The way I look at it, people don't have to watch it if they don't want to, just like they don't have to buy Fahrenheit 9/11. Just my .02.

[Reefland]

I guess the slight difference is that the movie had to be purchased as where the Kerry bit will be on Public TV. I can see where some people might note this as the difference between the 2 but I agree, turn the channel if you don't want to watch it.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by saltjunkie

Well, as I was reading.. i was thinking...

Kerry's camp didnt mind the Moore 9/11 movie..

then they hit that nail right on the head...

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander!

Michael Moore doesn't hold broadcast licenses for TV stations in 62 markets! Big difference!

The Republican controlled congress has allowed unbridled consolidation in the media that is not in the best interests of a free, democratic society. It doesn't matter whether the owners of the hundreds of radio stations and scores of TV stations and dozens of newspapers are left-wing or right-wing but it does matter that one company can order stations in scores of markets around the country to not air content that is not in line with their political views as was the case earlier this year when Sinclair Broadcasting Group ordered all of it's ABC affiliates to not air Ted Koppel's Nightline show because he was going to read the names of 700 servicemen who had died in Iraq. That is blatant media control.

In my mind, this is even worse than what Rupert Murdock has done to freedom of speech around the world with his gory, sex-obsessed, gutter trash tabloids and right-wing Fox TV News that is anything but fair and balanced. At least you can refuse to buy his trashy tabloids and refuse to watch his TV channel when it isn't broadcasting sports. But in the case of Sinclair (and that other right-wing nut that owns a bunch of Hispanic outlets) you are faced with a giant corporation that is filtering the content that it allows its stations to broadcast to further its own extremist political views. It really doesn't matter whether their views are left-wing or right-wing or moderate. What does matter is that they are actively censoring the content that they will allow on their stations and in this new development, ordering all of their stations to broadcast a 90-minute "commercial" that was put together a few weeks ago. Do you think for one minute that any company would be willing to sponsor this program? No way!

In Nazi Germany the government propaganda ministry controlled the media. They did an extremely good job of it, too. One might say that they managed to brainwash more than 90% of the German population.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Reefland

I guess the slight difference is that the movie had to be purchased as where the Kerry bit will be on Public TV. I can see where some people might note this as the difference between the 2 but I agree, turn the channel if you don't want to watch it.

What if the same company owns all of the channels in your town? What if they own the ABC affiliate AND the NBC affiliate AND the CBS affiliate? And the local newspaper? What if they order all of those stations to not air network programs that they don't like? What if they order all of those stations to air 90 minutes of unpaid political propaganda?

Sinclair Broadcasting Group is not the only giant media conglomerate, just one of the most obviously active in promoting its political agenda.

If this "documentary" is such hot stuff, why not sell it like any other program? Surely dozens of major companies would jump at the chance to associate themselves with such a "newsworthy" program???

[saltjunkie]

very good points..
but didnt moore give permission to download the movie free on the internet?
9/11 is almost the same... the movie just didnt appear.. there were many people behind it, who supported it .. who helped produce the movie..
i can see and understand what you are saying.. and i knoe it cant really be compared..
but you know moore would have done it the same way, if he wasnt really interested in the money

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Michelle

That was my thinking too, if they can put out the Fahrenheit 9/11 then why can't Sinclair Broadcasting show theirs?

"They" didn't "put out" Fahrenheit 9/11. Michael Moore did. That's like saying that "they" (meaning the Republican Party) "put out" Rush Limbaugh's radio show. "They" don't. His sponsors do. That's called free enterprise.

Sinclair is not selling this program to anybody. That's not free enterprise. It's corporate propaganda. And they (meaning Sinclair) are paying for it.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by saltjunkie

but you know moore would have done it the same way, if he wasnt really interested in the money

Michael Moore is in a class by himself. What can I say? I haven't seen his latest piece, Fahrenheit 9/11, but I have seen Roger & Me and Bowling for Columbine.

I'm not sure Michael Moore is in it for the money. I think the money is secondary. Michael Moore just enjoys going after people. He went after poor Roger Smith in his first documentary and he ambushed poor Charlton Heston in his Bowling for Columbine documentary. Even if you agree to a certain extent with some of his political leanings, you have to be somewhat embarrassed with his tactics and his blatant one-sided view of events. Sort of the opposite of Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell. BTW, Michael Moore has always been a big supporter of Ralph Nader and he endorsed him for president in 2000, not Al Gore.

Did Mel Gibson make The Passion of the Christ for the money or to satisfy his personal religious beliefs? One might think that he did it because he is a right-wing (religiously speaking) extremist with an agenda to promote. Certainly he took a lot of risk in financing that film. No one else expected it to be a commercial success. So it would be fair to say that he wasn't in it for the money. But then when you see all the stuff they are selling along with it and the way they are promoting it, you have to say to yourself, "Self, you were wrong! The guy was in it for the MONEY!" So far he has netted in excess of half a billion dollars.

[zhenya]

I left one nazi, meadia controlling freaky country to seek freedom of speech and unbiased opinions being freely heard. What you are saying,George, brings back some terrible memories for me and I sure hope there is a light at the end of the tunnel...
I just... can hardly see it this days.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Ninong

What if the same company owns all of the channels in your town? What if they own the ABC affiliate AND the NBC affiliate AND the CBS affiliate? And the local newspaper? What if they order all of those stations to not air network programs that they don't like? What if they order all of those stations to air 90 minutes of unpaid political propaganda?

Sinclair Broadcasting Group is not the only giant media conglomerate, just one of the most obviously active in promoting its political agenda.

Ninong hit the nail on the head. Until recently there were laws limiting the number of media sources that could be owned by one company in any given market, but they have been rolled back. It is truly worrisome when any one company controls all the media, and this scenario is not far off. The Sinclair thing is a good example of how a company can wield this power to further its own agenda.

[Brett A Ross]

I must agree with Ninong although I also believe Michael Moore is not much better than Rush Lintballs, Shawn Hanity, Michael Savage or the rest of the make it up as we go ilk . I do not think this type of negative political add in documentary form belongs on public TV. If they want to make a movie or better yet stick it on the voice of the RNC fox. Than everyone could se it what it is.

[Ninong]

We can all hope that the FCC or the FEC will do the right thing and uphold the law that requires broadcasters to provide equal time, that would probably kill it right there, but that's like expecting the FERC to prevent Enron et al from raping California during the fabricated energy crisis a few years back. Didn't Cheney say that California brought it on themselves? Didn't Cheney formulate our new energy policy with the help of Dubya's pal Kenny Boy?

[Brett A Ross]

about as much hope as having a reeeeeeeeeal debate.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Brett A Ross

about as much hope as having a reeeeeeeeeal debate.

Well, that didn't take long. Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, has already turned down the idea of doing anything about Sinclair's plans to broadcast their 90-minute "infomercial" on all 62 TV stations that they own. So I guess that leaves just the FEC to determine if it's a violation of campaign laws.

Why am I not surprised here. Isn't this the same Michael Powell who refused to recuse himself from the negotiations on the AOL-Time Warner merger conditions even though his daddy, Colin Powell, is a director of AOL with loads of lucrative stock options. No wonder there were so few restrictions on that deal.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Ninong hit the nail on the head. Until recently there were laws limiting the number of media sources that could be owned by one company in any given market, but they have been rolled back.

Specifically, the new rules state that in the largest cities, one company may own up to three television stations.

Nationally, a company can own stations that reach 45 percent of U.S. households.

One company can own a broadcast outlet and a newspaper in the same city, ending the rule against cross-ownership in all but the smallest markets.

This was another example of Republican payback to their big corporate contributors at the expense of the best interests of the public. Even some moderate Republican Congressmen expressed their outrage at this new ruling but it was all for show. Sort of like George W. Bush saying that he wished the assualt weapons ban had been extended. Speaking of which, has anyone been following little Tom DeLay lately? What's he got so far this month? Is it two or three official reprimands for unethical conduct? What a pity. Now that Jesse Helms has retired, he's the only one left in Washington upholding the ideals of the 12th. century.

[schrocat]

Democrats name GOP official in phone jamming
By NANCY MEERSMAN
Union Leader Staff




CONCORD — Federal prosecutors yesterday called a halt just 20 minutes before Democrats were to question a Republican official under oath over the identity of a Bush-Cheney official allegedly implicated in an illegal phone-jamming operation.

Computerized telephone calls jammed five Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks, plus a sixth run by Manchester firefighters, for about an hour and a half during the 2002 election.

The U.S. Justice Department will ask a judge as soon as today to stay depositions that Democrats had scheduled yesterday and today in their civil lawsuit against the GOP in connection with the scheme launched in the 2002 New Hampshire election.

"These depositions, if they took place at this particular time, would interfere with our criminal investigation," said Bryan Sierra, a spokesman for the justice department.


TOBIN

Decrying last minute "interference" by federal officials, Democrats in court filings yesterday identified the alleged co-conspirator as Jim Tobin, director of the 2004 New England regional Bush-Cheney campaign.

Tobin was the regional director of the Republican Senatorial Committee during the 2002 election when Democrat Jeanne Shaheen was defeated in a close race by John Sununu.

Tobin did not return telephone calls yesterday and Wednesday.

Attorney Ovide M. Lamontagne said yesterday that no one in the Republican State Committee knew there was an intermediary or an unnamed co-conspirator in the phone jamming investigation before reading a transcript of the plea agreement made by Allen Raymond, a former Virginia telemarketer, and Charles McGee, former director of the Republican State Committee.

McGee and Raymond have both pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges in the phone-jamming case, but have not been sentenced.

Lamontagne said no federal officials have confirmed that Tobin is the unidentified co-conspirator cited in the plea agreement.

Lamontagne said the efforts by Democrats to speed up events in the civil case are "intended to harass the Republican State Committee" while the state committee is trying to cooperate in the federal investigation.

Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Phillip P. Mangones had given the go-ahead yesterday for the depositions. He denied a request by Republicans to stay all discovery in the civil case until the criminal case concluded.

Federal prosecutors did not take any position when the matter was heard in court Wednesday. They called lawyers for the Democrats and Republicans yesterday afternoon and notified the court they would be filing motions to stay the depositions while the criminal case proceeds.

A Republican witness had been expected to show up for a deposition at the Shaheen and Gordon law offices in Concord at 2 p.m. yesterday. Lamontagne arrived without the witness, whom he has declined to identify.

Today, the Democrats expected to depose McGee.

The Democratic Party yesterday asked the superior court for an immediate hearing on the stalled depositions. The Democrats say they want the Republican official involved in the phone jamming to be publicly identified and "possibly removed from his position because of his alleged involvement in electoral fraud."

The Democrats are also asking the court to hold the Republican State Committee in contempt of court for not producing records and a witness pursuant to a court order.

"Somebody made a decision to try to assist the Republican Party in stonewalling us," said Democratic Party Chairman Kathleen N. Sullivan.

She said it was "shocking" that the justice department would "interfere in this small New Hampshire case" when federal prosecutors haven't stopped discovery in civil cases against Enron, Tyco and WorldCom while parallel criminal cases are under way.

"We find this late intervention by the Department of Justice to be a sorry and sad reflection upon that department," said Steven M. Gordon, attorney for the Democratic Party.

"Its actions at this late hour to prevent public disclosure of a matter of great public concern is so transparent that it deserves the condemnation of our community."



It's almost like the Justice Department is...like...stonewalling or something.
Very odd.
Every Republican (including this one) knows what levels Rove's boys and girls stoop to, and almost every Republican has turned a blind eye to their immoral tactics or embraced them as neccesary to win the "War on Culture".

I guess the ten commandments are for display purposes only.

Nothing can be lost from ultimately telling the truth in this situation. It could actually fortify the Republican base by being percieved as "rigging an election for Jesus".

[schrocat]

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/289/...r_stati:.shtml

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by schrocat

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/289/...r_stati:.shtml

Interesting.

[Ninong]

At least the FCC is one area where a newly elected President Kerry could have an immediate impact. A new Democratic Chairman could roll back the tide towards media consolidation.

Even if Kerry is elected (and he's still an underdog at this moment), he won't be able to do a whole lot with a Republican House. The House is solidly in Republican control and will probably be even more solidly Republican thanks to gerrymandering in states like Texas following the last census. The Senate may or may not go Democratic. Chances are that it will be extremely close either way. If Kerry is elected, then the Republicans have only to lose one net seat to give control to the Democrats. Right now it's 51 Repubs, 48 Dems & Jeffords. If that changes to 50 Repubs, 49 Dems & Jeffords, then John Edwards becomes the 51st vote for the Democrats.

If Bush is reelected, there is always the chance that the Repubs could lose two Senate seats, thus putting a kink in his judicial nominations. At least they could block people like Robert Bork. Too bad they didn't block Clarence Thomas. He'll probably live to be 100 like Strom Thurmond and they'll still be wheeling him into chambers on a gurney every day like they did good ole Strom.