12-10-2004 23:05									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Despite my previous posts, I have to agree with you DAN. Freedom of speech is one thing, but it's getting out of hand. Money already has way too much influence in elections. While politics is all about money, something should be done.

	12-10-2004 23:07									#62
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DanS Personally, I don't think Sinclair should be airing the anti-Kerry special, even if they are able to do so. I don't want big businesses so heavily involved in the elections. It's the same thing with moveon.org. Soros is able to spend an unlimited amount of money on the campaign, but should not even have spent how much he did. I don't want billionaires so heavily involved in the elections.

Agreed.

I think everyone here knows my position tho' regarding mainstream so called impartial media.

	12-10-2004 23:07									#63
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I agree that it's out of hand. Each side has its billionaires and its big corporations. We're a rich country and could spend an astounding sum on elections if we set our minds to it. However, I would hope that the billionaires and corporations could agree to do other things with their money, as they pretty much have done in the past.

	12-10-2004 23:08									#64
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ming Yeah... it's not the same, I've already admitted that. But with "free broadcast" you have the right to make the choice NOT to watch. No different than the choice you make going to pay for a movie.

You have a "choice" with EVERYTHING in life- if you house in burning down you could chose not to call the Fire Department-so what? The issue here is the nature of the broadcast: If I buy a TV I get all sorts of stations for free-that is great, and happens thanks to the government. If I care to pay, I get more stations..great. But the stations that air fro free have rules to follow.

quote: I don't think I've ever seen that line on ANY news program on the networks... Documentaries, don't include it either. Everybody seems to be ingoring the fact that program being discussed is no more than a documentary... something that appears all the time over the air and on cable... While the lawyers can argue about equal time, it's possible they will lose... because frankly, if you read through what the program is, it isn't a political ad... just a recap of what has happened in the past. Yeah, it slams, Kerry, and yeah, I don't doubt why they are doing it... and yeah, it is for political reasons... but so are News reports that attack either bush or kerry... op ed pieces, and all forms of media.

That is why the CBS event was a "scandal"- cause because since that line is missing, there is an assumption of a level of fact checking. CBS got memos, did not check their accuracy, and then boradcast them. Do you havce any pretension that the fact checking for this story went above that of the SBFT ads?

quote: Your point... Ownership MAKES program decisions. "Schedules interrupted"... HUH, they dictate the schedule... They own the stations and its their right to schedule what they want... as long as it doesn't break FCC rules, which this probably doesn't!

You don;t know what rules it may break- but yes, how high the decsion came from matters.

quote: Your point of this?

Qnatitative differences can equal qualitative differences

quote: Again... you make it sound like the ownership and broadcasters are two different things... THEY AREN'T. You seem to be arguing that owners can't make their own programming decisions... Normal programming gets pre-empted all the time... big deal... turn the channel if you don't like it.

At indidivual stations yes- on every station in a system? No, that is not a common occurance unless something huge occured.

quote: Big deal... over the air, in movie theaters, in newspapers, on stage... what's the difference.

Last time I looked you don't get fined for "indecensy" anymore for a private theater play, or movie, and not in newspapers either actually. You do on broadcast TV. Obviously there is a difference.

quote: You seem to be making a big deal since this is "over the air"... and that makes it worse than all other equally as bad editorial messages... It isn't. Everybody is doing, why pick on one and not the others.

Because again, there is a distinction. Me screaming an obcenity in a pron theater and in a church are not the same, even if the words were the same.

	12-10-2004 23:09									#65
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DanS I agree that it's out of hand. Each side has its billionaires and its big corporations. We're a rich country. I would hope that the billionaires and corporations could agree to do other things with their money, as they pretty much have done in the past.

Nothing gives back like an investment in government influence.

	12-10-2004 23:25									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by CygnusZ Ok, here's why it's different. There are a liimited number of wavelength frequencies on which public television can be seen. As such, the court has ruled that television shows on the airwaves are therefore subject to the highest level of regulation. The result are policies such as giving equal coverage to both sides on a political issue, censorship considerations, serving the public good etc etc. You can complain that this doesn't apply anymore, but you should already know that's flat out wrong.

Believe me when I say I understand the differences. Media is my profession, and I lecture on the subject to universities and the industry

You are making the simple mistake of considering this a "political" issue. It isn't. It is no more than a documentary on Kerry. It's not saying you shouldn't vote for him... it's just showing Kerry's actions in the past. Yeah, I know the intent behind it, and the reason they are doing it... but technically, it's a documentary, just like F911 is. The FCC had no restrictions against that. Lawyers may eventually argue that it is political, and that equal time requirements apply, but frankly, I don't think they can win that one based on the law.

quote: If viewers truly had unlimited choice then it would be legimiate for there to be cursing and nudity on the airwaves.

A total misunderstanding of the rules... yes, things available freely over the air have restrictions on nudity. An unlimited number of choices over the air wouldn't change the current restrictions on nudity.

quote: Cable suffers fewers regulations because there are greater number of potential channels, with pay cable having literarly no limits.

Also incorrect... they face fewer regulations because they are not available "over the air" for anybody to receive... it is the choice of the person to subscribe to such services, and has nothing to do with the number of channels or options.

I, like most of the recent posters, agree that this isn't "right"... however, I would say the same about movies like F911 and hatchet jobs like CBS did... Fox... and even programs like "Real time with Bill Maher", which spend their entire time saying you need to vote for Kerry.

The box is open, and while I would like to see it closed, that ain't going to happen. So I'm not going to whine when I see it happening to both candidates... I have no problem if people want to watch F911 on pay for view the day before the election, or buy the video tape... we ALL know why it's being shown, and being sold now.... it's about the election. I see no difference with the Kerry Documentary. You can't say one is ok and not the other.

	12-10-2004 23:40									#67
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ming You are making the simple mistake of considering this a "political" issue. It isn't. It is no more than a documentary on Kerry. It's not saying you shouldn't vote for him... it's just showing Kerry's actions in the past. Yeah, I know the intent behind it, and the reason they are doing it... but technically, it's a documentary, just like F911 is. The FCC had no restrictions against that. Lawyers may eventually argue that it is political, and that equal time requirements apply, but frankly, I don't think they can win that one based on the law.

The FCC pulled some ads for F9/11 after a republican complaint. If ads for Moore's work can be pulled, I am sure a program like this one can get pulled.

	12-10-2004 23:49									#68
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap You have a "choice" with EVERYTHING in life- if you house in burning down you could chose not to call the Fire Department-so what? The issue here is the nature of the broadcast: If I buy a TV I get all sorts of stations for free-that is great, and happens thanks to the government. If I care to pay, I get more stations..great. But the stations that air fro free have rules to follow.

And what rule are they breaking?

quote: That is why the CBS event was a "scandal"- cause because since that line is missing, there is an assumption of a level of fact checking. CBS got memos, did not check their accuracy, and then boradcast them. Do you havce any pretension that the fact checking for this story went above that of the SBFT ads?

And that has what to do with this?

quote: You don;t know what rules it may break- but yes, how high the decsion came from matters.

Come back when there is "proof" that is against any rules... Based on the law, they are breaking no rules... but maybe some lawyers will prove otherwise.

And now you are saying it makes a difference because of where the decision comes from
I guess that makes F911 a true moral outrage since it came down from the top dog.

quote: At indidivual stations yes- on every station in a system? No, that is not a common occurance unless something huge occured.

While it is not common, the owners can do what they damn well please in terms of programming unless it violates FCC rules.

quote: Last time I looked you don't get fined for "indecensy" anymore for a private theater play, or movie, and not in newspapers either actually. You do on broadcast TV. Obviously there is a difference.

As I've said... yes, there is a difference between "over the air" TV and other medium... but we aren't talking indecensy here are we We are talking about nothing more harmless than a documentry... nothing against the rules here... and well within the rights of the owners to broadcast across THEIR network WHENEVER they please... But again, since it's anti Kerry, you seem to have a problem with it... but when "entertainment shows like Bill Maher spend the last three months totally campaigning against Bush under the guise of "entertainment", you don't have a problem with that...

quote: Because again, there is a distinction. Me screaming an obcenity in a pron theater and in a church are not the same, even if the words were the same.

And please again remind us what obcenties have to do with this... we are talking about a harmless documentry... not screaming obcene things in pron theaters or churchs

	12-10-2004 23:58									#69
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

As I said above, republicans filled a complaint against an ad for F9/11 for the crime of showing a clip of the president playing golf...republicans considered it damaging to the presidents image, hence "partisan", hence breaking the rules.

In the end the ad was pulled.

I fail to see how this program will be any less suspect- it has every reason to be far more suspect in fact.

	12-10-2004 23:58									#70
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Offhand (and likely out of date) , I seem to recall something in the regulations about the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act applying to documentaties; That if a a documentary is focuses primarily on a candidate, and favorably, it may triggger it in favour of the other candidate. I do no think that a unfavorable news documentary can trigger it. Unlike our august and well informed Ming, I opine that there may be more exposure under campaign finance (and related broadcast) laws than under 'equal time', but I agree that niether exposure is likely to to have result.

	12-10-2004 23:59									#71
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ming And please again remind us what obcenties have to do with this... we are talking about a harmless documentry... not screaming obcene things in pron theaters or churchs

If it were harmless, Sinclair, which has a long and blatant history of politicizing its operation (incluidng getting rid of all local news bureaus to replace them with a centralized news organization), would not force its stations to show it.

	13-10-2004 00:09									#72
	Support Apolyton

If, as is likely, this is produce as a special segment of an existing show that regualr does news segments, with interviews and discussion by such show's newspeople, I do not believe it will have any exposure under 'equal time ' at all, or even need the pre-clearance procedure.

	13-10-2004 00:16									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola If, as is likely, this is produce as a special segment of an existing show that regualr does news segments, with interviews and discussion by such show's newspeople, I do not believe it will have any exposure under 'equal time ' at all, or even need the pre-clearance procedure.

Its not part of a regularly produced show-its a 1 hour independently produced documentary. After all, I have heard no mention of a syndicated news show doing it and it is obviously not a network news show doing it.

	13-10-2004 00:23									#74
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap Its not part of a regularly produced show-its a 1 hour independently produced documentary. After all, I have heard no mention of a syndicated news show doing it and it is obviously not a network news show doing it.

With the exception of Fox that pretty much goes without saying.

	13-10-2004 00:24									#75
	Put an end to popups!

You have yourself mentioned their cetralized news bureau which has taken over the function of much of the local channels news. It is the obvious candidate to produce and provide personnel for the show.

	13-10-2004 00:32									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola You have yourself mentioned their cetralized news bureau which has taken over the function of much of the local channels news. It is the obvious candidate to produce and provide personnel for the show.

They make productions for their local news items- but I have not heard them making segments for any regularly broadcast and widely syndicated News program.

	13-10-2004 00:37									#77
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap They make productions for their local news items- but I have not heard them making segments for any regularly broadcast and widely syndicated News program.

Howard Stern was considered a regular news source under the same rules. I do not think it takes much to qualify.

	13-10-2004 00:40									#78
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I find it odd that the examples used to defend what is going on were found to be wrong too.

CBS: that became a massive scandal.

F911: Had to stop some of its commercials.

How do these things which everyone admits are bad and shouldn't have happened justify a new event that's even worse in its scope?

-Drachasor

	13-10-2004 00:51									#79
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap If it were harmless, Sinclair, which has a long and blatant history of politicizing its operation (incluidng getting rid of all local news bureaus to replace them with a centralized news organization), would not force its stations to show it.

getting rid of all local news bureaus to replace them with a centralized news organization is a money saving corporate move, not some evil plot that you are making it out to me.

All they are doing is making a programming change across THEIR network to air a documentry at a special time. While we will all agree that we know why, and what their intent is, there is NOTHING legally wrong with what they are doing... just like there is nothing legally wrong with F911...

	13-10-2004 00:55									#80
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor I find it odd that the examples used to defend what is going on were found to be wrong too. CBS: that became a massive scandal. F911: Had to stop some of its commercials. How do these things which everyone admits are bad and shouldn't have happened justify a new event that's even worse in its scope? -Drachasor

F911 had to stop that "particular" commerical... but can still sell copies right before the election, and even have a pay for view event. They may also produce another commercial that will fall within FCC guidelines.

And how is this "worse" in scope than all the other examples... or worse than Bill Mahers show which every week trashes the president and ends most shows with anything but Bush?

Fair is fair... while I find all of it deplorable... it's being done. If you are outraged about this, be outraged about all that is going on... against BOTH candidates... just don't pick on this because it's against your candidate, yet play wink wink about stuff that is helping your candidate

	13-10-2004 01:01									#81
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor F911: Had to stop some of its commercials.

Commericals are covered by more rules than "news documentaries", as are other non news programs. Example: a decades old movie having nothing to do with politics starring a currently running politician would be covered by 'equal time', softball interiews on a news program letting talk about all his political programes would not. The press largely gets a pass on the such issues.

	13-10-2004 01:03									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Because it is a fiat order to show a particular show instead of normal broadcasting. They are going to present it as pure news, which gives it an even greater impression of urgency and legitimacy (else why override regular programming?).

Standard shows that are on every week have a particular audience and one knows what to expect from them. Even standard media outlets might have a fair bit of bias here and there, but one knows that bias is present.

This is done in a way so they don't have to convey that knowledge. It is far from the same thing as a weekly show or news program. This is only made worse by how it is being targetting at the public and the timing just a couple weeks before the election.

-Drachasor

	13-10-2004 01:05									#83
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Another quirk in broadcast laws:
Who can describe a situation where a broadcast tv station can not only legally brocast the prohibited obscene words, but is required to under federal law?

	13-10-2004 01:06									#84
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ming All they are doing is making a programming change across THEIR network to air a documentry at a special time. While we will all agree that we know why, and what their intent is, there is NOTHING legally wrong with what they are doing... just like there is nothing legally wrong with F911...

I already said, ads for F9/11, showing Bush making statements and playing golf were found to be too much- how could a piece claiming Kerry's anti-war stance prolongued the Vietnam War be any less than that?

	13-10-2004 01:11									#85
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Commericals are covered by more rules than "news documentaries", as are other non news programs.

Yes... when the ad shows a candidate, there are very strict rules and guidelines... none of which apply to documentaries... or news programs... or "entertainment" programs...

	13-10-2004 01:15									#86
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

From a "pro-Nader" group:

http://www.orwelliantimes.com/2004/04/30.html

	13-10-2004 01:21									#87
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

FCC Commissioner Copps weighs in

quote: FCC COMMISSIONER STATEMENT ON SINCLAIR AIRING OF ANTI-KERRY SHOW Tue Oct 12 2004 13:39:02 ET FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS CRITICIZES SINCLAIR CORPORATE DECISION TO PREEMPT LOCAL STATIONS FOR POLITICAL BROADCAST Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential election. Copps stated: “This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.”

	13-10-2004 01:27									#88
	Inflate your Upload Space

Heh, heh. A gauntlet is down

Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton to SINCLAIR Broadcasting: 'They better hope we don't win'

	13-10-2004 01:28									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I thought Michael Powell was FCC chairman.

I assume Commissioner Copps is not the same as Chairman

	13-10-2004 01:35									#90
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Gee... nice opinion... but he doesn't say anything about how it's against the law, or that the FCC can stop it