In a way, you have a point. The business and corporate interests have pretty much always maintained a symbiotic relationship, financially and philosophicly, with the Pubbies. There’s nothing new in this, it goes back to your grandparent’s generation. Staid ol’ Franklin Roosevelt scared the bejabbers out of them.
So, I’m neither surprised nor outraged. When they make it this blatant, they are, in truth, merely stating a poltical stance: that those that got, should keep, and those that ain’t got, should keep quiet.
If the people have enough good sense to know when they’re being screwed, the power of the vote is all they will ever need. And if they don’t, well, they don’t, and they’ll get the governance that they deserve.
If you’re really committed to democracy, you accept that one ugly truth: the people may screw up.
NPR did a piece on this story today. A spokesman for Sinclair argued that the documentary is “news,” and then asked rhetorically whether news organizations should stop reporting on job losses or US military casualties since those news items are damaging to Bush.
In other words, the documentary is meant to balance the facts, which–as the Daily Show pointed out–are biased against Bush.
But it isn’t news. The events in question date from 1971 or earlier. This documentary does not – I presume – reveal anything that has not already been thorough exposed in the media, back then, and much more recently. Today’s job losses and military casualties in Iraq, on the other hand, are news.
Geez, and Bill O’Reilly tonight said on his show that if Sinclair does this (air it primetime and uninterrupted) then the fair thing would be to give the Kerry campaign an hour of uninterrupted, unedited rebuttal; and he even referred to the Sinclair offer to reconsider only if Kerry himself came on to be subjected to cross-questioning, as “blackmail”.
And when the Conservative Media Spokesdude started arguing why this was just “balancing” and brought up CBS et al, O’Reilly called him on that being a tu quoque argument. He essentially said, hey, we’ll do the balancing against the elite media, that is not news programming.
As to “mandate” , I find the use of the word appropriate. It’s as if it were “GM mandates Buick, Pontiac, to increase production by 1st Quarter”. It is the parent company to its branches, but it still is a mandate. “Mandate” does NOT necessarily connote an impopular or resisted order, just one that is categorical and you have to either obey or walk away.
*Sinclair Broadcasting Mandates airing of Anti-Kerry film
Sinclair Broadcasting to air Anti-Kerry film*
You could argue that both lines mean the same thing. If you think after reading them that the connotation in both lines is the same then I think you are deluding yourself. I won’t hijack this thread any further since it is getting further away from the OP just for a small nitpick.
I don’t think this is a good idea, but it depends somewhat on how it is presented. There have been numerous indepth analyses of Bush’s ANG service issues, so one can argue that it’s only fair to put Kerry’s military career in the spotlight, too. The problem is that the source has so obvious an agenda, they really can’t be considered objective. There needs to be some balance, and it’s unclear how that will be accomplished. Saying that Kerry was asked to rebut the documentary is a dodge. I wouldn’t agree if I was him either-- it’s too likely to be a set-up. So, they really need to come up with some other sources for input, and if they don’t, then I don’t see how this is adding to intelligent discussion.
I chalk this up to yet another unintended consequence of CFR. The money is going to find a way to be spent one way or another. Forcing it “underground” only obscures the source and muddies the waters.
Could ask the local station managers which word they feel is more appropriate to describe going without ad revenues for that prime time slot. Do you suppose the local stations chose to forgo revenues or that they are going along for some other reason.
Campaign Finance Reform. This is just another variation on the 527 theme. If contributions are further restricted, we’ll see more and more “documentaries” like this one and F-9/11 dominating the political landscape. If groups are not allowed to explicitly mention candiates names, we’ll get fictionalized docu-dramas about “George Lush” and “John Ferry”.
Why is everyone *assuming * this is an anti-Kerry film? Mr. Kerry has said many times that he is proud of the things he did in opposition to the Vietnam war. If they stick to the facts, then he should be glad they’re advertising for him.
Here are some interview samples which might be used the documentary, Stolen Honor, Wounds That Never Heal - unless the efforts to block the airing are successful.
