I heard the Sinclair TV network, of which I am unfamiliar, is planning to air a 90 minute smear campaign against Kerry just prior to Election Day. What the hell is this? Why don’t they just buy Bush votes, for schmidts sake! I hope no one takes it seriously. If Bush steals this election, it’ll be because it is the best election he can buy!
If they do air such a smear campaign, isn’t it slander?
Sorry, folks…a thread already existed about the credibility of Sinclair. Heck, if they can’t find the news they want to air, they’ll just make it! 
Sinclair TV documenary,
Farenhet 9/11…
what’s the difference?
kinda balances the scales, doesn’t it?
Nobody’s forcing anyone to show F9/11.
Also, the whole concept of partial taxpayer subsidies on network television.
Oh, and the “equal time” law.
Oh, and the fact that Sinclair refused to broadcast the Nightline that listed the names of the Iraq War dead.
Other than that, no difference.
In the documentaries themselves, I don’t know, I’ve yet to see either.
In the manner of presentation, I assume it’s obvious. If not then I’m not sure if I can explain it satisfactorily.
No one is forcing anyone to show this either. Sinclare OWNS the stations.
So, TV stations can never show anything negative about a candidate?
Funny thing is, this is about Kerry. If you want to invoke the equal time law, you’d have to give time to BUSH.
No, you wouldn’t. Any claim for an “equal-time” response to Stolen Honors would be based on the assumption that the film itself constitutes a de facto Bush ad, therefore Kerry is entitled to equal time in reponse to it. Might or might not fly, but that would be the theory of the claim.
A lawyer’s opinion: As to whether it’s “slander” . . . politicians rarely sue for defamation, regardless of the circumstances. They’re “public figures,” just like Madonna, meaning you have to meet a higher standard of proof to win the case. You have to show “actual malice” – which in this instance might actually be proveable; but, in general, politicians don’t bother. They prefer to use their normal channels of public address to rebut slanderous allegations; filing a lawsuit would make a pol look too petty. Also, truth-of-the-message’s-content is a defense to any action for defamation. Kerry would have to prove some of the content is actual lies, rather than actual facts taken out-of-context and slanted in disparaging ways – which, again, in this instance, might actually be provable (or might not – nobody’s seen the film yet).
[Moderator Hat ON]
Since we already have a Sinclair thread, I am locking this.
[Moderator Hat OFF]