# So couldn't someone sue to stop Sinclair **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120 "2004-10-19T21:55:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/21 "2004-10-20T05:40:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You’ve seen it already? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, said in the suit that “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” combines footage of him appearing at a 1971 war protest with narration that claims that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later “discovered as frauds” who “never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the States, or even served in uniform.” > The suit said viewers would be left with the perception that Campbell had lied about his military service. > “It paints me as having been a fabricator, a fraud and a liar,” Campbell said. > Campbell attached copies of his military records to the lawsuit, showing he received a Purple Heart and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service in Vietnam. > Carlton Sherwood, the film’s producer, called the lawsuit “baseless.” > > SOURCE: [Veteran Sues for Libel Over Kerry Film, Tue Oct 19,12:09 AM ET, By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/kerry_film) Looks like false information to me. Admittedly it has not been proven in court but as I understand it libel is difficult to prove and attorney’s would advise against the effort were the case not pretty solid at the outset. Further, having documents attached detailing his military record that the “documentary” claims never happened seems pretty compelling. I’ll allow documentary makers might have a defense that keeps them in the clear but it doesn’t look promising for them based on this at least. I’d have to troll the SDMB to find the many references where the Swiftboat vets opposed to Kerry have been shown to have lied many times as well including a Nightline episode discussed where they (Nightline) went to Vietnam and found villagers who corraborated what Kerry says and not what the Swiftboat vets are claiming about the action surrounding Kerry’s Silver Star. On the whole I think anything the Swiftboat vets say at this point has to be regard with a high degree of suspicion. Perhaps somewhere in the story they tell is still a grain of truth but they have shown themselves to have an agenda and to be liars on some points. Makes it hard to keep listening to them seriously but that is of their own making. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/22 "2004-10-20T05:44:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Looks like false information to me. That’s incredibly weak. False information would be the film actually saying the guy didn’t see combat. Got anything more substantive than that? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/23 "2004-10-20T06:08:16Z")
The ad contains claims that POWs were tortured because of Kerry;s testimony to congress. This despite the fact that no POWs were tortured at all subsequent to Kerrys’ testimony. That’s just one example. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/24 "2004-10-20T06:41:11Z")
> [@lawoot](#): > > Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. > > [cite.](http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm) IANAL so not sure what the following means but would be curious for an informed opinion. Are they saying the Fairness Doctrine actually still carries regulatory or legal weight or is it a fancy way of saying it’d be nice if the media did it this way but bottom line is we can’t enforce it? [quote] Under the Federal Communications Commission’s decision in Nicholas Zapple, 23 F.C.C.2d 707 (1970), a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate’s campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate “quasi-equal opportunities.” Despite the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC has made clear that stations’ Zapple obligations continue in effect. See RTNDA v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872, 884 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (recognizing that the Zapple Doctrine complements Section 315(a) of the Communications Act); The Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards, 48 F.C.C.2d 1, 31 (1974); 36 F.C.C.2d 40, 47-49 (1972). SOURCE: [Marc E. Elias General Counsel, Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. , Assistant Division Chief, Policy Division Media Bureau](http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST;f=1;t=15606) ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/25 "2004-10-20T07:30:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The ad contains claims that POWs were tortured because of Kerry;s testimony to congress. This despite the fact that no POWs were tortured at all subsequent to Kerrys’ testimony. > > That’s just one example. Is that a fact? If you could, I’d like to see you produce a cite, because I will not attribute any sort of goodwill to the North Vietnamese without demonstrable proof. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/26 "2004-10-20T14:19:47Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The ad contains claims that POWs were tortured because of Kerry;s testimony to congress. This despite the fact that no POWs were tortured at all subsequent to Kerrys’ testimony. You do realize that the 90 minute documentary has been cut something like 40 minutes for the showing, right? Assuming for moment that your accusation is true, how do you know that that segment will even be shown on TV? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/27 "2004-10-20T14:52:47Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The shareholders are within their rights to complain and attempt to fire the executive who made the decision, since they are the owners of the station, but that is a purely internal business decision. Shareholders might also sue for betrayal of fiduciary responsibility if the damage to Sinclair (in a purely business sense) is so clearcut and so serious as to rise to the level of outright management of the company. That would be tough to prove for something like this, but it’s not completely out of the realm of possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/28 "2004-10-20T15:01:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s incredibly weak. False information would be the film actually saying the guy didn’t see combat. Er, a narration describing many of the protestors as “frauds” who never served in uniform at the moment Campbell’s face is on the screen **is** a clear statement to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/29 "2004-10-20T15:21:27Z")
I’m not disputing the statement bolded below, but is there a cite for it? > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The ad contains claims that POWs were tortured because of Kerry;s testimony to congress. This despite the fact that \*\*no POWs were tortured at all subsequent to Kerrys’ testimony. \*\* > > That’s just one example. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/30 "2004-10-20T15:22:55Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You can use all the euphemisms you like but only the terminally dumb would see this as anything but a media conglomerate’s effort to sway an election and that should deeply trouble everybody. “Terminally dumb”?? Yeah, I see what you mean. Everybody should have been deeply troubled over CBS’s effort to sway a Presidential election. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/31 "2004-10-20T16:02:00Z")
> [@F. U. Shakespeare](#): > > I’m not disputing the statement bolded below, but is there a cite for it? [mediamatters](http://mediamatters.org/items/200410180009) > [@](#): > > MMFA has also noted that two of the POWs featured in Stolen Honor contradict the claim that Kerry’s 1971 testimony was used to torture Americans held in Vietnam. Former POW Jim Warner said that “the last torture that we knew of had taken place in September of 1969,” and that when Kerry’s testimony was invoked in an interrogation of Warner, it was “without torture.” Former POW Leo K. Thorsness also admitted in a published bio that the use of torture had decreased by the time Kerry testified. > > Furthermore, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported that he found no evidence Kerry’s name was used in the interrogation of all American POWs in Vietnam: “[T]he film only features POWs who say John Kerry’s name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we’ve spoken to dozens of POWs who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and say they never heard John Kerry’s name mentioned once.” Media Matters also debunks another false but oft repeated meme that many of the Winter Soldier witnesses were imposters: > [@](#): > > As Media Matters for America has previously documented, while conservative historian Guenter Lewy claimed in his 1978 book, America in Vietnam, that a Naval Investigative Service report about the Winter Soldier allegations had discredited many of the witnesses and accounts, Naval Criminal Investigative Service public affairs specialist Paul O’Donnell could not confirm this report’s existence. Further, a February 14 Baltimore Sun article cites Lewy himself as admitting that “he does not recall if he saw a copy of the naval investigative report or was briefed on its contents.” > > Apart from Lewy’s allegations, an MMFA search uncovered no other evidence that any Winter Soldier witness was an impostor. One veteran, who is portrayed in Stolen Honor as a fraud who “never set foot” in Vietnam, has filed a libel lawsuit against the film’s producer, Carlton Sherwood. The Associated Press notes that the veteran, Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, “attached copies of his military records to the lawsuit, showing that he received a Purple Heart and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service in Vietnam.” Like I said, _Stolen Honor_ a steaming pile of lying shit shoveled up fresh for Thos Who Will Believe Anything, AKA Bush supporters. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/32 "2004-10-20T16:08:24Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > “Terminally dumb”?? Yeah, I see what you mean. Everybody should have been deeply troubled over CBS’s effort to sway a Presidential election. **Razorsharp!** Yoo-hoo! **Razorsharp!** Check out this thread! [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280317](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=280317) Go on! I dare ya! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/33 "2004-10-20T16:13:09Z")
Did you even read the first blurb you posted? > [@](#): > > Furthermore, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster reported that he found no evidence Kerry’s name was used in the interrogation of all American POWs in Vietnam: “[T]he film only features POWs who say John Kerry’s name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we’ve spoken to dozens of POWs who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and say they never heard John Kerry’s name mentioned once.” Found no evidence that Kerry’s name was used in the interrogation _of all_ American POWs. A published bio that the use of torture had _decreased_ by the time Kerry testified. How the heck are you exonerating Lurch? Or are you a newly outed Republican? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/34 "2004-10-20T16:18:12Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Did you even read the first blurb you posted? > > Found no evidence that Kerry’s name was used in the interrogation _of all_ American POWs. A published bio that the use of torture had _decreased_ by the time Kerry testified. How the heck are you exonerating Lurch? Or are you a newly outed Republican? You’re not a very thorough reader. They could not find _any_ evidence that _any_ POW had been tortured because of Kerry’s comments and they could only find a couple of dudes who would even say that Kerry’s name had been mentioned at all. John McCain was a POW at the time of Kerry’s testimony and he’s one of K’s closest friends. I guess he didn’t notice all that Kerry torture going on. Don’t forget who has the burden of proof here. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/35 "2004-10-20T17:00:04Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Don’t forget who has the burden of proof here. In this forum, or in a court of law, we can speak of a “burden of proof.” To use _Stolen Honor_ to detract from Kerry’s votes, Sinclair need meet only a “burden of persuasion.” And that bar is much, much lower. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/36 "2004-10-20T17:46:42Z")
> [@Razorsharp](#): > > Everybody should have been deeply troubled over CBS’s effort to sway a Presidential election. You cannot meaningfully compare the two saying what CBS did is akin to what Sinclair wants to do. - CBS aired its story on a regularly scheduled news show. Sinclair wants to preempt regular programming. - CBS story was a few minutes long. Sinclair’s show is 90 minutes. - The story CBS aired had “immediacy” which is one of the defining characteristics of “news”. The Sinclair documentary lacks immediacy. - CBS got busted big time for their screw-up and were held accountable. It remains to be seen how Sinclair comes through this. I do not see CBS as having an ulterior motive. I see them as merely greedy and thinking they had a juicy story they “broke” the news without the proper amount of due diligence on their part to verify the information. I have no doubt if CBS came across a juicy tidbit that would cream Kerry they’d air that in a heartbeat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/37 "2004-10-20T17:55:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > CBS story was a few minutes long. Sinclair’s show is 90 minutes. Not that I’m equating the two, but didn’t the CBS story air on 60 Minutes, in which case it would’ve been about 15 minutes long? And the Sinclair show is supposed to be 1 hour, not 90 minutes. They’ve also offered Kerryequal rebuttal time-- something I doubt CBS did in the 60 Minutes piece. > [@](#): > > The story CBS aired had “immediacy” which is one of the defining characteristics of “news”. The Sinclair documentary lacks immediacy. Both stories are about events from the Vietnam War era. I don’t see how either one can be called “immediate”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/38 "2004-10-20T18:02:08Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Both stories are about events from the Vietnam War era. I don’t see how either one can be called “immediate”. The difference is that the CBS story was breaking news – the network had just acquired “evidence” which seemed to give substance to things about Bush’s NG service which, previously, had only been rumors. And they decided to broadcast it right away just to scoop the other networks, who, for all CBS knew, might soon get access to the same materials. _Stolen Honor,_ on the other hand, deals with things which have already been circulating for months; so far as I know (nobody’s seen the movie yet), it adds nothing new to the allegations already made by the Swiftvets. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/39 "2004-10-20T18:06:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not that I’m equating the two, but didn’t the CBS story air on 60 Minutes, in which case it would’ve been about 15 minutes long? And the Sinclair show is supposed to be 1 hour, not 90 minutes. The time thing doesn’t matter but the intention does. CBS got duped by a false document. It was not a _deliberate_ attempt to defraud like all this Swiftie crap has been, nor was it political in nature. It was just an attempt to report a news story and the substance of the story was still true (a fact which got lost in all the hue and cry). > [@](#): > > They’ve also offered Kerryequal rebuttal time-- something I doubt CBS did in the 60 Minutes piece. No they haven’t. They offered a couple of minutes at the end of the show for a “response.” Obviously, a two minute response can hardly be called “equal time.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/40 "2004-10-20T18:14:19Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > The difference is that the CBS story was breaking news – the network had just acquired “evidence” which seemed to give substance to things about Bush’s NG service which, previously, had only been rumors. And they decided to broadcast it right away just to scoop the other networks, who, for all CBS knew, might soon get access to the same materials. _Stolen Honor,_ on the other hand, deals with things which have already been circulating for months; so far as I know (nobody’s seen the movie yet), it adds nothing new to the allegations already made by the Swiftvets. I disagree. The Bush NG story was old news, and these “documents” were simply further evidence of claims that had been made all along. Yeah, the docs themselves would have been news had they been authentic. Similarly, if you actually look at what Sinclair is planning to air (as oppsoed to what people THINK they are going to air), one key thrust of the show will be how the mainstream news media generally ignored the claims of the Swifties: > [@](#): > > Sinclair said it will produce `A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media,'' hosted by Jeff Barnd, an anchor at Sinclair's WBFF in Baltimore, using footage from `Stolen Honor’’ and other political documentaries while also examining allegations of media bias. The company now maintains it never intended to air ``Stolen Honor’’ in its entirety, although Sinclair commentator and Vice President Mark Hyman had told the Washington Post that the movie would air unless Kerry agreed to an interview, in which case only portions might run. > > `I am not personally aware that he ever said that, but if he said it, that was not company policy at the time,'' said Sinclair lawyer Barry Faber. Sinclair's position on the film has been `evolving,’’ he said, and journalists and critics had made a ``leap to judgment.’’ [From today’s SJ Merc.](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/9965359.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120.md?page=3)