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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.”
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:
