This is what you have to look forward to...

[arsenal]

If the media isn't liberal, then how can a movie like F9/11 win so many awards for being a "documentary".

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 13 2004, 02:44 PM
You're kidding, right Cow?

What am I kidding about?

I helped you out by indicating the FCC might look at it and provided you with a link demonstrating other media are exposing the issue at FOX.

Kerry's comments 30 years ago are relevant though. Even as most of the Swiftboat complaints are crap.

Cowperson

[Flame On]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 13 2004, 02:46 PM
Just like Michael Moore taking people comments in context? Moore is trying to get F9/11 on network TV before the elections.

I guess you could say, 1 good turn deserves another.

You do realise don't you arsenal that 9/11 was a film you had to pay to go and see, and that it was in an auditorium that would be filled with people wanting to do just that. The public airways is another story is it not? Moore also prepares a case and develops it in his film and he's prepared to discuss it and debate it and has done. Sinclair (David Smith) on the other hand "show this film on our networks so we can influence the out come and then we'll disappear into the night with no chance for rebuttle..." that's dodgy as hell.

[arsenal]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 13 2004, 08:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 13 2004, 08:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-arsenal@Oct 13 2004, 02:46 PM
Just like Michael Moore taking people comments in context? Moore is trying to get F9/11 on network TV before the elections.

I guess you could say, 1 good turn deserves another.

You do realise don't you arsenal that 9/11 was a film you had to pay to go and see, and that it was in an auditorium that would be filled with people wanting to do just that. The public airways is another story is it not? Moore also prepares a case and develops it in his film and he's prepared to discuss it and debate it and has done. Sinclair (David Smith) on the other hand "show this film on our networks so we can influence the out come and then we'll disappear into the night with no chance for rebuttle..." that's dodgy as hell. [/b][/quote]
You seemed to have missed the Second sentance of my comment, which I said "Just like Moore trying to release F9/11 on network tv before the elections".

Could it be becuase he wants to change the outcome of the election? Could be. I mean there is a reason he made the movie.

I never said I agree with what they are doing, all I said was 1 good turn deserves another.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 13 2004, 02:46 PM
Just like Michael Moore taking people comments in context? Moore is trying to get F9/11 on network TV before the elections.

I guess you could say, 1 good turn deserves another.

Michael Moore is trying to get F911 on network TV is he? THAT is an out right lie! Moore would not do this for one primary reason. It would disqualify his film from competition for the Academy Awards. Since F911 is already being talked about as a candidate for best picture it is impossible to believe that Moore would do what you suggest. What he is saying is that he is trying to get one of the Pay-per-view stations to pick up F911 before the election. It is highly unlikely that would happen at this late a date and it would likely have minimal impact compared to a "free" broadcast.

I'm also not sure how you consider an award winning film versus a hate "documentary" (and I use documentary in extremely loose terms) even remotely comparable. And how the heck do Republicans or Democrats have any impact on the awards films receive at International festivals like Cannes?

Here's a straw, start grasping.

[Flame On]

You seemed to have missed the Second sentance of my comment, which I said "Just like Moore trying to release F9/11 on network tv before the elections".

Could it be becuase he wants to change the outcome of the election? Could be. I mean there is a reason he made the movie.

I never said I agree with what they are doing, all I said was 1 good turn deserves another.

Maybe you know something I don't, but i thought he just wanted the ad for the DVD on the TV. Why would he want to release a DVD he'll get money from and then release if for free on tv? He wouldn't.
The networks banned, during some time spots I believe, even the ad for it.
You're saying 1 turn deserves another, I don't think those turns are the same. I think this would be like if the Dems came out and had a documentary about how Bush is a traitor to his country because his administration revealed an active CIA member or something*.....oh that did happen didn't it. That would be true. And they say "who can you trust"!


*and then weren't forthcoming in showing who did it.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 13 2004, 03:32 PM
I'm also not sure how you consider an award winning film versus a hate "documentary" (and I use documentary in extremely loose terms) even remotely comparable.

How would you know the FOX film is full of hate? Have you seen it?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Obviously its going to be slanted and it's just as obvious that Moore's mockumentary was the same thing. You don't have to see either to figure it out given the information about both already in the public domain.

Cowperson

[arsenal]

Lanny,

How is putting something Kerry said to congress 30 years ago on tv a "hate" documentary? Would that make Dan Rather putting a false report on network tv that questions Bush's National Guard record a "hate" documentary as well?
I think by your definition yes.

As far as the Democrats and the Republicans having an affect over media award shows. As far as I know, they have none. But aren't those awards handed out by people who write reviews for movies? Aren't these the people that critique movies? If the people voting/reviewing movies have a liberal view, wait for it... their reviews/votes will have a liberal spin on it. Funny how that works.

Also, I don't remember where I heard/read that Moore wanted to put F9/11 on tv before the election. It might have been as you suggested, on PPV. But since I cannot remember where I heard/read that, I cannot provide a source to back it up.
So for now, you win that one.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Okay, you want to know just how unbiased this "documentary is? Here's the options from a poll on their site, Stolen Honor.

What is your opinion of Sinclair Broadcasting's intent to air Stolen Honor on all 62 of their television stations, during prime time, October 21 –24?

* The DNC is worried the truth unearthed in Stolen Honor will negatively impact Kerry’s presidential race.

* After the CBS scandal, partisans on both sides of the political spectrum should applaud truthful journalism.

* Forces are at work to keep the public from seeing this moving and powerful account of Kerry’s betrayal.

* Sinclair Broadcasting should air Stolen Honor as intended.

Wow, those are some real options you have to choose from. And they frame the public senitment so well. This guys has a bit of a history or running smear campaigns against those he has an axe to grind. Charlton Sherwood seems to be a habitual manipulator of the truth, even claiming to have won a Pulitzer prize for his work, which he did not.

From my point of view I think this guy is still p*ssed about what Kerry said 33 years ago and has had a vendetta against him since he spook out about the war. Frankly I think this garbage of bringing stuff up that happened during the Viet Nam era a bit of a joke. Stuff that was said then has lost its context. People no longer understand the mood of the nation that was present in the early 70's. People don't remember just how divided the nation was about Viet Nam or how hard it was for vets coming home. I think that those that spoke out about the war contributed to the end of the engagement. I think what he said, at times cruel, was right. Unfortunately those comments will not play the same today because the mood of the nation is different and the impacts of that war have faded. It is out of context, it is out of date, and it is not applicable to this Presidental campaign.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by arsenal@Oct 13 2004, 03:57 PM
But aren't those awards handed out by people who write reviews for movies? Aren't these the people that critique movies? If the people voting/reviewing movies have a liberal view, wait for it... their reviews/votes will have a liberal spin on it. Funny how that works.

Uh no, these awards are handed out by people from in industry or people considered experts on the art form. People who "write reviews" have little impact on major competitions. Weak man, very weak.

[arsenal]

But doesn't the Liberal compare Iraq to Vietnam?
I would say the country is pretty divided. Alot of people don't think the US should be there. Alot of people do. I think one major difference is way the Vets are treated. I wasn't around when the Vietnam war was going on, but I have read enough and seen enough about it, that I know Vets for the most part, where treated poorly.


For the awards argument. I understand that the perception I put forth are people like Ebert and Roper. Not my intention.

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonal

Uh no, these awards are handed out by people from in industry or people considered experts on the art form

Regardless, to be fully and completely objective in the process is extremely hard. The Cannes film festival is different than other awards shows yes. But California, where the movies are developed, filmed, produced, etc is stronly liberal. To say that doesn't trickle down to award cerimonies is silly IMO.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by arsenal+Oct 13 2004, 04:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (arsenal @ Oct 13 2004, 04:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But doesn't the Liberal compare Iraq to Vietnam?
I would say the country is pretty divided. Alot of people don't think the US should be there. Alot of people do. I think one major difference is way the Vets are treated. I wasn't around when the Vietnam war was going on, but I have read enough and seen enough about it, that I know Vets for the most part, where treated poorly.


For the awards argument. I understand that the perception I put forth are people like Ebert and Roper. Not my intention.

<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonal

Uh no, these awards are handed out by people from in industry or people considered experts on the art form

Regardless, to be fully and completely objective in the process is extremely hard. The Cannes film festival is different than other awards shows yes. But California, where the movies are developed, filmed, produced, etc is stronly liberal. To say that doesn't trickle down to award cerimonies is silly IMO. [/b][/quote]
Who's the Govenor of Cal-eefornia? Hmmm. Yes very Liberal.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 13 2004, 04:21 PM
Okay, you want to know just how unbiased this "documentary is? Here's the options from a poll on their site, Stolen Honor.

What is your opinion of Sinclair Broadcasting's intent to air Stolen Honor on all 62 of their television stations, during prime time, October 21 –24?

* The DNC is worried the truth unearthed in Stolen Honor will negatively impact Kerry’s presidential race.

* After the CBS scandal, partisans on both sides of the political spectrum should applaud truthful journalism.

* Forces are at work to keep the public from seeing this moving and powerful account of Kerry’s betrayal.

* Sinclair Broadcasting should air Stolen Honor as intended.

Wow, those are some real options you have to choose from. And they frame the public senitment so well. This guys has a bit of a history or running smear campaigns against those he has an axe to grind. Charlton Sherwood seems to be a habitual manipulator of the truth, even claiming to have won a Pulitzer prize for his work, which he did not.

From my point of view I think this guy is still p*ssed about what Kerry said 33 years ago and has had a vendetta against him since he spook out about the war. Frankly I think this garbage of bringing stuff up that happened during the Viet Nam era a bit of a joke. Stuff that was said then has lost its context. People no longer understand the mood of the nation that was present in the early 70's. People don't remember just how divided the nation was about Viet Nam or how hard it was for vets coming home. I think that those that spoke out about the war contributed to the end of the engagement. I think what he said, at times cruel, was right. Unfortunately those comments will not play the same today because the mood of the nation is different and the impacts of that war have faded. It is out of context, it is out of date, and it is not applicable to this Presidental campaign.

The issue isn't the documentary or the author because obviously the product and the originator look exactly like Michael Moore on the other side so what's the big deal? You may not like the comparison but there are wingnuts on both sides and they're out in droves these days.

The issue is whether or not FOX should air this documentary. I agree its an issue for discussion.

For amusement, I'll reveal a widdle birdy tells me that FOX's Bill O'Reilly's "talking points" today call for John Kerry to have a chance to rebut the documentary immediately after it airs, saying its unfair not to grant that opportunity.

But the web site you provided for Stolen Honour looks exactly like www.michaelmoore.com if you ask me. I really don't think its relevant.

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Oct 13 2004, 06:29 PM
The issue is whether or not FOX should air this documentary. I agree its an issue for discussion.

Well Cow, you have the issue wrong. Fox is not broadcasting the documentary. Its the Sinclair broadcasting group that is threatening to broadcast the production. Sinclair is made up of affiliates of all the networks. So in reality ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC stations owned by Sinclair will ALL cease broadcasting regularly scheduled programming and will broadcast this content. This is not just one network you can blame this on. This is a corporation controlling the content, not the network. You tell me this is kosher? You also want to tell me this isn't evidence of the exact charge that I have leveled in regards to themedia on several occassions? I want to make sure that you are aware that this is not a network issue and is a corporate decision.

[Bertuzzied]

I have never watched Fox News in my life before. I downloaded that OutFOxed documentary. I'm not sure if that was a slanted view of Fox news or not but man they are like fanatics. It was like watching pure propoganda. I hope they never come to Canada.

That O'Reilly is the biggest dick ever! what kind of journalist tells his guests to SHUT UP??? only in the states i guess...

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 13 2004, 06:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 13 2004, 06:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Oct 13 2004, 06:29 PM
The issue is whether or not FOX should air this documentary. I agree its an issue for discussion.

Well Cow, you have the issue wrong. Fox is not broadcasting the documentary. Its the Sinclair broadcasting group that is threatening to broadcast the production. Sinclair is made up of affiliates of all the networks. So in reality ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC stations owned by Sinclair will ALL cease broadcasting regularly scheduled programming and will broadcast this content. This is not just one network you can blame this on. This is a corporation controlling the content, not the network. You tell me this is kosher? You also want to tell me this isn't evidence of the exact charge that I have leveled in regards to themedia on several occassions? I want to make sure that you are aware that this is not a network issue and is a corporate decision. [/b][/quote]
Oof. I didn't pick up on that. Apologies.

Actually that makes it simpler. I think you were saying earlier all networks are complicit when in fact all appear to have little, if any, say in the matter. They're excused, including FOX. They supply programming to the stations via their affiliation but they don't actually own them.

The issue then is whether or not the Sinclair group is violating election laws which prohibit "public corporations and labor unions from airing "electioneering communication" sixty days before an election."

If I'm not mistaken, the Kerry camp has filed a protest with the FCC with that in mind and I assume that group will rule on the matter.

It will be an interesting test to see if they can stop it. Kerry's comments to Congress are fair and relevant. No one can deny that. I think the Swiftboat accusations are basically crap but they do have a large number of veterans willing to say the opposite which implies there are two sides, even if they'll only concentrate on one.

The Kerry camp probably won't be successful in stopping it. I agree the fair thing is to offer rebuttal time or to run Farenheit 9/11 right after or before but I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen either.

Incidentally, one of the chief news poohbahs at ABC news was caught sending out a memo the other day imploring staffers to go hard on Kerry but to go "harder" of GW Bush.

EDIT: From "The Nation"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/11/...ain648665.shtml

Cowperson

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Wow, the Nation really doesn't pull any punches. I wonder how they really feel on the issue?

I really think this is the worst of American politics and something that has to change IMO. There is no length to the distances people will go to try and discredit their opponent down here. To us Canadians it is really shocking and strange to see take place. Culture shock? A little.

It just sucks when the people that you trust to give you the straight poop stop doing so and start fabricating stories to keep their viewers happy. Its so damn obvious at times. With the advent of FoxNews, its just got worse and worse and there is no end in sight to the downward slippery slope. I used to hate CBC because they were so damn Liberal, but I would even listen to them right now over a lot of the media down here, especially Fox. Now to be "fair and balanced" other stations start to go to opposite extremes. Its crazy.

The whole Sinclair issue is just part of the disease down here. The country is so divided on so many issues and its getting really ugly. The tension is such that a lot of companies have implemented policies against talking about politics and religion. Its sad when it comes to this and that something as basic as the democratic process can become a divisive issue for a country. I don't think the founding fathers had this in mind when they created the system.

[Flame On]

The issue isn't the documentary or the author because obviously the product and the originator look exactly like Michael Moore on the other side so what's the big deal? You may not like the comparison but there are wingnuts on both sides and they're out in droves these days.

The issue is whether or not FOX should air this documentary. I agree its an issue for discussion.

How would you know the FOX film is exactly like Michael Moore on the other side? Have you seen it?

[moon]

Originally posted by Flame On+Oct 13 2004, 07:12 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flame On @ Oct 13 2004, 07:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Oct 13 2004, 05:16 AM
Don't worry Harper and the Conservatives already gets plenty of my money and my volunteer help when needed as well!!

You give your money and time to the Cons? Do you have a girlfriend? [/b][/quote]
No I have no girlfriend only a wife now for the past year and a half. She made me give up all my girlfriends.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 13 2004, 07:46 PM
Wow, the Nation really doesn't pull any punches. I wonder how they really feel on the issue?

I really think this is the worst of American politics and something that has to change IMO. There is no length to the distances people will go to try and discredit their opponent down here. To us Canadians it is really shocking and strange to see take place. Culture shock? A little.

It just sucks when the people that you trust to give you the straight poop stop doing so and start fabricating stories to keep their viewers happy. Its so damn obvious at times. With the advent of FoxNews, its just got worse and worse and there is no end in sight to the downward slippery slope. I used to hate CBC because they were so damn Liberal, but I would even listen to them right now over a lot of the media down here, especially Fox. Now to be "fair and balanced" other stations start to go to opposite extremes. Its crazy.

The whole Sinclair issue is just part of the disease down here. The country is so divided on so many issues and its getting really ugly. The tension is such that a lot of companies have implemented policies against talking about politics and religion. Its sad when it comes to this and that something as basic as the democratic process can become a divisive issue for a country. I don't think the founding fathers had this in mind when they created the system.

A follow up to the Sinclair Company and plans to air Stolen Honor about John Kerry.

The FCC is saying it is unlikely it would intervene to stop the broadcast:

``Don't look to us to block the airing of a program,'' Michael Powell told reporters. ``I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that.''

Eighteen senators, all Democrats, wrote to Powell this week and asked him to investigate Sinclair Broadcast Group's plan to run the program, ``Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,'' two weeks before the Nov. 2 election.

Powell said there are no federal rules that would allow the agency to prevent the program. ``I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so,'' he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/politics/A...artner=homepage

Cowperson