SwiftVets.com

[Doc Farmer]

Influencing an Election: ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' and ''Stolen Honor''
Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday, October 13, 2004


It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for folks to figure out that I’m no fan of Michael (Screw-the-Oscar, Where’s-the-All-You-Can-Graze-Buffet?) Moore. My review of his concoct-u-mentary earlier this year makes it plain that I find his movie a total sham. It’s self-serving, blatantly leftist (while still feasting on the benefits of capitalism) and even less factual than his usual cinematic shineola.

Moore, in an act of faux-selflessness, decided not to go for next year's Oscar nomination in the best documentary category. He stated that his plan was to have his movie broadcast just prior to the presidential election. The fact that his movie had already been broadcast in Cuba, thereby disqualifying him automatically, seemed to have been forgotten. That, and the rule which states a documentary must be authentic and truthful (which didn’t seem to bother the Oscar committee the last time around). His goal is to see the president unseated.

Last I heard, Moore will get his wish--to a degree, anyway. iN Demand Networks will apparently show Moore’s cinematic tour-de-farce in a pay-per-view deal. This was announced in early October. The lib/dem/soc/commie news media seemed to think this was a good thing. Although why CBS didn’t just pony up to play it on November 1 with a ''60 Minutes'' special afterwards is beyond my comprehension. Desperate Dan must not have gotten that particular fax from Kinkos, I suppose.

Fast forward to late last week. Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns 60-odd local stations in various markets across the nation (with various affiliations to CBS, Fox, UPN, etc.) decided that it would pre-empt its normal broadcasts of network programming--or reruns of ''Dharma and Greg''--to air a movie about Vietnam veterans. The movie interviews these veterans, or their survivors, who talk about their experiences during and after the war. How they were treated while prisoners of war. How they were interrogated. How they were tortured. How they were abused.

And who aided and abetted that abuse?

Yup. John (I-Was-for-the-Vietnam-War, Before-I-Was-Against-It) Kerry’s testimony before the Senate back in 1971, where the term '''babykiller'' came into the national vernacular, weighed heavily on the lives of the 17 heroes who suffered--directly and personally--because of it. These veterans talk about the consequences of Kerry’s words. A man who had based much of his candidacy on his '''war hero'' status. A man whose stated goal is to become commander in chief of America’s armed forces.

Now, it would seem, that there is a great hue and cry by the lib/dem/soc/commie media. They are outraged at such blatant partisanship so close to an election. Senators are screaming bloody murder about the abuse of power that a single broadcaster seems to be trying to wield.

Even the FCC, a supposed bastion of the non-partisanship, came up with this little gem on Tuesday (with much appreciation to Matt Drudge for first posting this):

Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program in the days prior to the presidential election.

Copps stated: ''This is an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology--whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road.'''

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

Excuse me, but am I the only one choking on the excrementally obscene levels of hypocrisy rising from this particular issue?

I’ve not yet seen ''Stolen Honor.'' Therefore, I cannot critique the actual content of the movie. I am sure that it is not meant to be a ''fair and balanced'' viewpoint of Jean François Kerrée. It does, however, have a rather large edge over Moore’s movie in that ''Stolen Honor'' IS a documentary. In that, it documents the honest recollections of 17 Vietnam veterans, who suffered terribly through their incarceration at the hands of our enemies. I’m sure their viewpoint of a certain Massachusetts senator (the one who hasn't drowned a passenger in his car, mind you) is less than salutatory.

So why is it okay to diss Sinclair for broadcasting a program based on the truth, and okay to give a pass to iN Demand Networks for broadcasting a program based on male bovine excrement?

Do we need any further evidence that there is a media bias that leans 90° to port? Worse still, that such bias goes beyond the boardrooms of the media moguls and into the corridors of power in our own government?

Commissioner (or should it be Commissar?) Copp, Sinclair Broadcasting is not abusing the public trust. You are. If Sinclair's managers wants to show that movie, that’s their business. If iN Demand Networks want to show F/911, that’s their business, too. It’s called Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. It’s also called the Public’s Right to Know. Not what you want us to know, but what we NEED to know. You, as a member of a supposed '''watchdog''' agency, aren’t supposed to tell us what is good and bad. Believe it or not, most of America can tell the difference. We know that Howard Stern is bad. We know that Janet Jackson’s boobie during a Super Bowl Half Time Show for all of 1.3 seconds is bad. We know that Ted Koppel’s Jiffy-Pop hairstyle is bad. We don’t need the FCC to tell us that.

What we do need, sir, is for you to fade out.

Show both movies. Let Americans decide. Don't decide for us.


About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in the Midwest. Doc receives e-mail at docfarmer9999@yahoo.co.uk.

This Article Was First Published In ChronWatch At: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=10343
_________________

Fat, Bald and Ugly - And PROUD Of It!

[noc]

Hey Doc,

Since F9/11 is 122 minutes and Stolenhonor is 42 minutes that would leave 80 minutes left over. Seems like that would be enough time to view Fahrenhype 9/11 don't you think?

[sleeplessinseattle]

[Taylor]

There's also Celcius 41.11 coming soon! : )
_________________

[fortdixlover]

How about this for foul play in influencing an election?

Are we living in America, or North Vietnam?

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc66.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 14, 2004 10:58:04 ET XXXXX

DNC ELECTION MANUAL: CHARGE VOTER INTIMIDATION, EVEN IF NONE EXISTS

**World Exclusive**

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'"

HIGHLIGHT OF ELECTION DAY MANUAL, NOVEMBER 2004. CLICK FOR IMAGE .JPG FILE

The provocative Dem battle plan is to be distributed in dozens of states, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

One top DNC official confirmed the manual's authenticity, but claimed the notion of crying wolf on any voter intimidation is "absurd."

"We all know the Republicans are going to try to steal the election by scaring people and confusing people," the top DNC source explained.

Developing...

[scotty61]

[fortdixlover]

[shadowy]

We need a new election law, whereby a party can default by going demonstrably insane. They should lose just because they're Unfit to Win.

[Fort Campbell]

FOX News reported this morning that FarenHype 911 will not be shown on Pay For View the night before the election. Anybody got any confirmation on this?

[Headhunter's Daughter]

I think this is a low form of manipulative voter terrorism of the Democratic voting process.

A 'great example' for those countries we are trying to help become Democratic - don't you think?????
_________________
Headhunter's Daughter and proud of my hero -my Dad!