 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ohanakat
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 80
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | saw the program when Hyman did offer to have someone other than Kerry as his stand-in. If airing of the film was ligitimate and legal in it's owns right, why would Sinclair immediately 'backtrack' and offer equal time to Kerry or stand-in? Why didn't they just show the program, as is? |
As I understand it, the program has not been completed yet. In order to avoid an equal time requirement for political support, this is being produced as a news story. I don't think Hyman backtracked. He clearly would prefer that John Kerry personally participate but agreed that a qualified spokesperson would be acceptable. Don't recall now who outlined the qualifications... something along the lines of preferably a Vietnam Vet who can speak to the specific issues, not some 25 year old campaign groupie who spouts the talking points.
Kat |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
muggedliberal
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 92
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
UPDATE
Kerry Team Demands Equal Time
TV Group to Air Critical Movie
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page A05
John F. Kerry's campaign demanded yesterday that Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. provide his campaign equal time after broadcasting a movie attacking his Vietnam record, but the company said it is holding out for an interview with the Democratic nominee himself.
In a letter to Sinclair chief executive David D. Smith, the Kerry campaign's top lawyer said that the planned airing of "Stolen Honor" "constitutes an attack on Senator Kerry by supporters of President Bush" and that Sinclair "must provide a similar opportunity for Senator Kerry's supporters" on its 62 stations.
"This is a 42-minute attack ad they are putting on the air at no cost to the Bush campaign," spokesman Chad Clanton said. He said that the equal time should be of the same duration and that the Kerry camp should control the content, rather than appearing with Sinclair anchors.
Sinclair Vice President Mark Hyman said that the company wants to address questions about Kerry's antiwar activism after returning from Vietnam "in a balanced and honest program," and that he is "guardedly optimistic" the senator from Massachusetts will participate. .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36668-2004Oct15.html
Looks like Sinclair isn't playing footsie.. Kerry or nobody.. WOOHOO
~mugged~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
azpatriot
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 593
Location: Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| muggedliberal wrote: | UPDATE
Kerry Team Demands Equal Time
TV Group to Air Critical Movie
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 16, 2004; Page A05
John F. Kerry's campaign demanded yesterday that Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. provide his campaign equal time after broadcasting a movie attacking his Vietnam record, but the company said it is holding out for an interview with the Democratic nominee himself.
In a letter to Sinclair chief executive David D. Smith, the Kerry campaign's top lawyer said that the planned airing of "Stolen Honor" "constitutes an attack on Senator Kerry by supporters of President Bush" and that Sinclair "must provide a similar opportunity for Senator Kerry's supporters" on its 62 stations.
"This is a 42-minute attack ad they are putting on the air at no cost to the Bush campaign," spokesman Chad Clanton said. He said that the equal time should be of the same duration and that the Kerry camp should control the content, rather than appearing with Sinclair anchors.
Sinclair Vice President Mark Hyman said that the company wants to address questions about Kerry's antiwar activism after returning from Vietnam "in a balanced and honest program," and that he is "guardedly optimistic" the senator from Massachusetts will participate. .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36668-2004Oct15.html
Looks like Sinclair isn't playing footsie.. Kerry or nobody.. WOOHOO
~mugged~ |
This is very good news! I'm so glad Sinclair/Mark Hyman are sticking to their guns. This has been my thinking too, the object is not just to air the film nationaly but to also if possible get sKerry there to be comfronted by these veterans. The cowardly jerk keeps sending cheap standins to take the heat for him! I hope they corner his A** this time and let the wood fly! 
_________________
Proud to be an American! and member of the PAJAMAHADEEN 
FedEx Kinko's: When it absolutely, positively has to be forged overnight  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ranch hand
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 108
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
He can run but he cannot hide.
He's trying to hide from Sinclair. He's running from them also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
becca1223
PO3
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 293
Location: Colonial Heights, VA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is great! With all this controversy and additional news coverage created by sKerry and the "D"im "N"uts "C"oncern, many many more people are sure to watch Stolen Honor!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kimberly
PO2
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 377
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ohanakat wrote: | | Quote: | | saw the program when Hyman did offer to have someone other than Kerry as his stand-in. If airing of the film was ligitimate and legal in it's owns right, why would Sinclair immediately 'backtrack' and offer equal time to Kerry or stand-in? Why didn't they just show the program, as is? |
As I understand it, the program has not been completed yet. In order to avoid an equal time requirement for political support, this is being produced as a news story. I don't think Hyman backtracked. He clearly would prefer that John Kerry personally participate but agreed that a qualified spokesperson would be acceptable. Don't recall now who outlined the qualifications... something along the lines of preferably a Vietnam Vet who can speak to the specific issues, not some 25 year old campaign groupie who spouts the talking points.
Kat |
Would the 'qualifications' exclude Mueller? He's a horrible, hateful man. As I understand it, he was a marine not a swiftie and not a witness to anything that happened. I would hope that that would disqualify him. I doubt Kerry will show, but am going to be mad if Mueller shows instead, unless a Hannity-like person would be present to debate.
What I meant about Hyman is that his first appearance I beleive he said that SH would be shown in its entirety and equal time would be give to Kerry. Next time he appeared, Hyman said that while they were still deciding on format, it is possible that they would, he said, play only 'seconds' of SH and the rest of the 60 or 90 minutes would be given to Kerry or spokesman. In the first instance, Hyman justified a full viewing as newsworthy. In second instance the 'equal airtime' issue was brought forward and the offer as I stated ('seconds of SH') was made. I guess, to me, it seemed like Sinclair had backtracked or 'caved' just a bit. Does that make sense? (I've had no sleep;) Am also wondering why the decision to air SH became public so soon before the airing, givng time to cause this whole controversy. Does anyone know if it was a decision made by Sinclair, or were their plans leaked?
Kimberly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rhv5862
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 379
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:54 am Post subject: Kerry requests response time |
|
|
Kerry wants response time on Sinclair, maybe Bush Campaign should demand response time on Sundance. O I forgot only Dems have a right to request response time to anything. We all know the Dems motto is don't do as we do, do as we say.
RHV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trickworm
Ensign
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 59
Location: West Georgia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you haven't already done so, everyone needs to send an email of support to Sinclair and one to the chairman of the FCC expressing your support for the program. I sent mine last week.
Expect the DNC to try and pull something along the lines of a federal court orer to intervene and prevent Stolen Honor from airing.
_________________
"Uncommon valor was a common virtue" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mangdawg
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 116
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| it was in today's paper that P.P.V. has declined to air F.9/11 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Denis
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 48
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob_P wrote: | | flagreen wrote: | | Because they request it doesn't mean that they are going to get it. The show is all about Kerry anyway and does not even mention Bush or any of the other candidates. So equal time doesn't apply if you ask me. |
I agree. The film is about Kerry. It should be Bush who is requesting equal time. It won't happen for the Kerry campaign. |
Actually, that would be the law. Only Bush could insist on equal time, not Kerry, because Kerry is the one shown in the documentary and is 'given time'. That is specifically how the equal time regulations are written. It is Kerry who has the opportunity to 'speak' and be seen in 'Stolen Honor', not Bush.
The Democrats actually know that, and this is a smokescreen.
Denis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rhv5862
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 379
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:16 am Post subject: Kerry requests response time |
|
|
Sinclair has offered to have Kerry on but they have not gotten a reply to their request. Wonder why?
RHV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Denis
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 48
Location: North Carolina
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
On the ‘Equal Time Rule’:
| Quote: | | Since 1959, the FCC has provided a number of interpretations to Section 315's exemptions. Presidential press conferences have been labeled on-the-spot news, even if the president uses his remarks to bolster his campaign. Since the 1970s, debates have also been considered on-the-spot news events and therefore exempt from the equal time law. This has enabled stations or other parties arranging the debates to choose which candidates to include in a debate. Before this ruling by the FCC, Congress voted to suspend Section 315 during the 1960 presidential campaign to allow Richard Nixon and John Kennedy to engage in a series of debates without the participation of third party candidates. The FCC has also labeled shows such as The Phil Donahue Show and Good Morning America news interview programs. However, appearances by candidates in shows which do not fit under the four exempt formats will trigger the equal opportunities provision, even if the appearance is irrelevant to the campaign. Therefore, during Ronald Reagan's political campaigns, if a station aired one of his films, it would have been required to offer equal time to Mr. Reagan's opponents. |
Source
The ‘Fairness Doctrine’:
| Quote: | The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 (Equal Time) exempted news programs, interviews AND DOCUMENTARIES. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.
The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a "Christian Crusade" program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.
The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This "chilling effect" was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.
By the 1980s, many things had changed. The "scarcity" argument which dictated the "public trustee" philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.
By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a "chilling effect" and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. |
Source
US Code, Equal Time provision:
| Quote: | TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 315 Prev | Next
§ 315. Candidates for public office
Release date: 2003-08-01
(a) Equal opportunities requirement; censorship prohibition; allowance of station use; news appearances exception; public interest; public issues discussion opportunities
If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal OPPORTUNITIES TO ALL OTHER SUCH CANDIDATES FOR THAT OFFICE IN THE USE OF SUCH BROADCASTING STATION: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. |
Source
Sinclair’s invitation to Kerry’s people to have that eighteen minute period of speaking was all that is at most required as a ‘reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views’. They are not obligated to give Kerry ‘Equal Time’, since they are giving zero time to the opposing candidate, Bush!
Media folks like those at WaPo who think the Equal Time provision actually applies are simply either clueless, or knowingly spreading a false impression.
Denis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1451
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
the only person acceptable should be Kerry, not one of his spinheads....
Bush should now also get equal time on abc, cbs, nbc, cnn etc....
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rhv5862
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 379
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:51 pm Post subject: Kerry Requests Response Time |
|
|
Kerry would never show up himself nor would is Campaign Managers let him. They would not expose him to questioning. If they cannot have a spinmaster they won't show, they will just try to stop the showing. FCC says they will not get involved.
RHV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty61
LCDR
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 419
Location: Glyndon MN
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does anybody really believe that Sinclair did not have their attorneys check out the equal time issue before announcing they would air "Stolen Honor". Everything the Kerry campaign is doing is damage control. Which is exactly what we want them focusing on right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
