| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vet_supporter
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:55 pm Post subject: WSJ Editorial - Sinclair and Watergate |
 |
|
Wall Street Journal Opinion - Sinclair and Watergate
| Quote: | | "Stolen Honor" and stolen press freedom. |
Trial Lawyers shut it down apparently. WSJ says this bad precident for the first amendment.
| Quote: | | .... The next step was something new: a double team by trial lawyers and government officials threatening shareholder suits. Out of the gate first was William Lerach, a Democratic funder who announced plans this week to sue Sinclair because by running the documentary it was creating controversy that cost it advertising revenue. |
VS |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KnowsKnot
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I heard that WSJ climbed all over the Demos and complained about this. I can't use your link because there's no way I can get in without signing up and that's not going to happen.
So could you explain or take a look at it again? You DON'T mean the WSJ was taken down because of lawyers etc etc. ? What you mean is that Sinclair pulled the showing last night (for a different reason depending on which blog you happen to visit). Sucks whatever "reason" is.
Sorry for confusion. I'm easily confused.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vet_supporter
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry for the confusion.
The editorial was about Sinclair not showing Stolen Honor like they originally intended and instead, showing a disappointing, useless program in it's place.
The WSJ was saying this Sinclair being cowered was not good for the First Amendment. They closed with this paragraph:
| Quote: | | Now that this trial lawyer-government precedent has been set, who's to stop it if it next turns, as eventually it will, on the New York Times, or CBS? One of the most important protections that a free press has is independent corporate ownership, but what if the Nixon Administration had unleashed its lawyer friends and government pension funds on the Times Company when it was publishing the Pentagon Papers, or the Washington Post when it was digging into Watergate? If the standard now is that stirring controversy is a fraud against shareholders because it may cost ad revenue, a lot more media owners than Sinclair are going to become political targets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PC
PO3
Joined: 29 Aug 2004
Posts: 257
Location: Southern California
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:34 pm Post subject: Main Stream Media Bias |
|
|
They also write about the bias of the Lame Stream media:
| Quote: | | What's astonishing here is that this legal-political double team has gone on with barely a whimper of protest from the rest of the media. In fact, it is being celebrated as a defeat for all of those right-wing scoundrels who support President Bush. We understand that most of the press corps is liberal and desperately wants Mr. Kerry to win. Editors and producers may let that distort their coverage, but they usually aren't so blinded by partisanship that they can't see their own self-interest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KnowsKnot
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for clarification from both. I don't sign up for something unless I haveto and while I've missed some articles on the WSJ I don't consider it critical.
I've elsewhere read on several blogs more about the WSJ article.
Naturally the loose wing nut lefties are very happy. 
I wish this site could afford the cost of bandwidth in the closing days of the election in order to get the word out. I noticed a new review out today (?) or recently from Roger L. Simon. He reviews "Stolen Honor" as a movie from a critical standpoint. While he has a view negative comments about the cinemtograph etc. his review about the importance of all voters seeing it is unequivacal: I'll let him speak for himself but it's clear it feels strong that it needs seeing.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/10/stolen_honor_a.php
(Sorry. Don't have Windows and using regular forum commands or URLs is a bit of a pain for me.)
Many of the comments to his post are also worth reading.
Thanks again. (And if that's not the right place then I got it from Instapundit somewhere, but darned if I can find it. I know the link to the Roger L. Simon blog came from Instapundit.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KnowsKnot
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 5
Location: U.S.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I forgot to mention there are some trolls in the comments section of the Simon blog article noted. Be careful what links you click on or you'll find that some kids supporting Kerry that was born after 1980 (maybe 1990) know all about Nam. Real experts. 
Theyre the ones we're up against because they clearly Know NOT.
KnowsKnot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cap' DOC
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject: WSJ 'OpEd' piece |
|
|
IMHO - The WSJ was indeed critical of the Cave-in, and the Democratic Double-team to keep "Stolen Honor" off the air. It wasn't presented as news however, and was on their OpEd page.
Their criticisms are valid. My feeling (as an artist) is that unless you are going to look at the whole picture (in this case, the WHOLE video), don't bother being critical of one little detail, and for God's sake, don't cut it up into pieces. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
