The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the Nation, including 20 Fox stations, has apparently decided to preempt its regular programming to show a documentary that alleges that Kerry “betrayed” American prisoners during the Vietnam War. This contrasts with the judgment of other broadcasters, including, for example, CBS that decided it was “inappropriate” for them to run a program about the intelligence [sic] behind the President’s decision to invade Iraq.
I criticized CBS for its judgment about propriety. From its description, that show seemed to me plainly “appropriate” before an election that would decide, in part, whether the President’s decision was one America wanted to ratify. By contrast, I thought its decision to air a show about the President’s service in the National Guard was inappropriate — not relevant to this election.
I’ve not seen the Sinclair documentary (indeed, there are conflicting reports about whether it is in fact completed). From its description, it seems to me to be closer in content (but not in viewpoint) to the show CBS did show, and further from the show CBS decided was “inappropriate,” and so I expect, on the principle I’ve articulated so far, I would criticize the Sinclair decision. Maybe not, depending upon the content, but probably.
Many have criticized the decision to show the documentary on legal grounds. They have called upon the FCC to stop the broadcast � an extraordinary action for any government actor to take (almost as absurd as stopping a recount from a First Amendment perspective) � and Chairman Powell has indicated, on First Amendment grounds, that he won’t stop the broadcast.
No one thinks there’s a First Amendment problem when the New York Times endorses Kerry, or the Wall Street Journal endorses Bush. And no doubt, the difference between Sinclair and these newspapers is, one could say, just a difference in degree.
But differences in degree become differences in kind � especially when the power a speaker has is supported by government backed monopolies. Sinclair has the power it has as a broadcaster because the government has given it an exclusive right to something the techno-ignorant call “spectrum.” These absurd (and constitutionally unjustified) grants of power to control who gets to speak, of course, continue, as the New Yorker’s James Surowiecki brilliantly describes this week. They have always been understood to raise unique questions under the First Amendment.
So I’m sympathetic to those who would qualify the First Amendment analysis that applies to newspapers when applied to broadcasters, though I am less eager than some of my friends to see the FCC decide what speech gets to go on television before a Presidential election.
So much is familiar.
But less familiar is a second sort of “regulation” that Sinclair will not escape. That is the “regulation” of the market, buttressed by the law suits that will certainly be filed by Sinclair shareholders.
In the last week, the stock price of the Sinclair Group has fallen by 10%. The company has lost $60,000,000 in market cap. Josh Marshall has a great clip from a Lehman Brothers research memo attacking the decision from a business perspective.
This drop is no doubt in part a calculation about how Sinclair will fair if the election goes for Kerry. But in part it may also be the product of a large citizen reaction to this corporate partisanship. Among the groups creating pressure on the company are:
Boycottsbg.com
SinclairWatch.org
MediaMatters.org
The First Amendment does not mean people have to like you for what you say. Nor does it protect you if people decide not to buy your product because of what you say, or advertise on your network, because of what you say. All it means is that the government can’t punish you for what you say (or at least, that’s at least what it should mean, “indecency” notwithstanding).
But “free speech” is more than what the First Amendment says. And I wouldn’t be honest if I didn’t confess a bit of anxiety at all this “punishing” for what people — including corporations — say. The most that can be said in its defense is, I should think, this: In a world where “mainstream” broadcasters such as CBS are too timid to broadcast a plainly relevant story about war “too close” to an election, or where NBC refuses to license clips from “Meet the Press” because it wants to stay “neutral” in a political debate, the action by a concentrated, powerful, rightwing network to use its power to direct the election is bad. If we could break up the government supported monopolies of broadcasters, and change the culture among broadcasters generally, I’d have no problem with it. But now, in this culture, in an election this close, the decision stinks. And I for one won’t shed any tears for the “punishment” Sinclair receives from the market, or even the plaintiffs’ bar.
Mr. Powell at the FCC definitely believes that because the �spectrum�/ �public airwaves� belong to the public, the FCC has the right to abridge free speech. To this, there is no question. If he personally believes that a broadcast is indecent (defined by his whim) then the FCC can heavily fine each station hundreds of thousands of dollars. Therefore, while the FCC does not have the authority to exercise �prior restraint� in stopping Sinclair from broadcasting such programing they sure as hell can fine each station $25,000. That�s approximately 1.5 million dollars.
I do not see why such an objectively farcical program could not rise to being indecent
Did you see Leno last night?
Michael Moore was the guest, and offered a compromise that I think is actually quite fair: since Sinclair claims that the presentation of the documentary is not politically motivated, Moore has offered them the rights to broadcast F911 for free as long as it’s showed in an equally prominent time slot prior to the election.
Let’s look at this issue from another point of view.
By *not* investigating this period of Kerry’s life which *he* clearly made part of his election platform, the mainstream media such as CBSNBCABC, are proving to be partisan forces.
The little coverage afforded those who speak up about Kerry’s horrible record is set up as a hit piece…see the latest ABC interviews with communists in Vietnam to disprove the Swiftvets story – only to also disprove Kerry’s story according to his autobiography…some witnesses!
CBS is timid because it has already been caught putting forward a phony story in the interests of partisan hacks. The story they are supposed to have delayed is based on proven false information from Joe Wilson. They are timid because they know it to be false and now realize there are enough fact checkers around to prove them as partisans *again*.
That being said, if leftists want to boycott Sinclair, have at it. The NY Times will be shown shortly to have suffered dramatically over the last year for similar market forces.
This so funny. Unless you are prepared to suggest that the Vietnam War was a good idea and that we should still be fighting there today, you have absolutely nothing bad to say about John Kerry’s protest of the war without contradicting yourself.
As it happens, John Kerry’s protest of the war is objectively verifiable proof of his being on the correct side of that particular defense issue. Which would be to Cheney�s chagrin if the Democrats weren�t such cowards to point it out to him.
With regards to his war crimes accusations the people who claim them to be correct never quote Kerry, or discuss the comments in context. The reason is obvious, John Kerry’s Senate testimony happened to be extremely accurate. What he said was: Many of the tactics and rules of engagement that we used (most of which are undisputed and backed up by thousands of testimonials and historical accounts, i.e. free fire zones etc…) qualified as war crimes pursuant to numerous international laws.
The bottom line is a nation cannot go to war without committing crimes against itself and humanity. There is always a cost. That is why a nation should only go to war when it is absolutely necessary to achieve a worth while political goal. Our only chance to pacify Iraq would have been to decimate the population and stick at least a hundred thousand heads on poles. However, we have no interest in such barbarism or the stomach for it. As such, we had no business occupying that country.
After we leave, Iraq will become an Islamic state controlled by the mullahs and clerics. Way to go George W. Dubya is a total and complete idiot, who will go down in history as belonging in the same category as the likes of Nero, Custer and Mussolini.
The very idea that criticism of our obvious political failures will somehow embolden the enemy is one of the most ludicrous ideas ever conjured up by mankind. I suppose it would be much more devastating to the moral of our enemies for us to go ahead and believe our own propaganda despite its apparent inaccuracies and overall silliness.
Wait I�m sorry, I must have been wrong. Of course it makes so much sense now. When we as a nation understand that we made some wrong choices and make the necessary adjustments, young men in Iraq are suddenly motivated to launch suicide attacks against out troops.
Indeed, if you should never criticize your government during a time of war, all that government needs to do in order to have a free hand to do whatever it wants is to declare perpetual war. Oh wait…
It’s not suprising that Mr. Lessig takes position against the decision made by Sinclair. While it is painfully obvious at times that despite his attempts to appear nonpartisan, his motivations are deeply political (e.g. look at the movies released via Creative Commons, Outfoxed etc.), it is just plain naive to “forget”/”overlook” the left wing propoganda that our national media broadcasts cloaked in the veil of “national news.” Didn’t anyone watch the debates? Can anyone honestly say that Kerry wasnt thrown softballs in all 3 debates? Are we so quick to forget Rathergate? Were it not for the astute observations of the public, including bloggers, the preconceived political underhandedness of both CBS news and Dan Rather (dont forget Senator Cleeland), would have succeeded. CBS has felt the negative ramifications of being called on their outright lie, why is it such a suprise that they are hesitant to once again expose themselves. There is one thing for sure however, CBS’ hesitation is not attributable to a conflict in political ideology, which the contemplated Iraq program exudes. As I have written before in previous blogs, Mr. Lessig’s attempts to insert politics into Cyberlaw is counterproductive and will ultimately diminsh the political power/influence of someone recognized often times as “the” preeminent thinker and doer in his area.
CORRECTION: The Wall Street Journal does not make ANY political endorsements. Perhaps you should read it more often…
Raoul: To whom are you responding? I’ve searched the other postings and the story related to this set of comments and I can only obliquely connect your rant to any of them.
BTW, I’d love to hear your opinions about the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan 😉
> In a world where �mainstream� broadcasters such as CBS are too
> timid to broadcast a plainly relevant story about war �too close�
> to an election … because it wants to stay �neutral� in a political
> debate, … And I for one won�t shed any tears for the
> punishment� Sinclair receives from the market, or even the
> plaintiffs� bar.
But Larry, isn’t this the heart of the problem? The other networks aren’t (I assume) particularly interested in staying neutral for it’s own sake: they are justifiably afraid of bearing the burden of an angry market. I haven’t seen the documentary either, but I presume that even if slanted it will at least be relevant to the election. And instinctively, I applaud a corporation for making an ideological move instead of merely looking at the bottom line, even if I disagree with their choice of message. Much in the same way as I admire your choice to be open about your politics in this blog, in fact.
So given the choice between a biased biography and Gilligan’s Island reruns, I think they are doing more for the public good by showing the biography. Sure, it would be nice if something could be arranged to present the alternative side, but my larger worry is that the market will destroy them, no broadcaster will dare to show anything but pablum, and the nation will spend the next twenty years trying to guess what the Professor will come up with next, rather than talking about a documentary they disagree with.
–nate
Afghanistan? Elections? Are you serious? The so called elections in Afghanistan were a total joke, fraught with intimidation of voters by warlords and their soldiers, multiple registrations and deception from the beginning that resulted in the election of our hand picked puppet dictator. The upcoming elections were meant to confer legitimacy on Karzai, who continues to be heavily protected by U.S. security forces (specifically the P.M.C. DYNCORP) and the Bush Administration.
“An Afghan election marred by allegations of fraud would be bad for President Bush’s overall claim of promoting democracy in the Muslim world,” said Husain Haqqani, an Afghanistan expert at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “In the absence of good news from Iraq, the Bush administration needs Afghanistan as its success story.”
“The United States wants, before the November elections, to showcase a victory of the Bush administration by proving it is possible to bring democracy to an Islamic Third World country,” said Assem Akram, an Afghan historian and author based in Washington. “And if American voters grant George Bush a new mandate, his administration will reproduce the same successful model in Iraq. That is why there is so much hurry.”
It is important to remember that Afghanistan ended up in the mess it was in as a direct result of �BLOWBACK� from the U.S. (Previous Republican administration) led war against the Soviet Union. Remember back in the day when we referred to the TERRORISTS as �Freedom Fighters.� Not to say that war was a bad idea but rather to say that we should at least accept responsibility where it is patently obvious. However, the United States and the international community turned their backs on the country after the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in 1989.
A new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) “The Rule of the Gun: Human Rights Abuses and Political Repression in the Run-Up to Afghanistan’s Presidential Election,” says that continuing human rights abuses in Afghanistan are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, and that voters in many regions do not appear to understand the ballot or have faith in its secrecy, particularly in the face of pressure from militia factions.
“The warlords are still calling the shots,” said Brad Adams, HRW’s Asia director. “Many voters in rural areas say the militias have already told them how to vote, and that they’re afraid of disobeying them. Activists and political organizers who oppose the warlords fear for their lives,” he added in the report.
The document, which was released just nine days before the election, echoes many of the same complaints and concerns voiced by a number of other human rights, development and women’s groups in recent weeks.
“The reality is that most Afghans involved in politics on the ground are primarily afraid of warlords and their factions, much more than they’re afraid of the Taliban,” said Adams, who, like other rights activists, has been particularly frustrated by the failure of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is led and manned primarily by soldiers of the European and North American nations of NATO, to extend its presence beyond Kabul into the countryside and other important towns and cities.
Its staff has confirmed several flaws in the voter-registration process, including multiple registrations. Afghan and UN officials have claimed that some 10.5 million people have registered, including more than four million women, but HRW, echoing a recent report by the International Crisis Group (ICG), has concluded the total is significantly less if the multiple registrations are subtracted.
Factions have used force, intimidation and deception to collect thousands of voting cards from civilians, according to the report, which concluded that tens of thousands of women were induced to register more than once after being told the cards entitled them to certain benefits, such as food rations.
Warlords have also used intimidation and harassment against Afghan journalists and potential candidates for next year’s parliamentary and local elections.
The Bush administration simply turned Afghanistan back over to the pre-Taliban warlords who had fought the Soviets in alliance with the U.S. Herat province is ruled by Ismail Khan, Mazar by Abdul Rashid Dostum, etc., etc. Even really bad guys like Abu Sayyaf have their fiefdoms in the Pashtun areas (although he broke with the Taliban, it would be hard to distinguish his ideas and style of ruling from theirs). This is not to mention the revival of the poppy trade, which fuels heroin smuggling to the tune of $2 billion a year, nearly half Afghanistan’s gross national product.
Larry:
Your appointment is looking less likely each passing day. What to do about that Gallup poll. No, I don’t think it’s legit, but we are probably down by 4 or 5%. How do we stop the bleeding?
Come on, you have an enormous brain. Give us all a clue Great Oz! Please.
“How do we stop the bleeding?” Motivate the base.
Lessig said: “And I wouldn�t be honest if I didn�t confess a bit of anxiety at all this �punishing� for what people � including corporations � say.”
Whoa, buddy”people” are not “including corporation.” And because corporations are not people (a logical corollary), the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to them, as explained by the fourteenth Amendment. Ours is a government of the people and by the people (theoretically) over which the people, not states or corporations are sovereign. The United States is a mis-nomer: We are the United People of [North] America (and should change our country’s name to reflect that Constitutional Fact.
The pretence that corporations are person’s and thus rightly protected directly by the Constitution is a fiction perpetrated by the corporations and politicians and judges they bought during the century after the Civil War. And our people won’t be free from their interference and dictation until we take the bull by the horns and sponsor a simple, straight-forward Constitutional Amendment to the effect that corporations are neither persons nor citizens and no corporations have rights (although they may be granted some privileges by legislatures as long as those do not conflict with human rights), nor may any of their funds or facilities or expressions in any way try to impact citizens elections or legislation. Political contributions of all kinds, includintg lobying) using corporate resources must be outlawed on pain of dissolution! Only then will Granny D’s (and Teddy Roosevelt’s) search for real campaign finance reform be fully successful.
So, although the Sinclair corporation should be enjoined by the courts (since the campaign watcdogs slinked out with their tails between their legs) from such an illegal campaign contribution, that is not in any way any kind of an infringement on the first amendment. Corporations do not have free speech protected by the Constitution. They should be regulated in any way good for the people who make up this country.
By the way, the “Gangs of the U. S”, by Ted Nace, the son of a friend and neighbor of Granny D’s (which I just finished reading) is the best history and analysis of the attempt of corporations to grab control of our government by paying off judges and p[oliticians to ignore the Constirution and pretend that corporations are people and citizens. “Fictitious persons” are no more citizens that Dred Scott would have been if he really had been property.
yes, that’s right raoul. Our base is showing a good bit less enthusiasm since Wed. night, and hasn’t yet bought into our Draft and Social Security attacks. We’re trying! And the overseas military vote is likely to be even stronger against us than in 2000. Ugh.
uh-oh. and that Stolen Honor video — were it true — would be about the most powerful thing I’ve ever seen. Yikes.
Raoul:
I beg to differ. although mant of us wish it were not true, the administration efforts in Afghanistan have been quite effective and inspiring, especially when compared with the soviet effort… . better to focus on something else,
Any overseas miltary voter that votes for Bush should have his or her head examined. They at least know what is really happening over there, and I cannot believe they aren’t furious at Bush.
Raoul:
So if we don’t make it perfect than any steps forward that achieve less than a utopian ideal should not have been taken? Complaints by human rights and women’s groups??????? Where are their complaints about the Taliban and fundamentalist Islam in general.
What do you suggest should be done with Afghanistan? I can pontificate and criticize others all day long when I’m not responsible for making things happen in the real world.
You still haven’t answered my question as to what your first post was referring to.
IMHO, we won’t leave Iraq in our lifetime, by the way. Think of post-war Germany – still there after how many years? Look at a map of the region and see how strategic this country is geographically.
In closing, I see from your first posting that you believe that protecting the Vietnam people from communism was not a worthwhile goal. If you feel that communism is no worse than our system of government, then I don’t think our conversation will yield any fruit because our fundamental views of the world differ too much.
But the FCC was NOT asked to “stop the broadcast” – at least that wasn’t the request Pwell was responding to.
i’m a bit disappointed to see a reiteration of Powell’s misrepresntation on this site. Josh Marshall posted a letter from Reed Hunt, former chair of the FCC, where he points out:
Reed Hundt responds to Michael Powell …
Dear Josh:
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.”
But no one has asked the FCC to bar Sinclair from showing the program. There are only two issues for the FCC and only two requests to Chairman Powell.
The issues are: if Sinclair shows this anti-Kerry propaganda (which can be downloaded from Internet, lest anyone question the characterization), then (1) should it also give a free hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any authentic progressive organization, and (2) will Sinclair face at least the prospect after the fact of a review of its fulfillment of its public interest duties.
And the two requests are: (1) will the Chairman of the FCC remind Sinclair and other broadcasters by word and deed that they have public interest obligations, and (2) will the Chairman of the FCC investigate now, before the propaganda airs, whether Sinclair has a duty to give an hour to pro-Kerry content selected by any progressive organization?
Chairman Powell instead pretends that he has been asked to bar the showing of the propaganda — which no one has asked him to do. His remarks are so far off the point, and he is so intelligent, that one must conclude that he knows what he is doing and intends the result — tacit and plain encouragement of the use of the Sinclair airwaves to pursue a smear campaign. No broadcast group in the history of America has ever committed an hour to smearing a presidential candidate, and no FCC chairman before this one would have reacted with equanimity to this radical step down in broadcasting ethics.”
Nate:
If we are going to win this, we must deal with reality. For whatever reason, a very large majority of military personnel and their families favor bush. There are two polls out there in agreement on that conclusion. We can’t just call them crazy or dumb or misguided; we’ve got to try to figure out a constructive way to address them.
And now we have a growing problem with women voters. The Senator’s Wed. night comments have started a backlash among moms. Again, we can’t just deny it; we’ve got to counter it in order to survive.
Similarly, the “Beware the Draft” approach is making us look silly, and worse, painting us as Chicken Littles on all of our other points. We need to be credible to be successful, so let’s put our heads together and think of something real — not exaggerated — that will actually sell among the main stream of this country.
We can’t just cocoon == we’ll lose by a lot. Let’s be constructive NOW.
“Our base is showing a good bit less enthusiasm since Wed. night”
Don’t worry they will when they vote. The polls are so skewed.
“And the overseas military vote is likely to be even stronger against us than in 2000. Ugh.”
I disagree. The discontent in the miltary is seriously high with the Bush adminstration. The neo-cons have done a number and lots of people are pissed. Another four years and we might be looking at a coup.
�I see from your first posting that you believe that protecting the Vietnam people from communism was not a worthwhile goal. If you feel that communism is no worse than our system of government�
Are you resorting to calling me a communist? LOL!!! Wow you are desperate. The war in Vietnam didn�t have anything to do with communism, other than the fact that the Soviets claimed to be communist. Our war was one of proxy with the Soviets. We would have been at war with the Soviets no matter what ideology that they claimed to be associated with. They were the other big boys on the block. And I got news for ya, they are going to come back, and after Bush has decimated our military, we will not be able to stand toe to toe with the Russians or the Chinese. Way to go Bush and Rummy, selling our future down the road just to chase cheap 3rd rate thugs like Osama and Saddam.
And as far as dealing with communist are concerned, we don�t have any problems kissing the Chinese communists on the ass and giving them whatever they want, why because they have money to spend. The idea that we were trying to protect the Vietnamese from communism is a joke.
Our involvement in Vietnam led to the deaths of at least 3 million people that would not have necessarily died otherwise but for our involvement.
Interesting that you mention communists since the war in Iraq was orchestrated by �Neo-cons� who all happen to be former communists and students of Leo Strauss and Trotsky. Fairly ironic stuff.
With regards to the Taliban, we installed that government. We were responsible for their rise to power. At best, we are trying to clean up our own mess. No credit given for cleaning up your own mess.
�Where are their complaints about the Taliban and fundamentalist Islam in general.� How about the fact that we armed, trained, financed and then threw away an entire generation of Islamic Jihadists for our own selfish purposes. We as a people are directly responsible for all of their atrocities.
What should we do? We should stay in Afghanistan for about another year or two and then leave. However, after we leave we should stay engaged with them and not ignore them like Bush did when he was on vacation.
My previous rant was in response to the comment: �The little coverage afforded those who speak up about Kerry�s horrible record is set up as a hit piece�see the latest ABC interviews with communists in Vietnam to disprove the Swiftvets story – only to also disprove Kerry�s story according to his autobiography�some witnesses!�
My rant was relevant because the fictional propaganda piece that will run on the Sinclair stations is purported to deal mainly with Kerry�s record of Vietnam protests. Therefore, my �rant� was relevant and responsive in that Kerry�s record cannot be �horrible� because he was dead on right with everything he said. Vietnam was a mistake that led to over a decade of financial woes for this country. We were spending over 10% of our GDP on that mistake.
While I�m at it, I find it hysterical that one would assail the credibility of the villagers that were attacked that day by Kerry and the men under his command. Are you suggesting that the Vietnamese� account is un-credible because they are biased towards the commanding officer who was in charge of burning their village to the ground?
Interestingly, in the same breath that you assail their credibility you suggest that they disprove Kerry�s version of the story.
However, the VC commander�s version doesn�t contradict Kerry�s version. He says that the 27/28 year old male VC, in Black pajamas (what practically everyone wore) was shot by machine gun fire from the boat, ran 25 meters and then died. When asked if John Kerry also chased and shot the man, he said he did not know. His account is inconclusive.
As far as the Swiftvets� story goes, those guys are still bent out of shape because Kerry came back from Vietnam called it right, they objected, and were made to look like fools. It�s a tuff call for them, their entire self image is wrapped up in opposing Kerry and the fact that they killed other men in an illegal war that was fought for little or no reason. It�s a hard thing to swallow; killing other people for no reason. Many times people are compelled to keep killing as each additional senseless death make the earlier deaths seem less significant.
If Bush is reelected it is only because, we as Americans are unable to confront our own mistakes and our own guilt. It�s particularly galling that the so-called Republicans are so opposed to accepting responsibility for their own actions.
I wish I had posted earlier this morning! Now there’s simply too much conversation to get back to the original question. I can’t complain too much, I’ve been known to keep flogging a dead horse a time or two.
Stephen Bainbridge, a (conservative) UCLA corporate law professor has explained the slim chance of getting anywhere by suing Sinclair (he took the same position on CBS).
For slightly off-topic posts:
Raoul: “the FCC has the right to abridge free speech. … If [Powell] personally believes that a broadcast is indecent (defined by his whim) then the FCC can heavily fine each station.”
Sorry, the definition of indecent is written in law. Unfortunately, it can’t include any judgements regarding value, so it says things like “showing breasts” instead of “showing breasts in a sexy manner.” That’s why ridiculous things get called indecent (and why there’s a list of no-no words).
Raoul: “This so funny. Unless you are prepared to suggest that the Vietnam War was a good idea … you have absolutely nothing bad to say about John Kerry�s protest of the war.”
Well, I have more respect for Kerry now that I’ve seen a pretty good documentary on him (I see how Viet Nam shaped his time in the Senate, even without passing many laws, for instance). However, I think there are several ways somebody can disagree with Kerry’s way of doing things while not considering the Viet Nam War a good idea.
I, personally, look at present-day South Korea, compare it to present-day North Korea, and present-day Viet Nam, and I can’t help but wonder what the world would have been like if we had won Viet Nam. As such, I believe Johnson’s decision to run the war single-handedly was a bad idea (and probably led to the many nonsense missions our soldiers were scratching their heads about), and disagree with Kerry’s anti-war protests.
Others disagree with Kerry’s decision to protest the war by tarring the reputation of the soldiers and veterans. In that case, it’s a question of tactics, not message.
Raoul: “Afghanistan? Elections? Are you serious? The so called elections in Afghanistan were a total joke, fraught with intimidation of voters by warlords and their soldiers, multiple registrations and deception from the beginning that resulted in the election of our hand picked puppet dictator.”
The elections in Afghanistan were run by the UN.
The incumbent, in any election, has an advantage, so Karzai’s winning the election didn’t surprise anyone. We (the US) even tried to keep him from running for precisely this reason.
Nate: “Any overseas miltary voter that votes for Bush should have his or her head examined.”
It’s well-known that the military almost always votes Republican (about 60-70%). Even during war.
Alan McCann wrote, “The story they are supposed to have delayed is based on proven false information from Joe Wilson.”
You’re wrong. You are confusing the fact that there is doubt about some of the claims Wilson made about when and how he found out about the erroneous CIA analysis and the fact that the analysis itself was erroneous. The CBS story that wasn’t shown was based on other information, not Wilson. It was about how the other intel analysists, like INR, turned out to be right on that issue and the CIA was wrong. Look at the Senate Intelligence Committee report for more details about how the CIA basically ignored all the contrary evidence and pinned their hopes on a rumor and some forged documents. In fact, the real reason CBS didn’t show the report wasn’t because they didn’t think it would be fair to Bush, but that they’d look bad showing a segment about the some in the government being fooled by fake documents right after they were fooled by fake documents.
Amazing, a response if I may to something here:
>It is just plain naive to �forget�/�overlook� the left wing >propoganda that our national media broadcasts cloaked in >the veil of �national news.�
There is nothing to forget. I started out on the Right (raised Conservative Republican, voted Republican the first several years I could vote, then switched parties and have been traveling to the Left ever since.) Never in my life have I believed the myth of the Liberal Media however, not when I was on the Right and supported Bush I, not when I was in the Center and supported Perot, and not now. A Right Wing media I can show you — a Liberal media I cannot. Are there liberal reporters? Sure. More than the proportion in the general populace? Sure — “What Journalists Think of Journalists in 2004: Views on Profits, Performance and Politics” reveals the following statistics :
At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.
This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20% liberal, 33% conservative.” . . .
(the study was collaborative between Pew Research and the Princeton Institute of Journalism)
So absolutely, more reporters consider themselves liberal than consider themselves liberal in the general populace (though that difference goes away if you do an issue by issue poll — but that’s another whole discussion on language), and fewer consider themselves conservative.
Even ignoring the fact however that the study ignores the issue of where pundits and owners stand (the two groups most likely to be conservative in media), and also ignores the fact that highly partisan media on both sides were excluded or underrepresented in the study — even so — the question really is WHAT IS BROADCAST AND WRITTEN — not where do people individually stand. Outside of the two lightning rods in the social arena (gay rights and abortion) I deny the presumption that the media is liberal in any real sense. I’m a liberal, don’t you think that I would recognize my own rhetoric being fed back to me? Believe me, I would. In general, it isn’t. When dealing with important issues, the media tends primarily to spread pap [meaningless, and unimportant information] rather than substance — when they do deal with substance, they deal primarily with negativity, and when they deal with negativity, they do it in such a manner that they benefit those on the right. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by media statistics and research on important issues. Let me give you a couple of examples that are praticularly important to us today:
Let me refer you to a series of studies by the Princeton Associates for the Committee of Concerned Journalists and the Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Charitable Trust (long name, amazing results! *smile*) regarding the last Presidential election, they examined content and quality of 430 stories from major news publications, programs and websites from the time period leading up to the 2000 election.
My contentions: Pap — well, 70% focused on either the candidates television performances or strategies. Fewer than 10% dealt with policy and policy differences. Less than 1% dealt with either candidates vision for his presidency and America. [Project for Excellence in Journalism of the Pew Charitable Trust The Last Lap: How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign. Princeton, NJ, 2001.]
Negatives intended to influence to the Right — let’s see. Of 1,149 stories randomly selected over the course of the election in 2000 for review, themes were that Gore was scandal-tainted (42% of all stories regarding Gore), that he was a liar (34% of all stories published about him at all) and coming in dead last, that he was competent, experienced, and widely knowledgeable (14% of all stories). This despite the fact that any amount of research would have revealed that the he simply was not part of the Monica Lewinski scandal (which is the scandal the press most often linked him to) and that in fact, he had made not a single one of the three statements that the media pegged him as a liar for, in anything resembling the form which he was accused of making them in by the opposing party.
The same study however clearly showed that the opposite was true for Bush. 40% of all assertions and stories about Bush were shown in the study to be that he was a different kind of conservative, a “compassionate conservative” — one of his direct campaign themes being parroted by the media. Another 16% challenged this idea — the only negatives to be found attacking Bush in the random article sample — effectively the opposite of Gore’s positive and negative numbers. [Both paragraphs from Project for Excellence in Journalism; Character: How the Media Handled the Issue and How the Public Has Reacted; Princeton, NJ, 2001]
Simultaneously, the Project for Excellence in Journalism, in combination with the Pew Charitable Trust found that the majority (83%) of statements about candidates were actually given by either the candidates themselves, or by their opponents, and were taken without reference to the public record, or investigative methods. To be fair therefore, no one, not even Sasso, claims that the Left is as good at what I would call shameless self-promotion, and lying, as is the Right on the national political scene — so I cannot call this outright proof of right-wing bias, but what I can say is that the effective result of reporting is that the media consistently paints conservative candidates in a better light than liberal ones — and I would maintain likewise, that a factual study of articles will show that outside the narrow constraints of social liberalism, where there is a significant majority of Americans that support the “liberal” positions — the papers will be revealed to also publish more articles with right wing slant than with left wing slant.
>Didn�t anyone watch the debates? Can anyone honestly say >that Kerry wasnt thrown softballs in all 3 debates?
I certainly did watch the debates, and I counted 4 debates, because I count Vice Presidential candidates as people too. Let’s see, in an election where Mr. Rove (Republican strategist) has said that he makes turning out the final 4,000,000 of the President’s evangelical right wing base the basis for his reelection, two (2) of the four (4) moderators spent significant amounts of time discussing wedge issues that are important to the Right (gay rights, abortion, roe v. wade, and faith). Even setting aside serious policy questions, which were asked of both sides, and should have been asked — and regardless of whether or not the wedge issues should have been accorded as much time as they were considering the more serious issues facing us – those questions and questions about the War on Terror and Iraq dominated the debates. So no, I don’t think Kerry got softballs by any stretch, neither by the way do 2 fairly close friends of mine who are members of the Republican Committee in my area. Both have congratulated me on “my team” sweeping the debates.
>Are we so quick to forget Rathergate? Were it not for the >astute observations of the public, including bloggers, the >preconceived political underhandedness of both CBS news >and Dan Rather (dont forget Senator Cleeland), would have >succeeded.
Unlike Senator Kerry’s record, which is public, and proved the lies of the Swiftboat Veterans — public records on President Bush do not yet show him to have actually completed the service that was required of him. To the contrary, they show that he in a number of ways shirked that service. Further, the only testimony we have regarding his entry into the guard, outside of his own, has been that of a political official who says he got him in. A braver, less ethical Democratic party would have rammed that down his throat by now. You had better believe that if similar papers existed for Kerry, the Republican party would have rammed it down his. Dan Rather got fooled, admitted it, and apologized. The Swifties have been repudiated over and over — where’s their apology and admission of error? How about Fox News? Hmmmm?
Regards,
Reynolds C. Jones