Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Government Politics

Stolen Honor: Sinclair Under Fire 323

Posted by michael from the tempest-in-a-teapot dept.
worm eater writes "The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, in its latest politically charged move, has announced that it will air a 90-minute anti-Kerry documentary a week before the election. The video, 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,' was funded by a group of Pennsylvania POWs that has merged with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Sinclair, which is the largest TV broadcasting group in the nation, has 62 affiliates, many in swing states. It made news in April by refusing to let any of its affiliates air an edition of Nightline in which Ted Koppel read the names of US soldiers who had died in Iraq, saying the broadcast was politically motivated. Predictably, liberal blogs are fighting back."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stolen Honor: Sinclair Under Fire More

Stolen Honor: Sinclair Under Fire

Comments Filter:
  • Fahrenheit 911 is OK but this isn't? Doesn't that sound a little hypocritical?
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Doesn't it sound a little hypocritical when you censor a news story that disagrees with your political views?

        That's not hypocritical. It's called bullying.

        Let's call a spade a spade.

      • Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Wednesday October 13, 2004 @12:35AM (#10511134)
        Doesn't it sound a little hypocritical when you censor a news story that disagrees with your political views?

        A. This is not a "news story". It is a 90 minute Swift boat smear commercial for Bush, uninterrupted by other commercials, being presented under the guise of news.

        B. The right to a free press is restricted to those with printing presses. Sinclair does not own the public airwaves it will use to broadcast this garbage. Any right-wing media conglomerate is free to express its opinions under First Amendment protection, using cable, a web site, or a bullhorn- once its broadcast license has been revoked in accordance with the law. Broadcasting an infomercial for the president on public airwaves is a blatant violation of McCain-Feingold. Amazingly, the FCC under Michael Powell shows no interest in enforcing the law in this case.

        C. There is a conflict of interest here. One of Sinclair's wholly owned subsidiaries (Jadoo Power Systems) has just been awarded a contract to develop power systems for the US Special Operations Command. [prnewswire.com] The other major investor in Jadoo is Contango Capital Management, located in Houston TX, whose Managing Partner is John Berger [contangocapital.com] who used to manage energy trading books for Enron Corporation and who also served as an advisor to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2002 and 2003. This stinks to high heaven.

        D. In case you didn't think he was an asshat, the CEO of Sinclair made the following statement on CNN this morning [cnn.com]:
        However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?


        If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry. Weak job performance ratings that came out last month would have been an in- kind contribution to John Kerry. And that's just nonsense.

        This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today. The networks had this opportunity over a month ago to speak with these people. They chose to suppress them. They chose to ignore them. They are acting like Holocaust deniers, pretending these men don't exist.

        So press coverage of car bombs and unemployment statistics is equivalent to unfair free campaign commercials for Kerry. And the rest of the press are "Holocaust deniers" for denying partisan political hacks a forum from which they can make baseless thirty-year-old accusations on the eve of a close election.

        This from the same media conglomerate that back in April suppressed Nightline's reading of the names of soldiers killed in Iraq because it was "contrary to the public interest." Riiiight.
    • Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911- an utter lack of journalism but at least about events that happened in the last 4 years- but this will get on the air?
      • Let me get this straight- nobody's willing to air Fahrenheit 911

        You haven't got it straight yet.

        Lots of stations would love to air Fahrenheit 9/11. Instant ratings! For example, I did not see it in the theaters, and would not waste my money renting it, but would probably watch at least some of it if it was on broadcast TV. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

        Unfortunately for Moore's political agenda (but fortunately for his pocketbook), he chose a distributer which wants to make a profit, so they are not

        • Re:Who ever said the media had a liberal bias? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Smidge204 ( 605297 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:22PM (#10507618) Journal
          One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.

          Or, you know, it could have implied that any suppression of speech for political gain would not be tolerated.

          If you want to talk about hypocrisy, then here's some details [cnn.com] about when Sinclair Broadcasting tried to stop the broadcasting of Iraq fatalities because it was "unpatriotic" (the word used in the article). Compare it with today's story about Sinclair leveraging their stations to air the anti-Kerry piece to as many people as possible so close to the national elections. It's a little tougher to explain why that's not hypocritical, don't you think? They couldn't POSSIBLY be politically motivated right?
          =Smidge=

    • Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jimmyCarter ( 56088 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:19PM (#10506093) Journal
      Sinclair's using public airwaves. You have to pay to go out and see F9/11. BIG difference.
      • 1.) You have to watch the ads to see network television. You're paying for it.

        2.) Is political speech on network television illegal? I hadn't heard it.

        3.) You, the public, have leased your public airwaves to the networks through your duly elected representatives and their appointed officials. You forgot to include riders preventing partisan political speech when you did that, so you don't have much room to complain now.
        • You have to watch the ads to see network television. You're paying for it.

          Weak semantics..

          I am not implying that political speech on network television is illegal. I was merely refuting the point the parent had made asking the difference between F9/11 and Stolen Honor.

        • Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)

          by worm eater ( 697149 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:14PM (#10506764) Homepage
          Here's an explanation of why Sinclair should not be allowed to run this "news segment," in the words of former FCC chairman Reed Hundt (pulled from Talking Points Memo [talkingpointsmemo.com]):

          Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

          Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

          In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

          To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

          Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

          Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.
        • 1 is irrelevant, 2 and 3 are contrary to Equal Time laws.
      • I don't see how this is any different than Howard Stern ranting and raving every morning on his show about Bush and the FCC. Or Rush Limbaugh spewing his garbage every afternoon.

        They are absolutely public airwaves, and they ALL have the right to show/say whatever they want on them, and you have the right not to watch/listen

        • Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Television requires more bandwidth and traditionally has been encumbered with more restrictions than "speech" radio which has generally been more open. It's also considerably more expensive to operate an effective television station which means there's a relatively high entry cost to market.

          There is, as far as I'm aware, no move from the left to try to pull Limbaugh off the air through the law or political lobbying. Radio is open enough that the major restrictions imposed on TV do not really apply. Indeed

    • Re:Let me get this straight (Score:4, Informative)

      by manyoso ( 260664 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:20PM (#10506102) Homepage
      Yah, get *this* straight:

      F/911 was a film produced for cinemas. You know, the kind you have to actively seek out and pay for!

      Stolen Honor is an extended ad for the Swift Boat liars that all of the major networks ran away from. So, Sinclair, is using the public airwaves (which they don't own) to broadcast a nakedly partisan *smear* for the Bush campaign.

      The two are entirely different. If you can't see that, well, then you are an idiot.

      Again, you had to actively seek out and pay for F/911. OTHO, Sinclair is illegally making use of *public* airwaves to broadcast a Bush campaign smear.

      They should be sued by their shareholders for such a stupid move.

    • Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NickV ( 30252 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:22PM (#10506122)
      Wait a minute... Do you realize what you're comparing?

      You really honestly think Fahrenheit 911 being released in theaters where you have to pay between $6-$11 (nationally) to see it as the same as a normal television channel airing a "news item" with no commericials on PUBLIC AIRWAVES?

      Are you crazy? Are you blind? How are they at all the same.

      What IS hypocritical, is that the republicans shut down a movie about the Reagan family (The Reagans, supposed to air on CBS) because they felt it was unfair/politically motivated. AND IT WASN'T EVEN ABOUT A CURRENT CANDIDATE!!!!!

      You want to talk about hypocritical....
    • Okay, Fahrenheit 9/11 is worhtless. It's entertainment. Who is it that actually cares about it? I guess people who care about the election, which is just entertainment too. A fake documentary for fake liberals who care about conversative "power" that doesn't exist. Just like the fake responses from fake conservatives who care about a liberal "media bias" which doesn't exist.

    • Fahrenheit 911 is OK but this isn't?

      Cool! You mean some media conglomerate has ordered its affiliates to run Fahrenheit 9/11 a week before the election? When is it on?

      To clarify: Moore has said he'd like to have F-9/11 available for release before the election, perhaps on Pay-Per-View, but that's not the same as Sinclair ordering affiliates to run a program. No one is going to make me buy any of Moore's films, or pay to allow others to watch it, but the airwaves belong to all of us. When a television

    • Fahrenheit 911 is OK but this isn't? Doesn't that sound a little hypocritical?

      It's not hypocritical. People who see F9/11 are voluntarily paying $10 per movie ticket / $15+ per DVD to watch it. Plus, they have to make the decision to go out to the local cinema/video store to view/obtain it. Much more time-consuming that simply flipping on your television.

      There would only be hypocrisy if F9/11 was being broadcast for free on television. But that's not the case.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:15PM (#10506051)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • They deny it (Score:5, Informative)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:17PM (#10506072) Journal
    But on the other hand, they don't give an affirmative statement that the documentary is not intended to attack Kerry.

    Since they're basically slashdotted, this is on their front page:
    We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources.

    Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
    (202) 712-3000.

    if you would like to make further comments on this matter, you may do so at:
    comments@sbgi.net

    • Re:They deny it (Score:2, Insightful)

      by stinkyfingers ( 588428 )
      On "Good Morning America" - admittedly not the home of hard-hitting news - a Sinclair V.P. and a Democratic Senator squared off on this issue. I'm a Kerry supporter, and while the Democratic Senator listed some very good points, the Sinclair VP had some equally good points to the point where I was thinking to myself, why all the bluster from the Democratic Party.

      That is, until the Sinclair VP repeated the Republican party line saying that if Kerry can't sit down and face this group of Vietnam veterans, ho

    • Re:They deny it (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheGeneration ( 228855 )
      That is a lie, they were going to show the Documentry, and then after the 90 minute documentry have a "Q&A" session that lasted 30 minutes. John Kerry was invited to that in order for the Sinclair stations to be able to say they fulfilled their "equal time" requirements for political candidates.

  • Contact the Advertisers who support Sinclair (Score:5, Informative)

    by mokiejovis ( 540519 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:26PM (#10506171)
    ... and tell them you're not going to be buying their products as long as they support Sinclair. Hurt Sinclair where it really stings - in the wallet.

    List of Advertisers [boycottsbg.com]

    Furthermore, just in case you don't think your phone call will do anything, see a little morale-booster [dailykos.com] from Kos.

  • Remember, the standard for judging is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:29PM (#10506199) Journal
    Remember, the only logical standard for judging is "If the other side did the exact same thing, how would you feel?"

    If your are pro-Kerry, but it wouldn't bother you to see a hatchet job on Bush at the same time by the same basic people, then you really have no grounds to complain.

    Flip-side, if you are Pro-Bush, but would not want to see a hatchet job on Kerry at the same time, then you should not support this.

    Personally, since I sort of fall into the latter category (I'm not 100% for Bush, but Kerry has completely failed to convince me he is better in the ways I personally care about; this is disclosure, not a request to be "corrected", OK?), my personal opinion is that this is an inappropriate action to take, and I don't care what side does it. If it was run earlier, I don't think I'd care, and there have certainly been hatchet jobs on both sides meeting this criteria, but the closer you get to the election, the more important it is for large entities to shut the hell up and leave the final voting as a matter between the candidates and the voters.

  • POWs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by richie2000 ( 159732 ) <rickard.olsson@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:36PM (#10506300) Homepage Journal
    From the Stolen Honor website:

    When John Kerry appeared before the U. S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the spring of 1971, his testimony sent shock waves throughout America and the world. Here was a young, articulate Ivy-Leaguer, a highly decorated Naval officer who had seen combat in Vietnam. Now, driven by conscience and lofty ideals, Lt. Kerry said he felt compelled to break his silence and tell the unvarnished truth about the Vietnam War and those who fought it.

    ...

    That single act earned for Kerry the lasting enmity of Vietnam veterans, especially those who had borne the brunt of his accusations, that small percentage of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who actually served on the frontlines. Many of these combat veterans would carry the scars of their service for life. Kerry's repudiation of their sacrifice represented yet another war wound, one that would never heal.

    POWs like John McCain? Scarred veterans like Max Cleland? Maybe the veteran William Laws Calley? For shame!

    Maybe a drunk, AWOL frat boy high on coke and Air National Guard issue oxygen could help us set the record straight here? I hear he got kidnapped by Delta Kappa Phi once and forced to drink a whole keg of Bud, I guess that makes him not only a POW, but subject of cruel and unusual punishment as well. Talk about stolen honor...

    • Re:POWs? (Score:3, Informative)

      by b-baggins ( 610215 )
      Max Cleland blew himself up with a grenade on the way to get a beer at an air base. While tragic, it is disgusting that he has let people think he was wounded in combat.

      There were many more people in the Hanoi Hilton than John McCain, and many of them have repeatedly told stories of how the North Vietnamese played tapes of John Kerry's senate testimony to break their wills.

      You named three people. The vets putting this documentary together number over a hundred and many of them were POWs in the Hanoi Hilto

      • Re:POWs? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by richie2000 ( 159732 )
        Max Cleland blew himself up with a grenade on the way to get a beer at an air base. While tragic, it is disgusting that he has let people think he was wounded in combat.

        Let people think? I don't think he can force people to think, but this is what he's said himself:

        "On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper

  • Doesn't this violate the equal time rule? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:36PM (#10506301)
    http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e1/equaltime.asp

    a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires equal air time for all major candidates competing for political office. It was preceded by the fairness doctrine, abolished in 1987, which required radio and television broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial public issues.

  • Babylon 5 (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Man, I so hoped this was a news story about Babylon 5. :P

    Did anyone else read the headline and think the same thing?

    • Re:Babylon 5 (Score:2, Funny)

      by TVC15 ( 518429 )
      > Man, I so hoped this was a news story about Babylon 5. :P
      > Did anyone else read the headline and think the same thing?

      does anyone need further proof that the war on drugs is a failure? ;-)

  • A little dose of reality, here... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekwench ( 644364 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @02:54PM (#10506543)
    I've seen a few posts attacking Kerry for allegedly attempting to "curtail" and "deny" Sinclair Broadcasting Group Inc.'s freedom of speech. Let me just quote what the Bill of Rights [cornell.edu] has to say about that:
    • Amendment I
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    While the "freedom of the press" could possibly be stretched to cover the situation, it's still a pretty big stretch. Congress is not doing a ruddy thing to silence a large media group. A corporation. Businesses are not people, and should not be viewed as individuals. There is no proviso securing the unhampered freedom of speech for a business; it's a right guaranteed only to human beings.
    Now, if Kerry were to use his position as a senator to enact punitive bitch-slap legislation that was aimed at Sinclair, then yes; there's a clear violation. However, as it stands, what we have here is a media conglomerate throwing its corporate weight around to promote a particular political viewpoint. Period.

    So much for the "Liberal Media" meme.

    • Re:A little dose of reality, here... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by panda ( 10044 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:16PM (#10506815) Homepage Journal
      Err, there's one problem with your argument. That is that the law basically grants the rights of citizens and people to corporations, while shielding the investors (i.e. owners) from the actions of its officers.

      There are many who think that corporations should lose their rights as "citizens" and, failing that, that perhaps the "corporate veil" should be removed from the owners.

      Corporation: all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

      Oh, and of course, IANAL. ;)

    • Businesses are composed of human beings.

      Human beings have the right to free speech.

      Humans also have the constitutional right to free association.

      Therefore it follows that humans who have associated themselves have the same rights of free speech collectively that they do as individuals.

      Therefore they have the right to throw their corporate weight around to promote a particular political viewpoint. Period.

      The invention of the corporation as an individual entity (an idea which I am against) has little or
    • Newspapers aren't people, they're corporations. I guess the government shouldn't let them say what they want either. See, there are human being behind those corporations...

      I like this quote from one of the web pages [stopsinclair.org]:

      Do we support free speech?

      Absolutely. And free speech means expressing our outrage when a major corporation with a history of right-wing bias tries to change the outcome of an election by airing a slanted, inaccurate documentary.

      Sure, be outraged, but you can't do anything about it. T

    • Businesses are not people, and should not be viewed as individuals. There is no proviso securing the unhampered freedom of speech for a business; it's a right guaranteed only to human beings

      While I tend to agree with you that businesses should not be treated as people, the wording of the 1st Amendment does not protect the freedom of speech of people only. It merely says "the freedom of speech", which could apply to individuals or businesses.

      Of course, that disregards 200 years of court opinion which ha

  • Letter from former FCC chair re: Sinclair (Score:5, Informative)

    by revscat ( 35618 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:23PM (#10506922) Journal
    The following letter by Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC, was sent to Josh Micah Marshall [talkingpointsmemo.com], and eloquently explains the problem with what Sinclair is doing:
    Dear Josh:

    Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

    Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

    In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

    To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

    Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

    Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

    -- Reed Hundt

  • Excerpts from "Stolen Honor" (Score:4, Informative)

    by hal9000 ( 80652 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:34PM (#10507084) Homepage
    Excerpts from "Stolen Honor" [felbers.net], from the ever witty Adam Felber.

  • Indirection of Mediated Reality (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:38PM (#10507123) Homepage Journal

    read the names of US soldiers who had died in Iraq, saying the broadcast was politically motivated.

    Reading the names of the fallen used to be considered an act of honoring the memory of the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice.

    Honorable and truthful activities should be carried out regardless of whether some political faction or other thinks they can make hay from it.

    It's yet another symptom of our society where perception trumps substance. What matters is how something is perceived - not what it actually is.

    • Re:Indirection of Mediated Reality (Score:4, Insightful)

      by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:48PM (#10507234)
      Even when said name reading show was delayed until the evening of many election primaries? And not say... oh 3 weeks later on Memorial Day? The traditional day to honor the military veterans and those who gave their lives in war?

    • Reading the names of the fallen used to be considered an act of honoring the memory of the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice

      Not necessarily. If you read the names off under the implied heading "These are the men George W. Bush killed:" (which is what this is) then it is neither honorable nor an act of respect. It's a deceitful attempt to use their sacrifices to assert something (ie. the war in Iraq was "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time") that the soldiers, (let's be honest) i


      • We have a volunteer army. Every soldier in Iraq signed up of his or her own volition. They aren't children.

        I would say anyone old enough to decide to put themselves in the position of killing or being killed aren't children. At all.

        And they shouldn't be treated as such.

        Any laws on the books requiring an age of majority of 21, for example, but allow an age of 18 for this most responsible of all decisions, should be striken.

      • Grym,

        You're the guy who posts those old, outdated, essays on how liberal the media is. Well here is a prime example of what you, and your cut-and-past essay, got wrong.

        Broadcast TV:
        The Sinclair family owns 62 television stations throughout the United States. They are the largest holders of such media, and they are going to play an anti-Kerry movie that has already been debunked as a Republican propoganda piece full of lies. They have absolutely no intention of fulfilling the "equal time" requirement.

        N

        • You're the guy who posts those old, outdated, essays on how liberal the media is.

          Actually, the essay I posted was written this summer as a rebuttal to a video my class watched in my political science class at Virginia Tech. My e-mail is anprNOSPAMice2@vt.edu (remove NOSPAM). Feel free to e-mail me if you have any doubts. My essay and the information therein are neither old nor outdated.

          Well Grym, I'm sure you're saying to yourself: BUT that has nothing to do with the reporters!? Of course it does!

  • My log of phone calls to Sinclair advertisers (Score:5, Informative)

    by elwinc ( 663074 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:07PM (#10507472)
    advertiser list at
    http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx

    script:
    I'm an occasional customer at _ _ _ _. We usually go to the
    one in _ _ _. I'm calling because I see your company is an
    advertiser with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Hunt Valley, MD.

    I'm calling because I'm unhappy with something Sinclair is
    planning to do: pre-empt their regular shows to broadcast an
    anti- Kerry propaganda movie. SBC uses a public resource, the
    airwaves, and I feel they are abusing it by broadcasting this
    movie. As users of public FCC licensed spectrum, they have a
    responsibility to be fair.
    Broadcasting this propaganda is not fair.

    Appleby's
    left message at (913) 967-2718

    Circuit city:
    spoke to cust assist at 800-843-2489
    got bumped up to managment.

    Walmart: store in framingham
    spoke to cust assist at 800-925-6278. Asked for a callback

    Taco Bell: Cambridgeside;
    spoke to cust assist 800-822 6235 (800-tacobell)

    Subway: 800 888-4848
    long wait for cust assist. familiar with issue; only wanted town.

    Mattel: 800 524-TOYS, 888-909-9922, 888 628-8359 (888 MATTEL9)
    told me to dial Val Rogers, 310-252-wxyz, tell her
    consumer relations gave me her number. I did so; she asked
    for my number & promised to call back. Did so after 10 min;
    took my name & concern.

  • political pawns (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeif1k ( 809151 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:10PM (#10510441)
    I feel sorry for these guys, American kids that went through hell in Vietnam. But they have turned into angry old men without getting any wiser. Today, they are just letting themselves be used as political pawns. Rather than facing the fact that they were fighting in an purposeless war that the US lost and in which the US injured large numbers of innocent civilians, rather than facing that it was their own government that caused them all this pain and suffering, they want to cling to the illusion that there was nobility and purpose to this war.

    The sad thing is that Bush is far more likely to generate the next generation of hurt, confused, and angry veterans. Bush doesn't know first hand what happens to US soldiers in battle and he doesn't seem to care much either (except for photo ops). Kerry may have many flaws, and he may not have seen the worst of Vietnam when he was serving there, but he has actually seen some of the horrors of war and is far more likely to avoid getting US soldiers into trouble unnecessarily.

    • It's human nature. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by khasim ( 1285 )
      For many of them, Vietnam was the defining moment of their lives.

      But all the evidence that comes out shows how worthless their sacrifice was and how they were used by a government that lied to them.

      Some can see how they were used and grow beyond it.

      Some cannot and will attack anyone who says that it was a useless war. These are the ones that will be used again by the same government that lied to them last time.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be is to program.

Close