Incidentally, what was your position on Sinclair refusing to run Ted Koppel's Nightline when he read off the names of fallen soldiers in Iraq because they felt it was "anti-war"?

And no, "they're a private company, so it wasn't 'censorship'" won't cut it.

Yes it does "cut it." Fact is, Sinclair has the right to decide what to broadcast and what not to broadcast. The public has a right to watch or not watch, impacting Sinclair's ratings and ad revenue. ABC has a right to affiliate or not affiliate with Sinclair stations. Nobody censored ABC.

So, then, I'm assuming you have no complaints about liberal media bias?

It would be irresponsible to ignore that many of these POWs have been 'turned' by their Commie captors.

So, it'd be OK if CBS showed 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a week before election in prime time?

Is Hobbs gonna stop crying about "liberal media bias" now? Ever? Probably not. What a hack.

Kerry was invited to be a part of this deal, but he declined. He could have been involved, so if he and you want to whine about it, well, it's his own fault. Is BSR going to pretend that there isn't any liberal media bias? What a hack.

What about the credibility gap the "respected" journalist making the documentary about Sun Myung Moon, after being paid by Moon, and giving his representatives final edit and say?

How can you believe anything he produces?

Kerry was invited to be a part of this deal, but he declined. He could have been involved, so if he and you want to whine about it, well, it's his own fault.

Oh, goodie. What if I'm making a documentary that will be shown across 62 stations, in which people accuse you, Big Dog, of being complicit in pedophilia. You're invited to appear in a panel discussion afterwards. Deal?

media bias? The producer is a Pulitzer and Peabody winner, and has previous experience covering John Kerry's anti-war activities. The networks were offered the documentary and refused to run it.

Do you think they would refuse to run a piece critical of GWB? No. They'd even run it if it was based on forged documents.

Bias? Yes.

They'd even run it if it was based on forged documents.

Well, that's a distortion, Hobbs. 'Based' implies that the entirety of the report stood upon those memos. (As in, a 'base'.) Did Ben Barnes's account of how Bush found his way into the TXANG have any relationship to those memos? Please enlighten me of how Barnes's interview is based upon the Killian memos. Did he speak in the wrong font?

And don't say 'well, that's all hearsay', because any accounts of how POWs were personally affected by Kerry's activities after returning from Vietnam is even more tenuously so.

Sheesh. This is like shooting dead fish in a barrel.

Actually, Sinclair does not have the right to broadcast whatever they want to on the publicly owned bandwidth they are liscenced to use. As part of that liscence they are required to provide equal access for political advertising (which the Moonie produced anti-Kerry film clearly fits).

Funny how the same voices that were so outraged by the Reagan biography are now howling "censorship". Hypocrites...

Oh, goodie. What if I'm making a documentary that will be shown across 62 stations, in which people accuse you, Big Dog, of being complicit in pedophilia. You're invited to appear in a panel discussion afterwards. Deal?
First, this is something that John Kerry actually did, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. Second, Sinclair Broadcast Group has clarified exactly what this is:

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.

Again, if Kerry wanted to be there to defend himself, he could be. It's not just a snow job on him, it's a discussion on POWs in Vietnam, and considering Kerry's proclaimed support of POWs in recent years, one would think he'd be there for sure. I'd like to know what Kerry's hiding from.

I heard that CBS is running Fahrenheit the night before the election and after the show Bush has been invited to sit in a barrel in the studio while librul morons toss quoits at his head.

Fact is, Sinclair has the right to decide what to broadcast and what not to broadcast.

Not really. Sinclair is publicly traded company. Their job is to make money for their stockholders. Broadcasting shows that may incite boycotts of advertisers, attempts to pull your broadcasting license, etc. is not in the interest of your stockholders and subjects the company to possible suits. No competent management would choose that path.

"So, it'd be OK if CBS showed 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a week before election in prime time?
Posted by: Alan Shore at October 11, 2004 08:50 PM"

For your information, that load of crap IS going to be aired on TV and has been in the works for over a month. I have yet to hear one complaint about it, unlike the liberal whiners.

Dear Ahem:

For your information. Carlton Sherwood's claim that he is a Pulitzer and Peopody prize winner is not accurate.

Sherwood, the director of STOLEN HONOR was part of the team named as "Gannett News Service" which won the Pulitzer in 1980 for public service. So while "Pulitzer Prize winner" is technically accurate, it's misleading.

Sherwood's Peabody Award in 1982 was given to KOCO-TV in Oklahoma City. It was a cooperative team effort between print and broadcast reporters, so any portrayal of it as a single award is a bit misleading.

Why do conservatives try to pretend that Kerry is hiding from his protest against Vietnam? He mentioned this protest as a source of pride twice in the debates. And he should be proud, he helped in bring about the end to a misguided war that might have lasted another decade and 40,000 more American soldiers dead.
What these conservatives don't want to talk about is the, alternative Vietnam solution, that is implicit in claiming that Kerry and protesters like him are responsible for the loss of the ware and somehow dragging it on.

In fact this alternative mentioned by General Westmoreland in his essay "Vietnam in Perspective". He argues that though the he agrees the war was misguided an "overextension" of our forces we could have still won the war by bombing more civilian targets in Hanoi to supposedly bring North Vietnam to its knees. This is the same North Vietnam that had already lost 3 million lives in this war was still fighting. Westmoreland still argues that there was not support for North Vietnam in the South, which is patently false. Many in the South truly felt they were fighting for their liberation from the U.S. occupying force.
This view of the war has been thoroughly discredited and contradicted, but if the conservatives wish to argue about it than I wish they would come out and say all that they believe. That is, that we should have kept fighting this war, invading Hanoi if necessary, provoking China perhaps, hell we might still be there today. If that’s your side's thesis, then stop tiptoeing around about your real argument by just simply blaming Kerry and the protesters for this lousy war.
Kerry did a very brave thing, and if more people would actually watch his entire testimony, instead of just a few out of context sound bites, they would realize he was incredibly respectful of the soldiers both in the field POWs, and veterans.

While Nixon pretended that this was somehow a winnable war, a good war, people like Kerry stood up and stopped a conflict that would have just created more American and Vietnamese casualties with little strategic gain for our side. Kerry made a point in his testimony that soldiers should not be held culpable for the hell of war but that politicians and leaders should be held responsible for bad leadership and policy that result in the unnecessary loss of life and the senseless and misguided overextension of our military for non strategic or beneficial goals.

So if we want to have a discussion about the issues and the conservative's Vietnam's argument brought up in "Stolen Honor" then, well, I say, bring it on.