This is an archive, please visit for current posts.
PressThink: Ghost of Democracy in the Media Machine
Recent Entries
Like PressThink? More from the same pen:

Read about Jay Rosen's book, What Are Journalists For?

Excerpt from Chapter One of What Are Journalists For? "As Democracy Goes, So Goes the Press."

Essay in Columbia Journalism Review on the changing terms of authority in the press, brought on in part by the blog's individual--and interactive--style of journalism. It argues that, after Jayson Blair, authority is not the same at the New York Times, either.

"Web Users Open the Gates." My take on ten years of Internet journalism, at

Read: Q & As

Jay Rosen, interviewed about his work and ideas by journalist Richard Poynder

Achtung! Interview in German with a leading German newspaper about the future of newspapers and the Net.

Audio: Have a Listen

Listen to an audio interview with Jay Rosen conducted by journalist Christopher Lydon, October 2003. It's about the transformation of the journalism world by the Web.

Five years later, Chris Lydon interviews Jay Rosen again on "the transformation." (March 2008, 71 minutes.)

Interview with host Brooke Gladstone on NPR's "On the Media." (Dec. 2003) Listen here.

Presentation to the Berkman Center at Harvard University on open source journalism and NewAssignment.Net. Downloadable mp3, 70 minutes, with Q and A. Nov. 2006.

Video: Have A Look

Half hour video interview with Robert Mills of the American Microphone series. On blogging, journalism, NewAssignment.Net and distributed reporting.

Jay Rosen explains the Web's "ethic of the link" in this four-minute YouTube clip.

"The Web is people." Jay Rosen speaking on the origins of the World Wide Web. (2:38)

One hour video Q & A on why the press is "between business models" (June 2008)

Recommended by PressThink:

Town square for press critics, industry observers, and participants in the news machine: Romenesko, published by the Poynter Institute.

Town square for weblogs: InstaPundit from Glenn Reynolds, who is an original. Very busy. Very good. To the Right, but not in all things. A good place to find voices in diaolgue with each other and the news.

Town square for the online Left. The Daily Kos. Huge traffic. The comments section can be highly informative. One of the most successful communities on the Net.

Rants, links, blog news, and breaking wisdom from Jeff Jarvis, former editor, magazine launcher, TV critic, now a J-professor at CUNY. Always on top of new media things. Prolific, fast, frequently dead on, and a pal of mine.

Eschaton by Atrios (pen name of Duncan B;ack) is one of the most well established political weblogs, with big traffic and very active comment threads. Left-liberal.

Terry Teachout is a cultural critic coming from the Right at his weblog, About Last Night. Elegantly written and designed. Plus he has lots to say about art and culture today.

Dave Winer is the software wiz who wrote the program that created the modern weblog. He's also one of the best practicioners of the form. Scripting News is said to be the oldest living weblog. Read it over time and find out why it's one of the best.

If someone were to ask me, "what's the right way to do a weblog?" I would point them to Doc Searls, a tech writer and sage who has been doing it right for a long time.

Ed Cone writes one of the most useful weblogs by a journalist. He keeps track of the Internet's influence on politics, as well developments in his native North Carolina. Always on top of things.

Rebecca's Pocket by Rebecca Blood is a weblog by an exemplary practitioner of the form, who has also written some critically important essays on its history and development, and a handbook on how to blog.

Dan Gillmor used to be the tech columnist and blogger for the San Jose Mercury News. He now heads a center for citizen media. This is his blog about it.

A former senior editor at Pantheon, Tom Englehardt solicits and edits commentary pieces that he publishes in blog form at TomDispatches. High-quality political writing and cultural analysis.

Chris Nolan's Spot On is political writing at a high level from Nolan and her band of left-to-right contributors. Her notion of blogger as a "stand alone journalist" is a key concept; and Nolan is an exemplar of it.

Barista of Bloomfield Avenue is journalist Debbie Galant's nifty experiment in hyper-local blogging in several New Jersey towns. Hers is one to watch if there's to be a future for the weblog as news medium.

The Editor's Log, by John Robinson, is the only real life honest-to-goodness weblog by a newspaper's top editor. Robinson is the blogging boss of the Greensboro News-Record and he knows what he's doing.

Fishbowl DC is about the world of Washington journalism. Gossip, controversies, rituals, personalities-- and criticism. Good way to keep track of the press tribe in DC

PJ Net Today is written by Leonard Witt and colleagues. It's the weblog of the Public Journalisn Network (I am a founding member of that group) and it follows developments in citizen-centered journalism.

Here's Simon Waldman's blog. He's the Director of Digital Publishing for The Guardian in the UK, the world's most Web-savvy newspaper. What he says counts.

Novelist, columnist, NPR commentator, Iraq War vet, Colonel in the Army Reserve, with a PhD in literature. How many bloggers are there like that? One: Austin Bay.

Betsy Newmark's weblog she describes as "comments and Links from a history and civics teacher in Raleigh, NC." An intelligent and newsy guide to blogs on the Right side of the sphere. I go there to get links and comment, like the teacher said.

Rhetoric is language working to persuade. Professor Andrew Cline's Rhetorica shows what a good lens this is on politics and the press.

Davos Newbies is a "year-round Davos of the mind," written from London by Lance Knobel. He has a cosmopolitan sensibility and a sharp eye for things on the Web that are just... interesting. This is the hardest kind of weblog to do well. Knobel does it well.

Susan Crawford, a law professor, writes about democracy, technology, intellectual property and the law. She has an elegant weblog about those themes.

Kevin Roderick's LA Observed is everything a weblog about the local scene should be. And there's a lot to observe in Los Angeles.

Joe Gandelman's The Moderate Voice is by a political independent with an irrevant style and great journalistic instincts. A link-filled and consistently interesting group blog.

Ryan Sholin's Invisible Inkling is about the future of newspapers, online news and journalism education. He's the founder of and a self-taught Web developer and designer.

H20town by Lisa Williams is about the life and times of Watertown, Massachusetts, and it covers that town better than any local newspaper. Williams is funny, she has style, and she loves her town.

Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing at is a daily review of the best reporting and commentary on the presidency. Read it daily and you'll be extremely well informed.

Rebecca MacKinnon, former correspondent for CNN, has immersed herself in the world of new media and she's seen the light (great linker too.)

Micro Persuasion is Steve Rubel's weblog. It's about how blogs and participatory journalism are changing the business of persuasion. Rubel always has the latest study or article.

Susan Mernit's blog is "writing and news about digital media, ecommerce, social networks, blogs, search, online classifieds, publishing and pop culture from a consultant, writer, and sometime entrepeneur." Connected.

Group Blogs

CJR Daily is Columbia Journalism Review's weblog about the press and its problems, edited by Steve Lovelady, formerly of the Philadelpia Inquirer.

Lost Remote is a very newsy weblog about television and its future, founded by Cory Bergman, executive producer at KING-TV in Seattle. Truly on top of things, with many short posts a day that take an inside look at the industry.

Editors Weblog is from the World Editors Fourm, an international group of newspaper editors. It's about trends and challenges facing editors worldwide. keeps track of developments from the British side of the Atlantic. Very strong on online journalism.

Digests & Round-ups:

Memeorandum: Single best way I know of to keep track of both the news and the political blogosphere. Top news stories and posts that people are blogging about, automatically updated.

Daily Briefing: A categorized digest of press news from the Project on Excellence in Journalism.

Press Notes is a round-up of today's top press stories from the Society of Professional Journalists.

Richard Prince does a link-rich thrice-weekly digest called "Journalisms" (plural), sponsored by the Maynard Institute, which believes in pluralism in the press.

Newsblog is a daily digest from Online Journalism Review.

E-Media Tidbits from the Poynter Institute is group blog by some of the sharper writers about online journalism and publishing. A good way to keep up

Syndicate this site:

XML Summaries

XML Full Posts

October 9, 2004

John Kerry Should Accept Sinclair Broadcasting's Offer

"A final confrontation with the Right. Isn't that what the Right wants too? A chance, indeed, to clear the air about Vietnam, and a lot of other things. Will America watch? America will watch. And if he can't win that broadcast, he does not deserve to win the prize."

You have heard the news by now, from Elizabeth Jensen of the Los Angeles Times:

The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation’s homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.

“Stolen Honor” is made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam Veteran and former reporter for Gannett (where he shared in a Pulitzer Prize) and the Washington Times. Jensen calls the Sinclair plan “highly unusual,” and says it was “communicated to executives in recent days.” The plot turns with this bit:

The airing of “Stolen Honor” will be followed by a panel discussion, which Kerry will be asked to join, thus potentially satisfying fairness regulations, the sources said.

This part is crucial:

…although broadcast stations are required to provide equal time to major candidates in an election campaign, the Sinclair move may not run afoul of those provisions if Kerry or a representative is offered time to respond. Moreover, several sources said Sinclair had told them it planned to classify the program as news, where the rules don’t apply.

The sources Jensen had did not know much about this invitation to a “panel discussion” and the Kerry camp said no such invite came. But it’s critical to Sinclair’s strategy to make some public wave at fairness. The “news program” is that. You invite Kerry to his dismemberment, and then ask him if he wants to respond.

Of course he’s going to say no, and you can say publicly: we gave him a chance, he turned us down. That’s the thinking. (And sure enough, a Kerry spokesman, Chad Clanton, told the New York Times, “It’s hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing anything to help elect President Bush even if that means violating basic journalism standards.”) Now put aisde all preconceptions and consider it for a moment:

Kerry should accept.

If he takes the deal it sets up an historic broadcast. A final confrontation with the Right. Isn’t that what the Right wants too? A chance, indeed, to clear the air about Vietnam, and a lot of other things. Will America watch? America will watch. And if he can’t win that broadcast, he does not deserve to win the prize.

But the main reason he should take the deal is that his advisors are gonna say: are you nuts? And that’s the point: to create Kerry unbound. Alone with the camera. Let him prove himself right there and make the election about even more than it is now.

Take the deal and get someone really smart to negotiate it. The program must be live, and air unedited. Sinclair must use its own people on the panel— no hiring Britt Hume. No adding Bush to the panel. The closer to election day the better.

After Matter: Notes, reactions & links…

Los Angeles Times, Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film (Oct. 9).

The upcoming “Stolen Honor” will probably bring fresh attention to Sinclair. “I can’t think of a precedent of holding up programming to show a political documentary at a point where it would have the maximum effect on the vote,” said Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University’s journalism department.

And I still can’t.

New York Times, TV Group to Show Anti- Kerry Film on 62 Stations. (Oct. 11)

Back in April, when Sinclair was in the news for refusing to air Nightine’s “The Fallen,” The Center for American Progress (left, Net savvy) compiled this greatest hits package about Sinclair’s political and “other” activities. Here’s PressThink on The Fallen and Sinclair: Of course Ted Koppel Was Making a Political Statement. So What?.

I’m afraid I’m a little cynical about this one: Latest dispatch from the shooting war on MSM. Josh Marshall on the Mark Halperin “scandal.”

Halperin is the Poltical Director of ABC News. The man behind The Note. His crime was to say: it’s untruthful to “balance” what is a manifestly unbalanced case.

Now some of the word combinations in Halperin’s memo, lifted up, dragged across town, inserted into Holy Liberal Bias Theology and outfitted with scare language at either end, can be made to end up sounding like he’s saying… tilt Kerry or some such sublime thing.

Truth content in the charge: near absolute zero. But as a war-on-MSM tactic, it’s worth a shot. Maybe knock ABC down a little or get them to think twice. Fool some of the more rabid bloggers into making a big deal of it. Spook Halperin a bit. Marshall writes:

The most noteworthy thing I’ve seen in the right-wing response is that there seems to be little effort to deny or engage the question of whether the Bush campaign is being qualitatively more dishonest than the Kerry campaign. All the whining is focused on the fact that any news organization would have the temerity to try to distinguish between them.

Which gets us to a key irony of the conservative assault on the concept of journalistic objectivity and claims of media bias. Though they attack the very notion that journalistic objectivity is practiced by the mainstream (i.e., non-Fox) media, they are most often — and certainly in this case — its great beneficiaries.

Further PressThink Commentary on the Sinclair Challenge

Call it Commentary, Call it Editorial, Call it Programming, but Don’t Call it News. Sinclair Fires Jonathan Leiberman: By interfering from above (“you will interrupt your schedule, you will run this program, you will call it news…”), and by coloring the news to match the Right’s view of the world, Sinclair hopes to flush out employees who cannot get with its agenda. “All liberals leave” is the message. Leiberman is now Sinclair’s poster boy for it; and any publicity his firing gets is good. (PressThink, Oct. 19)

Sinclair Broadcast Group: What Are They Doing in the Middle of Our Election? “What Mark Hyman has been saying to the point of braying it is— let’s negotiate. John Kerry can keep Stolen Honor off the air by replacing it with himself. Sinclair has no other invitations out. So I say send Mike McCurry and Richard Holbrooke to Baltimore. They negotiate. Five minutes of film, 55 minutes of Kerry answering questions sounds about right to me…” (PressThink, Oct. 16)

Agnew with TV Stations: Sinclair Broadcasting Takes On John Kerry and The Liberal Media. “In a commercial empire it makes no sense to invite a storm like Stolen Honor. But imagine a firm built for that sort of storm. Is Sinclair Broadcasting a media company with a political interest, or a political interest that’s gotten hold of a media company and intends to use it? There are plenty of signs that a different animal is emerging.” (PressThink, Oct. 13)

Posted by Jay Rosen at October 9, 2004 11:17 PM   Print


Tuesday am....PressThink is being subject to a denial of service attack. As a result, this entry was wiped out. It was re-built from a cache but all comments are gone. I apologize to those who lost posts.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 12, 2004 10:02 AM | Permalink

Is there a station in my area that is affiliated with your group - Zip 29649, Greenwood,SC, equidistant from Greenville, SC, Columbia, SC, and Augusta, GA?

Posted by: Kathy Constant at October 12, 2004 12:27 PM | Permalink

INDC on Halperin.

Posted by: Tim at October 12, 2004 12:35 PM | Permalink

Carlton Sherwood and Bud Day: Stolen Honor and SBVT? (ht: Memeorandum)

Smearing the Swift Boat vets dishonors and degrades everyone who signs on with it.

Posted by: Tim at October 12, 2004 12:52 PM | Permalink

Kerry should accept an invitation to sit in on the post-mortem of his own character being assassinated? Why? Some sort of strategy thing? It's so stupid it might just work! On the other hand, it might just be so stupid that its just plain stupid, stupid, stupid. Given the principals and the likely venue, it will be little better than a shouting match. I would guess the film itself will be so chock full of lies and misrepresentations that Kerry, or the rest of the informed, wouldn't quite know where to begin. And once the stacked panel gets rolling, the whole thing will accelerate downhill. Kerry would have to try and keep above the fray, which wouldn't be hard, but the fray is going to be so damned loud, and the audience so rabidly opposed to Kerry, that no one will hear him.

The whole premise of accepting lends legitimacy to the smear. A lovely invitation to a panel discussion over the question of when or whether Kerry stopped beating his wife. To the extent that Kerry would rise above the offal and attempt to speak to broader issues regarding Viet Nam, the right will accuse him of not engaging the specific charges (maybe there is something to this after all). Of course, there is no real debate about Kerry's service. It would be nice to state this flatly and move on to real issues, but it is childish and dangerous to believe he'd be able to do so. The whole topic suggest a showdown between Kerry and the Right, and concludes that if Kerry can't win that showdown than he's not worthy of the prize. Since when did the Presidential Election become a contest between Jerry Springer guests?

I know there are a lot of people out there that want to re-fight the Viet Nam debate, but can we afford to have Kerry win that debate, but blow the election?

Posted by: Mark J. McPherson at October 12, 2004 1:21 PM | Permalink

I don't think Kerry should glorify Sinclair's attempted smear. Instead, his campaign and supporters should do what they can (it's already happening, of course) to expose Sinclair's obvious partisan bias, and pressure advertisers not to support Sinclair stations.

Sinclair is abusing its privilege of access to the air waves that we all, in theory, own. The company is also seriously blurring the line between news and propaganda, the way Fox has, and this can only make it more difficult for honest journalists and news organizations to do their jobs honestly.

This is a good opportunity for Kerry to expose the cozy arrangements between the Bush campaign and big media, too - the issue is, why do all these giant corporations (media, pharmaceuticals, energy, etc.) support Bush? What do they get in return? Bush is vulnerable in this area -- look at the multibillion contracts awarded to corporations in sweetheart deals in Iraq.

Posted by: pynchonoid at October 12, 2004 1:36 PM | Permalink

Sen. Kerry is going to have to decide for himself what the best response to this propaganda is.

However, if you want to prevent similar things from happening in the future, then you can either choose more government regulation of content (deciding what is "news" and what isn't, or what is "fair"), or you can choose to change the way we regulate broadcast telecommunications.

The real scandal of what Sinclair is doing is not the propaganda, but that so many people seem to readily accept government regulations that create a perceived need for regulation of free speech.

Posted by: Ernest Miller at October 12, 2004 2:08 PM | Permalink

All I can say is, Michael Mooron did it, so why can't anyone else. Free speech, or in Michael Mooron's case free lies...gee..he didn't pick a side did he.

Posted by: george's friend at October 12, 2004 2:09 PM | Permalink

Can you please send me a list of Sinclair stations? So, I know which not to patronize?
Thank You, Concerned citizen

Posted by: John Barker at October 12, 2004 2:33 PM | Permalink


Posted by: GARY ALZIEBLER at October 12, 2004 2:46 PM | Permalink

Michael Moore did it?

Michael Moore pre-empted regular programming to show Farenheit-911 on 62 television stations across the country? Man, I must have missed that.

It's the venue, stupid. It's the fact that people who tune in to watch re-runs of Golden Girls will get clobbered with 90 minutes of anti-Kerry propaganda.

Let us not forget that during the Super
Bowl, the liberal group Move-On tried to get an 30 second anti-Bush ad on the air and was rejected by (none other than) CBS. I didn't here these sudden champions of free speech say much then.

Do you really want to drop our standards completely and let the media become even more of a propagandistic free for all than is? Or do you really just want to silence all voices but your own?

I was against the Move-On ad, and I'm against this.

Posted by: James at October 12, 2004 3:05 PM | Permalink

Partial cache of lost comments. It will be rewritten with this new page at some point.

Stolen Honor
Going Upriver

TV/Movies/Music: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties

  • TV/Radio Stations
    (Change selection on left for other Industries in this Sector at

Freedom of the Air
Subcommittee on Communications
Special Subcommittee on Freedom of Communications
BCRA and the Hollywood Loophole
Film on Kerry blurs line between war documentary and ad
Kerry Iraq Documentary Weighs in on the Political Documentary
Political Processes and Television

Of Course Ted Koppel Was Making a Political Statement. So What?

When, under the heading "Republican Values," Atrios re-published accounts from the Baltimore Sun and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting on the 1996 arrest of Sinclair boss David D. Smith ("arrested in an undercover sting at Read and St. Paul streets, a downtown corner frequented by prostitutes, Baltimore police said yesterday...") Atrios was making a political statement.
From Political News Daily
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Team Seeks Election-Eve Pay-TV (Reuters) (10/9) - Millionaire filmmaker Michael Moore and the distributors behind quot;Fahrenheit 9/11" are in talks to bring his anti-Bush documentary to pay-per-view television on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, a source in Moore's camp said on Friday.
Halperin quotes two sources for his admonition that coverage should reflect the inequalities of the campaigns rather than the equality required by a "fairness bias" or objectivity standard (Drudge):Fineman's article doesn't make the case Halperin implies.

Halperin is correct to make this case:

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
This is the most interesting and troubling part of the memo:
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
That sounds defensive. Almost victimized. Like he wants Kerry to win.

Posted by: Tim at October 12, 2004 3:15 PM | Permalink


Indeed. It is the venue. But what created that venue? Our current regulatory structure for broadcast.

I'm not against spectrum regulation, it is obviously necessary, but we can regulate spectrum in different ways. Unfortunately, our current choices make things like Sinclair's decision more likely than not.

As for the Superbowl, CBS and Moveon, that is merely the inverse of Sinclair. In Sinclair's case they are airing something, in CBS's case, they declined to air something. The root cause of any problems with this is our current regulatory structure.

Posted by: Ernest Miller at October 12, 2004 3:20 PM | Permalink


Do you really want to drop our standards completely and let the media become even more of a propagandistic free for all than is? Or do you really just want to silence all voices but your own?

Do you think there should be a Fairness Doctrine law passed?

Would it make a difference if Sinclair Broadcast Group had an Ombudsman and/or there was a News Council?

Posted by: Tim at October 12, 2004 3:31 PM | Permalink

Senator John Kerry anti war demonstrations, contressional testimony, and meetings with the North Viatnamese should be aired. As far as I'm concerned, these actions caused the death of many American Military, which makes this man "Unfit to be President".

Posted by: Lawrence Mason at October 12, 2004 4:10 PM | Permalink

Kerry should decalre that George Bush is a total fraud. The Bush PR machine that does his bidding could care less about the system we call democracy. They bend, distort, and abort any semblance of fact and then some. They are neither fair nor balanced(in a psychological sense as well)nor do they champion the traditional values of of the nation. They exist only to create a candidate and preserve power. The unfortunate POW's were left in captivity by the Johnson & Nixon administrations and the Pentagon, not Kerry. If Kerry met with North Vietman's representatives it is it very different from Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam, or Ollie North passing off birthday cakes to the Khomeni. In the end this is only about diverting from the issues the George Bush cannot and will not answer for. To say that Kerry must be questioned by these, and as a former Marine this hurts, lap dogs is obsurd. Since Reagan's disdaine for equal airing of opposing points of view squashed the "FairnessDoctrine", we have paid a price in the convergence of the media ownership in the US. This ownership problem is easily solved however. When Kerry takes over he can put it back in place and wipe out 30 years of neoconcervative hyper advancement. This would be better than solving the so called Vietnam issue.

Posted by: John at October 12, 2004 4:12 PM | Permalink

"what is a manifestly unbalanced case" the list please...

So Mr. Marshall that was working with CBS memos(?) is a voice to air judgements of fairness?

Since Mr. Catullo thread seems to be closed to comments maybe because the DOS attack. The answer is no i cant get along a paternalistic vision of journalism, PC vision, western world guilt etc.

Posted by: lucklucky at October 12, 2004 5:02 PM | Permalink


"it is it very different from Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam"

Yes very diferent Saddam wasnt hostile to USA at time, and didnt yet invaded an US ally either. Is Roosevelt criticised for Land Lease to the Soviets? lend lease was a giant project and Staline was worst than Saddam, by a magnitude.

And restrictions to dual-use (USA didnt sold weapons to Saddam exept some liasion helicopters) sell of goods for Iraq started after Rumsfeld visit not before: 1984, 1987 and 1989 increasing restrictions.

Think before you write...

Posted by: lucklucky at October 12, 2004 5:13 PM | Permalink

Can i say that a solitary news of a bomb exploding in Iraq " is a manifestly unbalanced case" compared to this collection that also is happening in Iraq:

Or manifestly unbalanced just doesnt applies to this cases?

Posted by: lucklucky at October 12, 2004 5:28 PM | Permalink

I am watching Mr. Hyman,on FOX talking about the Kerry issue, HOPEFULLY movie to be aired on PUBLIC TV Stations... 6:35pm EST, Tuesday 10/12/04...

I am currently reading UNFIT FOR COMMAND. I am amazed that Kerry has succeeded in glorifying himself while being and acting disgraceful. I just saw the clip of Kerry's Advisor, Mr Clinton, just threaten that Sinclair Broadcasting better hope they(Kerry camp) doesn't win... or they might be sorry. I'd like to ask this.... WHO DO THESE KERRY PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE? I am tired of the liberal press catering to Kerry and all of his garbage. These Kerry and Dem supporters are obviously running scared and getting more desperate by the moment.

I believe the Swiftboaters have a right to tell what they know of Kerry's Viet Nam experience and antics!
Bakersfield, CA

Posted by: Jannet at October 12, 2004 6:31 PM | Permalink

Not only have I signed the petition (below) against Sinclair Broadcasting airing their flimsy excuse for "news", but I have forwarded that on to many, many friends, family, colleagues and associates. I see that thus far, there are already close to 30,000 people that have signed that, and each one of those people represent advertising dollars, am I correct? I also see that there is now an official boycott of all of Sinclair's stations nationwide. Great move on behalf of the CEO, Mr. David Deniston Smith, and his entire organization. They have clearly learned a thing or two from their pal, George Bush, on how to run a company into the ground.

So, let me get this straight... they could not broadcast the Reagans on CBS as originally decided by Viacom, and had to move it to Showtime after protests by the Republican party and a threatened boycott over its portrayal of the Reagan family. BUT, Sinclair Broadcasting can blatantly promote and biased anti-Kerry "documentary" only 10 days before a Presidential election, not allowing Senator Kerry ample time to respond?

I called Sinclair's Corporate Comments line in Baltimore (410-568-1780), and heard their ridiculous message. They are actually pretending not to have shot any footage or even know the forum of the program as of today. They think that the American public is unaware that it takes months to do interviews, and put together the ideas for a show. Are they really asking that we call Kerry to urge him to participate in this "documentary"? That takes you-know-whats of steel. The very idea would be hysterical, if it wasn't so tragically sad.

Worse than that, they are again taking the focus off of the war that is being fought TODAY - with our men and woman as well as Iraqi civilians and our few remaining allies losing their lives EVERY DAY to dredge up conjecture and ancient history from Viet Nam. Kerry was NOT the bad guy. Stop it! This is childish, and real people are REALLY DYING today. Many more people are going to die tomorrow, and the next day, unless we get a grip and truly focus on what is important. Why does that allude Sinclair Broadcasting? What do they stand to gain by airing dated opinion instead of returning to what is here in front of all of us?

Michael Moore ran his movie to paying audiences months and months before the election, allowing both parties time to respond. He didn't air it on TV, nor did he do it so close to the election. If it was Kerry or his supporters that wanted to run a smarmy tactical "documentary" like Sinclair wants to do right now, do you really think he'd be allowed? Better question - do you really think that he would sink as low as Sinclair has to even attempt to do it? This is yet again one of the reasons that I have so proudly come to support Senator Kerry - because I KNOW he stands above the sleaziness of the current administration, and their top supporters, Sinclair included. You should really be ashamed.

This is out and out corruption and misuse of the airwaves to gain political advantage for a candidate. This is UN-AMERICAN, and even if Sinclair so obviously supports Bush, (which, if they had any decency left, they'd try not to make that point so clear at every turn), they are only succeeding to outrage the markets their advertisers so desire to make money off of. Their bullying ideas that they can do whatever they want to do without consequences is ultimately what is going to cost George W. Bush this election. And, with every trick that they and their comrades pull, I grow increasingly impatient for that day.

We in the US have no better than the media in all of the other countries that we so haughtily sniff at because we have such a great free press. Please pardon my language, but BULLSH*T!

It is not lost on the American public that for the 2004 election, Sinclair executives have donated nearly $59,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign or the Republican National Committee (RNC), including a $50,000 gift to the RNC from Sinclair Vice President Fred Smith.

By the way, Mr. Smith and a prostitute were charged with committing "an unnatural and perverted sex act" in 1996. He has some impeccable judgment, wouldn't you say?

In just one dathe SBGI (Sinclair's) stock is down 1.22%. It will be very interesting to see just how much farther they have to fall before they change their highly unethical practices.

Simply disgusting.

Posted by: Laura at October 12, 2004 7:44 PM | Permalink

I'm anxious to watch this program!! Please tell me where it will be aired in Pennsylvania...
Zip code 17365

Posted by: Irenee Langstaff at October 12, 2004 8:02 PM | Permalink

I was a little concerned about this movie, but I found out today that, in my area, it's on a channel that I have rarely watched in the past, and now I'm sure I will never watch that channel in the future, ever.

Posted by: Diane at October 12, 2004 9:07 PM | Permalink

This show sounds perfectly acceptable to me. It's factual, I understand (hint: Listen up, Dan Rather!) You report. We'll decide! Thanks Sinclair!

Posted by: Sue Sherrill at October 12, 2004 10:04 PM | Permalink

Kerry will answer for what he has done. The rest of you are just second rate accessories after the fact.

Kerry is not qualified to be president of the United States.

Posted by: Todd at October 12, 2004 10:29 PM | Permalink

in reading john's and other comments supporting kerry I realize they have absolutly no concept of the problem.

the upcoming sinclair broadcast has little to do with the campaign and more about kerry's actions at a certain point in time.some say this broadcast is a smear of kerry but in fact this film is based on the truth. kerry's actions are in fact recorded on film and paper.

there is an old saying that actions speak louder than words. could it be that kerry is worried that persons who watch this upcoming film may be swayed to chose to vote against kerry?

kerry has been at odds with the swift boat vets over the adds and the o'neil book,which i have read,but has refused to sign his 180. officially releasing his records would go a long way in refuting the swifty's claims. he refuses to so one would come to the conclusion that the swifty's may have a case.

anyway,the whole case boils down to the fact that kerry's actions caused harm to the p o w's and according to some the war protests encouraged the north vietnames to continue the war.also veterans where treated like trash when they returned home. in fact, some suggested that military personal not wear their uniforms off base at some posts because the were reviled by some civilians and they could be attacked while off base

i was in the army during the war so i should know

Posted by: ronald dudley at October 12, 2004 11:18 PM | Permalink

Why is no one pointing out that jadoo, owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group, received a military contract and the CEO contributes to the Bush/Cheney campaign?

Posted by: Alli at October 12, 2004 11:25 PM | Permalink

When someone complains about Sinclair Broadcasting saying critical things about Kerry, remember Mooore and Rather, among others.

Posted by: matt marciniec at October 12, 2004 11:34 PM | Permalink

Please tell us what station or stations the program will be broadcast on. Thanks

Posted by: Lloyd Davis at October 13, 2004 12:20 AM | Permalink

Sinclair Broadcast Group Station Listings

Posted by: Tim at October 13, 2004 12:23 AM | Permalink

When did this site become the official swift vote Republicans for disinformation organizing homepage? Did I miss that post?

Kerry killed POWs? Couldn't have anything to do with the war crimes actually committed. Isn't it going to take physical violence to snap these idiots back to reality?

Damn the war crimes, full patriotism ahead! American war crimes=justice. Stopping war crimes equals treason. That's the idiotic logic.

Enforcing the Geneva Convention is unforgivable if it might endanger American lives. Very impressive ethics and even better demonstration of logic.

What will we tell the children? Republicans condone war crimes and despise justice. That's the only message we can draw.

Republican revisionists unite! You have nothing to lose but the honor of yourself, your country, and your soul.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at October 13, 2004 2:00 AM | Permalink

Republicans with a conscience see Nick Turse,
Tip of the Iceberg and then say you're sorry.

Pentagon documents establish that THE PENTAGON

Posted by: Ben Franklin at October 13, 2004 2:09 AM | Permalink

Number of Americans in the military during the Vietnam war...............8,744,000
Number of Americans who served in Vietnam........................................2,700,000
Average age of U.S. combat personnel in Vietnam.............................................19
Number of women military personnel who served during Vietnam era.....193,000
Number of women killed in action in Vietnam.................................................8
Number of U.S. servicemen killed in combat in Vietnam.............................47,072
Number of U.S. officers killed in combat........................................................5,741
Number of U.S. enlisted men killed in combat..............................................41,331
Number of U.S. servicemen killed outside of combat in Vietnam..................10,449
Number of U.S. servicemen wounded in Vietnam........................................313,616
Number classified as seriously wounded....................................................153,300
Percentage of those seriously wounded who were saved................................. 82%
Percentage of wounded who died after arriving at hospital............................ 2.6%
Number of servicemen who lost at least one limb.......................................10,000
Number of U.S. servicemen killed in Laos and Cambodia................................. 81
Number of South Vietnamese military personnel killed during war......... 220,357
Number of South Vietnamese military personnel wounded.......................499,000
Estimated number of North Vietnamese military and Viet Cong KIA......444,000
Estimated number of Vietnamese civilians killed in war...........................587,000
Estimated number of Vietnamese civilians wounded in war......................935,000

Posted by: John at October 13, 2004 2:30 AM | Permalink

At least this, if anything, makes transparent the cries of 'bias' on the part of the media from Conservatives in this country. It's not the partisanship they dislike, it's that the partisanship is liberal rather than conservative.

Posted by: Epitome at October 13, 2004 2:41 AM | Permalink


Posted by: JOYCE SNYDER at October 13, 2004 2:57 AM | Permalink

Kerry could have ended all this stuff long ago by signing the Form 180 like Bush has done. What is he afraid of???????the truth....maybe?

Posted by: Randy at October 13, 2004 5:15 AM | Permalink

This show should be banned. What about BUSH's real record like running like a pussy from the war. Every other poor & middle class boys, had to go serve for their country and die. We need to stop this BUSH BULLSHIT LIES OF KERRY. If BUSH is so good let's see your records of DUI's abortions you hided, your drug charges, these are FACTS. YOU FAKE ASSHOLE!
GO KERRY 2004!!!!

Posted by: DJ GELO at October 13, 2004 7:09 AM | Permalink

I can't wait to see the broadcast!!!!! It is about time we had some fairness on the television. Kerry does not have the morals or military honor to be caommander and chief! God bless America and God Bless President Bush!

Posted by: Karen at October 13, 2004 8:23 AM | Permalink

i am in the 53185 zip code area and we have satelite tv...where are you???

Posted by: cristina wolf at October 13, 2004 9:18 AM | Permalink

I will join those who will boycott your station and the companies that advertise with you. I think your tactics are unprofessional. Michael Moore's campaign against the Bush administration wasn't aired on TV and it was also aired months before the election. Besides that good for Kerry if he did speak out against Vietnam. I support or brave americans that serve in our military, but it doesn't mean I agree with what we have done in the past or what we are currently doing when it comes to war. I can't believe people actually believe and support the Bush administration. He lied about weapons of mass destruction which was his reasoning for going into Iraq to begin with. He used 911 and people shock and fear to justify his lie. Wake up people you were played. He still has not gotten Bin Laiden who was behind the 911 attack on this country, not Saddam. Yes I agree Saddam was not a good person, but their are many other bad leaders out there that are just as scary and threatening as he was and we haven't attacked those countries. So why did we attack Iraq when there were other countries that were actually working on nuclear weapons? Hmmm oil, Enron, Haliburton, whose your mama. I can't believe people can't see this. Saddam was under a microscope by the UN and was not able to do anything. It would have been much cheaper in lives lost and money wrongly spent to just keep him under a microscope. How much would it have cost to keep a team of 20 - 50 inspectors in Iraq to keep a pulse on Saddam, not much. The truth is that we shouldn't be in Iraq. We should have been working with the rest of the world to try and work out a pieceful solution, after all we are suppose to be a world leader and a highly educated society. We should learn from our past mistakes, vietnam for one. War solves nothing. It is like getting in a fist fight with your neighbor. It takes a stronger man and a stronger country to resovle things without fighting, something I learned from my folks. I guess the senior Bush's didn't have the same view when raising there son. Instead of going after Saddam we should have found Bin Laiden, but we didn't and he is still out there. I don't feel safer, actually I feel more threatened then I ever have thanks to Mr. Bush and where he has lead this country. He has created so many crazy factions that want to hurt the US and the people that live here because of the actions he's taken in Iraq. No I don't feel safer. Not to mention we have lost respect around the world. Many countries use to look up to our great country, I don't think that is true anymore.

Instead of attacking Iraq we should have spent the 100's of billions of dollars creating new technologies to make our intel, airlines, shipping, and borders safer. We could have created many jobs by giving grants to small business's, etc. to work on creating these technologies. Our economy could sure use it. We could have worked with our neighbors to make sure that these terrosist could not enter our countries through a combined effort. There is strength in numbers. If they can't get here they can't hurt us. The sad thing is is that Mr. Bush still can't admit he was wrong and made a mistake. He says he would do it all again the same way. Now that is sad and the scary thing is he is running this country. I would vote for Mr. Ed before I would vote for Mr. Bush.

I hope that Sinclair Broadcasting and all of its advertisers our greatly hurt by there decision to air this anti-Kerry campaign.

I think the next petition that needs to be put together is to have Mr. Bush brought up on war crimes. He attacked a country that was clearly no real threat to this country at the time he attacked them. So ask yourself this question, should other countries attack us because we might attack them because our president thinks they could possibly someday attack us in the future. This world would be chaos if we had more leaders that had the intellect of Mr. Bush.

Posted by: Scott Winkler at October 13, 2004 9:21 AM | Permalink

Sorry it is early.

Peaceful solution not pieceful.

Posted by: Scott Winkler at October 13, 2004 9:32 AM | Permalink


Posted by: gtyhrt at October 13, 2004 9:53 AM | Permalink

John Kerry doesn't owe Sinclair Broadcasting a thing. I do believe it would serve him well to make a statement to those vets that feel completely betrayed by him. Their feelings, although misplaced in this revenge, are legitimate (sp?).

What Sinclair is doing is wrong. I guess it isn't illegal, but it should be.

Posted by: Politopics at October 13, 2004 10:27 AM | Permalink

Kerry and his Dems are completely out of touch with reality when they can protest the airing of this piece after the worldwide viewing of Mr. Moore's self proclaimed masterpiece. Where is the fairness there?? Is it because people had to pay to see it? Bullshit I say!!!!!

Posted by: Steve at October 13, 2004 10:59 AM | Permalink

Reading the insults being bandied about regarding the age or childishness of certain posters on this site, I have to say... Mr. Toran - I have been reading your posts and can barely find a cohesive, lucid thought throughout your babbling.
I will not waste the reader's time here by simply restating what has been put forth by more eloquent writers than I - but I would like to add that even if Sinclair had a station in my market (Which it does not), I might ask a republican friend to tape the broadcast for me so I could watch it. I am sure that the substance would not sway me to change my vote, however, I want to know what was shown. This is so I could discuss the content with those having opposing views. When Faranheit 911 came out, not one of my republican friends went to see the movie, and their argument was that they couldn't waste their time on lies and dribble. What were they afraid of? I believe it was because if they had seen it, they would have to discuss the allegations and would be obligated to try to defend their president. Deep in their hearts, they know that it is impossible to make "silk from a sow's ear".
I post this on the internets for all to see.

Posted by: Liz at October 13, 2004 11:46 AM | Permalink

Dear Mr. Hyman, will it show where John Kerry's followers "throw away" their dog tags/medals onto a pile??? If Kerry, himself, threw his own away..what does it say about him???? If Kerry didn't throw his own away...where are they??? I'd like to SEE them...'cause alot of men and women who sacrificed for this country throwing away their tags, have not much to show for now except their memmories and how it used to be with Kerry rallying them. Where is Kerry for them now???

A bit OFF the subject...what's this....Bush is paying some 33% in taxes and Kerry some 12%??? Heard that on the TV!!!!! Why is there no discussion about that??? Kerry "seems" polished...looks are deceiving. Bush has OUR country's fellow men and women on as his agenda and how best to SERVE and PROTECT us!!!!

Nothing against lawyers, i have one myself, but it's obvious when asked a question how Kerry "mumbo jumbo's" for 15 minutes without a substantial/decisive comforting answer for the watching audience. Oh, yes, I forgot his answer...he's got a plan. Waking up in the morning I've got 20 plans....maybe 2 will work out for the day...the rest went to the garbage, were thrown out, changed or couldn't be worked out!!!!!! Is THAT Kerry's plan too?????

RUN the documentary, please...hoping to see what has already been shown about him...just a BROADER audience. If Kerry's running scared from THIS documentary...he run scared from "real" world problems and terrorists too. Who knows, Kerry, as President, might be the first one to hide leaving us to fend off the terrorist ourselves!!! Proud to live in Pennsylvania or anywhere else in this great country. Plus, i'm not afraid to get emails or con my own opinions. God bless you all!!!!!!!!

Posted by: stefania fodor at October 13, 2004 11:50 AM | Permalink

Sinclair Broadcast Group Media markets (dKosopedia)

Posted by: Tim at October 13, 2004 12:22 PM | Permalink

Instead of boycotting them, people should be lobbying them to show 'Going Up River' the day before or after the airing of 'Stolen Honor' if they refuse, then boycott them.

Also, remember the rah rah support for the forced airing of this documentary next time they try to pull the 'liberal media bias' card. They have no ground to stand on anymore.

Posted by: Epitome at October 13, 2004 1:11 PM | Permalink

Michael Moore did his bit. I didn't hear any democrats try to hush him. What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

The democrats are running scared. They don't want the truth be known about Kerry.
Furthermore,if the democrats truly believed in Kerry they would not care about program being aired.

I say Americans deserve the right to know all there is to know about a man who might run our Country.

Are the democrats afraid to admit they represent a man who participated in anti war demonstrations, his contressional testimony, and meetings with the North Viatnamese.

The fact that his actions quite possibly caused the death of many American Military makes this man "Unfit to be President".

Posted by: J bryant at October 13, 2004 2:46 PM | Permalink

J bryant,
As soon as an owner of 25% of the nation's TV stations forces all of their affiliates to broadcast Farenheit 9/11 days before the election for free, you will have a point. Until then, sorry, you don't.

Posted by: Ben Franklin at October 13, 2004 3:46 PM | Permalink

Here goes the second try. Let's see if Orwell gets this missive too...

Respectfully, Jay, you are wrong. As an advocate for improving public life, you should recognize that no good comes from legitimizing baseless allegations. And it is probably bad campaign advice too.

So, to reply or not to reply, that is the question. Or is it?

Kerry should reframe the debate. Rather than giving them the PR benefit of a denial, he should reframe the issue. Kerry should challenge Sinclair to submit the program for a review by a panel of esteemed journalists. If it passes, we'll participate. If it fails, you'll agree not to air the program.

Now, Sinclair is in the position of having to reject a reasonable proposal and Kerry is off the hook.

Posted by: Michael Weiksner at October 13, 2004 3:59 PM | Permalink

Michael Weiksner

Kerry should challenge Sinclair to submit the program for a review by a panel of esteemed journalists.

Why journalists? Why are they the experts, or authorized knowers, on Kerry's activities 30 years ago? What gives them the high bench, robes and white wigs? Especially to sit in judgement of film by POWs, decorated combat veterans and another award winning journalist and producer of the documentary?

Posted by: Tim at October 13, 2004 4:28 PM | Permalink

I would just like to comment on the Democratic Party now trying to get in office and the past Clinton administration. President Bush was handed a lot of garbage when he came into office. First of all what was done when the World Trade Centers were bombed the first time ???????? Nothing !!!!!!!! What was done when they bombed the USS Cole ???? Nothing !!!!!! The US Embessays ??????? Nothing !!!! Well he got a Monica !!!!!! Any other President would have been thrown out !! Remember Nixon ??? All he did was listen to what the Democrats were up to !!!! Nixon didn't do anything to the American people, or discrase the White House !!! Kerry will follow in Clintons footsteps when it comes to protecting the American people, what we need is a leader who will stand up to these terrorists, and between the two it's Bush !! I will fear the next 4 years if Kerry gets in, and also if Michael Moore was such a compassionate person, i think he would have given any profits to the children and widows of the World Trade Tower, Pentagon, and the people on the flights that were killed. He is also going to air his movie on pay per view the week of the election, just looking to make a little more off the people who lost loved ones !!!!!! We as a Nation have to stand together to beat these terrorists, remember United We Stand Divided We Fall. Too many people are against the war, or protecting out Great Country, but we did not get this freedom by sitting back and watching !!!!! I have a friend who reinlisted at age 49, has 5 children, after spending 12 years in the navy, he backs the President so much that he joined the Army Infentry so he goes to Iraq, he is leaving for a 2 year tour right before Thanksgiving, he is the kind of person who helped make this country what it is. But they bought this upon themselves comming to our country, and killing innocent people.

Posted by: steve fodor at October 13, 2004 6:05 PM | Permalink

As for steve foders comments.....ditto
God Bless America and God Bless George Bush

Posted by: jj at October 13, 2004 10:20 PM | Permalink

Steve wrote:
"I have a friend who reinlisted at age 49, has 5 children, after spending 12 years in the navy, he backs the President so much that he joined the Army Infentry so he goes to Iraq, he is leaving for a 2 year tour right before Thanksgiving,. . ."

I'm sorry Steve . . . no one is sent initially to Iraq for two years . . . NO ONE. And I find it hard to accept that the Army will/would accept a 49 year old as a new private and send him off to boot camp . . . NOT DONE. There is a maximum age limit . . . maybe you meant 29.

Posted by: Ken at October 14, 2004 12:43 AM | Permalink


To reply to your question (Why journalists?):

Who do you propose should judge whether a particular program qualifies for the "news" loophole? The media owners? What test do you suggest to determine, credibly whether a program is or isn't news?

- Mike

Posted by: Michael Weiksner at October 14, 2004 11:09 AM | Permalink

Steve Fodor response:

Your imaginary friend doesn't exist. See Ken's post for info.

Dick Cheney was told on many many occasions that Osama Bin Ladin was going to attack the US on our soil with commercial jets. This intelligence came directly from the Clinton administration labeled as the most urgent security issue that the Bush administration would be walking into. I'm sure he shared this info with the pres. Richard Clark repeatedly urged Dick Cheney to act on this information, and was eventually told by Dick Cheney himself not to bring it up again. DO NOT BRING THIS UP AGAIN? THIS WAS THE NUMBER ONE COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT WE HAD TELLING DICK CHENEY THAT AL QUAEDA AND OSAMA WERE THE BIGGEST THREAT WE FACE, AND DICK TOLD HIM TO SHUT UP SO WE COULD PURSUE OUR CRUSADE AGAINST SADAAM.. A MAN WHO HAD NOT BEEN DANGEROUS TO US FOR 10 YEARS.

Posted by: chris at October 14, 2004 12:10 PM | Permalink

... and another thing. The Catholic Church is telling its members that a vote for Kerry is a sin. This legally revokes their tax exempt status. A Religious organization is granted tax exempt status so long as it does not become involved in politics in any way. Since the Catholic church is one of the richest entities anywhere, this new tax revenue should be collected immediately.. it would go a long way towards funding John Kerry's great ideas for the future of this country.

Posted by: chris at October 14, 2004 12:14 PM | Permalink

FYI - the Switf Boat Vets for Truth is made up of many of the same vets PAID FOR THEIR SCRIPTED TESTIMONY AGAINST JOHN MC CAIN!!! These are the same guys who came out against John Mc Cain when he was up against Bush. They said that he sold secrets to the enemy to get out of the Hanoi Hilton. They said that he raped a Vietnamese woman and fathered a bastard child as a result. They made up stories to discredit this former POW to minimize the impact of his war heroism. W is a coward who avoided military service in Viet Nam. The men of the SBVFT are nothing more than testimony for hire. They attacked Max Cleland. They attacked John Mc Cain. They attacked John Kerry. Hell, if I pay them, they'll attack you.

While it's true that returning vets from Nam were greeted with hostility and blame for the war rather than being welcomed home the way they should have been, John Kerry has been very clear that America needs to "Never confuse the warrior with the war". He points out that soldiers do not make policy. He will give his full support to our troops on the ground. In fact, he'll do something that W couldn't. He'll give the soldiers hope. He'll be honest with them, and he'll let them know that HELP IS ON THE WAY.

What Sinclair is doing is exactly equal to Nazi Propaganda of the past. They are scripting fiction to buy votes. Don't be fooled.

Posted by: Tim at October 14, 2004 12:18 PM | Permalink

j bryant is an ignorant dipshit.

"his actions quite possibly caused the death of many American Military"?

Supposing that Kerry's anti-war stance and statements caused the deaths of many American Military is a stretch. Actually his participation led to an earlier end to the combat than would have been the case otherwise. So he actually SAVED the lives of American Military.

What is much less a stretch is that George W is personally responsible for all of the 1000 plus American lives lost in Iraq, and is also directly responsible for all future acts of terror against the USA that are inspired by the current situation in Iraq, the crimes at Abu Graib, etc. Every time a contractor is beheaded in Falujah, W may as well have slit the throat himself. Every time a car bomb takes out an American soldier, W may as well have lit the fuse. The fact is, as confirmed by every report, commission, and finding to date, that there were no weapons, there were no plans to make weapons, there was no connection between Iraq and 911, and that Iraq was not a major source of anti American training at all. W has personally created a dangerous environment where there wasn't one.

Posted by: chris at October 14, 2004 12:35 PM | Permalink


Who do you propose should judge whether a particular program qualifies for the "news" loophole? The media owners? What test do you suggest to determine, credibly whether a program is or isn't news?

I would want something like a news council. Certainly journalists can be on the council, but not the majority. Media owners? Sure they can be on the council. POWs and Vietnam vets as well. Historians too. Susie the checkout girl or Ed the Wal-Mart greeter if we can.

Everyone should be able to sit in judgment of your "esteemed" journalists and come to a consensus if it is newsworthy, fair, and accurate.

Don't you think so?

Posted by: Tim at October 14, 2004 12:46 PM | Permalink


FYI - the Switf Boat Vets for Truth is made up of many of the same vets PAID FOR THEIR SCRIPTED TESTIMONY AGAINST JOHN MC CAIN!!!

You got a link for that? Any of it?

Posted by: Tim at October 14, 2004 1:03 PM | Permalink

I just interviewed a well-known crisis management guru on this very subject. His advice is to get your story out, with you telling it. If Kerry can't handle telling his own story, why would I trust him to run the country? He was there, he lived it, he can set his own record straight. Why wouldn't he do it?

Posted by: Kate at October 14, 2004 4:37 PM | Permalink

This whole smear is nothing more than a transparent attempt to divert attention away from the Deserter-in-Chief failed leadership, wasting valuable campaign energy on a matter history has long since judged in Kerry's favor. For Sinclair's part, an example of the seamiest of corporate corruption, trying to jocky for a favorable Bush FCC ruling later that will allow it to control two stations per city instead of one. I hope Kerry gives the whole matter what it deserves, nothing. IMHO

Posted by: Krineina at October 14, 2004 9:11 PM | Permalink

I just watched the three previews of the "Stolen Honor" "documentary" (really more a slick dis-infommercial).

It's a huge stretch for those POWs and their wives to connect John Kerry's anti-war activities to a prolonged war or even their deaths. It's like blaming Bush for beheadings. The 'enemy' is responsible for these acts of violence; the Viet Cong violated the Geneva Convention, not Kerry.

It seems we're (again) confusing the act of protesting an immoral war with an act of treason. How else do you stop a war that is illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid?

Posted by: DBaird at October 15, 2004 12:14 AM | Permalink

steve fodor,
You're an f-ing moron.

"But they bought this upon themselves comming to our country, and killing innocent people."



Posted by: Ben Franklin at October 15, 2004 12:45 AM | Permalink

Why can't people just turn the channel if they don't want to watch? I chose not to go see Faren.911. That's why I live in America so I can make choices for myself. I'm sorry that liberals are too weak to make their own choices. Kerry is nothing but a old hippie and he appeals to every mindless, treehugging slob in the country oh yeah and Frenchman. I can't wait to see Stolen Honor and I can't wait til GW wins. Then, all of you spineless liberals can feel free to rip my bumper stickers off my car and steal my Bush yard signs because you will forever have to hold your nappy heads low in everything you do!

Posted by: Paul Schwendeman at October 19, 2004 4:29 PM | Permalink


Posted by: JOHN at October 19, 2004 8:41 PM | Permalink

"This is different from the 100 million Farenheit 9-11, dozen anti-Bush on the NY Times best seller, new soldier anti-war book of letters, ACT and TMF, Move0nPac and their lame attempt to host the Bush=Hitler video for 30 days after claiming they deleted it, the ABC memo saying coverage does not have to be equal, the forged CBS documents...


Posted by: good quote - at October 20, 2004 1:59 AM | Permalink

The liberal media, both TV and radio, do not and have not questioned or objectively evaluated Mr. Kerry's record as an officer nor as a Senator. They quote his current rhetoric and Bush bashing andf self praise on his Vietnam service...all also with out question or challenge.
Tonight let Mr. Kerry's record (which would be NEWS) speak for itself!!
(I hope to get a copy of this news program from my Naval officer son in one of Sinclair's markets. )
The video of "Stolen Honor" is available over the net..$19.99.....Also clips from it.)

Posted by: Patty H at October 22, 2004 5:42 PM | Permalink

I want to see the documentary
I am a vietnam Vet
John kerry and the DNC are interfering with free press

The same as book burning, burn all books that you don't want people to read.

Kerry and communism are the same

Posted by: Rennie Di loreto at October 22, 2004 10:01 PM | Permalink

7430 .Way to poker online.

Posted by: online poker at October 23, 2004 2:44 PM | Permalink

PlLAY the best
debt consolidation only.

Posted by: blackjack online at October 27, 2004 2:35 AM | Permalink

4049 slots click here to play
online slots

Posted by: slots at October 31, 2004 11:54 AM | Permalink

320 Ttry playing online pokeronline.

Posted by: online poker at November 4, 2004 2:02 AM | Permalink

From the Intro