October 11, 2004

62 TV Stations in Swing States will air Anti-Kerry Film Sinclair Media (the ones who pre-empted the Nightline tribute to the soldiers who died in Iraq because it was a "political statement") are pre-empting local programming to air "Stolen Honor", the anti-Kerry swift-boatish documentary. Remember when we used to demand fairness from our news sources?

Nope, me neither. :(

posted by TenaciousPettle 20 years ago
  • That damn liberal media!
  • I'd rather have truth than "fairness."
  • "Clearly John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run; this is an issue that is certainly topical," he said. Asked what defined newsworthiness, Hyman said, "In that it hasn't been out in the marketplace, and the news marketplace."
    Fairness? This is just propaganda. He fucking calls it news!
  • Remember when we used to demand truth from our news sources?
  • "Stolen Honor" was made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and former reporter for the conservative Washington Times who is also the author of a book about the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
    The Moonie cult is a news source now?
  • davidmsc: it's an either/or choice, is it? Personally, I'd rather have both.
  • I'm chokin' on my own rage here!
  • I'd rather have truth than "fairness." You'll get neither. You just an errand boy . . sent by the grocer . . to collect the bill
  • I'm not sure this is outrage-worthy. The Nightline censoring marked these stations as partisan, so this cannot come as a surprise. And personally, this subject has been worked to death, the Swift Boats vets' claims pretty much debunked, so this strikes me as the last gasp of a tempest that has all but worked itself out of the teapot. As for the news, I think this year especially has proven that objective news reporting as a tenet of the fourth estate is defunct. Seek out as many credible sources as you can, and read widely. That's about the only solution to it.
  • I live in one of the areas with a Sinclair station. Two stations (the ABC and Fox stations), actually. They show the same newscasts, etc., on both stations, and their promotions department used to run commercials that stated, "Now you have a choice!" Taking away one station's news department leads to me having a choice? These news shows are the worst I have ever seen. They are biased (Mark Hyman's commentaries, with no commentaries by a corresponding Moderate or Democrat); sensationalistic (reporters say things like "Let me tell what this is REALLY about..."); and they freak out over weather. We are in Ohio. You are going to see snow during the winter. There is no need to interrupt broadcasts and show continuous banner messages that 3 inches of snow will fall overnight. Apologies for the rambling-ness. NewsCenter makes my skin crawl.
  • Why exactly did we abandon the fairness doctrine? This is fucking abhorrent and inexcusable.
  • Um... We abandoned the fairness doctrine under Reagan. Roughly 20 years ago, in fact. And David just wants to be pandered to, and he's getting it. Is that so wrong?
  • The Fairness Doctrine was a foul, corrupt, disgusting piece of trash, and we are much better off for its' demise. There is NO requirement for broadcasters to be "fair" or to portray "both sides" of an issue. The owner of the station/s is free to broadcast whatever he or she wants to broadcast. And if YOU ever get a station or such outlet, I will defend YOUR right to broadcast whatever YOU want to air. Is that so freaking hard to understand? Oh - and if any of you people who decry the loss of the "Fairness Doctrine" care to address it -- why the f**k isn't there such a doctrine for newspapers, magazines, websites, and such?
  • I'm not sure this is outrage-worthy. Are you high? (I mean that in as politely an up-in-your-face way as possible.) This company is spewing blatant propaganda over the public airwaves. That is something that should be fought in every case, but especially in this case because it is so grievous. Regardless of whether we know Sinclair to be biased or not, the company is hijacking network programming to air propaganda. This action should be protested loudly and stopped if possible.
  • People, these are the Moonies. You are not seriously asking the Moonies to be sane, are you? This is totally not outrage-worthy. In fact, it is to be expected.
  • That's funny. I thought *I* and the rest of the public owned the airwaves. And as the owner of the property the station is leasing I demand, as a condition of that lease, that he/she/it broadcast information in my interest, which includes a fair portrayal of different viewpoints. So get crackin' davidsmc, and defend my rights as a property owner.
  • Oh - and if any of you people who decry the loss of the "Fairness Doctrine" care to address it -- why the f**k isn't there such a doctrine for newspapers, magazines, websites, and such? Because, at the time, there were no more than two or three sources of information from those mediums in any given market. In some places, people were only able to receive 1 or 2 networks. Meanwhile, they were perfectly able to buy all sorts of books, magazines, and newspapers. People who relied on the airwaves to obtain information (as misguided as that may be) had limited options.
  • Not high :) I agree with you, that it is crap and really shouldn't be portrayed as news. But the time for protestation against this sort of thing has long passed. The press has long ago given up any pretense of impartiality, and as for the public-ness of the airwaves, while true in theory? The FCC pretty much treats the broadcast spectrum as its own little fiefdom, selling licenses and imposing standards apparently at whim, and I'm not sure you and I and the rest of the public have much recourse, other than the Great Redtaped Way of contacting one's congressman and hoping for a miracle. As for this particular broadcast, with the cornucopia of channels available to the average viewer, avoiding watching it shouldn't be a problem, even if you are one of those benighted souls without even basic cable. That is the best (only, really, practically speaking) recourse for the irritated tv watcher - to change the channel.
  • I'm assuming the sinclair stations aired the debates. This anti-kery movie would have to be pretty bad to even that out. :) It's just more of what we've been seeing for the past week- desperate measures from a desperate campaign. There, there david. Your candidate isn't behind in the polls by *that* much. I'm sure the presenile-dementia/compulsive-liar campaign will bounce back any day now. You just need a nice elevated terror alert to cheer you up.
  • Fes nailed it. I can't remember the last time I saw truly impartial press. PBS is probably your best choice for something like that. I think what we are raging at is that the people this program is directed at, the undecideds, are apparently going to be easy to sway and therefore, IMO, they're stupid. Another reason, crap like this is usually not so obvious and blatant about its intent. I mean, geez, they could at least try and be a little discreet. Ultimately, media > corporation < government. Corporations run this country. They own the media, they own the government. They tell us what they want to tell us. I don't see light at the end of the tunnel. /mood: pessimistic
  • the presenile-dementia/compulsive-liar campaign Compulsive liar is a good rebuke. There is an abundance of evidence for it. But, I think it is a bit premature to call it presenile-dementia. If he indeed suffers from it, he is to be pitied. Although he is a weak figurehead for a cadre of bloodthirsty warmongers, and has conclusively proven the Conservative fear of bad government by making the government as terrible as possible, he is still a very small man. He isn't worth the hate. We must not lose sight of the real criminals in this administration — the PNAC architects and the Bible-thumping loons who control the modern Republican party.
  • I'm sorry guys, but the fact it the media has NEVER been impartial. I think the rosy lens of nostalgia is coloring your perceptions. Don't believe me? Take a look at any newspaper from the 50's, 60's, 70's...remember the Cold War? How about the NYT headline in 1917 that said "Beat The Kaiser!"
  • And if YOU ever get a station or such outlet, I will defend YOUR right to broadcast whatever YOU want to air. Conservatives, always standing up for the little guy!
  • He isn't worth the hate. For what it's worth, I'd like to go on record as saying that he is TOTALLY worth the hate. I gots enough to spread around...
  • David- The difference comes because of the licensing requirements for broadcast. See, once upon a time, only a couple of large-power stations could co-exist in a region, or at least that was the convenient fiction. So, operating under the theory that the broadcastable bandwidth availible was a public good, licensing required that broadcasters act to promote the public good as their primary function, with their secondary function being profit-makers. That promotion of the public good was embodied in part by the fairness doctrine, as everyone should be represented on public airwaves. The fairness doctrine was finally officially scuttled under Reagan, but had functioned fairly well up until that point with regard to campaigning. Now, if you wanted to remove the wealth requirement, or reset the standards to allow microbandwidth broadcasting, then a larger number of people could enter the broadcasting business, and the fairness doctrine could truly shuffled off. Instead, it is currently held as an informal regulation that gives a decent amount of benefit to stations that hold it (in that they are perceived as being more fair and thus trustworthy). I realize that you're just off on a boilerplate of conservative blovation, but when you actually get around to doing some research on this I assume your rhetoric will become less ignorant.
  • I'm sorry guys, but the fact it the media has NEVER been impartial. I think the rosy lens of nostalgia is coloring your perceptions. I doubt anyone can honestly make that claim. What one can claim, however, is that a step away from fairness is a step back for journalism. Not only that, but how would the fact that media is never impartial make it okay for it to be impartial now? People have been committing fraud for ages. Still doesn't make it okay.
  • "not to be impartial now?"
  • Technically: 62 stations, of which 14 are in swing states.
  • Thanks, exppii. My bad.
  • Yes, yes, JS -- I'm fully aware of the history behind the Fairness Doctrine -- but I reject the premise for it completely. The logic behind it stems from the fact that the airwaves were (are) a very scarce resource. Um...I hate to break it to you guys, but EVERYTHING is "scarce" to some degree. There is only a finite amount of *anything* to go around. Why, then, were the airwaves held to a different standard than, say, gold -- another very valuable resource? Public interest, my eye -- WHO DECIDES what is in "the public interest?" And presenting "both sides" of any given issue - bullshit. You show me any issue that has ONLY two sides. Back in they heyday of yellow journalism, there was a limited number of printing presses and newspaper-production facilities, but there was no "Fairness Doctrine" for newspapers, was there? Believe me -- we are *all* better off now, without the Fairness Doctrine and with the incredible choices that we ALL have now in regards to where we obtain our news & information. More reading here -- and if anyone can dispute the article, I am more than happy to listen.
  • Ultimately, having no Fairness Doctrine means that if you don't own a broadcast outlet (or have access to one), then you don't have a voice on those broadcast outlets. Right?
  • pls. excuse the crappy, i-didn't-proofread grammar
  • You are correct, HawthorneWingo.
  • Show me an issue that has ONLY one side, davidmsc, because that's what you're arguing for. We agree that two isn't enough, but I disagree when you say two is worse than one. You've already disputed some of the article: Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators. The article goes on to explain that the airwaves are't that scarce, that it's a myth perpetrated by supporters of the Fairness Doctrine. I have to agree with the socend part of the article: Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities. The FCC is shit. The are total incapable of determining what's in my best interest. I believe most FD supporters feel the same. But we trust FCC slightly more than we trust the networks left to their own devices. The FCC is not supposed to be the best alternative, They're just one step up from the worst. Ideally, the FCC should be totally disbanded. Then the networks wouldn't have to worry about someone looking over their shoulder, telling them what they can and can't say. At the same time, the masses wouldn't have to worry about the government telling them they can only make their voice heard if they're one of the elite, rich and powerful. Anyone who wanted to broadcast could. And everyone would benefit from the variety.
  • People have always said what people have always wanted to hear. Honestly, this is far from ridiculous or extravagant, and quite the opposite: a never-noticed-but-always-there pulse of American realities, except that now we have a group that's powerful enough to cry foul. I still think it's bullshit that they would decide to air these documentaries on those particular states; honestly! if we wanted to be fooled by the concept of fair, then why not air it nationwide?...*ugh*...and they still have the balls to come out and say that this is "newsworthy" and "topical"...the time for reporting on the swiftboat crap came and went. And I'm sorry that all those veterans are offended or whatever, but what happened happened and there's no way we could give you back what was taken from you, besides, is not like Kerry WASN'T there...one way or the other, he was there: give him THAT much. So my last thought? leave the past in the past, bust his ass for shit he's done recently, not when he was a 20 year old running like hell from vietcong or whatever.
  • The assumption that deregulation = variety has generally been proven false where the media is concerned. More broadcasters may enter the field but increased competition causes corporations to look more at the bottom line to survive; this leads to an increasing trend towards giving what the majority of people want in their entertainment, culture or news. Thus we get lowest common denominator culture and majority opinion news. Combine this with the tendency for those small broadcasters to get eaten up by the dominant media companies once they're remotely successful, and you even eliminate the numbers that give the impression of variety and diversity. Just because the FCC hasn't had a very good record in actually regulating the industry doesn't mean the industry should do away with regulation entirely. And while it's a fine line between telling networks to show a minimum amount of a certain type of programming and telling networks what they can and cannot say, it doesn't mean there isn't an overall benefit to the former.
  • David- would you be OK with it if Sinclair broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 under the same conditions? And when did the Vietnam war stop being a war that has been universally reviled and condemned, one in which American soldiers were convicted of war crimes and one where many vets related stories of war crimes that they witnessed yet remained unpunished? What about the horror of napalm and agent orange? I thought the conventional wisdom was that the Vietnam war was a collosal waste of lives. I guess I haven't been paying attention!
  • hum. davidmsc kindly wrote: The Fairness Doctrine was a foul, corrupt, disgusting piece of trash, and we are much better off for its' demise. 'cause clearly anything deemed worthy by the BBC (fair, balanced reporting, equal time to both sides of the story) is not needed in our oh-so-high and mighty american news. which is why american news is respected so much internationally. that BBC shit? oh yeah, nobody thinks it's worth listening to at all. i think we need a mandated fairness in our journalism, now more than ever. the decline in fair and balanced reporting seems to match well the rise in the partisian split in the US, and the concurrent rise in the number of news outlets owned by single companies. we need to start pushing for FCC controls over our airwaves, 'cause i'm sick of them giving away my frequencies to the corporations and telling me it's for my own good.
  • I doubt anyone can honestly make that claim. What one can claim, however, is that a step away from fairness is a step back for journalism. Not only that, but how would the fact that media is never impartial make it okay for it to be impartial now? I doubt anyone can honestly make that claim. What one can claim, however, is that a step away from fairness is a step back for journalism. Not only that, but how would the fact that media is never impartial make it okay for it to be impartial now? shawnj: I can honestly make the claim that there has never been impartial journalism. Every journalist edits their own particular story and every editor may do more editing, decide where or even if a story gets aired or published. And I don't believe I inferred anywhere in my post that it is "okay for it to be partial." Please don't put words in my mouth.
  • David- No, you're not familiar with the history of the fairness doctrine. You're linking to a talking points paper of dubious worth. The first argument you put forth is a variation of the slippery slope fallacy, that because everything is limited in some measure, there should be no regulation and no mind given to things that are more limited. The airwaves in the '20s were more varied than they are today (the NAB numbers that the Heritage foundation cites were only for commercial radio stations, not non-profits), but there was concern over interference. For the vast majority of broadcasters, this was not a problem, and was indeed used by the wealthier broadcasters to limit the amount of access to the airwaves. But, with that limiting came the compromise of public duty. By now, the duty has been removed but not the barriers to broadcast. When you start lobbying for low power radio, I'll take your endless mincing as less than hypocrisy. By now, the technology has advanced to the point where there no longer needs to be limitations of low power broadcasting, and indeed microfrequencies can be used to broadcast even more channels if radio regulation was retooled. But to deny that there has been a paring down of availible voices on the air, and to even celebrate that as an exercise of property rights, is to not know the notion of public good. Even John Locke realized the public square, David. Try to think through your arguments before assuming that just shouting irate free-market totalitarianisms will suffice for logic.
  • There is a problem when you apply concepts of freedom to more and more abstract entities. What's so free about a tightly controlled medium with high influential power broadcasting a highly unbalanced perspective to a seemingly captive audience? There is a sort of "statistically" deterministic (non-free) result that manipulators of a group of people, such as those behind this film, depend on. Running an anti-Kerry film on television shortly before an election is an obvious attempt to push the emotional buttons of those who will vote based on the last strong negative message they heard about either presidential candidate. The Fairness Doctrine, it seems to me, is a way of mitigating scenarios like this. In an unexpected way (that I've just realized now), it is actually pro-freedom, because it questions any implicit trust that dulled senses may have in an imbalanced communications medium. If I'm not mistaken, the U.S. is all about eternal vigilance towards enemies of freedom, domestic or external; this vigilance is embodied in the Fairness Doctrine, and it is thus pro-freedom becauses it attempts to prevent an abstract entity from "gaming" the system of freedom. Those who choose to run this film are, in my opinion, free-riding on their own country's principles of freedom. They take advantage of the infrastructure of freedom in order to gain a deterministic result for their cause that places no value at all on the concept of freedom. They'd rather see their candidate win in a decidely manipulative manner, than see the honestly (freely) chosen candidate win. To save democracy, these hypocrites need to be run out of your country. It's true that many of them are in corporate and political positions, but careful--the mindset of influence is everywhere, and probably in you and me too. Every time I go out to express an opinion, I always seem to end up in oddly formulated ideas that seem great to me, but probably make no sense to others. So enjoy this one, I don't do it often. :)
  • Nicely said, outrigger.
  • So, if Clear Channel, or NPR, buys up every radio station in the country, are they fair and balanced just because of that?
  • Via Atrios, Sinclair Broadcast Group has the worst rating. You people had better get rid of your SBGI stocks, if you haven't already.
  • caution live frogs: i think we need a mandated fairness in our journalism HA HA HA HA HA HA! Do you realize the complete & utter absurdity of that statement? How the hell do you propose to "mandate" fairness, frogs? Who decides what is "fair?" kamus: I would be fine with Sinclair (or any other particular broadcast agency) running F-9/11 on their own dime & time. You see, that's the whole point of owning your very own broadcast network -- you can choose to air something like that. Whether anyone watches, or whether you are subsequently boycotted, etc, is up to the viewers. Freedom - it's a good thing.
  • Nice, outrigger. The problem is that trying to "regulate freedom" can also spawn things like the "Patriot Act" (we can't let potential terrorists game with freedom). Although I agree with you. The trick is not to regulate information, but to regulate those who try to regulate it (by either being one-sided, or hidding the truth in favor of fairness). That includes governments, communication commissions, and broadcasting corporations.
  • by either being one-sided, or hidding the truth in favor of fairness that should have been: by either purposedly being one-sided, or hidding the truth in favor of fairness
  • davidmsc, you've linked to a nonsense article on the Heritage Foundation's website. Are you really that ultraconservative that you see it as a reputable source? These are people who support and encourage Rush Limbaugh, of all people, and who are endorsed by him as well. Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan and a host of other extreme right-wing fanatics are also endorsed. Care to find another source, or did your article not appear anywhere sane?
  • The pure free-market rules don't apply when TV stations are granted their licenses by the FCC. It's not as if everyone has an equal shot at opening a station of a certain power. The agency has often used lotteries to decide who gets to own how many stations, etc. Even casting that issue aside, this is a campaign ad and not news. It's a campaign finance scandal, a fraud.
  • Back on topic: Here's something you can do about it. You won't have to do anymore typing than you already did here at mofi, but it'll have a much bigger effect. If you can't think of anything to write, cut and paste from this thread. SEND SOMETHING! I'm concocting an email right now. I'll finish it tomorrow, hopefully (I always sleep, then proof read. It's insurance against sending an email that reads "OMG YUO HAVE TODO SOMETHING FAST!!!?#!" or something similar).
  • Yes, yes, coppermac, attack the source. How's about this: you're on a website for people who call themselves monkeys. Idiots, clearly, and, if you argue with them, so are you. Hence, you are wrong. Now that I've preemptively rebutted all future arguments on this entire site, we can finally give up on any hope of productive discourse and spend our days talking about video games and recipes. Hip hip hurrah.
  • Yes, yes, coppermac, attack the source. How's about this: you're on a website for people who call themselves monkeys. Idiots, clearly, and, if you argue with them, so are you. Hence, you are wrong. Now that I've preemptively rebutted all future arguments on this entire site, we can finally give up on any hope of productive discourse and spend our days talking about video games and recipes. Hip hip hurrah.
  • ( monkey = idiot ) = non sequiter
  • Uh, PatB. The words put into your mouth was a typo. If you scrolled down to the next comment, you can see that I corrected myself. Also, funny that David should mention Yellow Journalism, since the lack of a doctrine in broadcast media is no doubt one of the factors for the reawakening of Yellow Journalism in the past ten years or so.
  • HA HA HA HA HA HA! Do you realize the complete & utter absurdity of that statement? How the hell do you propose to "mandate" fairness, frogs? Who decides what is "fair?" davidmsc, meet Reed Hundt, former chair of the FCC. He is an expert on this.
    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
    Reed Hundt = expert. davidmsc = loudmouth partisan. Get it now? (letter via tpm) PS everyone go to tpm and do that advertiser boycott thing with the sales managers. If all this crap is getting you down, it'll make you feel better.
  • Yellow Journalism refers to the the color of the paper it was printed on.
  • Although, to be fair, the term DID come from the yellow paper that such sensationalistic tabloids were printed on in the 1800s or whenever. So you're both right. :)
  • Grab with greed, poison silently, kill without conscience, yours is the world.
  • Close, but not exactly. It actually refers to the use of yellow ink in a cartoon, IIRC the first colored ink ever used in newspapers.
  • Curse you MCT! Once again you have exposed my insidious ignorance! But one day I'll catch you without your dictionary, and then...BWAHAHAHAHA! *twirls moustaches*
  • Ha-HA! Captain Pedanto strikes again!!!
  • Letters to advertisers are already having an effect.
  • I think this movie ought to be shown. If it has enough of an effect to make Kerry lose, then the Americans deserve Bush. They really deserve him. If, as I expect, it doesn't have any effect and Kerry wins, he will become absolutely invulnerable. The public deserves to see SBG's biases out in the open. This stunt will utterly destroy Sinclair if it fails.
  • XX to shawnj, just for giving me an X.
  • XXX to PatB for perpetuating the negative. D'oh! yentruoc and Zemat: thanks for your comments.
  • So that means I get a chance to steal, right? ;)
  • exppii, would you claim that all sites on the internet are equally reputable? Would you link to an article from a Klan site or a site advocating child murder if it happened to match your political agenda? Do you not understand how malignant bigoted propaganda creates a stench that permeates throughout a site? The article, as I pointed out, was nonsense. That it appeared on a far-right wing website devoted to reactionary politics and overseen by prejudiced zealots is no surprise. If you're just another sad apologist for the ultraconservatives, I'm sure you're familiar enough with the site that I need explain it no further.
  • Remember when we used to demand truth from our news sources? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
  • monketfilter:malignant bigoted propaganda And hey, I was giving shawnj two kisses. Are you saying he wasn't kissing me? *cries*
  • Sinclair Media Backs Off. Well, a little. They won't air the WHOLE documentary, just the bits that won't get them sued for slander. Derek Smalls: "Well, that's a cozy ten minutes."
  • GOP, Kerry launch war of words over Iraq comment Goddamn, Karl just isn't trying any more. "This is an absolute insult," Snow said at a daily press briefing. "Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this." Tony Snow is a fucking giant. The man's class and integrity absolutely tower over everyone near him.
  • The Republicans will pounce on a speck of dust at this point. Kerry botches a joke, and you would think there is a major catastrophe from the size and wording of the headlines. Bush botches the Constitution, and all I get are the latest Hollywood headlines. Sheesh! The Dems must be walking on fucking eggshells. One wrong step, and OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!
  • Bloody hell -- even if it was a botched joke, it's not like nobody was thinking this. I'd guess that the vast majority of the enlisted are there because of a lack of financial or educational opportunity than anything else. It may be dressed up as patriotism, but I'm sure that for a good chunk of them, they're there because it's a steady paycheque that they can't find elsewhere. Besides, Dick "Five Deferrals" Cheney could only agree with this, right?
  • Outrage!
  • As much as I hate the NeoCons, I have to say Kerry was a colossal idiot here, as he always has been, and the whole "botched joke" excuse is a lame attempt to backpedal and control the damage.
  • Kerry was supposed to say, "I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq." If that's true, then that's what it was - a joke he messed up. If that's not true, then the flap is a true partisan slap-fight about nothing. I heard some right-wing talk show idiots flogging Kerry with vigor about it. HIS 1971 TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS you know. Yeah, yeah. I just think it's hilarious* that the Rovian right thinks this sort of tired faux-outrage works - and are proven correct every time. *"hilarious" in a really sad, fucked-up kinda way.
  • It was a very stupid thing for Kerry to say. But for Bush to say that everyone in the military is there simply because he or she is a patriot is ridiculous. Since time immemorial, the military has been an escape route for young people too poor to pursue other options. These kids aren't lacking in intelligence, but they can get the training in the service that they could never afford in the private sector. Anyone who comes from a working-class background knows that. Heck, it's the Army's primary recruiting strategy. For many, the patriotism (and sadly, the violence) are the icing on the cake. And if it had been aimed at high school students, there might have been a grain of truth in Kerry's comment. Kids who go into the military to pay for college might not be doing that if their grades had been good enough to get scholarships.
  • Unfortunately, it's not about being right or having a grain of truth. It's kind of like saying some people are too lazy to work and wind up on welfare...it has a grain of truth, but saying it is insulting to all welfare recipients. These traps are easy to fall into with a few mischosen words, and even harder to backpedal out of, but good politicians are trained to avoid them.
  • Thoughtful, insightful discussion aside though . . . This is Karl Rove's running through the immigrant section of town shouting racial slurs. It's utterly and completely meaningless at it's core. The very textbook definition of a "straw man argument" (Wikipedia entry for the sake of, uh, argument). These traps are easy to fall into with a few mischosen words, and even harder to backpedal out of, but good politicians are trained to avoid them. They're also trained to jump on them when they happen to the other guy. If the Mainstream media goes along with it and *makes* it a story, then you end up with . . well, what it is. And it's still meaningless. Foley! Foley! Foley!Foley! Foley! Now watch this drive.
  • I, for one, am tired of seeing Kerry's tired face still being dredged across the various news outlets. One day, ok... but still carrying this on? Gawd lawd Sally! The teats dun gone and got chaffed!
  • . . . Where I found this Kerry quote (unlinked): If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox's Parkinson's disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq . It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have. The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they're afraid to debate real men. And this time it won't work because we're going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq That was on MeFi, but all I got on the news this morning was the ShrubCo stump speech crotch-grabbing.
  • Monkeyfilter: The teats dun gone and got chaffed!
  • More from the MeFi comments: Forgive me for being so partisan, but as far as candidate "gaffes" I still tend to think the cover-up of attempted boy-fucking, spousal (and mistress) abuse, and having your staffers beat someone up is a bit more pressing than what a guy who's not even running for anything this election said. Heh.
  • Well exactly. That's what's so annoying - the blatant, unadorned Rovish "Ooo! Bad guy!" nature of the story is sickening. I hope the people who are actually pushing the buttons to make this worthless meme jump are starting to get the message that they're getting played strictly as the nattering inanity-spewing cattle they are. Maybe someday they'll call bullshit on worthless deflections like this. The legs this story has just speaks directly to the influence ShrubCo has with the media. I'd say the Dems are fucking up (AGAIN) by having Kerry retreat and canceling appearances. Fuck that shit - put him out there even more. TAKE IT TO THE HOOP YOU FUCKS!! God, it sucks to be a Saints fan. Was that a mixed metaphor? I feel vaguely disoriented.
  • The legs this story has just speaks directly to the influence ShrubCo has with the media. Myself, I've been wondering what fee CNN charges to keep a headline front and center. I'd say the Dems are fucking up (AGAIN) by having Kerry retreat and canceling appearances. Kinda like watching someone do a stagedive, and the crowd disperses at the last moment. No spines. The Dem's drop leaves at the slightest shake of a limb.
  • Story Highlights • NEW: Sen. John Kerry tells a radio host he's "sorry about a botched joke" • NEW: White House says Kerry didn't apologize, comment didn't seem like a joke • NEW: Dick Cheney is set to say in a speech Kerry needs to learn troops are smart NEW: American Media is a Worthless Pitiful Crapcopia of Waste, Arrogance, and Sleaze
  • The inevitable apology.
  • BREAKING NEWS!!! Kerry: I personally apologize
  • well fuck me then. ;)
  • Heh. *gives pete a noggie*
  • well, fuck me now! Uh, hmm, noogie...
  • "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended..." Aah, the ol' "I'm sorry you misunderstood." A classic sleight-of-hand from apology to blame.
  • Given that there's nothing to apologize for, it's the worst of both worlds! Perfecto!
  • I see smt is passing out snoggies again. weirdo
  • How come nobody has commented on the comment? Yah, it's absolutely true, wanna stay outta Iraq (Iran, Korea) then you better be crackin' them books, boy. Get into college, don't go to Iraq. Get into politics, your kids don't go to the next>/small> Iraq. It's all one big media monopoly. Anybody remember when we thought Ma Bell was evil?
  • I've heard Kerry's actual words a few times now, and I'm convinced more than ever that he said what he meant to say and that the "botched joke" excuse is an outright lie. The joke he claimed to want to make wasn't even close to what he said, and it wouldn't have made any sense anyway. He should apologize for making the original statement and then he should apologize for lying about why he made it. It also struck me how many Dems and Dem supporters are sticking up for this guy and buying into the lame excuse. It's no different than Repubs sticking up for their guy when he does something idiotic. It's blind loyalty to 'your' side in the fight against 'them' and it's stupid and dangerous no matter who does it.
  • This stuff will all be over next week, right?
  • Haven't heard the original comment. Link? Was it your call that Kerry was saying dumb or lazy people join the army, rocket? roryk: The Neo-Conservatives have made partisan politics so pervasive and ugly, it's without modern precedent IMHO, that I doubt it will be over in our lifetimes. They have brought about nothing but sad fucking situations in every arena they've infested. What makes this bullshit dust-up about Kerry's comment so egregious is that it's only due to the elections, and this is exactly what they do every time - GAY MARRIAGE!! LOOK OUT! Vote Republican! Instead of explaining why their positions are defensible, using even rudimentary logic, they distort the facts and sway the lesser informed electorate to vote their way. The majority of people who vote Republican will be harmed by the policies of the Republicans. And it's made possible by these types of stunts. SNAFU?
  • > And it's made possible by these types of stunts. And in no small measure by the media.
  • Was it your call that Kerry was saying dumb or lazy people join the army, rocket? Not at all, but as soon as you infer that some uneducated people use the army as a fallback career for lack of better options (which may be true), your words can easily be twisted to make it appear that you are slagging the entire army, and you get put on the defensive. Even the original statement, while true to some extent, exposes Kerry as the ultra-rich elitist that I've always suspected he was.
  • I dunno, I heard some admittedly libr'l commentator who has known him 30+ years say that watching the video, he could tell he had lost his place and knew he was going to blow a line, but didn't know what it would be. His humor during speeches is scripted. His speeches aren't barn-burners after all. So if rocket says he hears elitism in the comment then okay, but I think it's just what it was explained to be - a joke that was read wrong. But the other point they made which resonated a lot more was that the outrage expressed by Bush & McCain et. al., was totally manufactured. They didn't really believe he meant that army guys are lazy & dumb. They just wanted to cause a fuss. Any distraction can only help them because actual news is all bad for them. By the way, this is officially my last stop on the "Straight Talk Express". John McCain can herewith go fuck himself. Sorry John, but you're too many over the line. Next!
  • It's sure is a good thing that the media never takes bush to task on the stupid shit he says, unlike the way they jump on Kerry. Otherwise things might change.
  • seems to me that one problem in u.s. politics is the lack of a defined "leader" when a party is out of power. it shouldn't be so important what kerry says - he's the junior senator from massachusetts and a failed presidential candidate. he's not even up for reelection this year. then he makes some stupid joke or botches a stupid joke while addressing college students in california and somehow it's worth a couple of thousand news articles (on googlenews)? then we all contribute to the problem by discussing the issue... maybe if we ignore the politicians they will go away.
  • he's not even up for reelection this year. then he makes some stupid joke or botches a stupid joke while addressing college students in california and somehow it's worth a couple of thousand news articles (on googlenews)? This is the manufactured part. This has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it. This is why it's patently outrageous - there's never been anything to it, which is why the whole pseudo-shitstorm was such a fucked-up bizarro-world Memetoberfest. It's a pre-election distraction and it works every goddamn time. It's seriously unbelievable how easy it is for this administration to lead the press and get their way. then we all contribute to the problem by discussing the issue... Well, you gotta admit, "Memetoberfest" is worth a comment. Or two. Or five.
  • Monkeyfilter: a fucked-up bizarro-world Memetoberfest.
  • Top Ten John Kerry Excuses 10. Lightheaded from too much Botox 9. Hasn't been himself since he heard Bob Barker is retiring 8. Remark was an ill-conceived, careless blunder, kind of like the war 7. Just displaying that famous wit that cost him the 2004 election 6. Hoped saying something really stupid would make him seem more presidential 5. Too much Halloween candy 4. Relax, the election is months away 3. So I botched a joke -- Letterman does it every night 2. On the advice of his friend Mel Gibson, he's blaming it on the Jews 1. "Hey, it was still funnier than most of the jokes on this list"
  • Every day, we're getting just a little bit closer to that Chengwin/Obama dream ticket... *taps fingertips together, smirks*
  • *swifty closes that book* Phew!
  • He denied knowing what the money would be used for however. "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" do a lot of . . um, outside . . ehhh, no they don't.
  • And upon further review, Swift Boat financier pressed by Kerry admits 'You're a hero' When Kerry confronted Fox on this subject in yesterday's hearing, Fox criticized all 527 groups, and said "You're a hero. And there isn’t anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you. But yet 527s tried to." Umm, yeah, sure, now that THAT election is long gone, it's fine to admit that he wasn't so bad after all... Fer krisssakes...