• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Groups plan to boycott Sinclair Broadcasting

Interesting, a movie like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and Micheal Moore is a hero. Sinclair decides to air some bias against Kerry and there is a boycott. It's too bad really that they didn't decide to propogate this in another fashion besides free tv.
 
If the liberals weren't make such a big stink about this, I would have never heard about Sinclair broadcasting, their plans to air a documentary on Kerry's anti-American activities, or that there's a Sinclair station here in Columbus. Thanks liberals. I will be watching this. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Interesting, a movie like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and Micheal Moore is a hero. Sinclair decides to air some bias against Kerry and there is a boycott. It's too bad really that they didn't decide to propogate this in another fashion besides free tv.
Click to expand...
There is a difference:
[*]Moore's film must be paid to watch. Thus only those who really want to see it will go out of their way to pay for it (at a theather or on pay-per-view).
[*]Sinclair is showing a film for free and on broadcast networks where regulations are in place in an attempt to give equal coverage to the major canidates.

I personally think both should be played on broadcast networks. Let everyone see both sides. I haven't seen the anti-Kerry movie and would like the chance to see it. I have seen Moore's film and it is ~85% anti-war (which indirectly puts Bush in a bad light) not very much focused on anti-Bush. Is the film shown by Sinclair similar or is it really focussed on bashing Kerry?
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Interesting, a movie like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and Micheal Moore is a hero. Sinclair decides to air some bias against Kerry and there is a boycott. It's too bad really that they didn't decide to propogate this in another fashion besides free tv.
Click to expand...
There is a difference:
[*]Moore's film must be paid to watch. Thus only those who really want to see it will go out of their way to pay for it (at a theather or on pay-per-view).
[*]Sinclair is showing a film for free and on broadcast networks where regulations are in place in an attempt to give equal coverage to the major canidates.

I personally think both should be played on broadcast networks. Let everyone see both sides. I haven't seen the anti-Kerry movie and would like the chance to see it. I have seen Moore's film and it is ~85% anti-war (which indirectly puts Bush in a bad light) not very much focused on anti-Bush. Is the film shown by Sinclair similar or is it really focussed on bashing Kerry?
Click to expand...

From The Village News:

"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. On the website for the film, he tells viewers, "Intended or not, Lt. Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that endured for 30 years in the popular culture.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Interesting, a movie like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and Micheal Moore is a hero. Sinclair decides to air some bias against Kerry and there is a boycott. It's too bad really that they didn't decide to propogate this in another fashion besides free tv.
Click to expand...
It's too bad, really, you don't understand the difference between a movie shown at theaters and planned for pay-per-view and one shown on public airwaves under the guise of "news".
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Interesting, a movie like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and Micheal Moore is a hero. Sinclair decides to air some bias against Kerry and there is a boycott. It's too bad really that they didn't decide to propogate this in another fashion besides free tv.
Click to expand...
It's too bad, really, you don't understand the difference between a movie shown at theaters and planned for pay-per-view and one shown on public airwaves under the guise of "news".
Click to expand...


Wow, where did you learn to read? I said it is too bad they hadn't decided to do this on another medium besides free tv. How one track minded are you? :roll:
 
Dung-nuggett,

At least "cyco-wizz" seems to understand a bit of the argument.

F/911 was a movie viewed in theaters not broadcast over PUBLIC airwaves a few days before hotly contested election.

Contrary to arguments that it is "news," this is nothing more than slander, innuendo, conjecture and personal attacks. None of which is based on VERIFIABLE truth. Verifiability is the measurement that news MUST be measured against otherwise this becomes political advertising.

---

The link on the entry page to this thread says, "PERSONAL FLAMES WILL NOT BE TOLERATED." One post and one insult. You are now on your one and only second chance. Another such post may be your last on our forums.

AnandTech Moderator
 
Originally posted by: dmist
Dung-nuggett,

At least "cyco-wizz" seems to understand a bit of the argument.

F/911 was a movie viewed in theaters not broadcast over PUBLIC airwaves a few days before hotly contested election.

Contrary to arguments that it is "news," this is nothing more than slander, innuendo, conjecture and personal attacks. None of which is based on VERIFIABLE truth. Verifiability is the measurement that news MUST be measured against otherwise this becomes political advertising.
Click to expand...


Welcome to Anandtech. I completely understand the argument which is why it is too bad that they attempted it on free tv. What is so hard about this?

 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Who here will boycott when F 9/11 goes on the public airwaves? Anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Why should we?

It won't be on public airwaves until well after the election and it won't be a concern anymore.

The film's distributor wants to continue making money off of the recently-released DVD and will not allow it on broadcast TV anytime soon.
 
I wonder if their shareholders will sue them. By airing the unsponsored documentary, Sinclair is ignoring it's fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders.
 
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I wonder if their shareholders will sue them. By airing the unsponsored documentary, Sinclair is ignoring it's fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders.
Click to expand...

I'll be impressed if Monkey can define "fiduciary responsibility".

I'll be even more impressed if he can explain how Sinclair is violating it.

Here's a :cookie: to get you started.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Why should we?

It won't be on public airwaves until well after the election and it won't be a concern anymore.

The film's distributor wants to continue making money off of the recently-released DVD and will not allow it on broadcast TV anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Yet again, you can't answer a simple, hypothetical question because it will demonstrate your blatant hypocrisy.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Why should we?

It won't be on public airwaves until well after the election and it won't be a concern anymore.

The film's distributor wants to continue making money off of the recently-released DVD and will not allow it on broadcast TV anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Yet again, you can't answer a simple, hypothetical question because it will demonstrate your blatant hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I did answer it. You posed a hypothetical that is completely out of the realm of possibility.

Now, if Michael Moore was going to get some broadcaster to show his film, I'd be up in arms, too. But it wouldn't be directed at Moore. It would be directed at the broadcaster. Equal time should be allowed to the opposing side if that were to happen.

Now, if Sinclair were to air, say, 9/11 - The Road to Tyranny, right before or right after this other film, then there'd be no issue.
 
Sylvan Learning Center pulls ads from Sinclair
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/12/121355/52
by Rakkasan
Tue Oct 12th, 2004 at 16:32:54 GMT

(From the diaries. A great morale boost and proof that our efforts are paying off -- kos)
As directed in this forum I sent emails to an advertiser saying that I enjoyed their products but that I was no longer going to use them, and that none of my friends and family were going to use them either because they advertised on Sinclair stations. I went on to tell them why I had a problem with Sinclair as well.

A few minutes ago I received a call from them telling me they were PULLING their advertising from the Sinclair stations.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Now, if Michael Moore was going to get some broadcaster to show his film, I'd be up in arms, too. But it wouldn't be directed at Moore. It would be directed at the broadcaster. Equal time should be allowed to the opposing side if that were to happen.
Click to expand...
Does anyone here believe that he would start a thread ragging on the broadcaster? Anyone at all?
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Now, if Michael Moore was going to get some broadcaster to show his film, I'd be up in arms, too. But it wouldn't be directed at Moore. It would be directed at the broadcaster. Equal time should be allowed to the opposing side if that were to happen.
Click to expand...
Does anyone here believe that he would start a thread ragging on the broadcaster? Anyone at all?
Click to expand...

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Sylvan Learning Center pulls ads from Sinclair
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/12/121355/52
by Rakkasan
Tue Oct 12th, 2004 at 16:32:54 GMT

(From the diaries. A great morale boost and proof that our efforts are paying off -- kos)
As directed in this forum I sent emails to an advertiser saying that I enjoyed their products but that I was no longer going to use them, and that none of my friends and family were going to use them either because they advertised on Sinclair stations. I went on to tell them why I had a problem with Sinclair as well.

A few minutes ago I received a call from them telling me they were PULLING their advertising from the Sinclair stations.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


But but but Rob Hunter the Radio Talk Show that set me straight that I must vote for Bush is on a Sinclair Station, just can't boycott them.
 
Originally posted by: Garuda
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
I wonder if their shareholders will sue them. By airing the unsponsored documentary, Sinclair is ignoring it's fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders.
Click to expand...

I'll be impressed if Monkey can define "fiduciary responsibility".

I'll be even more impressed if he can explain how Sinclair is violating it.

Here's a :cookie: to get you started.
Click to expand...

Cookie back atcha pig-avatar :cookie:

Corporations have a responisibility to their shareholders to look after the financial best interests of the corporation (which is owned by the shareholders). By purchasing a "documentary", spending broadcasting resources, and foregoing sponsorship, Sinclair is clearly ignoring the financial best interests of the corporation.

While I may not have a proper technical term, it was the term used by my company when considering whether to initiate a public offering of stock. In the case of my company, one point referenced was that shareholders could sue the company if we tried to avoid a lucerative buyout.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: dnuggett
Interesting, a movie like Farenheit 9/11 comes out and Micheal Moore is a hero. Sinclair decides to air some bias against Kerry and there is a boycott. It's too bad really that they didn't decide to propogate this in another fashion besides free tv.
Click to expand...
There is a difference:
[*]Moore's film must be paid to watch. Thus only those who really want to see it will go out of their way to pay for it (at a theather or on pay-per-view).
[*]Sinclair is showing a film for free and on broadcast networks where regulations are in place in an attempt to give equal coverage to the major canidates.

I personally think both should be played on broadcast networks. Let everyone see both sides. I haven't seen the anti-Kerry movie and would like the chance to see it. I have seen Moore's film and it is ~85% anti-war (which indirectly puts Bush in a bad light) not very much focused on anti-Bush. Is the film shown by Sinclair similar or is it really focussed on bashing Kerry?
Click to expand...

I agree.
broadcast networks where regulations are in place in an attempt to give equal coverage to the major canidates.
This should be inforced.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top