This can't be good for democracy.

[Amenhotep7]

@Little Raven

True, true. But the govt doesn't control exactly what is broadcast, as long as it ain't treasonous, and meets the bvandwidth requirements. That's what I'm talking about.

@earth

Edited my post, if you care to respond.

But to answer your question, hell, Democracy Now probably isn't getting as many donations. Fox News is watched by alot more people, I think.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

I feel any country that listens to such rubbish propaganda deserves itself.

 

[Gogf]

Oh no! It's bad for democracy that the radio company is airing a documentary! Ban documentaries! They are bad for democracy!

 

[Little Raven]

True, true. But the govt doesn't control exactly what is broadcast, as long as it ain't treasonous, and meets the bvandwidth requirements. That's what I'm talking about.

Ummm...CBS might disagree...

But I'm confused. Are we talking about what is done or what should be done?

 

[zeon252]

It sounds like Mr. SInclair and his cronies are all Bush fanatics.....but it is democracy.

 

[Gogf]

Um, that's because CBS is not cable television, and is therefore "regulated" by the US government. In other words, they can fine CBS for acts of indecency, such as the one during the superbowl.

 

[newfangle]

Whatever.

What about the evil corporation the released Farenheit 911?

What a load of crap. Double standards out the wazoo.

 

[Little Raven]

Um, that's because CBS is not cable television, and is therefore "regulated" by the US government. In other words, they can fine CBS for acts of indecency, such as the one during the superbowl.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So you agree that broadcast television should be regulated by the government?

Because guess what business Sinclair is in. (hint - it ain't cable.)

 

[Gogf]

Is there profanity in Sinclair's documentary? I doubt it.
Is there nudity in it? Physically impossible.

 

[earth]

But what would be wrong is if this company were bribed/blackmailed into broadcasting this program. (Uh-oh. I think I hear the rumble of a stampede of conspiracy-theorists. )

I don't think it can be called bribed/blackmailed... Look at where teh money is in our society and look at the values that those people hold. There's a reason media lacks critical thought. Those that control is want to keep the masses uneducated. The rich have nothing to benefit from the public knowing why they do what they do. They have everything to benefit from being able to do what they do unawares. This has been evident in society since the advent of money + class structure. It's a corrupt idea that's actually counter-productive to democracy.

Yes it could be viewed as bribing + blackmailing but when those controlling the media are also the ones owning it... How do you bribe + blackmail yourself?

 

[earth]

Whatever.

What about the evil corporation the released Farenheit 911?

What a load of crap. Double standards out the wazoo.

That's a prime example of, as Michael Moore puts it "selling a Capitalist his own rope so he can hang himself with it." (paraphrasing).

If it makes money they don't really care.

 

[Little Raven]

Is there profanity in Sinclair's documentary? I doubt it.
Is there nudity in it? Physically impossible.

But profanity and nudity are not the only things we screen broadcast television for. Part of their charter says that they must serve "the public interest." And under that clause we lump all sorts of things. We say they can't advertise cigarettes. We require them to upkeep the emergency broadcast system. And we regulate what they can and cannot say regarding political candidates.

Seriously, Gogf, how is the public interest served by having a small group of CEO determine which political candidates will receive positive or negative airtime on the airwaves owned by the taxpayer? Sure, it helps Bush get elected, but how does it serve the public interest?

 

[MajII]

What's not good for a democracy is an apathetic electorate and a decaying education system. The concentration of power follows.

The rest are erosive symptoms.

 

[Gogf]

But profanity and nudity are not the only things we screen broadcast television for. Part of their charter says that they must serve "the public interest." And under that clause we lump all sorts of things. We say they can't advertise cigarettes. We require them to upkeep the emergency broadcast system. And we regulate what they can and cannot say regarding political candidates.

Seriously, Gogf, how is the public interest served by having a small group of CEO determine which political candidates will receive positive or negative airtime on the airwaves owned by the taxpayer? Sure, it helps Bush get elected, but how does it serve the public interest?

First off, it's a documentary that tells the truth about what happened, and examines that truth. It is not a political add.

Now, if a radio station wants to show a documentary that is not harmful to the public, there is no reason not to let them.

 

[jack merchant]

*Wonders whether people would support this if Sinclair was going to show Going Upriver instead*

 

[Little Raven]

First off, it's a documentary that tells the truth about what happened, and examines that truth. It is not a political add.

*chuckle* Yeah, and Fahrenheit 911 was a documentary that told the truth about what happened, and examined that truth. It wasn't a political ad. Are you interested in buying a bridge?

Fortunately, the people who wrote the equal time provision have a little more foresight than you. Any documentary in which the candidate is the primary focus falls under the regulation of the FCC and requires the candidate be given equal time. So tell me again, how is Sinclair not violating it's FCC charter?

 

[De Lorimier]

*Wonders whether people would support this if Sinclair was going to show Going Upriver instead*

Yep...
Also, *Wonders wether people are dumb enough to not separate facts from fiction in Movies like this or anything Micheal Moore does*
If this is the case, we shouldn't stop people from playing things like this on tv, we should try to educate people.
A little discernment has never killed anyone...

 

[Syterion]

Did no one read LR's post? Seriously, this is completely unfair. Two hours of primetime attacking Kerry.

But we shouldn't complain too much yet. After all, maybe they'll air an anti-Bush documentary afterward.

on November 3rd

 

[luiz]

For starters, airwaves do not belong to any company. They are leased to companies with the condition that they serve the public good. Part of that is the rule of equal time. I'm failing to see how Sinclair is meeting these guidelines. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Second, television stations receive federal subsidies. They pay nothing for Federal protection of their frequencies, and they receive massive tax breaks to encourage use of the airspace. So by turning its stations into a propaganda arm of the GOP, Sinclair is effectively siphoning federal money into political campaigns, which is the biggest no-no of all. (Fox can do this because Fox is a cable company that pays its own way, but Sinclair is a broadcast company.)

Third, in an era of massive media consolidation, this kind of behavior sets a deeply upsetting precedent. Already there are only a handful of players in the media market. Do we really want 5 CEOs determining which political candidate gets what kind of coverage? How does society benefit from that?

EDIT: On the plus side, this should go a long ways towards putting the 'liberal media' myth to bed once and for all.

The only problem that I see here is the Federal subsidies part. I don't see why, other then this, the owner of a TV station should not be free to broadcast whatever he wants.

I couldn't care less about the media influence on voters. Voters are free not to watch TV or to draw their own conclusions.

I hate the patronising attitude that tries to protect voters from propaganda. I think people should be treated like adults.

 

[Civrules]

That's free speech. It's allowed in any democracy. However the first right of any democracy is an educated population. Sadly that's not the case. When you have a company (Sinclair Broadcast Group) owning the majority of TV airwaves that's not education. It's propaganda.

We're the puppets. Who's the puppetmaster?

There is a HUGE difference between free speech and spreading propaganda.
If this [what will be on TV] is all true about Kerry, it would have been well-known for years now.

This is bad for Kerry, either way.