Surely you understand the difference between a cable or satellite 'pay-per-view' showing of F-9/11 and Sinclair telling all of its stations to run Stolen Honor over the taxpayer-owned airwaves...

And so, do you understand the difference between reporting,a nd allowing Kerry to rebut the film, live and in person, and simply putting out anti-Bush hatred as fact without a chance at rebuttal?

You honestly think airing a smearumentary on the public air-waves is 'reporting'? Wow. Sure, ok - whatever.

Then lets have Sinclair run F-9/11 the next night and give President Bush a chance to rebut.

Bithead

They,not sinclair, are going to run 911 two nights before election and they are NOT going to give Pres Bush the chance to respond. Why are you not protesting that one? could it be that as long as it is anti-Bush it is ok but if it is anti-Kerry it should be supressed? As far as Stolen Honor being a smear, where is your proof that these vets, much more decorated than Kerry, are lying? Show us some proof or shut up about it. Also, the last time I looked the 1st amendment was in play and it applied to all people not just lefties. (bet that comes as a surprise huh?)

Why, yes, yes I did...

With bonus Ollie fun!

Dan Schuster at MSNBC has an aricle about this.

Here is my post to him:

You claim that there are factual errors, testimony is incomplete, and not enough POWs were included.

If that is the case, why don't you show "Stolen Valor" and provide point-by-point evidence to refute the factual errors; provide the complete testimony, and interviews with POWs?

If CBS can purposely do a "documentary" against President Bush (using
false documents) without inviting the President to respond, why can't
Sinclair do a documentary against Kerry (using Kerry's true documented
statements)?

Unlike CBS, Sinclair has invited Kerry to speak immediately following
the show, and Kerry has refused because he is afraid to personally address
the issues raised.

As you recognize, the few stations that Sinclair owns are nothing
compared to those of CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Also, Kerry's spokesperson has threatened Sinclair if Kerry gets
elected. This should be of concern to everyone who is interested in a
free press, freedom of speech, and the Constitutuion. This threat was
captured on film and broadcast.

The Constitution of the US should be the deciding factor. Not party
hacks. Hiding factual information from the public regarding a candidate for
President is unethical and immoral.

I'm disappointed that you would put your politics above the
Constitution. We can have differences of opinion regarding politics, but if
you don't believe in the Constitution, all discussions are meaningless.

You guys are amazing. These situations are not analogous.

Perhaps Fred's scenario is _closer_ but even that is not the same thing at all. 60 minutes is a regularly scheduled investigative news program. And BTW, don't make this about 60 minutes or Dan Rather because its not and you know it.

So, Sinclair is telling all of its stations to pre-empt regularly scheduled programming to air this thing. An analogous situation would be, say, NBC pre-empting "Fear Factor" to show The Bush Family Fortunes.

The showing of F-9/11 is a capitalist venture -- it's PAY PER VIEW for crying out loud, do you all really not understand this? What sinclair is doing is a misuse of the public airwaves, pure and simple.

So I assume, anonymous poster, that you get as ticked as all of us do, when NPR and PBS use their time, which is funded by the public, to rip conservatives and cheerlead for the liberal agenda at every opportunity?

lauraw - I think your full of it. At least were PBS is concerned - PBS is not "liberal" but the right has been able to spin it that way with the incessant noise machine. At it's best PBS was a home to intelligent centrism. But more and more it is a mouthpiece for coporate America. Look at who the sponsors are.

Be real. This the network that has provided homes to John McLaughlin, David Gergen, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Nightly Business Report and now Tucker Carlson and The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

Just because you say something over and over doesn't make it true.

If PBS were truly liberal/leftwing/progressive there would be shows featuring Jim Hightower, Noam Chomsky, Joe Conason, Greg Palast, Molly Ivins, etc. etc. etc.

PBS is a blend of political viewpoints with ultimately far more representation from pundits in the center and to the right than from the left.

NPR is slightly more progressive, but not by much.

lauraw: btw - nice bait and switch! I fell for it :-)