Let The Voiceless Be Heard, And Let Them Speak Truth To Power.
Dean
Some of John Kerry's worst and most embarassing supporters are outraged that TV stations around the country will soon be playing a documentary by, and about, Viet Nam veterans. It's called Stolen Honor.
This documentary, which extensively interviews former Viet Nam Prisoners of War, takes Senator Kerry to task for his statements and actions after returning from Viet Nam, and notes that his testimony was used as an excuse to torture those prisoners. It also notes that much of what Kerry said then (and has never retracted or apologized for) was made up of propaganda that torturers tried to get American POWs to "confess" to.
I haven't so much as an ounce of sympathy for the people protesting the airing of this documentary. Especially because every person I've seen object to it so far has utterly failed to condemn Fahrenheit 9/11.
Mind you, it's terribly unfair to compare the two films. Fahrenheit 9/11, after all, derives some of its profits from terrorist groups like Hamas, and it is openly used as a recruitment film by people who are even now shooting at our soldiers and murdering civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. That film will be killing Americans (and probably Israelis, and innocent peace-loving Arabs) for the next decade or more. It's also been extensively debunked by honorable people of the left, right, and center, and by responsible journalists everywhere. Whereas Stolen Honor won't kill anyone, and has not been (so far) shown to be so deeply dishonest.
But still, anyone who condemns Stolen Honor but who didn't at least condemn Michael Moore's hate-propaganda film goes down not just as a hypocrite in my book, but a moral cripple.
By the way, of these folks demanding that the voices of our POWs be banned from the airwaves, here's a question to ponder: Do you see them demanding "equal time" in other contexts? For example, do they point to films like Celsus 41.1, or Fahrenhype 9/11, or Michael Moore Hates America, and ask that they be shown on every one of the movie screens that showed Michael Moore's film? You know, so that Americans will have "balance" and "equal time?"
No, I thought not.
(Not, again, that it could ever be truly equal. None of these films will ever kill anyone, while Moore's film will continue to kill and kill and kill for some time to come.)
Besides, as Eric Erickson notes, it's not as if political propaganda of other sorts never shows up on TV.
"Free speech for me but not for thee" is all I hear coming out of the mouths of those who are trying to silence Sinclair Broadcasting and our former POWs. These people are trying to prevent voters from hearing important political voices during an election year. What sad excuses for Americans they are!
Let the voiceless be heard, and let them speak truth to power--despite the best efforts of the powerful and the privileged to silence them.
Count me as somebody who has made my distaste for Michael more known on more than one occasion ... AND somebody who's more than a little incensed that Sinclair is pulling this.
While the legal issue is interesting, I'm more annoyed from the standpoint of journalistic professionalism and ethics. As Joe Gandelman said, "a line has been crossed."
--|PW|--
A long time ago. You've only just noticed?
One thing I have to point out is that the Michael Moore/movie screen comparisons are inapposite. Movie screens are not regulated public spectrum. However, there is a law that could be interpreted to require that Sinclair provide equal time to Kerry if the Sinclair channels air this documentary.
I didn't say that the law is definite -- merely that it could be interpreted a certain way.
--|PW|--
Could you please supply links for that claim? Thanks.
From the Bowling for Truth website:
As reported in the trade journal Screen Daily, affiliates of the Iranian and Syrian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah are promoting Fahrenheit 911 and Moore’s Middle East distributor, Front Row, is accepting the terrorist assistance:
In terms of marketing the film, Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there is anything they can do to support the film. And although [Front Row’s Managing Director Giancarlo] Chacra says he and his company feel strongly that Fahrenheit is not anti-American, but anti-Bush, “we can’t go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria.”
Nancy Tartaglione, “Fahrenheit to be first doc released theatrically in Middle East,” Screen Daily.com, June 9, 2004 (website requires registration). The story is discussed in Samantha Ellis, “Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah,” The Guardian, June 17, 2004; and “Moore film distributor OK with terror support: Exec says firm doesn’t want to risk boycott of ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ in Mideast,” WorldNetDaily.com, June 22, 2004.
However, that doesn't address Dean's contention that the film "derives some of its profits from terrorist groups like Hamas..." any more than Mel Gibson's film did.
I find it rather funny.
And for the record, I would not protest Soros buying time on any network to air Farenheit 9/11, nor do I think it would need "balance" - and that's exactly the treatment I think Stolen Honor should get. Rights to free speech cut both ways.
As for the arguments about the public spectrum: Sinclair notes that the Kerry campaign was given an opportunity to respond if they wanted to. Frankly, in a world of cable television, the internet, satellite TV, newspapers, radio, etc. I'm no longer moved by arguments that TV stations have an obligation to provide "balance" any more than movie theater or book store or radio station owners are. But you could make the argument.
Would it be more fair if they provided balance? Yep.
Ara Rubyan: I would feel George Soros was an evil man to do such a thing, just as Michael Moore is an evil man for making the movie, and just as his apologists are all, to a person and without exception, either people people who badly need to be educated about the evil they've embraced, or intellectually dishonest apologists for evil. In short, they're either useful idiots or they're willing servants to evil.
Bringing up Mel Gibson's film is a fascinating change of subject. Assuming that Gibson coordinated the distribution of his film in the Middle East in the way that Moore did, or that he stood idly by and simply blamed Jews for any terrorist recruitment that occurred as a result of his film, then I would utterly condemn it. If Gibson's film is being used the way Fahrenheit 9/11 is being used then I would expect Gibson to condemn it and take actions to try to stop it.
Although even still, Gibson's is a work of faith. Moore, of course, has gone far beyond that, portraying American troops as working evil upon helpless people in order to make evil men wealthy and powerful. Do you see a real moral equivalency there? Somehow I doubt you really do. But then, you are a Michael Moore apologist, so I can't pretend I really understand the depths of evil you're willing to apologize for if it's politically convenient to you.
Now, to return to the subject: we know for a fact that Moore coordinated distribution of his vile hate-film with Hezbollah. We know it is being used both as propaganda to demoralize our troops in the field AND as a recruitment film by our enemies. Evidence of that has been linked numerous times off of this weblog and in many other sources which you have to have read.
Oh, and by the way, before someone trots the cheap arguments out, let's just cut the bullshit right away: Klan speech is protected by the first amendment. Holocaust revisionism is protected by the first amendment. Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" messages are protected by the first amendment. All of those things are examples of free speech. That makes none of them things any less evil or worthy of contempt by decent, honorable people, and so anyone who's tempted to shoot off mealy-mouthed, bullshit phrases like "patriotism" or "first amendment" in defense of hate-speech like Michael Moore's movie can just stuff it.
Let us also dispense with the cheap, sleazy, intellectually dishonest claim that it is a film that arouses people's anger because it "criticizes President Bush." No. What Maureen Dowd does is criticize President Bush. What Michael Moore did with this film portrayed American troops as working evil upon innocents at the behest of evil people. It is a film that is being used as propaganda by terrorists and is demoralizing troops on the field of battle, and it is killing people. That is not hyperbole, it is not exaggeration, it is not melodrama, it is what is happening.
It is, in short, no less evil than such protected works of free speech as The Turner Diaries or The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. It is spreading hatred, spreading lies, and killing people--and it will continue to kill people for years to come, and regardless of the outcome of the next election.
And what's more, defending it (as you have) as if it's a mere "political cartoon" is in no way different from political cartoons that show Jews eating Arab babies in the Middle East. Hate speech is still hate speech, whether it's a "cartoon" or occasionally has something funny in it or not.
Now, to get to your direct question: How would I feel if George Soros paid to put it this on the air? I'd feel exactly the same as if George Soros bought copies of The Turner Diaries and distributed them to every school child in America, along with handy summaries explaining to them that, "well you know some of this is exaggerations, but if even PARTS of it are true, it really makes you stop and think, doesn't it?"
The Michael Moore apologists in my life fall into roughly three categories: 1) misinformed people who are willing to learn the truth, who I will talk to, 2) relatives who I cannot escape, and 3) former friends I've written out of my life forever.
Just like the racist, white supremacists, and anti-semites I've known.
Clear enough, sir?
451° F. = 910.67° Ra.
Or, in round numbers:
Fahrenheit 451 = Rankine 911
If Michael Moore would be willing to convert to the Rankine scale, do you suppose Mr. Bradbury could have his title back again?
Please tell me you've seen the film.
Nevertheless, I do believe that if you rotate the letters of "Fahrenheit 9/11" and run them through an equation involving the square root of negative one, they likely spell out "SWEET ILLUMINATI SUBMISSTION." Or so I've heard tell, anyway.
Thanks for your kind words.
I should mention that Michael Moore comparisons are a bit off. As far as the legal issue goes, the governing law is Section 305, which requires that a broadcast outlet grant equal time and/or cost to candidates outside the context of news broadcasts.
Under this, if Sinclair were to give the Bush campaign a 90 minute free informercial, it would also be required to give the Kerry campaign a free 90-minute infomercial.
News doesn't count, as it's specifically exempt under Sec. 305 -- which is precisely the exemption that Sinclair is trying to duck under with its defense that this is a news documentary.
The Moore analogy is inapposite because Moore's movie is on movie screens and DVDs which are all private property, but Sinclair is using public airwaves, which are regulated under the assumption that they're the province of the public, held in trust by the U.S. government, and licensed to station owners.
--|PW|--
I've heard you excoriate Pat Buchanan. Tell me, did you ever read his autobiogrpahy, <i>Right From The Beginning</i>? Or perhaps his <i>A Republic, Not An Empire<?i>?
I have not read <i>The Turner Diaries</i> or <i>The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion</i>. I rely upon the many scholarly and respectable sources which have examined these hate-works in great detail. Scholars of the right, of the left, of the center, of varying viewpoints, trustworthy and decent people all.
The same is true for <i>Fahrenheit 9/11</i>. I've read detailed accountings of what's in the hate-film, and furthermore, I've seen this fascist propagandist's other work. I have long recognized him for what he is—a hate-merchant and lying propagandist of the highest order that no decent, intellectually honest person would ever try to defend or apologize for.
In the case of this particular film, I cannot see it until I can find a way to do so without putting any money into his pocket (and that includes viewing copies that other people have purchased, which I also won't do). I would no more do this than I would buy a copy of <i>The Turner Diaries</i> from a Neo-Nazi.
So, I do what other people do in these situations: I trust the views of intellectually honest and worthy scholars of the left, of the right, and of the center who have examined the material and documented its many deep deceptions in a detailed fashion. I also trust the views of soldiers in the field, and of the journalists who report how this film is being used to recruit confused young Arabs to the anti-American cause.
I've never read <i>The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion</i>. Have you? Do you refuse to condemn it even so?
Also, have you ever read <i>Mein Kampf</i>? If not, do you feel truly comfortable condemning Hitler?
I utterly admit to a certain amount of Schadenfreude on this. After watching the Michael Moore apologists rub their hands with glee over the last year I want to vomit when I watch some of these exact same people now making mealy-mouthed objections to the airing of Stolen Valor as if it's somehow unfair. Indeed, it's almost sick to compare the two. One is actual POWs telling their real-life stories. The other is a man who wsa a documented lying propagandist even before he made his latest film.
Yet ultimately, in a sense, it gets down to a certain reality we're all facing: the media is simply no longer what it was 30 years ago. There are so many different competing outlets and voices now, it seems odd to expect the broadcast networks to adhere to rules designed for decades ago when any given market had perhaps a dozen radio stations, 3 TV stations, and one or two newspapers. That's just not the world we inhabit now.
In all seriousness, from what I've heard, the film isn't going to be particularly entertaining, and given that the tentative broadcast date is October 23, a Saturday night, I don't see why people who have a problem with it can't just turn off their TVs and go out dancing or something instead. But then, if the Superbowl taught us anything, it's that Americans don't know how to turn off their TVs when they see something they don't like.
On the other hand, Dean, here's some ammo for you re:Penny Wit's point.
For all their pissing and moaning, the Donks were at it first, and more. On Monday (Oct 11) Sundance televised a documentary about the recent anti-Bush concert series, Tuesday was The President Versus David Hicks.
Later this month on Sundance we'll see With God on Our Side: George W. Bush and the Rise of the Religious Right in America, and on night before the election Sundance will broadcast Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, and Unconstitutional: The War on Our Civil Liberties.
Quoting Kucewicz: "By the time the polls close on Nov. 2, the Sundance Channel will have consigned roughly 35 hours of programming to films attacking President Bush and other Republicans. Meanwhile, it's also televising the Al Franken radio show three times every weekday. In toto, Sundance will devote 81 hours over a 22 1/2-day period, or fully 15 percent of its airtime, to decidedly anti-Bush programming.
And you can forget about "equal time." Not one film on Sundance's schedule can be construed as pro-Bush, pro-GOP or even politically balanced. Its pre-election political film selection is instead uncompromisingly monolithic and deeply hostile to Republicans and President Bush.
Never before in the annals of U.S. broadcasting has a television network so vigorously and unabashedly pursued such a totally one-sided political agenda, unquestionably intended to influence voters ahead of what's shaping up to be a very close presidential election."
I think that sums it up pretty well. Please note that the Sinclair network did invite Kerry to respond, and he refused.
'nuff said...
--|PW|--
--|PW|--
Other than that, anything goes, whether I agree with it or not. That means that I will defend the right of anybody to propagate racist, anti-Semitic, Holocaust denial, Communist, anti-gun, anti-homosexual, anti-sexual, etc., propaganda -- just as I will defend to the death my own right to oppose their ideology with my own pro-homosexual, pro-sexual, pro-self ideology and theology.
I haven't yet seen Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", but I have read enough about it here in Dean's World, in Eric Scheie's Classical Values, and elsewhere to form an opinion of it already, which is thoroughly negative. I condemn Michael Moore for his whitewashing of Saddam's tyranny and for his attacks on our soldiers, who are laying their lives on the line to defend his freedom as well as mine and their own.
I have seen Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ", which I must say is so far the best movie about Jesus that I have ever seen. It is shown from a traditional Christian, orthodox Catholic point of view, and I see nothing wrong with that. It is extremely graphic and realistic in its depiction of the crucifixion of Christ, so don't watch it too close before dinner, I must advise. (Fortunately, I ate before I saw the film.) I must also note that it was not anti-Semitic any more than it was anti-Roman, or as some Objectivists have objected, anti-human, since one of its theological premises is that we are all born in Original Sin so we are all guilty of his death. I don't agree with that, but I do understand it.
I have read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (in a book which also contains a history of that lie and also the fictional works on which that vile forgery was based). I have also read "The Turner Diaries", Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (or "Mein Krapp" as I sometimes call it), and other Nazi and Holocaust denial propaganda. I have also read Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and various writings of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. I am daily awash in anti-homosexual propaganda from some of the commenters here in Dean's World and numerous other places throughout the blogosphere. I oppose and condemn all of that but I will defend to the death your right to do with it as you please so long as you stay off my property.
I'm glad they are showing "Stolen Valor". I salute our brave P.O.W.s, and I'm glad that they are telling their story. All America must know the truth about what the Communists did to our soldiers in Viet Nam.
Bulls***. Try another tack.
--|PW|--
SBG is using the public spectrum to provide local programming.
Apples and oranges.
And, no, it isn't censorship to boycott SBG's advertisers. Last I looked, I am free to stop shopping at Radio Shack for whatever reason I deem appropriate.
Furthermore, I can complain to the FCC the next time SBG's license is up for review.
Although I haven't downloaded it myself, I did find a site that has a link to a two-part zip file that purports to be Fahrenheit 9/11.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=501
Let me know if it works.
--|PW|--
Given the choices, they'll run their ads and figure the heat will blow over.
I'm curious: how exactly is a documentary about what an asshole John Kerry is a gift to Bush? How do you know that it's not a gift to Nader? How do you know that they're not doing it because they just hate the bastard?
Or are the relevant laws that you can't do anything which might indirectly help a candidate on the public airwaves without being paid for it by that candidate?
And if that's the case, wouldn't accepting attack ads against Bush form Kerry be a donation to Nader's campaign? Or the other way around: accepting a paid political ad against Bush by a 527 would be a gift to Kerry since he didn't pay for it himself?
(I'm presuming that the relevant law isn't as asinine as it sounds, but these do seem like legitimate problems.)
I read "Das Kapital" a long time ago. I thought Marx's premises were incomplete if not insubstantial, and that, therefore, his conclusions could never be correct.
Aside from all this, I think there should be no restrictions on the right to publish, film, warble or chant whatever you want. Just so none of the rest of us are compelled to toss nickels and dimes into your tin cup. We all owe everyone a right to freedom of speech. None of us owe anyone a living.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
no problem.
"Furthermore, I can complain to the FCC the next time SBG's license is up for review."
That is censorship if anything is, having a government agency shut down a TV or radio station because you don't like their views. I'm against that.
And your hypo illustrates another problem here; when you give free time to one candidate, you potentially open yourself up to a multitude of demands that must be litigated either at the FCC or in the courts.
Somebody else has already said that the law needs changing; I would agree that the law should be amended in the near future. Between campaign finance reform and existing rules regarding the broadcast spectrum, not to mention the accretion of station ownership to larger and larger corporations, it may be time to re-examine some traditional assumptions about media regulation.
--|PW|--
If the latter, then I find the distinction artificial and irrelevant. Cable access is so common enough these days as to be nearly universal. Is a "broadcast" essentially free? After all you have to buy a TV to watch it. Even a newspaper costs fifty cents.
In other words, there are no free media. We pay for every medium, in varying degrees.
My position is that standard-package cable channels are essentially similar to (literally) broadcast channels in that both are nearly universally received in the United States these days. As usual, the law has failed to keep pace with technology.
Now if Sundance is a premium channel (sorry guys, I haven't had cable, or watched TV in years) then I'll agree with Penny Wit. That would put the presentation in the same class as the proposed 9/11 pay-per-view broadcast; or should I say selectcast? :)
As I've said already, I consider events such as pay-per-view as something a specific individual chooses to watch; therefore the publishing company has no obligation to provide equal time, any more than Amazon is obliged to sell a customer Ann Coulter's Treason after they've purchased Moore's Dude, Where's my Country?
I still say this is a case where the squishy lefties think it's ok for Donks to do it, but not Derms; like it's ok for Soros to dump literally millions into character-assassination ads about Bush, but oh! listen to them squeal when Navy veterans loudly proclaim that their anointed emperor is butt-nekkid.
And that's a mental picture that'll take a 12-pack to get out of my mind, now. Ewww...
In terms of the existing law, Sinclair is on shaky ground.
If I were in charge, I would rewrite the broadcast spectrum laws to do away with the entire "public purpose" doctrine. I would also do away with content-based regulation of swear words and politics.
No more fines for not running enough educational programming. No more fines for showing Janet Jackson's breast on national TV. The only rule I would retain is the one that requires parity in ad rates and (possibly) limits on the number of stations that could b owned by one entity.
The second thing I would do is increas the user fees for spectrum licenses. I would then take those user fees and use them to further subsidize PBS and NPR.
Essentially, I would advocate a mostly free content marketplace, but set up one public network that seeks out and broadcasts niche programming that wouldn't necessarily survive in the marketplace.
--|PW|--
Indeed, I believe the FCC should greatly loosen up licensing requirements. There's no reason that every channel on the dial shouldn't have something on it. I think the only reason it doesn't is because the FCC makes it too expensive (well, that and cable TV makes the broadcast spectrum somewhat less meaningful).
Of course the hypocritical cretins who laughed and applauded Michael Moore's hate-film are free to protest Sinclair if they want to. Just as I'm free to call them out on it. If they try to threaten Sinclair's licensing status, they are of course guilty of demanding censorship. But simply protesting, or boycotting? That is and never has been censorship.
"I won't live in a country where people aren't allowed to call me a fag."
That was one of the noblest statements I have ever seen.
That was via Eric Scheie.