Pro-Kerry filmmaker offers Sinclair 'equal time' solution

[NYCGirl]

The filmmaker behind the new pro-John Kerry documentary plans to offer it to Sinclair Broadcasting-- free of charge -- to see if the company is interested in showing its viewers a balanced presentation of the candidate. The challenge comes in the wake of Sinclair's extraordinary decision to force its 62 stations nationwide, just days before the presidential election, to air "Stolen Honor," which attacks Kerry's anti-war activities from the early 1970s, and which the Kerry campaign has labeled a smear film.

"Sinclair's using public airwaves to broadcast, at a politically sensitive time, an anti-Kerry message," says Paul Alexander, director of the critically-acclaimed "Brothers in Arms" film, which examines Kerry's experience in Vietnam, and casts him in a favorable light. "My argument is if they're going to air 'Stolen Honor' then they should run my film, and preferably in the hour right after it. I'm sending them a letter tomorrow demanding that." Earlier this week as the controversy brewed, a Sinclair spokesman told the New York Times the company would consider running a Kerry documentary from a different perspective. Alexander's offer may effectively, and publicly, call Sinclair's bluff.

"If they're going to air an anti-Kerry documentary, it's my opinion that under the equal time rule they're required to air the same amount of time" showing the other side, he adds, referring to the broadcast regulation that forbids stations from giving significant airtime to one candidate but not his or her opponent. The filmmaker says several television outlets have approached him about airing his film, "Brothers in Arms," but backed away when faced with the equal time restraint, which might force them to air a film about Bush. "But suddenly on the other side it's okay," to ignore the obligation for balance, asks Alexander.

Executives at conservative Sinclair, who made headlines last spring when they ordered their eight ABC stations not to run "Nightline" when the news show read the names of the fallen U.S. soldiers in Iraq, claim "Stolen Honor" is a news program and therefore does not fall under any equal time requirement. Alexander, noting "Stolen Honor" is widely available in DVD form to anyone who wants to purchase it, insists the film does not constitute news. He says he's also willing to offer his movie for free and to cut it down to match the exact the time length of "Stolen Honor." "I'll do whatever it takes," he says. Adding, "If they don't air it, then their intention with "Stolen Honor" is clear; it's a political move to assassinate the character of John Kerry."

-- Eric Boehlert

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

[GiovanniC]

1. Excellent.

[CatWoman]

16. a monty burns moment here

:D

[Noxmtbnk]

2. Call their bluff.

[Rowdyboy]

3. Very, very cool!

Make the bastards squirm.

[David Zephyr]

4. Tit for Tat! We Get the Tit and Sinclair Gets the Tat!

Quid Pro Quo in Rapid Response Time!

No possible justifiable rationale for not accepting this offer.

Anything less will be an obvious partisan move and would not be "news" by any stretch of the imagination.

[daleo]

5. Several angles Sinclair might use, to negate this:

Show the anti-Kerry film from 10:00 p.m. to midnight, then the pro-Kerry film from midnight to 2:00 a.m. (or some variation, depending on whether there is a prime-time restriction). Or, have no commercials in one of them and shoot the other full of advertisements. You know they will look hard for a loophole.

[sr_pacifica]

6. Good for Alexander! n/t

[NYCGirl]

7. Links to some reviews of "Brothers in Arms"

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004447-brothers_in_arms/

[henslee]

8. You're all wrong. An anti-Bush film is the only acceptable alternative.

Otherwise, KKKarl has effectively made this a referendum on Kerry and has completely removed the topic of Bush from the equation.

Why does JK always have to be defending his record? I love you guys and I love going upriver but it is still not fair. Much rather see Bush's brain.

[IdaBriggs]

10. I agree. nt

[sonicx]

13. an anti-bush doc could air, if its distributor allowed it

but none have stepped forward, i don't think.

[KittyWampus]

18. You Are Right. Thanks For Bringing This Up...

Du'ers sure are smart :)

[NVMojo]

19. good point, it needs to be like F9-11

bring the wrath of truth down on the Bushites.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. It doesn't have to be a very long film, either....

Just show the seven minute clip of the Chimpster looking blank immediately following the 911 attacks.

You might want to spend a few minutes setting the scene by describing the attacks, and then show the Chimpster's seven-minute blank-out.

If THAT by itself doesn't convince the viewers that the Chimpster is unfit to command, I don't know what will.

[sonicx]

9. cool. nt

[demokatgurrl]

11. No, don't do it- no negotiating with slimeballs

Let's keep up the boycotts and emails and phone calls and the PRESSURE.

[napi21]

12. Didn't Reagan do away with the equal time regulation?

I think this is a great idea! It is calling Sinclair's bluff, and we'll see if it works, but the equal time thing I think is gone.

[sonicx]

14. equal time is alive. reagon killed the "Fairness Doctrine"

it's similar, but i don't know its details.

[chrislrob]

15. I agree with Henslee

A film on why Kerry is a fraud can't be balanced by a film on why Kerry is an alright guy.

I'd rather it be all negative--Kerry the loser on a swiftboat in Vietnam versus * the loser in a bar in New England during Vietnam--you decide.

We just need to block this shit altogether.

[LiberalEsto]

17. Make them show F-911 n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. I agree 100%.

[WatchWhatISay]

26. Even if they did

Dont you think they'd then counter it with FarenHype, say as an unexpected last minute re-scheduling on Nov. 1st?

[AirAmFan]

20. If 'a picture is worth a thousand words', a minute of film at 30 frames a second

is worth 1,800,000 words. In any case, John Kerry can't counter a minute of film with a minute--or even ten minutes--of talking-head speech, no matter how persuasive he is. An anti-Kerry film can only be counterbalanced by an anti-Bush film with at least as high production values.

[antonialee839]

21. Touche

Take that you facist bastards.

[sofa king]

24. Fuck fairness. Destroy these weasels.

Sinclair is being publicly hypocritical and unethical while attempting to sway public opinion in a specific political direction.

As a researcher and legislative analyst, when I see that sort of behavior, I know exactly what that means: Sinclair stands to make a shitload of money (or already has made it) through questionable practices.

We should try to stop the broadcast because it is unprincipled and unfair. If they get away with it, they will set a precedent which will only be repeated in an ever larger fashion.

On the other hand... the Sinclair leadership, by broadcasting what amounts to a character smear, have opened themselves up to the same tactics. They are answerable to their investors.

They are also most likely amoral, cowardly dollar-worshippers. So here's where I'd take it:

Attack Sinclair leadership personally. Expose past criminal and unethical behavior of individuals within Sinclair. Make it public, particularly to Sinclair investors. Smear their characters. Threaten the things they value most--their money and their power.

There are two reasons to do this. The first reason is that if you can take them out you at least have a chance of having them replaced by less sociopathic individuals.

The second reason is that by putting public pressure on the most criminally and ethically vulnerable individuals within the corporate leadership, we increase the chances of those weasels fighting back. They can't fight back against us because ultimately, we are insignificant compared to their investors and rivals within the corporation.

Ideally, we could start a chain reaction of exposure and infighting which may reveal the true prize: the expected payoff from the Bush administration for doing this in the first place. Expose the payoff, and not only do you prevent Sinclair from profiting from this move, but you may open an avenue of investigation which leads to the Bush administration itself.

Take out Sinclair, and you just might also make an inroad into the criminal and unethical organization which runs this company.

Notice that "punishment" or "revenge" has nothing to do with it. Those are fringe benefits.

[FDRrocks]

25. All of this is just bad precedent!

Push for the film not to be aired at all.... end of story. This is skirting election laws in a most vile way.