NYT: rave review of "Stolen Honor"

[robcon]

wtf is going on here? The reviewer of 'Stolen Honor thinks it should be shown on all networks and cable outlets???????

"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television. (my italics)

This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.


"...This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous antiwar activists, Mr. Kerry, the one who got credit for serving with distinction in combat, then, through the eyes of the veterans in this film, went home to discredit the men left behind. The film begins with dirgelike music and a scary black-and-white montage of stark images of soldiers and prisoners as a deep voice sorrowfully intones, "In other wars, when captured soldiers were subjected to the hell of enemy prisons, they were considered heroes." The narrator adds, "In Vietnam they were betrayed."

The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry's early 1970's meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. The Eiffel Tower would have been more neutral, but the film is not: it insists that Mr. Kerry "met secretly in an undisclosed location with a top enemy diplomat." Actually, Mr. Kerry, a leading antiwar activist at the time, mentioned it in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/arts/television/21stan.html?ex=1099022400&en=3d84a732b293b65f&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

[RandomKoolzip]

1. I'm guessing it's some sort of postmodern irony,

so wan and "nuanced" that it's pert-near impossible to assert that it exists.

[Cha]

2. I've heard the same about "Going Upriver"...

how about Equal Time?

[realFedUp]

26. ALESSANDRA STANLEY is the reviewer- not exactly a rave.

snip-
This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.

(and she lets everyone know where they can view
it for pay per view.)

[Khephra]

3. That's a bit surprising

Check out her other articles here:

http://www.timeswatch.org/topicindex/S/stanley_alessandra/welcome.asp

[robbedvoter]

7. She is on the truth side here too, but in the clueless NYT way

We do know that the swift boat ads did damage Kerry's numbers - mostly due to the media echo champer amplification. Not everyone is as sophisticated as her - to just see the vindictiveness in it.
I believe Kos has a transcript of the movie - if you have the stomach.

[SoCalDem]

32. So it's ok to stab someone because they were already shot anyway?

That seems to be her logic.. Since the SwiftieLiars already tarnished his reputation, why not pile on with ANOTHER vindictive piece..

As someone who knew VietNam vets (was engaged to one for a while), I can say this..

ATROCITIES HAPPENED.. they happen in EVERY war..

Scared young guys with guns do unusual and cruel things..

What tweaked the SwiftieLiars is probably THIS.. THEY DID IT TOO, only they have told their family and friends that they did NOT.. All the attention to the war forces those memories back to the forefront, and they did not want to deal with it again..

[The Doctor.]

18. Thanks for the link....

Do you have some notion of why this reporter would advocate a breach of the public trust?

(You know- all that 'equal time' stuff...)

.I can't think of anything just now.

[Khephra]

20. Sorry, but all I know about her is from a few Google searches

Nice gif! Good to see some other Zim fans here.

[Robbie67]

4. This doesn't look like a rave review

Sounds more like the author wants people to understand how emotionally driven the whole issue is.

[Carolab]

9. Sounds like she is downplaying

its potential effect on Kerry's campaign and therefore telling people to go ahead and watch it or download it. I don't appreciate it, when after all the content is not the issue, the airing of it on public airwaves without equal time IS.

[progressivebydesign]

28. John Kerry's, "CLAIM to herorism"???? That sounds like a good review? n/t

[4_Legs_Good]

5. "...This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous

anti-war activists..."

WTF does anyone want to punish him??? If it weren't for him and other protesters, MANY MANY more would have died!

I can understand feeling hurt, but this is rediculous! Kerry is a HERO precisely because he did come back from the war and fight against it.

Gah!

david

[Tesibria]

6. no -- she means it !!!

Read the whole article.

She says, twice, that it's available for viewing for on the internet -- then gives the website address (noting that it only cost $4.99 to watch) and notes that it's available on pay per view.

Per STANLEY (reviewer), even tho' it's "histrionic, often specious and deeply sad" -- we should all watch it because it will help "viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism."
...
"That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99."

Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect.
...
Excerpts from this program will be shown on various stations, but not in the New York metropolitan area; elsewhere check local listings. The entire program can be seen on the Internet on a pay-for-view basis and its audio can be downloaded online, both at www.stolenhonor.com.

[righteous1]

10. agree

I agree with you, can't figure this one out at all

[4_Legs_Good]

8. Has anyone here seen it?

I'd like to know how damaging one of us think it would be.

david

[righteous1]

14. Seen snipits

What i have seen worries me ,its extremely biased but done well so as not to make it blatant. This was no amateur that put this together. I only hope it doesn't get a lot of play because it could be very effective

[tishaLA]

33. Yes you sound deeply worried

[Lucille]

11. She calls it "histrionic," "specious," and "distorted"

Nevertheless she says it should be seen because it documents the rage and sense of betrayl of a group typically neglected by by historians. The fact that it distorts Kerry's record doesn't seem to impress her. I notice she repeats the distortions in her review.

This is probably one of the most muddled pieces of writing I have ever read in the NYT.

[billybob537]

12. If the truth hurts

If the truth hurts, you're doing some thing wrong! John Kerry told the truth if that upsets you don't kill the messenger, fix the problem.

[AndyTiedye]

15. LIES HURT TOO!

[dave123williams]

13. Nope; they still look like a bunch of Liberals over in Times Square...

Nice try, though.

[Old and In the Way]

16. So what are they angry about?

Kerry should have cheerleadered for more senseless killing? We only killed a couple of MILLION Vietnamese; that wasn't enough? We only LOST 50,000 Americans...that wasn't enough? We only had a few hundred thousand casualties....that wasn't enough?

Kerry was extremely active on the POW/MIA issues in Congress....I don't recall any of these jokers taking issue with Kerry then....why is that?

When is someone going to call these bastards on their character assassination of Kerry and make them answer WHY they wanted that war to continue? I wonder how many more American deaths it would have taken before they joined Kerry? 100,000? 250,000? 500,000?

Kerry honored this country by serving and putting his life on the line. He earned his right to his opinion. In fact he was a hero twice. Once for volunteering for this hazardous duty and secondly for understanding, firsthand, why this war needed to end and standing up to help make that happen.

Seems to me these people should be more outraged with war profiteers who avoided the draft (like Cheney) or spoiled rich kids who avoided service because their daddy pulled strings to save their worthless butts (like Bush).

But this is not the case...why? Because this is Republican cynical politics at its worst. Perhaps 1 or 2 have simple misguided hatred of Kerry, but clearly the majority are Republicans who will do or say anything to help the boyking maintain the Presidency.

[not fooled]

19. OAITW (NOT) makes too much sense

Apparently we are supposed to accept that reality, facts and common sense don't matter as much as emotion-based reactions and hurt feelings. After all, isn't that what the crackpots in the WH maintain--reality-based thinking is dead?

[librechik]

17. she corrects several facts that the film got wrong

very useful.

I am puzzled by the ambiguous tone, however. She seems to be trying to be especially "fair n balanced" to the anti-Kerry soldiers who never had their psycho-social pain properly responded to. How that is Kerry's fault is not explained. Even after pointing out the baseless accusations that are cataloged in the film, she continues to treat these people like they are genuine victims, rather than calculating vindictive RWers, which most of them are. I'm not her viewpoint is justified in this case, but she's welcome to her opinion. I'm not convinced.

[w4rma]

21. Every other anti-Democratic book or movie gets good reviews with the NYT.

I don't see why this one would be any different. The only times the NYT isn't anti-Democratic is when they endorce a Democratic Presidential candidate once per year and when Krugman writes his editorial.

OnEdit: I haven't read this editorial, but in some posts above folks who have read it seem to believe that this review is subversly anti-Stolen Honor. Which means that the Repugs will point at this review and say it was a good one and folks who actually read the details, without noting the overt support for this propaganda, will also. Ugh.

[MADem]

22. I thought the headlines were supposed to be posted in LBN

...as opposed to commentary about the article. The headline of this article is An Outpouring of Pain, Channeled via Politics. And it does not look like a "rave" review to me (histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film). It looks more like a commentary on the political season, and the conflict that still exists over the Vietnam divide, in the context of this film.

[highplainsdem]

23. What she says is hypocritical after her August 24 column, which

you can find in its entirety at http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/8/24/103720/167 .

TV Watch: On Cable, a Fog of Words About Kerry's War Record
Alessandra Stanley | August 24


There is the fog of war and then there is the fog of cable.

Over the last few weeks, 24-hour news networks have done little to find out what John Kerry did in Vietnam, but they have provided a different kind of public service: their examination of his war record in Vietnam illustrates once again just how perfunctory and confusing cable news coverage can be. Facts, half-truths and passionately tendentious opinions get tumbled together on screen like laundry in an industrial dryer - without the softeners of fact-checking or reflection.

Somehow, on all-cable news stations - CNN as well as Fox News - a story that rises or falls on basic and mostly verifiable facts blurs into just another developing news sensation alongside the latest Utah kidnapping or the Scott Peterson murder trial. (It is particularly confusing on Fox News, where so many of its blond female anchors look like Amber Frey.)

-snip-

CNN showed less relish over the Swift boat clash, but it was not much more helpful in separating fact from friction. Wolf Blitzer's interview with the tart-tongued Mr. Dole made a lot of news on Sunday, but CNN allowed him to make misleading assertions without pointing out where he was in error.

-snip-

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue.

-snip-

At best, cable news programs swing into action when a crisis or major news development occurs, marshaling their resources to give viewers instant, live access. At their worst, they amplify the loudest voices and blur complexities. People can blame the confusion of combat for some of the discrepancies over Mr. Kerry's war record, but cable has done little to clear the air.


How in the world did she go, in less than two months, from lecturing cable news for not putting enough emphasis on fact-checking and complexities, to cheerleading for propaganda like Stolen Honor? Has she completely missed the point that the Republican shills at Sinclair will be presenting this as news? And even if she thinks that it's important to get that point of view across, why isn't she at least saying that Fahrenheit 9/11 should be shown as well?

[tlcandie]

24. October 22nd LINK TV will be airing both films beginning at

11pm EST!! Check their site it's on front page!

Both Stolen Honor and Going Upriver...

EDIT: LINK TV schedule for the programs which will be shown back to back....

Broadcast Times
Friday, October 22 11:00 PM
Saturday, October 23 5:00 AM
Saturday, October 23 11:00 AM
Sunday, October 24 8:00 PM

[Carolab]

30. That's great about BOTH being shown!

even if it is only on satellite--fair and balanced, though. Figures, when you look at the list of Link's founders.

Program Details Spotlight: Forbidden Films About John Kerry
Length: 01:00 Type of program: Current Affairs

Broadcast Times
Friday, October 22 11:00 PM
Saturday, October 23 5:00 AM
Saturday, October 23 11:00 AM
Sunday, October 24 8:00 PM
Monday, October 25 2:00 AM
Monday, October 25 8:00 AM
Monday, October 25 2:00 PM
Tuesday, October 26 8:00 PM
Wednesday, October 27 2:00 AM
Wednesday, October 27 8:00 AM
Wednesday, October 27 2:00 PM
More
The first of a series of special Link TV Spotlight presentations that analyzes important political documentaries that you should see before you vote. Link TV brings you analysis of films that most American TV channels have chosen not to broadcast.

We launch the series with two films that have been in the news quite often in recent days. Much has been written about the Sinclair Broadcast Group’s decision to pre-empt one of its regular shows to show the anti-Kerry documentary Stolen Honor—Wounds that Never Heal to 62 markets. Yet, many of the pundits who have written about this controversy along with most of the American people, have not yet seen the documentary. In contrast to the Sinclair Broadcast Group which broadcast Stolen Honor without context or commentary, Link TV Spotlight host and political commentator Mark Hertsgaard investigates the truth and connections behind this powerful, yet polemical film. He offers analysis and expert commentary regarding the film’s central argument, namely that John Kerry was a traitor who imperiled the lives of POWs in Vietnam by his congressional testimony. To purchase the film or download the, please go link to www.stolenhonor.com.

In the second half of the program, Hertsgaard analyzes Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry, a feature length documentary about character and moral leadership during a time of national crisis. Loosely based on the best-selling book Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, Going Upriver examines the story of John Kerry and the key events that made him a national figure and the man he is today. The film places particular emphasis on his bravery during the Vietnam War and his courageous opposition to the war upon his return. For more information, and to purchase or download the film, please visit www.goingupriver.com.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

25. In a war based on lies, the truth feels like betrayal. Worth reflecting on

This isn't a "rave" review. The reviewer makes the point that these vet's and former POW's feelings of betrayal are another important facet to the issues in the Vietnam War.

This was the first time that soldiers turned against the government that sent them to war in large numbers along with the general public. This schism of national identity is a HUGE story that we are still processing over the war in Iraq today and very relevant.

Consider the reaction of today's US soldiers to the revelations of Abu Ghraib. The torture and abuse is universally condemned by our own troops today, not the soldiers who blew the whistle. This very different reaction is because Kerry laid the bloody truth on the kitchen table for all to see 33 years ago and we've (mostly) now come to accept that soldiers committing atrocities is a unquestionably a betrayal of our country, not the reporting of it.

Kerry's testimony condemned the negligent leadership class that allowed Vietnam to become hell on Earth for its own soldiers, not the soldiers who were victims and victimizers due to the loss of their own humanity.

In the tape of his 1971 testimony he said repeatedly "where is the leadership, where is the leadership here?"

It's extremely important to humanize all involved in the horrors of war, especially the soldiers who are betrayed by their own government and left to fight for their lives in hell. Sadly, the only people soldiers can count on to survive are their own brother soldiers.

Hence the tragedy of all soldiers who commit atrocities and betray their own humanity who are distanced (rightfully in my mind) by soldiers whose humanity has NOT been compromised to the point of no return.

Thank god there are still those who can tell the truth despite the social consequences of rejection from the herd.

Again, in a war based on lies the truth feels like betrayal. But the outrage of these vets who condemn Kerry should be against their own government, not the truth teller.

And Kerry told the truth!!
The reviewer confirms that atrocities were real near the end of the piece so that validates Kerry's humanity in speaking out against them-

>snip<

"...Kenneth J. Campbell, a decorated marine who is now a professor at the University of Delaware, recently sued the filmmakers, claiming the film was edited to take out clips in which Mr. Campbell made clear that only soldiers who witnessed the atrocities firsthand would be allowed to testify."

[tlcandie]

31. I think you are right in that the vets took their anger and feelings of

betrayal about the war and turned them onto Kerry because he DARED to speak the truth. Misplaced anger, rage, bitterness, resentment. Maybe this will show that.. I don't know.

I do know that his speech with the vets cheering him on touched be profoundly. The tone in his voice...his look...the silence...the committe member who spoke up so he could continue even though he ran out of time.

He only spoke of things that had already been brought up before the congressional(?) hearings from all the vets personally! He did not speak anything new or air anything that had not already been presented to the public or this government.

[progressivebydesign]

27. "his claim to heroism"????? I've FUCKING had it with the media!!!

CLAIM TO HEROISM??????????????????????? He's a hero, you stupid bitch! (That's WHAT they give those shiny medals out for!!)

[gavodotcom]

29. I think it's an OK review.

The writer is saying that the story of POWs is a story deserving to be told. The Swifties don't even tell this story. They're simply out to smear Kerry. I agree with this.

I agree with criticism that some of what she says are of sufficient 'sound byte quality' for the Swifties. I feel it was a poor choice. A more consise and straightforward review of the film would have been more appropriate.

However, she says, "Those kinds of distortions are intended to hurt Mr. Kerry at the polls. Instead, they mainly distract viewers from the real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect."

She's referring, amongst other things, the film's portrayal of other people's activities in soliciting testimony, as an indictment of Kerry.

[yardwork]

34. Please correct the title of this thread!

In LBN the title of the thread is supposed to reflect the actual title of the piece being linked. Your title is an editorial comment.

[MallRat]

35. The reader assumes the audience would be as repulsed as she is.

She's wrong.

A critical eye could watch "Stolen Honor" and be outraged at the pathetic flailings of some bitter old men with an axe to grind.

Sadly, your average TV viewer does not have a critical eye.

-MR

[jmowreader]

36. Here's how to do a fair-and-balanced showing of Stolen Honor

Play fifteen minutes of "Stolen Honor"

Play Symbolman's "Bush is Not a Nazi, so Stop Saying That"

Play fifteen more minutes of "Stolen Honor"

Play Symbolman's "Triumph of the Wimp"

Play fifteen more minutes of "Stolen Honor"

Play Symbolman's "Duct Tape Theatre"--or any other anti-administration flash

Play the rest of "Stolen Honor"

Finally, play Symbolman's "Bush Knew: An American Requiem"

And for good measure, play the video from the Dick Cavett Show where Kerry handed John McNeill his ass.

By the time we're done, the American people will think Kerry made John McNeill sad, but Bush should be put in a burlap sack with two cinder blocks at the bottom of it then dropped in the Potomac.

[Moderator]

37. Locking--not LBN

Nor is the title in accord with LBN rules

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x87249