Originally posted by hagbard
Thanks, sorry for not catching your point sooner. Question for you. Is airing this film different from airing F911 commercials? Anticipating that your answer might be yes, because the f911 commercials dont necessarily mention Bush, isnt that a technicality?
Next. Would you like to see F911 on the TV? If it was aired, would that be any less illegal? or is it simply more acceptable in your eyes because the film promotes your politics?
Thanks, sorry for not catching your point sooner. Question for you. Is airing this film different from airing F911 commercials? Anticipating that your answer might be yes, because the f911 commercials dont necessarily mention Bush, isnt that a technicality?
Next. Would you like to see F911 on the TV? If it was aired, would that be any less illegal? or is it simply more acceptable in your eyes because the film promotes your politics?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-n...home-headlines
"Cable, however, doesn't have the reach of broadcast stations like Sinclair's, nor is it subject to the same federal regulations. Still, although broadcast stations are required to provide equal time to major candidates in an election campaign, the Sinclair move may not run afoul of those provisions if Kerry or a representative is offered time to respond. Moreover, several sources said Sinclair had told them it planned to classify the program as news, where the rules don't apply.
Calling it news, however, poses its own problems, said Keith Woods, dean of the faculty at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla., that teaches professional ethics. "To air a documentary intended to provide a one-sided view of Kerry's record and call it news ? it's like calling Michael Moore's movie news," he said, adding that the closer to an election that a controversial news report is aired, the "higher the bar has to go" in terms of fairness."



Comment