Imagine if this war had 95% public support and the Bush admin decided to read the names as a tribute to the fallen. Now imagine if Ted Turner refused to allow CNN to carry the broadcast becuase he believed it to be politically motivated. Can you imagine the outcry from the right? Can you imagine how Turner would be cast as a "traitor", "unpatriotic", "liberal", etc., etc?

Exactly. Why is it a "political statement" to honor the war dead, but it is not a "political statment" to send them off into war in the first place?

Whatever happened to "supporting our troops"?

Of course it was a political statement to send them off to war in the first place. Who stated otherwise? IMHO the question isn't "is it a political statement to honor the war dead" but more a case of what is the political statement/motivation behind ABC wanting to "honor the war dead"?


Listening to ABC read names is supporting our troops :confused:


WRT the hypothetical mentioned by Numanoid of course there would be people decrying it, just like there are people decrying what ABC is doing and what Smith is doing. It still wouldn't change the fact it would be within Turner's right to not to air them if he chose not to.

Legal right, not right as a policy decision since the likelihood of actual financial harm to the broadcast outlet is nil. As a policy decision, both actions would be wrong.

I wonder what your definition of support is?

Let's send them of to fight, and if they die, well, let's not speak of them again.

If I or a member of my family died for their country, I'd want their sacrifice shouted from the mountaintops. Isn't that the whole motivating force behind most of our veteran's organizations?

Oh no, it's before an election and it may sway a few soccer mom's opinion...forget everything we used to stand for, we're now against it (at least until mid-November). -rolleyes-

That's just it, I don't believe this can be cast as a universal right/wrong decision. If we shared a common morality/sense of duty/obligation then it could be. Since we all view things differently and have different reactions to events what you judge as wrong isn't necessarily wrong for the person who made the judgment. So in the case of Sinclair as long as they aren't breaking any laws/contracts the action they are taking isn't necessarily by definition "wrong". You (and others) may judge it so but there are others who judge it differently. Neither group is necessarily off track.

Isn't that why it best left for the people/viewers to decide on an individual basis?

Because it is newsworthy. No one gets upset at the media for reporting on the war, which I guess could also be argued as a "political statement" if simply reading names of the war dead is also "political".

Go back and search the Other forum, I've posted plenty of thread about how to support our troops. I've also posted plenty of ways in which you can be informed of this information on a regular basis instead of a 1 time media/sweeps week ploy.


Do you even know which side of the argument I've taken on the reading of the names? I don't believe I've stated a firm position either way as it fundamentally doesn't bother me if they do, nor does it bother me if they don't (or if Sinclair decides not to do it). My main argument through out this debate (here and in the Other) has been I don't see how this could not be considered a political statement. Overall though it seems the only people really getting bothered about influencing the "soccer moms" (most of whom will probably not be up this late to watch it anyway) are on the anti-war side.

In the best of all worlds, sure, why not... we don't live in that world though. We live in this world where every one w/ a little bit of power flexes their muscles when they feel it is in their interest. ABC is flexing their muscle by deciding to read the name the 2nd day of sweeps and a year after the "mission accomplished" speech. Sinclair/Smith is flexing his muscle by telling them to piss off. Neither has anything to do w/ me fundamentally so aside from making the agrument it is a political statement from ABC (since some seem to believe it is not) I see no real need to form an opinion. Am I getting close to the "bad things happen because good men do nothing" trap... potentially I guess. However as this information is readily available I just don't see where it is that big of a deal (them doing it or Sinclair blocking it).

:confused: I've heard plenty of people get upset over how the media reports the war. Constantly there are charges of over reporting the negative and under reporting the positive [but since those only come from the right they don't count right ;)]. I've even some addmissions (press club meetings on CSPAN and what not) of the "if it bleeds it leads" theory of editing/deciding which stories make the news and which the floor. This war is as much a political war as actual fighting war, I don't see how anyone can consider it otherwise?

Edited to add: I've also heard people on the left complain sometimes about the reporting for not digging "deep" enough to get at the "hidden truth" behind what's going on in/about Iraq.

The soccer moms can be sleeping for all I care at 11:45 since I don't give a rat's ass if it effects how they vote since they will be certainly voting for one loser or the other. My opposition is based on the principle of a network affiliate circumventing viewer choice (in other words, making a decision for the individual) for a non-business reason.

Let's be real - did Sinclair not think ABC News had a media bias when they agreed to become a network affiliate? Did they think Ted Koppel was a neutral moderator with no political leanings on an opinion show? They knew and now they have such a reaction?

And my "support" (if you want to call it that) is based on the principle he owns the company and should be free to do w/ it as he will (as long as it is legal [within the context of laws and/or contracts] ;)). IMHO that's the reality of the situation, anything else is idyllic fantasy.

Supporting the right is one thing (has anyone actually disagreed with you about whether the affiliate does not have the right?). Supporting the action is another. I have the ability to separate the two.

This is where the problem/disagrement lies then. You (I believe correct me if I'm wrong) support the right but not the action. I support the right and make no judgment on the action because I'm exercising my right not to form an opinon ;)

Why doesn't Sinclair simply run a continuous crawl during Nightline saying "the management of the affiliate does not agree with this politically-motivated decision by the network to air such content during a news program, however, in the spirit of freedom of choice, we believe the viewer should make the decision of whether to view the program or not."

:confused: Let us know what he says when you email him...

Yeah - I'd have just as much success as when I complained in writing to our lousy Senators about the Broadcast Decency Act. Conservatives tend to be close-minded when it comes to censorship in all its forms.

Wasn't Liberman the one leading the charge against HW? Wasn't Tipper Gore the person we have to thank for getting all the old WB cartoons edited? I don't think either party necessarily has a grip on censorship personally. Sure Cons are more likely to put up the "morals" argument (they are sticking up for what they believe in after all, would you have them do otherwise) but it's certainly not a lock.

If I was a Democrat, your rebuttal might have made sense. :lol: Of course, you said yourself, conservatives are more likely to be moralists, so you obviously agree with my point (since I used the word 'tend.'). It is certainly the case with our asshat Virginia senators. I thought conservatives were for smaller government? Oh yeah, not when they are in power.

I guess you missed all those posts during Democratic primary season where I said that the last person I would ever vote for President is Bush Lite (Joe Lieberman) - he has the absolute worst political orientation of any Presidential candidate I have ever seen. I said that the only scenario where I would vote for Bush is if Lieberman somehow won the nomination.

Not "how" they report the war, the fact that they report on the war at all. Why is *that* ok, but not naming the war dead?

I fail to understand how one is political and one is not. It's news.

SO when the networks run programming on deceased veterans every year around Memorial Day it's politically motivated? That argument is an absurd one from a corporation that wants to dictate its viewpoint to its audience. I hope they get boycotted.

Oh, I get it....You must be part of that 60% of Americans they are always reporting about that mistakenly believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

I realize/remember you are not a Dem but a Libertarian (which still strikes me kind of odd in the context of the current debate[1]). My rebuttle was to your point not you therefore I stand by it, both parties are involved w/ censorship (and in fact most people at some point in their lives support censorship in one form or another since we do not [and can not reasonably IMHO] have a completely open society). So given your feelings about Liberman you obviously agree w/ my rebuttle -ptth-

[1] As I understand the Libertarian party it is about individual choice as long as you are willing to face the consequences of your actions (which is why c-man likes refer to it as the "anarchist party" ;)). I don't see why you aren't extending this courtesy to Smith/Sinclair? I agree you can disagree w/ the decision and maybe that's all you are doing, but it seems to me you are making more of an argument that because he's in a position of power he somehow must be held to a higher/different standard. Maybe that's a point I missed when reading about the LP but if freedom of action is what it's about, let him do what he will. Nothing is being done in secret, there is no conspiracy here, so I just fundamentally don't see the problem. ABC decided to read the name (which are already publically available in many places) and Smith/Sinclair announced he's going to preempt it. Each is taking an action/position based on their belief of what is the right thing to do. The two parties have planted their flags now it's up to the rest of us to decide how we are going to react (if we choose) to that.

Where did I ever say naming the war dead was not ok? I agree, I fail to understand how people can consider naming the war dead not to be a political statement (aka the actions by ABC are politically motivated as are the actions taken by Smith/Sinclair).