/me sheds crocodile tears for the enforcement against state propaganda of a law passed by the present government.
Kerry is a part of that "present government".
Sinclair Broadcasting is going to use the public airwaves for the anti-Kerry film. It is quite different from Fahrenheit 911 or FoxNews, where people pay for that distorted information.
The public owns the airwaves, and grants limited licences through the FCC for a broadcaster to use part of that spectrum. Part of that licence includes "fairness" clauses.
The correct response to the Sinclair propaganda is to lobby the FCC for their licences not to be reviewed.
is it also equally fair that CBS should be lobbied to have it's license revoked, for Dan Rather's propagation of fraudulent material potentially causing a "bias" in favor of the democratic party? Would any democrat lobby faithfully for such a thing?
Personally, I don't buy the myth of a fair and balanced press. People always bring their stomach to the table. Sometimes it takes big money, but sometimes it takes big people too, to make challenges to the establishment. If Kerry is elected, he potentially becomes the establishment, and I can sympathise (irrespective of my personal disagreement) with the ill will of the likes of the "Swift Boat Veterans".
Balancing the knife between suppressing dangerous speech, and protecting "dangerous speech", is not a job we should take to so readily.
I think that Sinclair is putting their license at risk, provided any of the material they present as documentarial fact can be proven incorrect or suppositional. However, in some respects, as a private company, are they not permitted to present as fact something they can argue as fact, provided they accept the consequence of that? As a private company, are they not permitted to decide how they use their license, especially since the license is not a free commodity, but one that was paid for, provided they stay within the bounds of law?
I guess that is the issue: is it free speech, or soft money, or just politicoporn? Is the speech being objected because the content is "objectionable" or even "obscene" to Kerry Democrats?
In the old days, there was an "equal time" doctrine for political speech on public airwaves. But Reagan killed it. Probably because it was too difficult to implement.
I would be quite happy, however, if Sinclair voluntarily broadcast, for example, Fahrenheit 911 as an antidote to the anti-Kerry film.
I wonder if they could afford the rights?
"free access" versus "paid content" is the ongoing property battle which will define our generation. Must all information freely accessible be totally fair and equitable, "safe"? Can paid content be "no holds barred"? Does anyone really understand the difference or the boundary between the two?
Once that issue is clear, I think arguing based upon the difference between the two will make a lot more sense.
there is no direct analogy, and the author of the article is not trying to equate the two.
The problem is, there are four parties in this election: the people who like Bush, the people who like Kerry, the people who hate the current "regime", and the people who hate the idea of the future "regime". That is, not including people like myself, who recognize all four choices as equally lame.
Picture yourself four years from now.
Given the choice, between another four years of a reprehensible kerry administration, or a potentially equally reprehensible republican candidate, or...
a choice between electing the unelectible Cheney into the presidency, or a better democrat than Kerry now fielded in response to getting slapped down by losing 2004, or...
some choice which hasn't come to light yet.
It's not all about today. I'm not trying to get you to vote otherwise. I'm trying to get people thinking about why they vote the way they do, and to think harder about those thought patterns. Fundametally, because I think voting the lesser of two evils, *as a philosophy*, is a path to decline.
Would you ever choose between two software solutions because one sucked less?
What few people have said is what they like about both the candidates, and stacked that up. Mostly because people are so obsessed with the evil that is gnawing them, they have forgotten to let loose hope.