[Cerek]

Originally posted by Grojlach: That's a wholly different thing altogether Cerek, and you know very well that's the case. People actually had to put some effort and extra money into it to actually go and see F9/11; bar public expectation, no one was forcing a cinema or broadcast network to show it (plenty of cinemas had refused it), nor were stations forcing it upon anyone who simply want to tune in to a station's regular programming. I don't think a Sinclair owned tv station has the option of refusal, however.

No, Groj, it is NOT "a wholly different thing altogether" as much as the opponents of Bush would like to say it is.

Sinclair may be able to force their stations to air the program, but they cannot force the viewer to actually WATCH the program. And the ONLY effort required to avoid the Sinclair project is a simple CLICK of the remote.

The core issue is the exposure the Sinclair project will supposedly have on the viewing public...but even in your wildest imaginations, there is NO WAY you could honostly say that one 42-minute program is going to get even a FRACTION of the "total viewing audience" that has already seen F9/11 (and that doesn't include the DVD sales or the pre-election special broadcast). The bottom line is that BOTH projects are nothing more than blantant political messages wrapped up in the guise of a "documentary" or a "news program". And - of the two - F9/11 reached more viewers in it's opening weekend than the Sinclair Project will recieve in their airing.

Also, who is actually gonna WATCH the Sinclair show and how many of those viewers will actually CHANGE thier vote because of it. Do your REALLY believe that someone sitting on the fence - but leaning towards Kerry - is going to watch this drivel from Sinclair and say "Wow...I had NO IDEA he was such a scumbag. Gosh, I better vote for Bush as quick as I can." ? N0. Most likely the ones that watch the show will be the ones that ALREADY think Kerry is a scumbag who is lying through his teeth about his military record. So I really don't think it will have THAT big an impact on the overall vote (though I do concede it won't be from lack of trying on Sinclair's part).

It is no secret that Kerry has virtually NO SUPPORT from ANYBODY connected to the military (according to comments I've heard on the news, radio and from members here at IW who are actually members of the military). In fact, I can think of only one member here with military experience that is definitely a Kerry supporter. Most others are firmly against him already and the show aired by Sinclair isn't going to change those opinions very much in either direction.

Originally posted by Grojlach: And I don't agree with F9/11 being aired on the night before the election either (by the way, I thought Michael Moore had yet to find a station for all this?) - though I'd like to see some evidence as to whether the showing of F9/11 was forced by some media tycoon onto the stations airing it as well. And note that if there is such evidence, that's still no excuse for Sinclair's decision - it only proves how rotten and "mainstream" partisan crap has truely become.

Actually, I have no problem with F9/11 being aired the night before the election. I think Moore should have pushed to have the broadcasts begin about a week before the election, but that isn't how HBO and SHO time do their programming. They only add 1-2 new movies to their rotation PER MONTH...and November 1st would be the earliest F9/11 could be shown to have maximum impact BEFORE the election. He could have pushed to have it added in the October rotation, but that would probably have been TOO soon and the impact would have worn off by November 2. Also, an October rotation would have preceded the release of the movie on DVD - another business/marketing faux pas. I had predicted that F9/11 would be released on DVD about 2 weeks before the election to gain maximum impact - but Moore timed it to coincide with the beginning of the Presidential debates. As usual, Moore knows MUCH more about "perfect timing" than I do.

To be perfectly honost, I actually agree with you about Sinclair (at least in principle). This IS a really "dirty" move on their part and is blantantly political. I agree it is shameful for a media corporation especially to use it's power in such a way, but I still believe the actual impact of the show itself will be far less than anticipated. Now, a good buddy of mine said that this just shows how low Boy George is willing to go to smear Kerry - but that is misleading. There is NO evidence to suggest that Bush or any of his staff had ANYTHING to do with the decision made by the Sinclair execs. I know it is hard for the liberals to believe, but there really ARE people (like the Swifties) who actually DO HATE Kerry enough to launch these attacks on their own WITHOUT the express written permission of the President. I'm sure Bush isn't upset about the action taken by Sinclair, but that is a FAR CRY from being personally responsible for it also.

One other ironic note about the Sinclair Project is that they seem to have taken some lessons from Michael Moore himself. This 42 minute program of thiers would not have recieved anywhere NEAR the attention it has (and thus wouldn't have recieved near the viewers it will) if this "controversy" hadn't recieved the national coverage it has. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that Sinclair themselves were the ones that "leaked" the story to the general media.