|
Contributors
Cliff Kincaid- Contributor
Cliff Kincaid, serves as editor of the Accuracy
in Media (AIM)
Report. A veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff has
appeared on the Fox News programs Hannity & Colmes and
The O'Reilly Factor, where he debated O'Reilly on global
warming, the death penalty,
and the homosexual agenda. He was a guest co-host on CNN's Crossfire
(filling in for Pat Buchanan) in the 1980s, where he confronted
the then-Libyan Ambassador to the U.N. with evidence of Libyan
involvement in international terrorism. Through his America's
Survival, Inc., organization (www.usasurvival.org), he has been
an advocate on behalf of the families of victims of terrorism
and has published reports and held conferences critical of the
United Nations. His articles have appeared in the Washington
Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events, Insight, and
other publications. He served on the staff of Human Events for
several years and was an editorial writer and newsletter editor
for former National Security Council staffer Oliver North at
his Freedom Alliance educational foundation. He has written or
co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign
policy issues. Cliff is married and has three sons.[go to
Kincaid index]
 The
Liberal Censors
Wanting to hide the candidate's past…
[Cliff Kincaid] 10/15/04
My column
on the media war, “Sinclair
Vs. Sundance,” has
been met with claims that the Sundance Channel can do what it
wants, because it is a cable channel, and Sinclair Broadcasting
cannot, because it operates on the public airwaves and is subject
to federal “equal time” rules and regulations. This
is supposed to explain why the liberal media have gone crazy
over Sinclair’s planned airing of the film, Stolen Honor,
and why they ignore Sundance showing hours of anti-Bush “Vote
for Change” rock concerts, Al Franken’s radio show,
and other partisan political programs.
While I have accepted the belief that Stolen
Honor is anti-Kerry, the fact is that it does not advocate
the election or defeat
of any candidate. “Some of the people who are squawking
the loudest about this have never seen the film,” Charlie
Debrow told me. Debrow, who is a publicist for the film, adds, “That,
in and of itself, speaks volumes.”
He explains, “It doesn’t say anywhere, ‘Vote
against John Kerry.’ Nowhere in the film does it have anything
to do with him as a candidate. It’s about him and his actions
and the impact of his actions on American POWs. John Kerry is
the one who made this a political issue, not Carlton Sherwood
[the producer] or the courageous men in this film.
“Second, nobody has said there is one word in Stolen
Honor that isn’t true. Nobody has said, ‘This is a bunch
of lies. This is factually inaccurate. This isn’t true.’
“Third, what does John Kerry have to fear with the American
people seeing this? What is he afraid of? Why is this a political
boost to George Bush? This doesn’t say, ‘Vote for
George Bush.’
“It’s a documentary of what Kerry said, and he said
he was proud of saying it. That was his position. If he’s
now changed his position, he should stand up and say so.”
Stolen
Honor is as much a documentary or news
program as 60 Minutes on CBS, which also operates on the public
airwaves. You’ll
notice that the critics of Stolen Honor were not screaming about
CBS abusing the public airwaves in broadcasting the phony National
Guard story using forged documents against Bush. They didn’t
call for sanctions against CBS when that atrocity occurred. But
they urge Federal Communications Commission or Federal Election
Commission action against Sinclair.
A professor named Tom Proietti compares Stolen
Honor to Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11. If any
broadcast station decided to show Fahrenheit 911, he said,
it might be considered
unfair or illegal. But that would depend, in part, on whether
the Bush campaign was given a chance to respond. The Kerry campaign
has been promised time to respond to Stolen Honor but has refused.
Stolen
Honor describes how Kerry’s testimony about U.S.
soldiers being war criminals contributed to the torture of our
POWs. This may be deemed anti-Kerry, but it is nevertheless a
factual account and documentary record of what these brave men
suffered through. It is evidence of the mainstream media’s
liberal bias that one of the major broadcasting news operations
hasn’t aired a piece of this nature. Sinclair is performing
a public service, providing absolutely critical information about
Kerry’s record.
If a broadcast network aired Fahrenheit
9/11 and gave the Bush campaign a chance to respond, the response
would be devastating.
The serious flaws in the film, even those documented by mainstream
news organizations, would be exposed and Moore’s kind words
about the terrorists in Iraq, posted on his own website, would
be highlighted for the American people to see. Moore would be
discredited.
It seems obvious that the liberals don’t want Stolen
Honor to be aired because they fear it accurately captures the feelings
of former POWs who believe that Kerry’s statements contributed
to their torture. Liberals realize that Kerry can’t afford
to accept the offer of airtime to respond because he can’t
explain or won’t apologize for his testimony branding U.S.
soldiers in Vietnam as war criminals.
Stolen
Honor is as newsworthy and factual as
any CBS Evening News broadcast, only more so. And since Dan
Rather’s broadcast
is not subject to “equal time” provisions, why should
airing Stolen Honor trigger government dictates to Sinclair?
The controversy has demonstrated how the liberals, if they had
political power, would use the government to intimidate and manipulate
the media.
The Kerry campaign and its supporters want to
decide what is “news.” To
them, CBS and Dan Rather are acceptable, and the people behind
Stolen Honor, including Vietnam veteran and journalist Carlton
Sherwood, are not.
This was demonstrated to be the case when Kerry
campaign spokesman Chad Clanton warned Sinclair Broadcasting, “They better
hope we don’t win.” Where is the media outrage over
this? CRO
copyright
2004 Accuracy in Media
§
|
