Posted on 09/24/2004 8:42:28 AM PDT by ironman
She [Vice President Dianne Brandi] also turned down the latest spot from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it "accuses Kerry of treason, a crime punishable by death."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Good point and worth considering.
Selective reporting is what got CBS into trouble this month. Has Fox News Network not learned a valuable lesson?
You report, we will decide.
Ok, if Nader's ads (does he even have ads?) were not being accepted anywhere, im sure there would be some sort of litigation that Nader could pursue to try to prove there is a conspiracy to prevent him from airing his political advertisements.
However, if only one station took part in not allowing his advertisements, then the argument would be more difficult for Nader to have. He still may have a case but harder to prove if the station gave a legitimate reason in the court's eyes.
A station could probably use "the owner of this company would prefer not to allow his station be used as a republican/democrat/green party/etc. soap box. Therefore, we will no longer allow advertisements from republican/democrat/green party/etc."
Would it fly? I dunno, has it ever happened?
If he did though, it would be the last free air time he got on FOX. That air time has always come with a free running of the current ad the group has out.
"She [Vice President Dianne Brandi] also turned down the latest spot from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it "accuses Kerry of treason, a crime punishable by death."
Ha! Sure they rejected it, then Fox News showed for free 15 times a day !
>>>This will just result in the free airing of the ads as a news item.<<<
Exactly. I think this is a great thing. That P.O.S. Moore's Movie was successful because of the BUZZ it generated. Think of all the buzz this will generate because it is the spot "Too hot to air on Fox News". The more people who see this the better, because this spot isn't based on conjecture or unnamed sources, but Kerry's own actions. Thanks Fox!
O'Neill is a smart lawyer. FOX was a fool for wording the ad refusal in the way it was worded. Bet there's more to this story, like Kerry threatening to sue FOX if FOX runs the ad again.
I speculate, you decide. ;o)
This gives other stations an excuse not to run the ad. They can't point to Fox and say, "see, even Fox won't run it."
Hannity will make sure it gets shown several times per week - as part of his "discussion" of the issues! He will show it to sKerry supporters and ask them to refute sKerry's own words. It's a great tactic.
And?
What is the problem here?
Nope. Selective reporting is a necessary and natural reality. And, the selection done by the snob media makes theire reports biased toward the Democrat party. All perfectly "fine," and "under the radar" of probably over half of the public.
What CBS is being burned with is broadcasting as fact, politically damaging material (contents of Killian memos) based on demonstrably forged evidence (the memos themselves). Had they broadcast the allegations without memos (for example, attributing them to Burkett or whoever claims to have "been there"), it'd be a non-issue.
The ad is based on actions of Kerry, period. To deny its play on air, is to deny the American people a close up look at EXACTLY what kerry did to the military and our nation during his anti-vietnam crap.
If the Swift Boat vets consider talking to the ENEMY while we still had POW's as a betrayal, and IF kerry was not sent to do this by our government, then this IS a betrayal of our military.
So, since when is the 'TRUTH' too HOT to report?
If FOX news has VETTED the ad, and found it contained untruths...well bully for them, they are holding to a great journalistic code.
But if the ad is FACTUAL, and states the SENTIMENTS of the veterans kerry trashed, WHAT IN THE HECK IS WRONG WITH SHOWING IT?
A smart ambitious reporter would work with them this time. The people have a right to know the truth.
LOL. Well, all of us make mistakes from time to time. Maybe FoxNews just did. If O'Neill is concerned about it, he'll discuss it with the appropriate people, in a cool and collected fashion. The SBVfT had a tougher time getting the first ad to run, which is why they butressed it with a stack of sworn affidavits.
No matter how the details unfold, the Swiftees are not going to shut up and go away. They are on a mission to get this history in front of the public.
I have seen this on FoxNews 5 times now... not counting Brit playing it.
LLS
..it's not October yet folks.
The good stuff comes next month according to the swifties.
Doogle
Yes, we all make mistakes from time to time. FOX got sloppy in the wording of a press release. I'm sure it will be forgiveable if they show sufficient remorse.
For all we know, part of the speculated action could have included a demand about the wording of this press release. /tinfoil hat
I agree with you, this story is in very, very competent hands. The SBV will find a way.
Agreed. Swifts have been talking about BETRAYAL since at least the third ad. This one is the most serious of course because it IMPLIES treason. O'Neil stopped short of calling it treason, too--emphasizing betrayal. I thought because he was a lawyer he'd have to be more careful than laymen. Nevertheless: Treason is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy is part of that definition. It requires two witnesses, must meet all sorts of conditions, and is near-impossible TODAY to prosecute. It's also time-consuming to have to educate the public as to what constitutes it, impossible in a 30-sec. spot.
But the whole thing is strangely familiar: Joe McCarthy's name has come up recently of late. More circularity: the danger as he saw it was that communists were in the state department which was met with how could they be communists if they were IN the state department. Kerry's a traitor and a U. S. Senator :: U. S. senators can't be traitors?
It's preposterous.
Fox isn't saying it is untrue. Your premise is absolutely correct, but I'm not really trying to 'defend' Fox's decision, only analyze the possible impact of it.
Look at it this way: Remember when O'Reilly complained about the use of his photo and use of the "Factor" in Stewart Smally's book and the result was much more publicity for the book? This is the same principal. Fox is just saying that the 'language' is not 'legally' clear, and personally I think it is a great move that will benifit the Swifties.
I'm just analyzing this from a PR sort of way. I've done a lot of work with advertising, and the best thing in the world you can generate for publicity is buzz, even if it is negative. You can turn a really bad movie into a money-maker just because of buzz. Remember Showgirls? There is a line that you want to avoid crossing though, and that is you don't want to lose your message among the buzz.
That is the power of this spot, because it points out something that the MSM has refused to cover; Kerry's meeting in Paris with a rep of the VC. The crux of the spot is irrefutable because Kerry himself has confirmed it.
I might be wrong, but I still think this is a good news for the SBV for Truth.
I'm thinking this is a little more like yelling fire in a crowded theatre--not the lie-aspect of it, but the crisis-aspect. The ad might well be seen as incitement to violence (if it weren't an old story for me, I can guarantee I'd want to deck him--at least).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.