With all the pro-Democratic-party bias coming from Sumner Redstone's Viacom (with their CBS forgeries, anti-Bush books and their coverage on 60 Minutes, Lies about the draft on MTV), ABC, NBC (home of Kitty Kelly), NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, the AP, etc., how did the Democrats win this fight?
Why are the liberal Democrats so effective at fighting what they declare to be media bias, and why are conservative Republicans so ineffective that Bush lets the liberal media supply debate moderators exclusively? Why is the documentary Stolen Honor not airing in its entirety, and why does Dan Rather still broadcast the evening news while MTV still claims that Bush will start the draft?
Why is Sumner Redstone not even being criticized in the conservative media? Though Sumner Redstone suddenly claimed he was pro Bush after he was caught with forgeries trashing Bush, he has bragged for years that he is a liberal Democratic activist. And he throws a party on MTV for the President whenever a Democrat wins. And he held softball townhall meetings on MTV for Clinton and Gore when they ran against Republicans. And he got caught with forgeries trashing Bush. And he has MTV lying and claiming Bush will bring back the draft. And his Viacom gives far more money to Demcrats.
Imagine of Repurt Murdoch pulled this partisanship? We already hear him constantly trashed as a Republican activist in the liberal media. Yet Redstone gets a pass from the conservative media.
And no one accuses the Democrats of censorship when they block a Documentary? Imagine of Bush or the Republicans tried to censor Michael Moore?
According to Reuters: "Furious Democrats have charged that the documentary was a blatant political statement disguised as news and have demanded equal air time from Sinclair, whose top executives have been major contributors to President Bush and Republicans in recent years."
How could they make this point stick when CBS and NBC gave almost exclusively to Kerry. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1242416/posts
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40862
They were never going to show the whole thing in the first place.
If the publishers of this documentary can't get it out via broadcast/cable, maybe they might consider releasing it on the internet?
I would gladly donate some server space and bandwidth.
Sh**!
Air the WHOLE thing!
His stock dropping cooled his heels to air the WHOLE thing.
His stock dropping cooled his heels to air the WHOLE thing.
He was financially intimidated.
here is a pps chart for Sinclair for the last 6 months......you can change it to various lengths from one day to "max" by clicking the "Range" hotlinks at the top of the square:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SBGI&t=6m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
here's the insider transactions, rarely are these up-to-date though:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=SBGI
It's just another case of Democrat censorship. There is no reason not to show the whole documentary, there is surely an audience for it. If the Democrats don't want to watch they can just change the channel, but censoring the words of genuine American war heroes is just wrong.
At the last minute, Sinclair Broadcasting has reshuffled the broadcast schedule for their program on "Stolen Honor" and now call it "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media". The new schedule and content of the program is described in the Sinclair press release shown in the post below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250402/posts