Timing is everything. I have been trying to get FahrenHype for weeks. Celsius should be available on DVD now, not later.

When your opponenet makes an error, and goes old style - that is when you hit them with the new style.

Stolen Honor, FahrenHype, and Celsius should have all been available on the internet. A movie theatre does not add credibility, any more than a DVD or network broadcast.

Look at BlockBuster’s website- you’ll see more anti-Bush movies besides Moore’s Fahreheit 911.

Posted by: Agrippa at October 23, 2004 05:58 PM

Uh, AEB, you might want to point out that this was an editorial opinion, not news. It was also utter propaganda. It is well established in American jurisprudence that shareholders cannot (successfully) sue because corporate management pursues bad business strategies in good faith. Disgruntled shareholders can sell their stock, or try to vote management out, but they can’t sue. One would think Sinclair has enough lawyers (one would do) to tell them that. Shareholders do, of course, have every right to threaten management with a vote for change if they don’t like the position the corporate entity is taking — and there’s nothing new about that in the media industry. Your post to this opinion was misleading, though, and I have to wonder if it was not deliberatley so. I’ve so appreciated your posts to Australian news these past 18 months — you ought to stay with that, or stick this crap on the op-ed page.

Posted by: j at October 23, 2004 11:11 PM

Hey j!

“Uh, AEB, you might want to point out that this was an editorial opinion, not news. It was also utter propaganda.”

Just which THIS and IT are you calling propoganda? Sinclair caved and did not show the entire video. The WSJ (albeit on the OpEd page) made their OPINION known as to WHY it was not shown.

Have you seen IT? I’m making the inference here that you are calling “Stolen Honor” propoganda.

Is IT propoganda when IT is the truth?

If you have some criticism about the movie, some FACT that is misrepresented, PUHLEEEASE come back (after you’ve actually watched it) and point it out.

BTW - There are no misrepresentations or distortions of the TRUTH.

I can assume you will now be SilentRunning.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 24, 2004 08:15 AM

Ahem, for balance:

www.freedocumentaries.org/

F.911,
Control Room
Outfoxed,
Going Upriver,
etc.

ok, ep

Posted by: elvispresley2k at October 24, 2004 09:34 AM

J:

I confess I’m not au fait with US jurispridence. Do you have a Westlaw reference I could turn to? (Ironically, it might be generated by some software I did awhile ago for Thomson Legal and Regulatory if you do).

The WSJ article had 4 pieces of factual data in it, and one conclusion.
1 - that Sinclair had “pulled the plug”.
2 - that plans for a lawsuit had been announced
3 - that funding was on-line for another suit
4 - that a Government instrumentality was using the leverage of a pension fund for political purposes.

Conclusion : This is a Bad Precedent.

I edited out all of the ‘opinion’ bits (though one snuck through - the ‘offer you can’t refuse’ line might better have been omitted, and I’d intended to do that).

A lawsuit with essentially unlimited funds behind it doesn’t have to be successful: it just has to be plausible enough not to incur summary judgement. Then it’s a matter of who runs out of money first, as often as not.

Multiple lawsuits don’t even have to meet that standard, they can just hike up litigation insurance levels to impractical levels. Whether this is the case or not, I don’t know - but I think the WSJ is reputable enough so that I can rely on their facts being straight.

I don’t see the article as being propaganda, though the article certainly contained opinionated parts which i removed. (apart for the one that got away. DAMN)

Or were you referring to the film? If so, then I’d say you’re right. The question is, is it misleading? I’d be interested to get an opinion from someone who’s both seen the film, and done the research on that.

Now it may be irrelevant to Kerry’s suitability to be POTUS. It certainly doesn’t contain many bits of data which are laudatory of Kerry (such as his really good tactical decision-making when he won the Silver Star). It’s one-sided. As far as I can tell, it’s wholly truthful - but even Fahrenheit 911 almost managed that, its untruths were of omission in the main. The question is, to repeat, is it misleading? But whether it is or not, it’s a part of the US Presidential race for 2004.

Finally, I must thank you for your civility. You obviously think I screwed up - and you were right, at least in part. But your criticism was well-presented, logical, and courteous. My sincere thanks, and please continue to reveal flaws whenever you can. I don’t guarantee to agree with you, I do gurantee to think about what you say.

Posted by: aebrain at October 24, 2004 12:11 PM

Serious question, AE. When the bulk of the 42 minutes of video is given to our former POWs addressing the issue, what is there to refute?

Do you know who Pat Day’s cellmate was at the HanoiHilton?

Senator John Mckane…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 24, 2004 07:18 PM

I remind AE, that the good Senator has said that the SBVT should not be questioning Kerry about his activities while IN Vietnam, but his Post-war activities SHOULD be questioned.

That is exactly what “Stolen Honor” is about.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 24, 2004 07:19 PM

I have to agree that the issue should not be about John Kerry’s service or how he got his medals. It should be about what he did after he returned while he was still a commissioned officer. In any other war he would have been branded a traitor. So why should he even be allowed to run for office? I’m sorry, but as a Vietnam Vet who flew 100 Missions over North Vietnam. This film resonates with me. I had at least 35 personal friends who were prisoners of war. T o dissent is one thing - to aid the enemy is another.

Posted by: Yankee Air Pirate at October 28, 2004 12:44 PM