Sinclair group to run Kerry "Stolen Honor" documentary

MonsterMark

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
9,225
Reaction score
3
Location
United States
The Sinclair Broadcast Group is going to air the documentary about John Kerry called "Stolen Honor". This is the first time that any broadcast news network has or is bothering to share with the American public the truth about John Kerry. I can provide mail links or you can go to their website and show your support for them. I personally am going to begin watching their news programming from here on forward and will tell as many friends as possible about this wonderful group of people who dare to defy the MSM. Hooray for these guys.

Here is the Stolen honor website... http://www.stolenhonor.com

Here is an excerpt of the story making the headlines.

TV Group to Show Anti- Kerry Film on 62 Stations
By JIM RUTENBERG

62 television stations owned or managed by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group - many of them in swing states - will show a documentary highly critical of Senator John Kerry's antiwar activities 30 years ago within the next two weeks, Sinclair officials said yesterday.

Those officials said the documentary would pre-empt regular night programming, including prime time, on its stations, which include affiliates for all six of the major broadcast networks in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

Called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the documentary features Vietnam veterans who say their Vietnamese captors used Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, in which he recounted stories of American atrocities, prolonging their torture and betraying and demoralizing them. Similar claims were made by prisoners of war in a commercial that ran during the summer from an anti-Kerry veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Two of the former prisoners who appeared in the Swift Boat advertisement were interviewed for the movie, including Ken Cordier, who had to resign as a volunteer in the Bush campaign after the advertisement came out.

Sinclair's plan to show the documentary was first made public by The Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

Mark Hyman, Sinclair's vice president for corporate relations, who doubles as a conservative commentator on its news stations, said the film would be shown because Sinclair deemed it newsworthy.

"Clearly John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run; this is an issue that is certainly topical," he said. Asked what defined something as newsworthy, Mr. Hyman said, "In that it hasn't been out in the marketplace, and the news marketplace."

Because Sinclair is defining the documentary - which will run commercial free - as news, it is unclear if it will be required by federal regulations to provide Mr. Kerry's campaign with equal time to respond.

But acknowledging that news standards call for fairness, Mr. Hyman said an invitation has been extended to Mr. Kerry to respond after the documentary is shown. "There are certainly serious allegations that are leveled; we would very much like to get his response," he said.

Asked if Sinclair would consider running a documentary of similar length either lauding Mr. Kerry, responding to the charges in "Stolen Honor" or criticizing Mr. Bush, Mr. Hyman said, "We'd just have to take a look at it."

Aides to Mr. Kerry said he would not accept Sinclair's invitation.

"It's hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing anything to help elect President Bush even if that means violating basic journalism standards," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman.

Sinclair's plans put Mr. Kerry's campaign in an awkward position similar to the one in which it found itself in August, when the Swift Boat group first began running commercials against him containing unsubstantiated charges that he lied to get his war medals. Mr. Kerry's aides at first held back from responding, so as not to give the group and its charges more attention - a decision that some Kerry aides now acknowledge cost him in public opinion polls.

Mr. Clanton said Mr. Kerry's campaign would call on supporters to stage advertiser boycotts and demonstrations against Sinclair's stations.

A group of Democratic senators, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein of California, readied a letter calling for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the move, arguing that the documentary was not news but a prolonged political advertisement from Mr. Bush and, as such, violated fairness rules.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, an advocacy group promoting greater media regulation, said he did not think the film would qualify for a news exemption. And, he said, even if it did fall under equal time provisions, those are based on candidate appearances and in this case, since it is Mr. Kerry who appears, "albeit disparagingly," stations would be required to show Mr. Bush or possibly the independent candidate Ralph Nader, if they requested it.

Sinclair was already a galvanizing force for Democrats. The political donations of its executives have gone overwhelmingly to Republicans, according to a review of donations on Politicalmoneyline.com. In April Sinclair refused to run an episode of "Nightline" on its stations in which the anchor Ted Koppel spent the entire program reading the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Stolen Honor" was produced by Carlton Sherwood, formerly a reporter with The Washington Times. His Web site says he received no money from any political party or campaign but got initial funding from Pennsylvania veterans.

The documentary has been distributed by mail order and via streaming Internet connections. Mr. Hyman said Sinclair was not paying for the right to broadcast it.




Here is a sample letter you may want to send to them to show your support.

I am writing to express my appreciation for the
Sinclair Broadcasting Co., owner of local television
station (insert call letters here), which recently
announced plans to air the documentary Stolen Honor.
within the next several days.

I commend Sinclair for giving us the opportunity to
view this important film, which interviews Prisoners
of the Vietnam War. In their own words, they tell
how John Kerry's testimony in 1971 impacted them
while still behind bars, and served to lengthen the
war.

Most Sincerely.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More on the Swift Vets' New Ad By: krempasky · Section: Election 2004
20041011-120448-5161.jpg
The Washington Times has a lot of the details.

What the Times gets wrong, however, is the tone of the Swifties. To be sure, the Swift Vets are angry - and they have a right to be, not only because of John Kerry's action during and since the Vietnam war, but also because of the media's complete and utter smear job against them personally.

What the Times missed, however, is the genuine reluctance of these men. They would all rather be doing something else, spending time with their families or enjoying their retirement.

I had the great honor to meet several of these genetlemen over the weekend and I can say that the accusations leveled against them - that they're partisan operatives, that they don't have any real knowledge of John Kerry, and much worse - are categorically false. (I'll have an extended story about at least one of them shortly)

These are honorable men. I was struck by the scene - 90 decorated Vietnam vets, some still vibrant, some infirm - all standing at attention for take after take - at one point *my* twentysomething legs got tired, I cannot imagine the effort it must been for these men.

And these honorable men have already done their duty, those many years ago. But here they are again.

One thing that has stayed with me since seeing them is this: when might you ever see such a distinguished group of veterans gather together - NOT to be honored and praised - but putting themselves forward to be attacked. They'll be smeared, slimed, and called liars. Their motives will be attacked, their credibility called into question - and you know what? It's nothing new for these men. After all, it's exactly what John Kerry did to all of them in 1971. This time, they have the ability to stand up and be counted, to go on the record in response, and they're doing just that.
 
If 30 yr-old "history" is "newsworthy" for the upcoming election, then so is, most certainly, 2-3 yr-old history. To be fair, "Fahrenheit 9/11" should be broadcast simultaniously along with this. Which brings me to a question I haven't seen asked here: WHO has actually WATCHED F-9/11?? I saw an interview w/ Dale Earnhardt Jr. a week or so ago. While a self-proclaimed "Bush Man", he took his entire team to see the movie. He stated that he wanted to vote w/ an educated, enlightened mind.

Personally, I had already made my mind up before seeing the movie. However, I picked up the DVD when it was released last week (10/5) and saw it for the first time. All I can say is, those who refuse to see this movie based on prejudiced notions and still vote are doing this country no favor.

DON'T VOTE UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN FAHRENHEIT 9/11!!

If you see this movie and still vote Bush, GOD HELP US ALL!
 
Freepress.

Ha, I guess it is only free press when the media is licking Kerry's gonads. Give me a break, please.

Were you crying these crocodile tears back in 2000 when the left dropped the drunking driving thing on Bush 1 week before the election? Of course you weren't.

Hypocrites for free press.
 
Dfference being, the press was free to carry the Shrub story or not, while Sinclair is forcing all the stations to carry this trash on prime time whether they agree or not.
 
Forcing? Sinclair owns these stations. And the f@cking slimeball Michael Moore was not stopped when he put out his movie. Of course people just thought that was a great idea. I believe this broadcast by the Sinclair conglomerate only levels the playing field. No one wants to hear about how Kerry SOLD OUT AMERICAN POW's.
 
Marine said:
No one wants to hear about how Kerry SOLD OUT AMERICAN POW's.

You are referring to Kerry's testimony in '72? The one where he revealed the TRUTH about what was really happening in Vietnam in an attempt to STOP the bloodshed of his fellow troops? And that is worse HOW than GW's "selling out" of our troops for OIL / personal revenge on Saddam?

If the majority of the GOP thinks Kerry's '72 testimony was SO BAD that it hurts him politically today, then how can they turn around and cry that he is "benefiting" from his Vietnam experience? You can't have it both ways.

This "Stolen Honor" documentary is just another example of how desperate the GOP has become to slander Kerry because they know their candidate is going to LOSE on 11/2. This mud-slinging is of no supprise and is in fact expected of GW's campaign given his factual record.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
This "Stolen Honor" documentary is just another example of how desperate the GOP has become to slander Kerry because they know their candidate is going to LOSE on 11/2. This mud-slinging is of no supprise and is in fact expected of GW's campaign given his factual record.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! That's pretty funny, Johnny. You almost seemed sincere, seeing as Kerry and his supporters have been slinging mud since day one . . . well, at least after they decided that the best way to win the presidency was for Kerry to flip-flop on all his previous positions.
 
97silverlsc said:
Dfference being, the press was free to carry the Shrub story or not, while Sinclair is forcing all the stations to carry this trash on prime time whether they agree or not.
Almost as bad as "60 Minutes" isn't it.
 
the testiomony Kerry gave in 72 was used against american POW's like John McCain. And how much oil have we been getting from Iraq over the last few years?? We get more from Argentina. Open your eyes and check your facts. If he wanted revenge, we wouldnt have found Saddam alive. Think about it.
 
Marine said:
the testiomony Kerry gave in 72 was used against american POW's like John McCain.

And I suppose you also believe that it was Kerry's INTENT that the ENEMY kill & tortue more POWs because he spoke out about the atrocities occuring over there? That's what the GOP wants us all to believe. The REALITY of the situation is that more POWs were killed & tortued as a result of our government's INACTION to end the war, NOT as an extrapolated secondary effect of Kerry's testimony.

Marine said:
And how much oil have we been getting from Iraq over the last few years?? We get more from Argentina.

Exactly! You are beginning to see the atrocities of GW's actions in Iraq!! The US, as a country doesn't stand to gain much from Iraq's oil, BUT GW, Cheney, and all of their OIL industry buddies stand to profit immensely by this invasion. Hell, if it wasn't for the invasion in Iraq, Halliburton would now be going under from federal investigations on their crooked buisness dealings. And if you think Halliburton does not have an "insider" in the white house, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

Marine said:
Open your eyes and check your facts. If he wanted revenge, we wouldnt have found Saddam alive. Think about it.

Open YOUR eyes, you think death is a better revenge than removal from power, forcing him to watch his empire crumble, and being bought to justice? I must say your view of "good" revenge is somewhat naive. For people like Saddam, death is much too kind of a punishment.
 
Sounds like someone is worried that Iraq may actually turn out alright.
 
Kerry knew exactly what his actions would be, because jane fonda did the same thing over in North vietnam. She had a chance to take a POW's info to his family, instead she told the captors that he was trying to get a message out. The reprecussions were all over American media.

Actually the ones who profited most from Iraqs oil were our "allies" the French who were caught Cheating the whole oil for food program. Who else should have got the contracts in Iraq, the French? We spend the most on this war, why shouldnt we get something back? Halliburton is an American corporation, with American employees, and those employees are getting paid (jobs are created) and all the money being made is being spent...You guessed it, in America.. So, I dont see a problem with Haliburton getting the contracts, I dont care if it was them or Brown and Root, as far as I'm concerned, we or our true allies should be doing the work over there.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top