Influencing
an Election: ''Fahrenheit 9/11'' and ''Stolen Honor'' - by Doc Farmer, October
13, 2004
Posted with the Permission of Doc
Farmer
It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch for folks to
figure out that I’m no fan of Michael (Screw-the-Oscar, Where’s-the-All-You-Can-Graze-Buffet?)
Moore. My review of his concoct-u-mentary earlier this year makes it plain that
I find his movie a total sham. It’s self-serving, blatantly leftist (while still
feasting on the benefits of capitalism) and even less factual than his usual cinematic
shineola.
Moore, in an act of faux-selflessness, decided not
to go for next year's Oscar nomination in the best documentary category. He stated
that his plan was to have his movie broadcast just prior to the presidential election.
The fact that his movie had already been broadcast in Cuba, thereby disqualifying
him automatically, seemed to have been forgotten. That, and the rule which states
a documentary must be authentic and truthful (which didn’t seem to bother the
Oscar committee the last time around). His goal is to see the president unseated.
Last I heard, Moore will get his wish--to a degree, anyway.
iN Demand Networks will apparently show Moore’s cinematic tour-de-farce in a pay-per-view
deal. This was announced in early October. The lib/dem/soc/commie news media seemed
to think this was a good thing. Although why CBS didn’t just pony up to play it
on November 1 with a ''60 Minutes'' special afterwards is beyond my comprehension.
Desperate Dan must not have gotten that particular fax from Kinkos, I suppose.
Fast forward to late last week. Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which owns 60-odd
local stations in various markets across the nation (with various affiliations
to CBS, Fox, UPN, etc.) decided that it would pre-empt its normal broadcasts of
network programming--or reruns of ''Dharma and Greg''--to air a movie about Vietnam
veterans. The movie interviews these veterans, or their survivors, who talk about
their experiences during and after the war. How they were treated while prisoners
of war. How they were interrogated. How they were tortured. How they were abused.
And
who aided and abetted that abuse?
Yup. John (I-Was-for-the-Vietnam-War,
Before-I-Was-Against-It) Kerry’s testimony before the Senate back in 1971, where
the term '''babykiller'' came into the national vernacular, weighed heavily on
the lives of the 17 heroes who suffered--directly and personally--because of it.
These veterans talk about the consequences of Kerry’s words. A man who had based
much of his candidacy on his '''war hero'' status. A man whose stated goal is
to become commander in chief of America’s armed forces.
Now,
it would seem, that there is a great hue and cry by the lib/dem/soc/commie media.
They are outraged at such blatant partisanship so close to an election. Senators
are screaming bloody murder about the abuse of power that a single broadcaster
seems to be trying to wield.
Even the FCC, a supposed bastion
of the non-partisanship, came up with this little gem on Tuesday (with much appreciation
to Matt Drudge for first posting this):
Commissioner
Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group will preempt
more than 60 local stations across the country to air an overtly political program
in the days prior to the presidential election.
Copps stated: ''This is
an abuse of the public trust. And it is proof positive of media consolidation
run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with
its political ideology--whether liberal or conservative. Some will undoubtedly
question if this is appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves. This is the
same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq.
It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local communities and local jobs
by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of miles away. It is a sad
fact that the explicit public interest protections we once had to ensure balance
continue to be weakened by the Federal Communications Commission while it allows
media conglomerates to get even bigger. Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down
a dangerous road.'''
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Excuse me, but am I the only one choking
on the excrementally obscene levels of hypocrisy rising from this particular issue?
I’ve not yet seen ''Stolen Honor.'' Therefore, I cannot critique the actual content
of the movie. I am sure that it is not meant to be a ''fair and balanced'' viewpoint
of Jean François Kerrée. It does, however, have a rather large edge over Moore’s
movie in that ''Stolen Honor'' IS a documentary. In that, it documents the honest
recollections of 17 Vietnam veterans, who suffered terribly through their incarceration
at the hands of our enemies. I’m sure their viewpoint of a certain Massachusetts
senator (the one who hasn't drowned a passenger in his car, mind you) is less
than salutatory.
So why is it okay to diss Sinclair for broadcasting a
program based on the truth, and okay to give a pass to iN Demand Networks for
broadcasting a program based on male bovine excrement?
Do we need any further
evidence that there is a media bias that leans 90° to port? Worse still, that
such bias goes beyond the boardrooms of the media moguls and into the corridors
of power in our own government?
Commissioner (or should it be Commissar?)
Copp, Sinclair Broadcasting is not abusing the public trust. You are. If Sinclair's
managers wants to show that movie, that’s their business. If iN Demand Networks
want to show F/911, that’s their business, too. It’s called Freedom of Speech
and Freedom of the Press. It’s also called the Public’s Right to Know. Not what
you want us to know, but what we NEED to know. You, as a member of a supposed
'''watchdog''' agency, aren’t supposed to tell us what is good and bad. Believe
it or not, most of America can tell the difference. We know that Howard Stern
is bad. We know that Janet Jackson’s boobie during a Super Bowl Half Time Show
for all of 1.3 seconds is bad. We know that Ted Koppel’s Jiffy-Pop hairstyle is
bad. We don’t need the FCC to tell us that.
What we do need, sir, is for
you to fade out.
Show both movies. Let Americans decide. Don't decide for
us.
About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also
a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
but now resides in the Midwest.
Check Chronwatch.com
for Doc Farmer's newest opinion essay...
* * *
STOLEN
HONOR - See it for free on Monday, Oct. 25th.
I would like
to make one clarification on this video regarding the segment featuring Admiral
(later Senator) Jeremiah Denton: Prior to the interview depicted, Denton was severely
tortured to force him to condemn U.S. policy. He defied his captors by stating
the following: " I don't know what is going on in the war now because the only
sources I have access to are North Vietnamese radio, magagines and newspapers.
But whatever the position of my government is, I agree with it, support it and
will support it as long as I live." Not only had Denton defied his captors with
his words, but he consistently blinked "TORTURE" in Morse Code during the interview.
This was later detected by Naval intelligence and it was the first confirmation
of torture to U.S. POW's by the North Vietnamese. Afterwards, Denton was again
severely tortured for his defiance. As strongly and positively as this video portrays
our POW's, such heroism is beyond our imaginings.
Steve Sherman
*
* *
