Andrew misses the point completely regarding the Sinclair Groups decision to show the Kerry documentary:
As I’ve said, it’s a free country, and my instincts are against any attempt to regulate this kind of thing. But the blatantly partisan nature of this move – and its dissemination of rank smears into millions of homes – is still troubling. If CBS announced they were pulling regular programming to air “Fahrenheit 9/11” a week before the election, do you think no conservatives would protest?
Of course they would, but they wouldn’t attempt to get the government shut it down. Well- maybe a few statist wingnuts on the far right might, but the rest of us would do precisely what some on the left are now doing- pressuring advertisers.
Free market, baby. I chided Kevin Drum earlier about his whining over this, but his new approach I am completely in favor of and support.
Another thing that is being missed is that for people on the right, we already feel like there has been a jihad ongoing against our candidate since, well, forever. That is why we are laughing at the lefty outrage over this Sinclair documentary. Had they been as outraged when CBS tried their Reagan hitpiece, rather than denouncing conservative attempts to use the market and boycott CBS to influence change as ‘fascistic,’ we might be a touch more supportive. Had the left and lefty bloggers not spent two weeks futilely attempting to debunk the fraudulent CBS memos, stopping their attempts only when Dan Rather and Co. admitted they too believed the documents were false, we might be more sympathetic.
Had the left and lefty bloggers denounced all the documented deceits in Michael Moore’s F 9/11, we might be more supportive. Had they mentioned that all the free rock concerts for Kerry should be called ‘in kind’ donations, we might be more supportive.
Instead, the attitude was:
To win the war of public opinion takes all kinds, and that includes people like me, people like Moore, and people like John Kerry. We all have our place in the ecosystem, and I certainly have no interest in disowning a guy who’s obviously doing pretty good work for our side even if I don’t agree with him on every issue.
Which is why my attitude is that the Sinclair group can show whatever they want, and should Democrats manage to exert enough market pressure on them to force them to retract the documentary, I am fine with that too. I just will be sitting on the sidelines on this one, watching the ‘ecosystem.’ I will continue to note the attempts of Democrat thuggery through government to shut down the film, though.
Francis W. Porretto
Andrew Sullivan is a pretty weird sort of “conservative,” eh? No faith in the market, “moderately” in favor of censorship, absolutely pro-choice on abortion, and gay marriage uber alles. Have I missed any of his “conservative credentials”?
SG
Only a fit of uncharacteristic modesty is keeping Andrew Sullivan from nominating himself for one of his “Sontag Awards.”
JKC
John- I’d find your position about Sinclair more convincing if it weren’t for the fact that the airwaves, by statute, are public property. If the government via the FCC can get its knickers in a twist over Janet Jackson’s nipple or Howard Stern’s potty mouth, then it can get involved in what seems to some to be lopsided propaganda on the eve of a tightly contested election.
BTW- before someone brings it up, I think the crucial difference between Sinclair airing the Kerry hit piece and Michael Moore airing F9/11 on pay-per-view is that Sinclair is a BROADCASTER, wheras to see F9/11 on PPV, one has to have cable, and purchase the film.
dorkafork
“If the government via the FCC can get its knickers in a twist over Janet Jackson’s nipple or Howard Stern’s potty mouth, then it can get involved…”
It sounds like your saying that just because the government “can” do something, then it “should” do something, which isn’t very compelling to me. And if you’re against “lopsided propaganda” being shown on “public airwaves”, well, that opens the door to the FCC coming down on Dan Rather, or Nightline for that “naming the Iraq War dead” episode.
dorkafork
Incidentally, Dan Rather has balls the size of Montana
JMB
dorkafork-
JKC isn’t saying that since the government “can” do something it “should”. He’s pointing out that it’s a property issue. Currently, and whether you agree with it or not, the airwaves are public property licensed to private companies at no cost. You can’t go into a National Park and put up Dem or Repub billboards, and you can’t use the Government Printing Office to print campaign flyers. If someone did those things then it’s properly the government’s bailiwick to put a stop to it. (Not to mention its just bad business, we at least make some money when people mine on BLM land although way under market value.)
Sinclair is abusing a public trust. Whether or not CBS or Nightline did as well doesn’t change that. Michael Moore’s movies shouldn’t be in the discussion at all for the reason JKC mentioned. If the movie being shown on Sinclair came out in theaters or on pay-per-veiw there wouldn’t be any issue at all.
Since the abuse of the airwaves has come up on both sides we now know its an issue. We could either sell off the airwaves or have an intelligent discussion and regulation about how certain subgroups should use things that belong to all of us.
Since you’re obviously not a fan of the liberal media you probably wouldn’t advocate airwave privatization since that would lead to your political beliefs being marginalized. After all, since markets work so well, the media wouldn’t be liberal if people didn’t want it that way, right? So how would you deal with the problem without government?
dorkafork
JMB, that’s what it sounded like. He wasn’t nearly as articulate as you. And I tried to qualify it a bit by saying “sounds like”.
“Sinclair is abusing a public trust. Whether or not CBS or Nightline did as well doesn’t change that.” “Since the abuse of the airwaves has come up on both sides we now know its an issue.”
That’s one way to view it, but that’s not the way I see it. I just plain don’t see the political content of public airwaves as the government’s bailiwick. Technically, maybe, for the reasons you described, but practically I really can’t see a situation where I’d want the government to get involved because of some sort of political opinion broadcast on the airwaves. I sure as hell don’t think the FCC should get involved with the situations with CBS News or Nightline, that would be the last thing I’d want. I didn’t mention Rather because I’d want the FCC coming down on him, just to point out that when you give the government power to do something that can damage your enemies, it can probably end up being used against your friends, too.
I don’t care about the property issue, I do care about government involvement in political viewpoints aired on public airwaves. I think that is much, much more important than issues of “abusing the public trust”.