|
Here's an attempt to get this back on topic:
Island wrote:
"....that is laughable. .. .News!? .. that is what your going with?"
Not I. That's what Sinclair was going with.
" .....it happened 30+ years ago. That makes it history. (not news)"
That's right Island. If they want to show it on regular programming, that's up to them, but to present it as news is disingenuous at best and extremely biased at worse. It'd be like CBS broadcasting F911 as a news event (which it isn't BTW).
"how can you argue that our "news environment" has been remotely close to telling both sides? Rather is just the tip of the propaganda iceberg being passed off as news."
Where did you see that? I didn't say that. I said news programs should present news in a fair and balanced manner; both sides. It shouldn't be biased. Furthermore, it shouldn't pander to the bottom line with major emphasis on titillating news stories on Coby Bryant, Michael Jackson, Lacy Peterson and Martha Stewart. I'm not defending any of the major network's news departments. I think they all need a ***** slap.
"...this piece is about setting straight a distorted record."
That's fine if that's the film maker's position. VN was 30 years ago. It's no longer news unless this is the first time someone has ever heard the opinions of VN POWs. I don't doubt what these gentlemen said - that's what they believe. But face it, Sinclair Broadcasting appears they wanted to do this to persuade voters, not to present news. That was my point.
dd74 wrote:
"Sinclair, however, did what Michael Moore did not need to do, which was bend to corporate pressures"
Sinclair Broadcasting received an FCC license and with that comes a responsibility to the American public for using the public airwaves. In the end, they relented because people protested this planned event for what it was, a documentary blaming Kerry for the plight they were in as POWs, not a news event which Sinclair had advertised.
Moore's film is different. You have to buy a ticket to see his view of the situation. The public airwaves (TV and radio) should not be used in the name of news to present slanted viewpoints; a practice that is all too common nowadays but blatant as was proposed by Sinclair.
------------------
OTOH, someone tell me how soon our POWs would have been released had we not ended the war? I assume no one actually knows how long the war would have continued if people did not protest. If you claim you do, you're gifted and your talents would be better utilized elsewhere. As a reminder, people protested the war because they felt the US was there for the wrong reasons. I realize there's another side of the argument.
Our treatment of returning VN vets was misplaced and shameful. It should have been solely directly at our leaders (democrats and republicans) who had their own perceptions of the situation and rationalized reasons for waging war. To say rape and killing of civilians didn't exist (as these ex-POWs claim) is not true; **** happens in any war. And while the US, in general, was blamed for war crimes that occurred, this really applied to administration and military leaders who let this happen, not to individual soldiers who risked or sacrificed their lives for what they thought or were led to believe was the right thing to do. And that includes POWs. Unfortunately, they were the American scapegoats for their VN captors. Does anyone believe the Viet Cong/RVN army didn't know of war atrocities before they heard it from Kerry?
Whether torture, murder and/or rape is deemed govt. policy depends on the extent it's known, tolerated or condoned by those in charge. In that regard, I think it's safe to say some of our civilian and military leaders did. Just to make sure, I'm still talking about VN, not the current situation in Iraq.
Slakjaw,
Why not watch both? If you have your mind made up already, what's the harm? Might learn something new or see another side of the story. Ask a liberal friend who will loan you the Moore video or DVD then draw your own conclusions.
Sherwood
|