Tags: Kerry | Presidency | Lapdog | Media | Threat | Freedom

Kerry Presidency + Lapdog Media = Threat to Freedom

Tuesday, 26 October 2004 12:00 AM

It is a powerful account of decorated and wounded veterans of the Vietnam War who were deeply hurt that John Kerry trashed their sacrifices.

Even to this day, they are angry that one of their fellow veterans would turn on them. These brave men spent years in the “Hanoi Hilton” communist prison, only to have their cruel captors throw in their faces tape recordings of Kerry accusing them of unspeakable atrocities.

Since this documentary was made known, eighteen Democratic senators ran to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to try to block Sinclair Broadcast Group from showing it on 62 TV stations, the Democratic Party ran to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to protest the showing, and one theater in Pennsylvania canceled a scheduled showing of the film after lawyers friendly to the Kerry campaign threatened to sue.

Michael Moore can show his slanderous bile at theaters all over the country, but one, little theater in Jenkintown, Pa. can’t show these honorable veterans pouring their hearts out over what they see as rank betrayal of their service.

Sinclair executives spent two weeks negotiating with the Kerry campaign about having its candidate appear on television to respond with his side of the story. Those negotiations came to naught.

Apparently Kerry’s camp simply has no answer to the substance of the devastating charges. His campaign operatives or allies can answer with smears, name-calling, and appeals to government power, but they can’t rebut the film with facts.

This whole controversy over “Stolen Honor” raises two very fundamental issues: free speech and a biased, lapdog media.

The free speech issue goes right to the very heart of the First Amendment and the Constitution. If we take the intent of the Founding Fathers seriously, then Sinclair (SBG) has every right to say what it pleases, just as any newspaper does.

Senator Kerry will not appear on Sinclair’s stations and refute the allegations of the veterans. Instead his supporters have sought to keep the American people from learning about them. Raw government power (the FEC and the FCC) is their only answer.

The FCC has been correctly described by a panelist on the Fox News channel’s Saturday media review program as “a Soviet-style creation.”

Sinclair will now show parts of the film as one component of an hour-long presentation).

The very reason Americans are able to hear Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or view Sinclair’s forthright commentary is that in 1987, during the Reagan administration, the FCC did away with the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” which had held that since “the people own the airwaves,” radio and TV stations had to offer “equal time” to those who dispute controversial views expressed in their programming.

The net effect of this rule was to chill editorializing by the stations, for fear they would be inundated with endless demands for “equal time” to respond to this or that.

Many station managers played it safe by steering clear of “controversy” and offering mush in lieu of hard-nosed, substantive commentary.

When the “Fairness Doctrine” (a name which itself has Orwellian connotations) finally went out the window, more broadcasters exercised their First Amendment rights and not only editorialized, but scheduled talk show hosts with strong opinions. Most of them were and are conservatives, but not because broadcast companies wanted to foist them onto the public.

Conservatives on the air are successful because (and this irks the totalitarians of the political left) that is what the public wanted.

Listeners and viewers could already get the liberal slant simply by tuning in to the major broadcast networks, to say nothing of the major metropolitan dailies.

Now the left is on a crusade to demonize media conservatives (who still do not control the mainstream media by any means) and drive them off the air.

Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBG), whose outlets reach about 25% of the population, is still no match for the blanket coverage offered by the Dan Rathers of the world who spew their liberal conventional wisdoms day in and day out.

But alas, the left-wingers are not satisfied with control of about 80 to 85% of the media. They want it all. They want to go back to being the gate-keeping last word on what is and is not news.

Which segues nicely into my second point - the lapdog mainstream media:

Dozens of reporters have been following Kerry as he campaigns all over the country.

Not one of them saw fit to ask this man who aspires to the highest office in the land to discuss the heart of his Senate testimony in 1971 wherein he slandered his fellow military men.

Not once has he been confronted with a question on the order of the following:

“Senator, do you still stand by your testimony or 33 years ago? Can you cite names, dates and places where our men in uniform ‘personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power?’

"Senator, can you cite specific instances where American soldiers, Marines or sailors had ‘cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle or dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside in South Vietnam?’

"And Senator, did you commit atrocities, as you flatly stated in April, 1971 on Meet The Press and in June, 1971 on the Dick Cavett Show? And if so, can you tell us exactly what you did?”

Not one single outlet of the mainstream media has sought to get a straight answer from Kerry on these very serious charges that he made.

Why should it be left up to the Swift Boat Veterans or the vets who appeared in “Stolen Honor” to put these important questions on the table?

Why would the same media that dug up President Bush’s National Guard records not do an equally thorough investigation of Kerry’s military record?

If George W. Bush or any other Republican presidential candidate had made such allegations in open Senate testimony, does anyone doubt that ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, and/or the Washington Post would be hounding him night and day to nail down specifics?

That double standard is nothing short of a scandal.

Taken together, all of the above is a clear indication of what we could expect from a Kerry presidency. With a Harold Ickes or a Hillary Clinton as attorney general, we could expect concerted efforts to shut down any media company or program that does not play ball with the White House.

For all intents and purposes, the power of the state would be used to stifle the first Amendment. This would not be the America we have known and loved.

And to add insult to injury, the same media that looked the other way during the Clinton scandals would be playing the lapdog role once again. That is why John Kerry Kerry is — as the vets have put it — “Unfit for Command.”


© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

1Like our page
It is a powerful account of decorated and wounded veterans of the Vietnam War who were deeply hurt that John Kerry trashed their sacrifices. Even to this day, they are angry that one of their fellow veterans would turn on them. These brave men spent years in the "Hanoi...
Tuesday, 26 October 2004 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved