Sinclair's slam dunk
You may have read that Sinclair has caved under protests of its plans to broadcast an anti-Kerry documentary.
Is it true... or is that just what the man wants us to believe? I don't know if Sinclair was smart enough to plan it this way, but here's how it worked out: stir up trouble, then make people think you're being accomodating so that the trouble goes away, then run your propaganda without a word of protest from the people who were led to believe they won.
What they planned all along was to air selected portions of the anti-Kerry propaganda and intersperse that with studio elements of former POWs and other veterans bashing Kerry. Think Swift Boat Unfiltered. This is far worse as a smear than if they had just aired the documentary. It reinforces the "message" of the documentary and updates it with the panel to make the charge seem fresh and alive.
But, wait, there's more. Remember all that about "the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage"? You see, all of this will be framed as a discussion about how the liberal media, following the lead of the Kerry campaign, has systematically ignored these claims and "filtered" the news. That's how they will claim that this is "news" and not just a recycling of old anti-Kerry smears.
Comments
Exactly. They'll push the line that the media has been "denying these men's existence." Check out the Swift Vets site for the list of media appearances these guys have made in the last three months. It's many more than, say, President Bush has made. Hopefully Stolen Honor producer Carlton Sherwood will be able to clear up issues about his existence tonight during his appearance on Paula Zahn Now.
Posted by: jim | October 20, 2004 11:49 AM
From day one Sinclair has been saying they were only going to show parts of it, but it was blown out by the media saying that they were showing this whole film, yadda yadda yadda. Now it looks like they've been pressured to tone it down (which isn't true), and some are claiming vindication on the left, and some on the right are claiming foul. Neither of them are paying attention to reality, unfortunately.
Posted by: Tom | October 20, 2004 12:29 PM
I wondered the same thing when I saw the Post headline today: Sinclair will not air controversial film.
Then the story goes on to say that they will air part of the film, but not all of it.
I thought to myself: Wow, pretty clever. All these lefties are going to think they've won and the battle is over, and then Sinclair is going to go and run the "documentary" anyway.
Orwellian, to say the least.
Posted by: Geekgirl | October 20, 2004 1:38 PM
Tom -- you're essentially correct, but if you read around you'll see that "from day one" Sinclair was trying to have it both ways, sometimes saying it would only air parts, sometimes saying it would show it in its entirety (eg, atrios has the tv guide listing; new york times has a quote).
Tellingly, while the mainstream media fell for the "they caved" spin, most blogs have not. I wonder if that will change the storyline again.
Posted by: radosh | October 20, 2004 2:18 PM