Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (52545)	10/12/2004 12:43:38 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

From Reed Hundt, Former Chair, FCC ... _________________________________________ talkingpointsmemo.com October 12, 2004 -- 10:41 AM Dear Josh: Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"? Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television. In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like. To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates. Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it. Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here. -- Reed Hundt Speaks for itself ...

To: American Spirit who wrote (52545)	10/12/2004 12:47:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 81568

Reeve's Death Raises Embryonic Stem Cell Research Issue in Presidential Campaign ______________________ 12 Oct 2004 medicalnewstoday.com The death of actor Christopher Reeve on Sunday "puts a spotlight" on the issue of federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research during the final weeks of the presidential campaign, the New York Times reports (Gay Stolberg, New York Times, 10/12). Reeve -- who in 1995 was paralyzed after a horseback riding accident damaged his spinal cord -- died at age 52 from heart failure, the AP/Detroit Free Press reports. After his accident, Reeve became an advocate of spinal cord injury research, including human embryonic stem cell research, which he helped make a major campaign issue in this year's presidential election, according to the AP/Free Press (Fitzgerald, AP/Detroit Free Press, 10/11). Proponents of the research say it could lead to treatments or cures for diseases such as cancer, juvenile diabetes and Alzheimer's, but some opponents say it is immoral because it requires the destruction of human embryos. On Aug. 9, 2001, President Bush announced a policy limiting federally funded embryonic stem cell research to cell lines created on or before that date. Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) said in August that he would lift restrictions Bush has placed on embryonic stem cell research (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 8/9). Reaction From Candidates During Friday's presidential debate in St. Louis, Kerry mentioned Reeve as a "friend" and fellow advocate for embryonic stem cell research, according to the Washington Post (Holley, Washington Post, 10/12). Kerry on Monday said he was "really blown away" when he received a cell phone message from Reeve on Saturday thanking him for promoting embryonic stem cell research during the debate, according to USA Today (Oldenburg, USA Today, 10/12). "The excitement in his voice was really just palpable," Kerry said of Reeve's call, adding, "He was just thrilled at where the discussion of stem cell research had come to" (Zuckman, Chicago Tribune, 10/12). Kerry added, "[Reeve] was an inspiration to all of us and gave hope to millions of Americans who are counting on lifesaving cures that science and research can provide. In part because of his work, millions will one day walk again" (Marchione, AP/Long Island Newsday, 10/12). Bush offered condolences for Reeve's death without mentioning embryonic stem cell research, according to the Houston Chronicle. "Mr. Reeve was an example of personal courage, optimism and self determination," Bush said, adding, "He will be remembered as an accomplished actor and for his dedicated advocacy for those with physical disabilities." During Friday's debate, Bush cited the "ethical dilemma" of using discarded embryos for embryonic stem cell research, according to the Chronicle. "To destroy life to save life is -- it's one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face," Bush said, adding, "The approach I took is one that I think is a balanced and necessary approach, to balance science and the concerns for life" (Martinez, Houston Chronicle, 10/11). Campaign Implications Kerry often mentions his position favoring increased federal funding for embryonic stem cell research while campaigning, according to the Washington Times (Curl, Washington Times, 10/12). However, it is "unclear" whether Reeve's death would result in increased support for Kerry, but it is "certain" that Kerry's supporters will try to use Reeve's death to remind voters of Kerry's and Bush's stances on stem cell research, according to the New York Times. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) on Monday said, "This election is critical to achieving Christopher Reeve's vision because only one candidate for president -- John Kerry -- is committed not only to stem cell research but to good science generally, science not constrained by ideology or partisanship." However, Republicans are trying to "counter" the Democratic "offensive," according to the New York Times. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who supports loosening restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, on Monday "cautioned against exploiting Reeve's death," according to the New York Times. "We need to refrain from using the stem cell research issue for political gain at the expense of the cause," Hatch said, adding, "This is one battle that shouldn't be fought along partisan lines." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) said, "I don't think you have to elect Senator Kerry to have more stem cell research," adding, "I can't give you any specifics, but I think there's a chance the president may have a different view in a second term." Bush has "given no indication" that he might change his policy if re-elected, according to the New York Times (New York Times, 10/12).