If a broadcast television network in the USA supported an open revolt against the federal gov't...

[0rganism]

(Sentence Completion question) Pick the outcome you think best completes the following sentence:

If a broadcast television network in the USA advocated, agitated for, and supported an open revolt against the federal government that resulted in an unsuccessful coup which had the effect of displacing a sitting president from his residence and disrupting his duties for several days as well as leading to numerous violent confrontations and over a dozen deaths, __________________.

[baldguy]

1. What was Fox doing during the Clinton Administration?

[David__77]

3. True that!

Indeed...

[0rganism]

5. IMO, a more relevant question is, what *didn't* Fox do during the Clinton administration?

Think about it.

[mitchum]

23. Beat me to it, baldguy...

also the Liddys, Norths, Limbaughs, etc... who blathered on and on about "federal thugs" during the Clinton administration.

[Rage for Order]

2. What does Bill Maher do on a weekly basis?

Oh, that's right...they won't shut him down because he's on cable, and the gov't wouldn't dare shut someone down on cable. Broadcast yes, cable no. :sarcasm:

[Webster Green]

6. I've never seen him do that..

I watch his show every week..

Link?

[0rganism]

9. Do you think that's relevant to the original question?

Please elaborate.

[Cleita]

11. Oh for god's sake, Bill Maher is a political commentator and

comedian. He shines a light on the foibles of our illustrious leaders. He has never advocated overthrowing our government. Nobody really ever has. To overthrow the government means everything stops, the constitution, civil service, etc. No one has ever advocated that. Fox channel has come close. If we get Democratic President and Congress in 2008, I think they will overstep the line just like RCTV did.

[Rage for Order]

17. Only a very slight difference

Would you agree that Bill Maher's show (which i happen to love, btw) attempts to incite people to action (not violence, but activism) against the sitting president, vice president, and attorney general in an attempt to have them removed from office (and rightly so)? And did RCTV advocate abandoning Venezuela's constitution, or did they advocate people removing Chavez from office? And finally, if the gov't does remove a show from the air, should the gov't replace that show with state propaganda or allow a new independent operator to air their programming on the open air waves?

[Cleita]

20. I watch Bill Maher regularly, I have never known him to advocate

anything that isn't in the Constitution. RCTV openly backed the American condoned arrest of Chavez, an elected leader of a sovereign country. On the other hand Chavez went about revoking the license of this station in an honest way. He called them on it. If it were in America and we were talking about CNN, we would fire all the liberal commentators, put Wolf Blitzer on 24/7 and then put up some "liberal" newspeople like Tammy Bruce and Susan Estrich. Mostly, real news would be supressed, but we would get all the presidential shit that the White House wants us to know. Because our present government is really dishonest.

[Rage for Order]

21. So they backed the arrest of Chavez

Why is backing the arrest of your country's president considered a crime, regardless of who else supports the same idea? If openly backing the arrest of your country's president is a crime then I've been a criminal for several years. And again, it's one thing to not renew the station's broadcast license, but it's quite another to seize all of the property and equipment without compensation and turn it into a propaganda arm of the state rather than allowing another broadcaster to use the vacated bandwidth.

[Cleita]

27. Could you answer a couple of questions for me?

Have you ever been in Venezuela?
Have you ever been in South America?

[Rage for Order]

35. No and no

[killbotfactory]

28. it wasn't really an arrest, it was a kidnapping at the threat force

The military leaders threatened to bomb the presidential palace if Chavez didn't "resign".

And they didn't just support a coup, they aided and abetted one, while censoring any information that didn't support the coup. Something that seems to be a misuse of the public airwaves.

[Rage for Order]

36. The poster I replied to said they backed his arrest

So I was responding to that circumstance. A minor question just because I'm curious - what's the difference between supporting a coup and aiding and abetting a coup?

Again, non-renewal of the broadcast license is one thing, maybe warranted, maybe not. But why did Chavez feel the need to seize all of the equipment of the station and turn it into a propaganda channel of the state rather than auctioning off use of the bandwidth to another broadcaster? You don't see that as a problem?

[mike_c]

4. the U.S. equivalent to RCTV would be the al-Qaeda channel....

eom

[Tunkamerica]

7. Are we talking one person on a network one time?

Or a constant call for the overthrow? There's a difference and it would elicit different responses. I assume you're trying to draw a parallel to Chavez's decision.

[killbotfactory]

29. We are talking about the owners of three major networks colluding

and censoring coverage of any information that might stop the coup attempt, as well as advocating violence and unrest, and leading protesters into a sniper trap.

[Canuckistanian]

8. There are two big variables in this supposition

1.) What kind of "federal gov't" are we talking about?

Overtly repressive? Covertly repressive? Tolerant?

and

2.) What exactly did the network say?

Was it vague innuendo or blatant war-mongering? A true concern for citizen's welfare or a minority view held by the rich upper-classes?

[0rganism]

12. clarification

1) Assume one comparable to the current (US) government, in terms of general attitude and legal standards.

2) Assume complete dedication of much news time and all editorial slant to anti-government agitprop, and direct collaboration with coup instigators during the period of disruption.

[Canuckistanian]

15. Well, then

Use the power of the FCC to shut them down.

The "anti-government" part wouldn't give me a problem, but the collaboration with violent revolutionaries would.

The violence is the deal-breaker.

[EFerrari]

18. They hosted the plotters and kept up the fiction that Chavez

had resigned. There was a news blackout on orders from the ringleaders. Nothing passive about it.

[MadBadger]

10. Where is the "shitty question" choice?

[0rganism]

13. there are only ten choices allocated for polls

sorry 'bout that.

[Rex]

14. Oh well now are you the Laughing Man?

Questions, questions.

[Telly Savalas]

16. HGTV has been calling for a violent overthrow of the U.S. government for years.

[EFerrari]

19. I really should watch something besides Gardening by the Yard.

[Initech]

22. Are you kidding? We had a coup in the US. It was led by Fox News in 2000.

They took the White House from Gore in the mass stupidity that started when they called Florida for Bush, when it was painfully obvious that Gore won.

[mike_c]

24. please-- if you think that Fox ever supported violent overthow of the gov't...

...then you've been drinking too much KoolAid. That's what RCTV did. And Chavez didn't even do what the FCC would have likely immediately done in the U.S.-- he allowed them to continue broadcasting for five years until their license expired under the law. Note too that the Venezuelan law requiring him to exercise sole responsibility for renewing or denying broadcast licenses predates his election by twelve years-- Chavez had nothing to do with that. And RCTV can continue to operate on cable.

[Initech]

33. See, the difference between the Republicans and Chavez is...

The Republicans didn't have to use violence to take over the government. They had the help of the media, the Supreme Court, and good ol' fashioned American stupidity to do it.

[0rganism]

26. While I would personally agree on some points, it has little bearing on the poll question

for at least the following reasons:
1. Gore was not the sitting president, nor was he displaced from his residence and duties thereby
2. There was little physical violence, and no fatalities during the "coup"
3. The "coup" was carried out through the judicial system re the election procedures enforced by brer Jeb's gang in Florida rather than through military or paramilitary means
4. The popular preference (Gore) carried out his duty and presided over the joint congressional certification of the electoral votes that resulted in his rival's confirmation to the post, and overrode attempts by the CBC to delay the proceedings

As such, there was no real disruption of official procedures, but rather a severe twisting and corruption of the underlying principles.

[Cleita]

31. Yes, they did and it's treason. Not only that they called

precincts before they had been counted for Bush, which caused people who might have voted to stay home. They were very complicit in the plot that eventually got Bush installed illegitimately as our war president and commander guy.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. Between five and six

There are too many choices on this poll

"Next plane to Gitmo" is my only disagreement with 6. Unless it was an Arabic or Islamic station. If they're just regular Merican folks, they'll rot in a stateside jail for a while until they can be sentenced.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. Well

they'd bring charges against the people responsible (which Chavez didn't do).

If they did feel the need to revoke the license, they wouldn't seize the station (as Chavez did) and they'd probably auction off the license to another independent entity (which Chavez didn't do).

[killbotfactory]

32. They tried to bring charges against some of them

The Supreme Court stated there was no coup, so they couldn't be charge until that decision was overturned, at which point the people they were charging had fled the country.

The Supreme Court is also the one that ordered the seizure of the station.

[Swamp Rat]

34. The owners would be - d e a d - dead in a few days.

Or sooner.

[stirlingsliver]

37. How About THIS Question Instead:

How about either or both of these question instead:

If a broadcast television network in the USA supported an open revolt against the Bush Administration...

or

If a broadcast television network in the USA supported an open revolt against the leadership of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. In America?!!! Never!! Anybody remember Joe McCarthy and HUAC?

Anybody remember the artists, writers, actors, directors, hauled in front of them for daring to question the system and being members of left-wing organizations?

Naaah. America would never, ever, suppress free speech or freedom of the press.