My problem with this is that because everyone considers Hilary the main democratic candidate for the next presidential election - it looks extremely biased to put this movie out before then. Do they have the right to do this? Yes of course..she hasn't officially declared her candidacy yet. I personally think its in bad taste for NBC to do so...but they have that right. I do not see where this violates the equal-time rule. However, I do believe it will be the first time ever that a major network has propped up a candidate in this way..and it will draw suspicions to any news out of NBC critiquing any her opponents. It will in effect, lessen their reputability when it comes to election news that surrounds Clinton. The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. This means, for example, that if a station gives one free minute to a candidate on the prime time, it must do the same for another candidate. However, there are four exceptions: if the air-time was in a documentary, bona fide news interview, scheduled newscast or an on-the-spot news event the equal-time rule is not valid. Talk shows and other regular news programming from syndicators, such as The Tonight Show, are declared exempt from the rule by the FCC on a case-on-case basis.
The real reason Preibus doesn't want NBC moderating debates Preibus’ remarks reflect a reality that the Republican Party is facing: their platform has become so toxic, the only way to overcome it is to keep it out of the spotlight. GOP Chairman: Our Debate Moderators Must Be ‘Interested In The Future Of The Republican Party’ The very premise of a debate is for candidates to answer tough questions about where they stand on key issues that matter to the constituents they will be tasked with representing. For decades, those debates have been in the form of moderated conversations amongst the candidates, distributed on news networks and overseen by objective journalists. But after suffering two presidential defeats, the Republican Party has had enough: instead, they only want people who are interested in electing Republicans to be the ones asking the questions:
Trailer sneak peak. <object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/llEsfNtE4iQ?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/llEsfNtE4iQ?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
It's biased, but there's nothing unfair about being a biased network. GOP should bypass media entirely (whose only agenda is to make the candidates look bad, not to inform the primary electorate) and run their own debates. Stream them online and on Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Youtube. Let any network air them that wants to. Debate moderator should not ask any questions, just present a topic and keep time.
One can be strong, vibrant and opinionated and still be bat **** crazy. In fact, I think Sarah Palin proved that not long ago.
MSM moderators want to talk about gays/evolution/amnesty/birth control. They will avoid topics like the economy, debt, health care. The GOP actually let Stephanopolous moderate a debate, and he spent 15 minutes discussing banning birth control, which no candidate had ever proposed.
They have every right to make whatever they want. It's no secret who they will be endorsing anyway. Just as the RNC has every right to demand that moderators in debates be neutral as they are supposed to be. Anyone who thinks the media aren't biased at this point truly isn't paying attention (cue Fauxnews jabs...). But a news outfit ought to at least make a semblance of an attempt at appearing so. Airing puff pieces for candidates doesn't quite cut it.
That how I would think of it. Except, as long as Hilary pretends to not coordinate with them, it's more like a donation to a PAC and essentially unfettered. In fact, they won't even have to tell us that it's NBC that's making it.
We have no idea what the content of the miniseries will be - for all we know, Hillary will come across horribly. Besides, NBC News has nothing to do with this - they are pissed about it too. This is entirely from their entertainment division. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media...ries-nightmare-for-nbc-news-170177.html?hp=l2 NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd is calling a planned Hillary Clinton miniseries on NBC a “nightmare” for the network’s news operation, which is sometimes “at war” with its entertainment division. Discussing the separation between NBC News and NBC Entertainment, which is behind the miniseries, on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Thursday, Todd lamented that even well-informed people don’t understand the wall that exists between the two entities. “This is why this miniseries is a total nightmare for NBC News,” Todd said. ...
^^^THIS^^^ NBC news will lose a LOT of credibility when it comes to the next Election if Hillary is the candidate because of this - Its a bad idea for the entertainment division to air this.
hahahaha looks like Hillary's side queefed under pressure. No movie. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ry-for-cnn-after-pressure-from-clinton-aides/
Hillary's staff didn't want the movie to air either. They were complaining to CNN as much as Republicans were. As a result, its not shocking this didn't air.
Agree. Her royal goose would be cooked if the "documentary" or "movie" explored all or any of Hillary's shady dealings from Whitewater to Benghazi.
LOL it's funny because she's a woman, right? That's what women do when they push air out of their vaginas, queef, right? That's the joke? Right? Dude LMAO you're hilarious. You should write jokes professionally. I'm still ROFLING. Queef! HAHA!!!
looks like I struck a nerve with you. Truth, brah the centerpiece of my post was that the movie is OFF. The queef was just a little freebie humor for you to enjoy.
