the rumor that bush has been wearing a "wire" during the debates keeps gaining steam. i'm a bit skeptical, because the potential PR disaster that would ensue if they were caught is so huge that i'm not sure even the bush administration is foolish enough to try it. then again, what are those mysterious bulges in george's suit? if they're not a wire, wtf are they? the bush administration has not given a plausible answer.

sinclair broadcasting, the same media conglomerate that refused to air the episode of nightline where koppel read off a list of the iraq war dead, has mandated that its affiliates air a blatant piece of anti-kerry propaganda (a "film" brought to you by those swift boat liars) on prime time before election day. the swift boat liars have every right to make any kind of bogus movie they like, but for a broadcasting powerhouse to give them an hour's free airtime is outrageous and flagrantly illegal. i had to pay good money to see fahrenheit 9/11; can you imagine the republican outrage if that were going to be broadcast over the airwaves on or before nov 1? josh marshall at talkinpointsmemo is encouraging people to get in touch with sinclair's advertisers and voice their dissatisfaction, arguing (correctly i think) that hitting sinclair in the wallet (advertising revenue) is the best strategy to get them to back down.

sinclair exec mark hyman even went on cnn and repeatedly compared democrats to "holocaust deniers", which was promptly condemned by the ADL. so a top sinclair exec goes on-air, compares democrats to holocaust deniers and suggests that terrorists are pro-kerry, but in the same breath claims there is no pro-bush bias at sinclair...

sinclair thinks they can call this "news" somehow (even former fcc chair reed hundt thinks that's hogwash) but this isn't the first time sinclair has air blatant PR disguised as news.

and moving on to print... judith miller, nytimes reporter famous for unskeptically printing misinformation for ahmed chalabi (who has since apparently been outed as an iranian spy), is in jail for refusing to cooperate with the valerie plane investigation. so why does the times's ombudsman think it's okay to publicly reveal the names of its readers who criticize its reporters?