|
Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Just days before the election, no less. Anyone smell somethin' stinky yet?
| quote: | Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film
By Elizabeth Jensen
The Los Angeles Times
Saturday 09 October 2004
Sinclair, with reach into many of the nation's homes, will preempt prime-time shows. Experts call the move highly unusual.
New York - The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV, is ordering its stations to preempt regular programming just days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry's activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said Friday.
Sinclair's programming plan, communicated to executives in recent days and coming in the thick of a close and intense presidential race, is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.
Sinclair has told its stations - many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida - to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry - a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester - of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.
Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process.
"It's not the American way for powerful corporations to strong-arm local broadcasters to air lies promoting a political agenda," said David Wade, a spokesman for the Democratic nominee's campaign. "It's beyond yellow journalism; it's a smear bankrolled by Republican money, and I don't think Americans will stand for it."
Sinclair stations are spread throughout the country, in major markets that include Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas; its only California station is in Sacramento. Fourteen of the 62 stations the company either owns or programs are in the key political swing states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where the presidential election is being closely fought.
Station and network sources said they have been told the Sinclair stations - which include affiliates of Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, as well as WB and UPN - will be preempting regular programming for one hour between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, depending on the city. The airing of "Stolen Honor" will be followed by a panel discussion, which Kerry will be asked to join, thus potentially satisfying fairness regulations, the sources said.
Kerry campaign officials said they had been unaware of Sinclair's plans to air the film, and said Kerry had not received an invitation to appear.
No one familiar with the plan was willing to criticize it publicly, some because they said they don't know all the details of what Sinclair plans for the panel that follows. But a number of people privately expressed outrage at the seemingly overt nature of the political attack, which comes during a tight election and at a time when the media are under assault as never before. Cable's Fox News Channel was attacked in the summer by a coalition of liberal groups for what they said were its efforts to boost Republicans; in recent weeks, CBS' Dan Rather has been criticized by conservatives, as well as some nonpartisan journalists, for a "60 Minutes" broadcast that used now-discredited documents in a report saying President Bush received favorable treatment when in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s.
Democrats have for some time accused Sinclair, a publicly traded company based in Maryland, of a having a right-wing agenda.
The company made headlines in April when it ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel's "Nightline" roll call of military dead in Iraq, deeming it a political statement "disguised as news content." Sen. John McCain, the Republican from Arizona who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, was among those who criticized Sinclair's decision not to air the "Nightline" program, which featured the names and pictures of more than 700 U.S. troops.
Even before the "Nightline" controversy, Sinclair drew criticism because of the combination of its highly centralized news operations, which often include conservative commentary, and its almost exclusively Republican political giving. In the 2004 political cycle, Sinclair executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97% to Republicans, ranking it 12th among top radio and TV station group contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group.
The upcoming "Stolen Honor" will probably bring fresh attention to Sinclair. "I can't think of a precedent of holding up programming to show a political documentary at a point where it would have the maximum effect on the vote," said Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department. But the program will only be the latest in a string of politically charged media events in this campaign. Representatives of Michael Moore's anti-Bush "Fahrenheit 9/11," which has grossed $214 million worldwide, are in talks for a deal to make the film available on pay-per-view cable the night before the election. The Sundance Channel plans to air live clips Monday from the anti-Bush "Vote for Change" rock concert.
Cable, however, doesn't have the reach of broadcast stations like Sinclair's, nor is it subject to the same federal regulations. Still, although broadcast stations are required to provide equal time to major candidates in an election campaign, the Sinclair move may not run afoul of those provisions if Kerry or a representative is offered time to respond. Moreover, several sources said Sinclair had told them it planned to classify the program as news, where the rules don't apply.
Calling it news, however, poses its own problems, said Keith Woods, dean of the faculty at the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla., that teaches professional ethics. "To air a documentary intended to provide a one-sided view of Kerry's record and call it news - it's like calling Michael Moore's movie news," he said, adding that the closer to an election that a controversial news report is aired, the "higher the bar has to go" in terms of fairness.
Clearly, Sinclair's reach will bring a much wider audience to the film. The 42-minute film has only been available on DVD or for $4.99 through an Internet download, although fans had been mounting an Internet campaign to get it wider exposure.
"Stolen Honor" was made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and former reporter for the conservative Washington Times who is also the author of a book about the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. On the website for the film, he tells viewers, "Intended or not, Lt. Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam veterans, literally creating the images of those who served in combat as deranged drug-addicted psychopaths, baby killers" that endured for 30 years in the popular culture.
Sherwood did not return calls seeking comment.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...,4817545.story? |
As you can imagine, the liberal bloggers are goin' ape with this one, and I honestly couldn't blame them. And anyone who isn't a liberal, can you blame liberals for being pissed off about this?
Liberal media my ass!
Lemme get this straight - the 3 major media networks refused to air any Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertisements, which often are only 15 second clips because they felt it's too political around this time of year, but feel it's just ing peachy to air 90 minutes of FREE Smear Boat advertising against Kerry?
Interesting, to say the least. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Just days before the election, no less. Anyone smell somethin' stinky yet?
As you can imagine, the liberal bloggers are goin' ape with this one, and I honestly couldn't blame them. And anyone who isn't a liberal, can you blame liberals for being pissed off about this?
Liberal media my ass!
Lemme get this straight - the 3 major media networks refused to air any Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertisements, which often are only 15 second clips because they felt it's too political around this time of year, but feel it's just ing peachy to air 90 minutes of FREE Smear Boat advertising against Kerry?
Interesting, to say the least. |
MM's movie is suppose to see a network release around election time...so relax.
EDIt***= NVM his showing will be a 10 dollar PPV event..LOL!
This will be devastating for KERRY as it will be shown nationwide on network public tv and on all channels.LOL maybe we can see the rumored footage of Kerry burning an American FLAG |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
from nytimes
| quote: |
Up to 62 television stations owned or managed by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group - many of them in swing states - will show a documentary highly critical of Senator John Kerry's antiwar activities 30 years ago within the next two weeks, Sinclair officials said yesterday.
Those officials said the documentary would pre-empt regular night programming, including prime time, on its stations, which include affiliates for all six of the major broadcast networks in the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania.
Called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the documentary features Vietnam veterans who say their Vietnamese captors used Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony, in which he recounted stories of American atrocities, prolonging their torture and betraying and demoralizing them. Similar claims were made by prisoners of war in a commercial that ran during the summer from an anti-Kerry veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Two of the former prisoners who appeared in the Swift Boat advertisement were interviewed for the movie, including Ken Cordier, who had to resign as a volunteer in the Bush campaign after the advertisement came out.
Sinclair's plan to show the documentary was first made public by The Los Angeles Times on Saturday.
Mark Hyman, Sinclair's vice president for corporate relations, who doubles as a conservative commentator on its news stations, said the film would be shown because Sinclair deemed it newsworthy.
"Clearly John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run; this is an issue that is certainly topical," he said. Asked what defined something as newsworthy, Mr. Hyman said, "In that it hasn't been out in the marketplace, and the news marketplace."
Because Sinclair is defining the documentary - which will run commercial free - as news, it is unclear if it will be required by federal regulations to provide Mr. Kerry's campaign with equal time to respond.
But acknowledging that news standards call for fairness, Mr. Hyman said an invitation has been extended to Mr. Kerry to respond after the documentary is shown. "There are certainly serious allegations that are leveled; we would very much like to get his response," he said.
Asked if Sinclair would consider running a documentary of similar length either lauding Mr. Kerry, responding to the charges in "Stolen Honor" or criticizing Mr. Bush, Mr. Hyman said, "We'd just have to take a look at it."
Aides to Mr. Kerry said he would not accept Sinclair's invitation.
"It's hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing anything to help elect President Bush even if that means violating basic journalism standards," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman.
Sinclair's plans put Mr. Kerry's campaign in an awkward position similar to the one in which it found itself in August, when the Swift Boat group first began running commercials against him containing unsubstantiated charges that he lied to get his war medals. Mr. Kerry's aides at first held back from responding, so as not to give the group and its charges more attention - a decision that some Kerry aides now acknowledge cost him in public opinion polls.
Mr. Clanton said Mr. Kerry's campaign would call on supporters to stage advertiser boycotts and demonstrations against Sinclair's stations.
A group of Democratic senators, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein of California, readied a letter calling for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the move, arguing that the documentary was not news but a prolonged political advertisement from Mr. Bush and, as such, violated fairness rules.
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, an advocacy group promoting greater media regulation, said he did not think the film would qualify for a news exemption. And, he said, even if it did fall under equal time provisions, those are based on candidate appearances and in this case, since it is Mr. Kerry who appears, "albeit disparagingly," stations would be required to show Mr. Bush or possibly the independent candidate Ralph Nader, if they requested it.
Sinclair was already a galvanizing force for Democrats. The political donations of its executives have gone overwhelmingly to Republicans, according to a review of donations on Politicalmoneyline.com. In April Sinclair refused to run an episode of "Nightline" on its stations in which the anchor Ted Koppel spent the entire program reading the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq.
"Stolen Honor" was produced by Carlton Sherwood, formerly a reporter with The Washington Times. His Web site says he received no money from any political party or campaign but got initial funding from Pennsylvania veterans.
The documentary has been distributed by mail order and via streaming Internet connections. Mr. Hyman said Sinclair was not paying for the right to broadcast it.
|
:cool: :cool: I knew fahrenlies 9/11 would not go unanswered by the REPUBLICANS>
I can hear the democrats squealing already.:cool: |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Just days before the election, no less. Anyone smell somethin' stinky yet?
As you can imagine, the liberal bloggers are goin' ape with this one, and I honestly couldn't blame them. And anyone who isn't a liberal, can you blame liberals for being pissed off about this?
Liberal media my ass!
Lemme get this straight - the 3 major media networks refused to air any Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD advertisements, which often are only 15 second clips because they felt it's too political around this time of year, but feel it's just ing peachy to air 90 minutes of FREE Smear Boat advertising against Kerry?
Interesting, to say the least. |
Aren't we just a lovely country Opus, gotta love it. Swift Boat Vets for Smear are a bitter bunch that see an opportunity to bring down John Kerry because he spoke out against another ty War that we were involved in, surprise, surprise. Maybe Sinclair should see what other propoganda pieces they can pump out over the airwaves.
I don't know about you but this is unreal stuff in that the opposition should be given equal time to tell their story if you are going to run such a clearly politically biased piece around election time. American politics at work:rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
from nytimes
:cool: :cool: I knew fahrenlies 9/11 would not go unanswered by the REPUBLICANS>
I can hear the democrats squealing already.:cool: |
Well Mike, I sincerely hope you can see the major discrepencies between Sinclair, a media broadcast group which holds an obligation to have high standards of unbiased journalism on major media networks which people watch for FREE, vs. a biased film documentary that was released in the movie theatres (gotta pay for it, right?), released on DVD (gotta pay for it, right?), and is possibly going to be shown on PAY-per-view (uhh, gotta pay, right?). This move is highly atypical of any media conglomerate. Christ, even Murdoch wouldn't think of goin' that low!
So you feel it's appropriate to have free TV biased crap against Kerry, but not so for Bush? Would you feel it appropriate if Fahrenheit was shown for free on the media networks the following night? Or how about a documentary on Bush's absence in the Nat'l Guard?
Or perhaps none whatsoever, as we should be concentrating on today's issues at hand? |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Well Mike, I sincerely hope you can see the major discrepencies between Sinclair, a media broadcast group which holds an obligation to have high standards of unbiased journalism on major media networks which people watch for FREE, vs. a biased film documentary that was released in the movie theatres (gotta pay for it, right?), released on DVD (gotta pay for it, right?), and is possibly going to be shown on PAY-per-view (uhh, gotta pay, right?). This move is highly atypical of any media conglomerate. Christ, even Murdoch wouldn't think of goin' that low!
So you feel it's appropriate to have free TV biased crap against Kerry, but not so for Bush? Would you feel it appropriate if Fahrenheit was shown for free on the media networks the following night? Or how about a documentary on Bush's absence in the Nat'l Guard?
Or perhaps none whatsoever, as we should be concentrating on today's issues at hand? |
CBS has been doing it for years...through Dan Rather's personal political agenda.
ABC as well...."abc memo scandal"
| quote: |
ABCNEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MEMO SPARKS CONTROVERSY: BOTH SIDES NOT 'EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE'
**Exclusive**
An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."
The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."
But Halperin claims that Bush is hoping to "win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions."
"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done," Halperin writes.
Halperin's claim that ABCNEWS will not "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable" set off sparks in St. Louis where media players gathered to cover the second presidential debate.
Halperin states the responsibilities of the ABCNEWS staff have "become quite grave."
In August, Halperin declared online: "This is now John Kerry's contest to lose."
x x x x x
Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004
It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave
I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
|
But do these bias get the coverage/scrutiny they deserve? Of course not.
Like I've stated before concentrating on present issues would be better for the overall election. I just saw retired general franks come out to the media today and critisize Kerry on his anti-war protests. So it looks like the focus of the Anti-Kerry Campaign in the closing weeks will be focused on his past record. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
it is rather amusing to see brilliant strategists becoming increasingly transparent as desperation sets in. between bush's "major policy speech" last week and this upcoming "movie", i see carl rove pulling every last card he has out of his sleeve and bush continues to slip in the polls.
personnaly, i don't see this 90 minute anti-kerry ad helping bush anymore than hurting him. between bogus terrorist threats, poor debate performances and inarguable ridicule of foreign policy, any last ditch effort to give him four more years will be seen as a last ditch effort.
the true october surprise may turn out to be a maturing story of christopher reeve's death. It would be absurd to blame this on bush.. but the kind of people bush needs to win the election can easily be swayed by absurdity. a lot can happen in the next 22 days, including the death of the liberal media myth as performed by sinclair. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
CBS has been doing it for years...through Dan Rather's personal political agenda. |
No one denies that Rather made a mistake by not checking his sources with scrutiny. Conversely, no one ALSO denies that the actual content reported in that 60 minutes is irrefutable. Much to the chagrin of Conservatives, the document itself does not refute the actual evidence surrounding Bush's AWOL status. Keep in mind that the document cannot be verified as real, but it also has not been verified as a forgery with supporting evidence as well. Just because it is not verified as real does not allow us to create a false dichotomy that it is therefore forged. And considering that the White House deliberately withheld this document 1 week later after the Rather story, and which has the exact same proportionally spaced font as the Rather document in question, well, you do the math:
http://www.glcq.com/docs/(71-02-19)recognition_memo.pdf
Besides, don't you find it a little "strange" that the White House immediately handed out the Rather document to the press the day after the story broke? Why would the White House hand out a document that they would supposedly feel would be a suspected forgery? Perhaps because they knew the content itself was true?
| quote: | ABC as well...."abc memo scandal"
But do these bias get the coverage/scrutiny they deserve? Of course not.
Like I've stated before concentrating on present issues would be better for the overall election. I just saw retired general franks come out to the media today and critisize Kerry on his anti-war protests. So it looks like the focus of the Anti-Kerry Campaign in the closing weeks will be focused on his past record. |
I'm actually glad you brought this ABC memo up. I was wondering if someone was going to follow up Drudge on this. Personally my partisan side immediately jumped out when I read this memo and said, "It's about ing time the media has caught on!". But let's examine critically what they're stating here - they are stating that although they should hold both candidates accountable, that does NOT mean that candidates should be held equally accountable "when the facts don't warrant that.
IOW, if someone is telling a load more lies, or if someone is telling a much more egregrious, our media should finally stand up and yell "Bull!" I could not agree more. As he further states the NYTimes piece:
"the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."
IOW, just because one side makes a flat-out lie that's easy to pin down, you don't imply that it's the exact same as a slight error (or "less of a lie", if you will) from the other side. To me this means that the media is finally ing waking up to the fact that the "lies" or distortions told by Bush and Cheney are of a little more substance than the "lies" or distortions told by Kerry and Edwards during the debates. As an example:
Brian Williams from the NBC's "fact checker" group stated that Kerry was lying when he claimed that Bush did not fund No Child Left Behind because, even though No Child Left Behind has been under-funded by $7B, I suppose it has received at least one dollar. As Media Matters notes:
| quote: | Williams singled out as a distortion Kerry's true statement that Bush "didn't fund No Child Left Behind [NCLB]." Williams declared: "The truth is that education funding has increased during the Bush administration, though it has not lived up to the levels that the No Child Left Behind legislation called for."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410090004 |
So, Kerry is somehow lying by claiming that Bush did not fund a piece of legislation that is, in fact, underfunded. Williams then compared the gross distortion of claiming that an underfunded program is underfunded with Bush's lie about small businesses under Kerry's tax plan:
| quote: | | Bush claimed that "900,000 small businesses will be taxed under his [Kerry's] plan" to roll back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans "because most small businesses are Subchapter S corps or limited partnerships, and they pay tax at the individual income tax level." Williams pointed out: "[I]n truth, according to a reputable think tank, The Tax Policy Center, that 900,000 number is inflated. Mr. Bush has doubled it. They say it would negatively affect about 470,000 small businesses in this country." |
Not only is Bush's lie far greater in this case, but because he made several more distortions than Kerry, people like Schneider and Williams left out some real whoppers. In particular, I am referring to Bush's bald-faced lie Friday night about non-defense discretionary spending:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ar...4_10/004884.php
Bush claimed that non-defense discretionary spending has increased only 1% annually under his administration (it has increased 8.2% a year, the most since the 1960's, according to the congressional budget office). He also claimed that under Clinton it was increasing at 15% a year, when according to the Congressional Budget office it was only increasing 2.5%. This gratuitous distortion was not even mentioned by the fact-checking teams, probably because they were unable to keep coming up with lame Kerry distortions to use as "balance."
So ABC has finally stood up to this bull, and as expected, the cries of "bias" have come raining out of the sky. Considering that Sinclair Broadcasting Group is planning on delivering the Bush campaign more than $5,000,000 of free anti-Kerry advertising in two weeks, let's see which story gets more coverage. It will be a test of Atrios's thesis from earlier:
| quote: | It's bad enough that Sinclair is ordering its stations to run an anti-Kerry movie produced by a Moonie Moonie apologist, but what's really bad is the "liberal media" will be quiet about it. Imagine if, say, an owner of a bunch of NBC affiliates ordered them to run "Going Upriver" or "Fahrenheit 9/11" the night before the election. A media storm of epic proportions would erupt. Aside from the screeching right wingers, Howard Kurtz would write endless columns about it. They'd trot out hundreds of employees who were outraged by the decision (under cloak of anonymity if necessary) to condemn the horrible liberal bias of their affiliate owner. There would be talk of nothing else on the cable nets all the time. WE'd hear demands for "equal time" or other such nonsense. We'd hear screeching about biasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbiasbias until the election.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2004/10/...l-media-ii.html |
I'm more than willing to compare the distortions from one side vs. the other if you wish. I think ABC was completely on point to consider this, and I'm more than happy to defend Kerry and Edwards distortions and their implications vs. Bush and Cheney's.
And BTW, you really didn't answer my question, but let me restate it to show a nice turnabout example here -
Would you allow Fahrenheit 9/11 to be played for FREE on the local media networks just days before the election? If not, why not? |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
... Sinclair, a media broadcast group which holds an obligation to have high standards of unbiased journalism on major media networks which people watch for FREE... |
I'm curious here: Are US broadcasting companies subject to some regulations and standards in order to get the broadcasting rights? Or are you talking about some moral code that you feel should be universal?
If there are no regulations, then I see no problems in the actions of the Sinclair group. It's an organization that is trying to nurture its own interests. That the approach it is taking is crude and stupid doesn't really matter with respect to the democratic election. The problem would be solely with the voters too stupid to see through the lies. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I'm curious here: Are US broadcasting companies subject to some regulations and standards in order to get the broadcasting rights? Or are you talking about some moral code that you feel should be universal?
If there are no regulations, then I see no problems in the actions of the Sinclair group. It's an organization that is trying to nurture its own interests. That the approach it is taking is crude and stupid doesn't really matter with respect to the democratic election. The problem would be solely with the voters too stupid to see through the lies. |
What you're stating is true in that it would be left up to the public to decide what is considered a little "left" or "right" leaning shows. But here's a counterexample - the documentary that was to be showed on Reagan. The conservative mouthpieces had a fest on this, and consequently put together a well-organized boycott which forced the show to be aired on Showtime instead. But let's also keep in mind that this Reagan documentary wasn't even near any elections either.
It is also true to a certain extent:
http://www.cfinst.org/eguide/electi...strictions.html
There are campaign advertising restrictions that must be adhered. Sinclair has wiggled around those restrictions by classifying this as "news programming".
Should that be allowable to occur simply on the merits of symantics? Should it be allowed simply on what they decide to call the show? And as I stated earlier - the top 3 media outlets, ABC/NBC/CBS refused to air 15 second COMMERCIALS for Fahrenheit 9/11 because they felt it was too political for even a quick COMMERCIAL!
I guess we truly expect the top 3 media outlets to be as unbiased as possible, on what rules governs this I really don't know other than campaign advertising restrictions. Perhaps that's the underlying problem. If anyone has any further info. on this I'd be much obliged. |
|
|
| auujay |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I'm curious here: Are US broadcasting companies subject to some regulations and standards in order to get the broadcasting rights? Or are you talking about some moral code that you feel should be universal?
If there are no regulations, then I see no problems in the actions of the Sinclair group. It's an organization that is trying to nurture its own interests. That the approach it is taking is crude and stupid doesn't really matter with respect to the democratic election. The problem would be solely with the voters too stupid to see through the lies. |
Yes they are regulated. Primarily because this is broadcast over the airwaves which the companies do not own, "the people" do. Therefore in order to get a broadcast license, they have to contribute to the public good. This is one reason local stations all have news programs (if they don't they have to run some other community show).
Also I thought they had to air equal time for both canidates, but I guess they are getting around that by calling it "news" (though I don't understand the specifics of this).
If only they would also broadcast Going Upriver: The Long War Of John Kerry :) |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Did I mention that Sinclair is being incredibly hypocritical with their past actions?
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/d...falert187.shtml
| quote: | | Sinclair Broadcast Group on Thursday ordered its eight ABC affiliates to pre-empt Friday's "Nightline" broadcast of the reading of the names of US military personnel killed in Iraq, saying the program is "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." |
FCC Chairman Reed Hunt sent this memo to Sinclair executives:
| quote: | Dear sirs:
I'm told you were involved in a decision to order Sinclair stations to carry anti-Kerry propaganda. If my information is false, please forgive this intrusion. While I do not believe you should be required to carry pro-Kerry content, except of course for an even-handed sale of your advertising time to both campaigns, I do wish to register my objection and concern if in fact you have obliged your stations to carry anti-Kerry propaganda.
I assure you that if you were carrying anti-Bush propaganda I would be equally concerned.
The problem is this: How can it be part of a broadcaster's public interest obligation to aspire to alter the perceptions of the audience about a presidential candidate by showing biased content that in no way reflects either breaking news or even-handed treatment of the issues? Why should a broadcaster keep its licenses if it behaves in this manner? I hope you will reconsider your edict -- unless, of course, I am misinformed, in which case I do hope you forgive this message.
-- Reed Hundt
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/previous/hundtbio.html |
I'm almost beginning to believe that some folks are starting to wake up this Sinclair bull. Wishful thinking, probably, but who knows.
Added in Edit: Oh man, this is good. The major claim to fame for this movie's producer is his flick, "Inquisition", his 1991 expose on the US government's alleged "persecution" of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/089526532X/104-6284272-2782341?v=glance
Sherwood's report was so 'independent' that he let Moon's representatives pre-screen it and make changes to the text.
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript2.shtml
They also reportedly agreed to buy 100,000 copies of the book for good measure.
http://www.mediachannel.org/originals/moontranscript2.shtml
Damn, thanks be to Josh Marshall for this info. ing crazy Moonies! |
|
|
|
|
