Sinclair Broadcasting - Controversy over 'Stolen Honor'

[michaeledward]

Sinclair Broadcasting owns 62 television stations that reach more than 25% of the nations population. They had announced that they were going to show a documentary called 'Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal', uninterrupted in the week before the election. This documentary makes the case that John Kerry's activities after his return from Vietnam was damaging to those fighting in Vietnam and the POWs, in Vietnam.

Sinclair Broadcasting is stating that it has the responsibility to show this program because it is 'news'.

Organizations opposing the broadcast claim that it is a 'In Kind Contribution' to the Bush Cheney Campaign.

Most recently, Sinclair Broadcasting has indicated that it is not going to show the entire documentary, but just portions of the program. A panel will discuss portions of the program that will be broadcast. Also, Sinclair Broadcasting terminated an employee who criticized the plans to broadcast this documentary.

What do you think?

 

[Tgace]

How does it fundamentaly differ from F 9/11?

 

[michaeledward]

It is being broadcast of the publically owned airwaves.

 

[Spud]

F9/11 was a movie released in theaters - private businesses where individuals pay money to watch a movie of their choice. Television and radio stations are granted a license to transmit over public owned frequencies. As a result they have obligations to act in the public interest and provide equal access to campaigns. That seems to be where the debate is.

Sinclair appears to be trying to skirt the equal access issue by calling the documentary news programming. Sinclair has a history of gutting news departments when they acquire stations and has rarely if ever pre-empted regular programming for news specials. If it walks like a duck and quacks....

The quote that got their news director fired was:

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=times new roman, times, serif] "'It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election,' said Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter for more than a year. 'For me, it's not about right or left -- it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election.'[/font][/font]

He pretty much knew he was finished with Sinclair as soon as those words came out.

 

[loki09789]

F9/11 was a movie released in theaters - private businesses where individuals pay money to watch a movie of their choice. Television and radio stations are granted a license to transmit over public owned frequencies. As a result they have obligations to act in the public interest and provide equal access to campaigns. That seems to be where the debate is.

Sinclair appears to be trying to skirt the equal access issue by calling the documentary news programming. Sinclair has a history of gutting news departments when they acquire stations and has rarely if ever pre-empted regular programming for news specials. If it walks like a duck and quacks....

The quote that got their news director fired was:

He pretty much knew he was finished with Sinclair as soon as those words came out.

So it is an issue of whether the leasor and leasee can agree on whether it is okay?

I would say that the news coverage, talk shows, commercials and such about F9/11 that were done on the same stations/broadcast were more damaging than the movie itself. More people were influenced by the 'spin/interp' they recieved about F 9/11 than probably actual saw the movie directly.

If this is the case, why not ban anything other than paid advertising of campaign commercials, the presidential debates and such. Now that would be interesting: Politicians buying blocks of air time like infomercials....

"Get out that pesky stain of over taxation with one easy vote installment...operators standing buy, first 100 callers get a free ramen noodle package...."

"I voted Kerry, and it changed my life for ever "
"I prefer the Bush to the John any day of the week....VOTERS GONE WILD, buy your copy now!"

 

[michaeledward]

So it is an issue of whether the leasor and leasee can agree on whether it is okay?

I would say that the news coverage, talk shows, commercials and such about F9/11 that were done on the same stations/broadcast were more damaging than the movie itself. More people were influenced by the 'spin/interp' they recieved about F 9/11 than probably actual saw the movie directly.

If this is the case, why not ban anything other than paid advertising of campaign commercials, the presidential debates and such. Now that would be interesting: Politicians buying blocks of air time like infomercials....

Why do you describe the results of talk shows, commercials, and news coverage as 'damage'?

Do you know what content Sinclair Broadcasting actually showed concerning Fahrenheit 9/11? I watch very little television, so I don't know what the news coverage was, what the talk shows said, what the commericals showed.

How do you measure the 'damage' done by the talk shows, commercials, news coverage?

I am not certain that I accept your premise. I don't think 'banning' anything is good for democracy. I also think there is already too much money in the United States election process.

 

[loki09789]

Why do you describe the results of talk shows, commercials, and news coverage as 'damage'?

Do you know what content Sinclair Broadcasting actually showed concerning Fahrenheit 9/11? I watch very little television, so I don't know what the news coverage was, what the talk shows said, what the commericals showed.

How do you measure the 'damage' done by the talk shows, commercials, news coverage?

I am not certain that I accept your premise. I don't think 'banning' anything is good for democracy. I also think there is already too much money in the United States election process.

I use the term damage, meaning it's negative impact on the Bush campaign since the current concern is what impact/damage the documentary will have on the Kerry campaign.

No, I don't know what Sinclair actually showed...and it wouldn't be Sinclair it would be the individual stations/channels/networks btw...but with 46% of the ownership, I can speculate that there is a reasonable probability that Sinclair owned media was showing something of these interviews with Moore and news reports about the movie or talk shows discussing it. If the issue is 'mistruth' being perpetuated, I have to give credit to the networks for using factcheck.com and such to verify debate statements and political claims in general during certain broadcasts. Whether F9/11 or this Documentary, I think it is all 'celebrity campaign/idol/survivor' type of BS. Who can spin to win.

How do you measure anything in these discussions Mike? Looking up something that was published? Well then it becomes an issue of credibility...is that what I should reasonably infer from your line of questioning - that I am not posing credibly?

You don't have to accept my premise, but if the issue is of private/public involvement or some campaign ediquette/procedural violation with this stuff, then what can be done to regulate it better?

 

[michaeledward]

I use the term damage, meaning it's negative impact on the Bush campaign since the current concern is what impact/damage the documentary will have on the Kerry campaign.

No, I don't know what Sinclair actually showed...and it wouldn't be Sinclair it would be the individual stations/channels/networks btw...but with 46% of the ownership, I can speculate that there is a reasonable probability that Sinclair owned media was showing something of these interviews with Moore and news reports about the movie or talk shows discussing it. If the issue is 'mistruth' being perpetuated, I have to give credit to the networks for using factcheck.com and such to verify debate statements and political claims in general during certain broadcasts. Whether F9/11 or this Documentary, I think it is all 'celebrity campaign/idol/survivor' type of BS. Who can spin to win.

How do you measure anything in these discussions Mike? Looking up something that was published? Well then it becomes an issue of credibility...is that what I should reasonably infer from your line of questioning - that I am not posing credibly?

You don't have to accept my premise, but if the issue is of private/public involvement or some campaign ediquette/procedural violation with this stuff, then what can be done to regulate it better?

As I mentioned, I don't watch much television, but the most damage done by Fahrenheit 9/11 seems to be toward Michael Moore. His name seems to have taken the biggest hit because of the movie. Although, for the money he has made, I don't suppose it really matters to him. Of course we could get into a semantic argument that Fahrenheit 9/11 was directed at the Bush Presidency, which is a bit different from the Bush Campaign.

We do know that Sinclair Broadcasting would not show the Nightline Broadcast (on the appropriate affiliates) that read the names, and showed the photographs of the then 700 or so United States Servicemen and woman who had died in Iraq. Which is why I ask if we are aware of anything they, or their affiliated stations, showed or discussed that could possibly have done 'damage' to the Bush campaign. Sinclair has exerted its powers of censorship on Nightline, why do we assume they have not similarly used those controlling powers concerning Fahrenheit 9/11?

I am not certain the issue, and controversy is about 'mistruth'. If that is the way you are seeing it, that is completely OK. I however, think there may be something bigger at stake here.

I am also not certain that regulation of the airwaves is a good idea. I kinda thought that CBS fine for Miss Jackson's flesh-flash was downright ridiculous. I also have no objection to this program being aired, uncut.

For me, the issue goes back to media ownership. That Sinclair Broadcasting has the ability to reach 25% of the voting population with what is essentially editorial content is limiting to democracy. Back when a company could only own three broadcast stations, this would hardly make a ripple.

An informed public is a basic necessity for a democracy. If all our information is coming from just a handful of sources (General Electric, Viacom, Disney), we all suffer.

 

[loki09789]

I am also not certain that regulation of the airwaves is a good idea. I kinda thought that CBS fine for Miss Jackson's flesh-flash was downright ridiculous. I also have no objection to this program being aired, uncut.

For me, the issue goes back to media ownership. That Sinclair Broadcasting has the ability to reach 25% of the voting population with what is essentially editorial content is limiting to democracy. Back when a company could only own three broadcast stations, this would hardly make a ripple.

An informed public is a basic necessity for a democracy. If all our information is coming from just a handful of sources (General Electric, Viacom, Disney), we all suffer.

How can you reconcile endorsing de-regulated airwaves, private business ownership as a problem and solve the problem of a handful of sources for succesful democracy?

 

[michaeledward]

How can you reconcile endorsing de-regulated airwaves, private business ownership as a problem and solve the problem of a handful of sources for succesful democracy?

I guess it depends on how the term 'de-regulated airwaves' is defined.

I think the actual content broadcast over the airwaves should not be regulated too heavily. (How do you define pornography?)

However, we can place limitation on the businesses. Allowing a corporation to own a limited number of broadcast facilities, in a limited number of mediums.

For example - Loki Broadcasting can own:
1 Broadcast television station
1 daily newspaper publication
3 Radio broadcasts stations
10 weekly newspaper publications
The daily newspaper and the television broadcast stations can not be located in the same 'market'.

We regulate businesses all the time, they can not dispose of the hazardous waste in the river behind the building. This is just a similar type of regulation.


p.s. - Further, election cycles could be forced to be shortened. Primary season running in the month of June, with nationwide primaries on the 30th.
Presidential - Congressional elections run from September 4 through the first Tuesday in November. During this time, in the public intrest, each broadcaster, would need to commit 1 hour prime time each weeknight for candidate debate and discussion. Controlling those hours based on population densities.

The Businesses get to make money from my airwaves all year every year. In the public service, they should be regulated to committing this time for the public good. - This might get some of the money out of the campaigns.

 

[loki09789]

I guess it depends on how the term 'de-regulated airwaves' is defined.

I think the actual content broadcast over the airwaves should not be regulated too heavily. (How do you define pornography?)

However, we can place limitation on the businesses. Allowing a corporation to own a limited number of broadcast facilities, in a limited number of mediums.

For example - Loki Broadcasting can own:
1 Broadcast television station
1 daily newspaper publication
3 Radio broadcasts stations
10 weekly newspaper publications
The daily newspaper and the television broadcast stations can not be located in the same 'market'.

We regulate businesses all the time, they can not dispose of the hazardous waste in the river behind the building. This is just a similar type of regulation.

I was just putting a positive structure spin on your use of Not regulate broadcasting (hoping to save my typing time with that - so much for that idea).

So, either make the anti trust laws more applicable to the current business models or create new laws that will encourage a more fair and equatible market environment by reducing the ability to power up your control of an industry by playing the 'ownership loopholes'?

 

[michaeledward]

So, either make the anti trust laws more applicable to the current business models or create new laws that will encourage a more fair and equatible market environment by reducing the ability to power up your control of an industry by playing the 'ownership loopholes'?

Essentially, yes.

That David D. Smith can demand to broadcast his opinions to 24% of the countries population (by the companies own admission) is putting too much power into his hands.

This is capitalism at its most basic definition, isn't it? Would he not earn more profit for his shareholders if he continues to expand the reach of his voice? Isn't that his responsibility as President of the company? Is that conglomeration of broadcast networks and ability detrimental to the society that allowed the company to come into existance?

I believe the answer to each of those questions is 'YES'. Therefore, we are obligated to create rules that prevent the business from becoming detrimental to the society, in order to preserve the society.

 

[Spud]

Not sure who the leasor and leasee are? What parties are we talking about.

Sinclair owns a variety of stations affiliated with different networks. This isn't a network providing a program to their affiliates, but the ownership company ordering the stations to pre-empt their programming (over a variety of networks) to show a political documentary. This isn't pay per view, it is arguably taxpayer support for the Bush campaign.

I saw a tongue in cheek suggestion elsewhere that George Soros (billionaire anti-Bush) should make Sinclair an offer to broadcast F9/11 on those same stations. That would really stir the pot.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Incidentally, I heard the dreaded Michael Moore on PBS the other day...they'd just cancelled showing the dreaded, "9/11," on Pay-per-View, the night before the election, citing unnamed, "concerns."

His question was why these guys would even allow politics and pressure to override profits, given that they're always yakking about the holiness of the Free Market.

I also love the way that the FEC has contstantly been postponing all these questions till "after the election," when somehow have the feeling that they'll be pulling what Schwarzenegger pulled, and quietly reversing positions or sweedping everything under the big rug.

 

[michaeledward]

His question was why these guys would even allow politics and pressure to override profits, given that they're always yakking about the holiness of the Free Market.

I understand there are several lawsuits threatened from the Board of Directors, and perhaps from some stockholders. The company has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits and this action is apparently running counter to that responsibility.

Although, it looks like somebody is buying a lot of the stock today, either it is a very good price, or someone is trying to head of a SEC investigation.

 

[Phoenix44]

I saw a tongue in cheek suggestion elsewhere that George Soros (billionaire anti-Bush) should make Sinclair an offer to broadcast F9/11 on those same stations.

In fact, Michael Moore DID make Sinclair an offer to broadcast Fahrenheit 9/11 FREE OF CHARGE during similar time slots before the election, and Sinclair refused. Sinclair is also refusing to air an opposing film about Kerry, such as Going Upriver.

Though maybe Sinclair will change its mind now that their stock is in the toilet.