Stolen Honor: Sinclair Under Fire

worm eater writes "The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, in its latest politically charged move, has announced that it will air a 90-minute anti-Kerry documentary a week before the election. The video, 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,' was funded by a group of Pennsylvania POWs that has merged with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Sinclair, which is the largest TV broadcasting group in the nation, has 62 affiliates, many in swing states. It made news in April by refusing to let any of its affiliates air an edition of Nightline in which Ted Koppel read the names of US soldiers who had died in Iraq, saying the broadcast was politically motivated. Predictably, liberal blogs are fighting back."

Comments

They deny it

[dtfinch]

But on the other hand, they don't give an affirmative statement that the documentary is not intended to attack Kerry.

Since they're basically slashdotted, this is on their front page:
We welcome your comments regarding the upcoming special news event featuring the topic of Americans held as prisoners of war in Vietnam. The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000.

if you would like to make further comments on this matter, you may do so at:
comments@sbgi.net

Contact the Advertisers who support Sinclair

[mokiejovis]

... and tell them you're not going to be buying their products as long as they support Sinclair. Hurt Sinclair where it really stings - in the wallet.

List of Advertisers

Furthermore, just in case you don't think your phone call will do anything, see a little morale-booster from Kos.

Doesn't this violate the equal time rule?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e1/equaltime.asp

a Federal Communications Commission rule that requires equal air time for all major candidates competing for political office. It was preceded by the fairness doctrine, abolished in 1987, which required radio and television broadcasters to air contrasting views on controversial public issues.

Re:All I can say

[avi33]

wow. So many open targets...where to begin...

1. Michael Moore doesn't own 62 stations, and he didn't force anyone to show his movie. He made it, and people gladly lined up to see it. It may have been a little too conspiritorial in a few places, but no one has proved it untrue, and it's certainly not showing up masquerading as a news show.

2. Despite what you are determined to believe, while the memos may have proven to be fake, the 'real facts' did in fact get out and guess what, they support what's expressed in the memos. That's what made it possible to verify them. Everyone and their brother agreed that what's in them is true.

3. George Soros also has not forced anyone to broadcast anything. He's written a rational essay, and paid for it to be dispatched like any other advertising. See point #1.

Now if Dan Rather had put Fahrenheit 9/11 on TV and dressed it up as news, then you might have a point, but you seem to be hanging on to your simplistic views a little too tightly.

Re:Let me get this straight

[worm eater]

Here's an explanation of why Sinclair should not be allowed to run this "news segment," in the words of former FCC chairman Reed Hundt (pulled from Talking Points Memo):

Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

Letter from former FCC chair re: Sinclair

[revscat]

The following letter by Reed Hundt, former chairman of the FCC, was sent to Josh Micah Marshall, and eloquently explains the problem with what Sinclair is doing:

Dear Josh:

Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

-- Reed Hundt

My log of phone calls to Sinclair advertisers

[elwinc]

advertiser list at

http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx

script:
I'm an occasional customer at _ _ _ _. We usually go to the
one in _ _ _. I'm calling because I see your company is an
advertiser with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, Hunt Valley, MD.

I'm calling because I'm unhappy with something Sinclair is
planning to do: pre-empt their regular shows to broadcast an
anti- Kerry propaganda movie. SBC uses a public resource, the
airwaves, and I feel they are abusing it by broadcasting this
movie. As users of public FCC licensed spectrum, they have a
responsibility to be fair.
Broadcasting this propaganda is not fair.

Appleby's
left message at (913) 967-2718

Circuit city:
spoke to cust assist at 800-843-2489
got bumped up to managment.

Walmart: store in framingham
spoke to cust assist at 800-925-6278. Asked for a callback

Taco Bell: Cambridgeside;
spoke to cust assist 800-822 6235 (800-tacobell)

Subway: 800 888-4848
long wait for cust assist. familiar with issue; only wanted town.

Mattel: 800 524-TOYS, 888-909-9922, 888 628-8359 (888 MATTEL9)
told me to dial Val Rogers, 310-252-wxyz, tell her
consumer relations gave me her number. I did so; she asked
for my number & promised to call back. Did so after 10 min;
took my name & concern.