Slashdot Mirror
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."
Wait a minute... Do you realize what you're comparing?
You really honestly think Fahrenheit 911 being released in theaters where you have to pay between $6-$11 (nationally) to see it as the same as a normal television channel airing a "news item" with no commericials on PUBLIC AIRWAVES?
Are you crazy? Are you blind? How are they at all the same.
What IS hypocritical, is that the republicans shut down a movie about the Reagan family (The Reagans, supposed to air on CBS) because they felt it was unfair/politically motivated. AND IT WASN'T EVEN ABOUT A CURRENT CANDIDATE!!!!!
You want to talk about hypocritical....
Remember, the only logical standard for judging is "If the other side did the exact same thing, how would you feel?"
If your are pro-Kerry, but it wouldn't bother you to see a hatchet job on Bush at the same time by the same basic people, then you really have no grounds to complain.
Flip-side, if you are Pro-Bush, but would not want to see a hatchet job on Kerry at the same time, then you should not support this.
Personally, since I sort of fall into the latter category (I'm not 100% for Bush, but Kerry has completely failed to convince me he is better in the ways I personally care about; this is disclosure, not a request to be "corrected", OK?), my personal opinion is that this is an inappropriate action to take, and I don't care what side does it. If it was run earlier, I don't think I'd care, and there have certainly been hatchet jobs on both sides meeting this criteria, but the closer you get to the election, the more important it is for large entities to shut the hell up and leave the final voting as a matter between the candidates and the voters.
POWs like John McCain? Scarred veterans like Max Cleland? Maybe the veteran William Laws Calley? For shame!
Maybe a drunk, AWOL frat boy high on coke and Air National Guard issue oxygen could help us set the record straight here? I hear he got kidnapped by Delta Kappa Phi once and forced to drink a whole keg of Bud, I guess that makes him not only a POW, but subject of cruel and unusual punishment as well. Talk about stolen honor...
Money for nothing, pix for free
Without regard to your political leanings, I suspect you will live to regret saying that.
What this really does is set a precedent opening the door to outright political warfare over the public airwaves. You can be certain if this goes forward, that some politically-motivated group will respond with an anti-Bush message much worse than anything even Moore would be accused of stooping to. (And remember, if it air's after the Kerry attack, there will be even less time for the forces-of-truth to pick apart the lies.) It may not happed this election cycle, but once the tactic is considered allowable, you can write-off any hope of getting fair and balanced coverage of the issues from any aspect of the public media. The prize will be just too big to ignore.
We mustn't be led into the trap of saying "it's okay for <one candidate> to get away with ruining our country, because <the other guy> got away with it; down that road lies only madness and ruin.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
- Amendment I
While the "freedom of the press" could possibly be stretched to cover the situation, it's still a pretty big stretch. Congress is not doing a ruddy thing to silence a large media group. A corporation. Businesses are not people, and should not be viewed as individuals. There is no proviso securing the unhampered freedom of speech for a business; it's a right guaranteed only to human beings.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Now, if Kerry were to use his position as a senator to enact punitive bitch-slap legislation that was aimed at Sinclair, then yes; there's a clear violation. However, as it stands, what we have here is a media conglomerate throwing its corporate weight around to promote a particular political viewpoint. Period.
So much for the "Liberal Media" meme.
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
>[T]his is really no different from the New York Times endorsing a candidate for president
The NY Times, or any other newspaper, doesn't use the publicly owned airwaves to distribute its copy and doesn't need a government license to publish. Sinclair, and all other teevee stations do and are subject to the FCC Fairness Doctrine and its implementing regulations. If this is OK, them I'm sure all our neo-con pals will be OK with Turner Broadcasting airing Farenheit 911 on Monday November 1, followed, of course, by a fair and balanced panel discussion at 11 pm PST.Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
read the names of US soldiers who had died in Iraq, saying the broadcast was politically motivated.
Reading the names of the fallen used to be considered an act of honoring the memory of the soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Honorable and truthful activities should be carried out regardless of whether some political faction or other thinks they can make hay from it.
It's yet another symptom of our society where perception trumps substance. What matters is how something is perceived - not what it actually is.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I don't understandy why this documentary is such a big deal then. This is a documentary (it's factual) that calls into question John Kerry's behavior after/during the Vietnam war. 60 Minutes aired a documentary that called into question George Bush's behavior during the war. 60 Minutes was broadcast on FAR more stations then this will be. Dan Rather reported misconduct by Bush during the war. It could be called news, history, documentary, whatever you want. The behavior of John Kerry at the same time is now being reported by some other source (although maybe less "reputable" than Dan Rather).
This is not a sensationalistic documentary like Moores, this is going to be speeches given by Kerry, an account of where he was, and interviews with wives of POWs who say that their husbands were made to listen to Kerry as torture when they were in prison (to demoralize them, I guess).
To complain about this but not Dan Rather's 60 Minutes is a double standard.
"The key issue here is this, this is a freedom of speech issue."
Incorrect. Airwaves are not "free speach" zones. They are heavily regulated finite resource. They are leased to business but they are a public resource. One of the requirements from the FCC is that they are administered in the public interest. Sinclair claims that this program is "news".
That claim - that this is a 90 minute news piece done for the public good - doesn't pass the laugh test.
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
One leading staffer from the Kerry campaign has even threated future government suppression of first Amendment rights, saying "they had better hope we don't win," implying that the cost of publically criticizing Kerry will be considerable should he ever come to power.
Or, you know, it could have implied that any suppression of speech for political gain would not be tolerated.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, then here's some details about when Sinclair Broadcasting tried to stop the broadcasting of Iraq fatalities because it was "unpatriotic" (the word used in the article). Compare it with today's story about Sinclair leveraging their stations to air the anti-Kerry piece to as many people as possible so close to the national elections. It's a little tougher to explain why that's not hypocritical, don't you think? They couldn't POSSIBLY be politically motivated right?
=Smidge=
the Swift Boat Vets haven't managed to get a single person who personally served with Kerry to say anything bad about him. The best they have managed to do is people who met him once or twice. I suggest you check out www.swiftvets.org. You'll find that even those people that only met him a few times actually have said positive things about kerry until recenty. I can only assume what Swift Vets did to get them to change thier minds.