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

Re:Kerry camp actually THREATENED Sinclair!

[Lisandro]

Very interesting. Do you have a link? Not that i don't trust you, i just want to read more about it.

Re:Doesn't this violate the equal time rule?

[lynx_user_abroad]

Doesn't this violate the equal time rule?

Sinclair is claiming (or is purported to want to claim) that this is "news", and therefore exempt from the "equal time" legislation.

If the courts rule that they have to offer equal time to Kerry supporters, I'll bet they back off.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Shakrai]

That's not hypocritical. It's called bullying.

It's bullying if you force them to censor the news story that you perceive has a left-wing bent (I don't think the Nightline piece was left or right wing -- but that's another discussion) only to force your stations to carry a piece of (what even Karl Rove would acknowledge as) right-wing propaganda.

I wasn't rushing to get my post in and choosing the word I thought would have the biggest impact -- I debated if it was hypocritical of them and in the end (based on their actions) decided it was.

Let's call a spade a spade.

Yeah but if I use the words I am thinking of to describe Sinclair I'll be modded -1 flamebait ;) So I'll just point out their hypocrisy and leave it at that.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

Television requires more bandwidth and traditionally has been encumbered with more restrictions than "speech" radio which has generally been more open. It's also considerably more expensive to operate an effective television station which means there's a relatively high entry cost to market.

There is, as far as I'm aware, no move from the left to try to pull Limbaugh off the air through the law or political lobbying. Radio is open enough that the major restrictions imposed on TV do not really apply. Indeed, many of us would argue that the existing restrictions on radio are too draconian, and arguably the limitations shouldn't extend more than to how many licenses someone can have in a particular market.

I don't think there'd be massive objections if this show was moved to radio.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Golias]

Sinclair has every right to show this film on their networks except during election season. There are rules and regulations that must be followed. If they show this film then they must also show anti-Bush propoganda for the exact amount of time

That's not even remotely true. If it was, "60 Minutes" would have to follow up just about every show with a one-hour attack on Democrats.

The so-called "fairness doctrine" (which is no longer rigidly enforced anyway) only applies of you spend broadcast time telling people to vote for somebody. That would require you to air an equally long segment telling people to vote for the other guy. It was a stupid practice to enforce because, among other reasons (*cough*firstamendment*cough*) it screws third-party candidates.

You can put up a TV station which spends the vast majority of it's news-coverage time telling the public that Bush is a jackass without ever having to do the same to his opponents. Indeed, that's pretty much what CBS does. Likewise, FOX does not owe the public hundreds of hours of Bush-bashing to make up for all the time they've spent going after Kerry.

Re:They deny it

[TheGeneration]

That is a lie, they were going to show the Documentry, and then after the 90 minute documentry have a "Q&A" session that lasted 30 minutes. John Kerry was invited to that in order for the Sinclair stations to be able to say they fulfilled their "equal time" requirements for political candidates.

Re:Let me get this straight

[MillionthMonkey]

Doesn't it sound a little hypocritical when you censor a news story that disagrees with your political views?

A. This is not a "news story". It is a 90 minute Swift boat smear commercial for Bush, uninterrupted by other commercials, being presented under the guise of news.

B. The right to a free press is restricted to those with printing presses. Sinclair does not own the public airwaves it will use to broadcast this garbage. Any right-wing media conglomerate is free to express its opinions under First Amendment protection, using cable, a web site, or a bullhorn- once its broadcast license has been revoked in accordance with the law. Broadcasting an infomercial for the president on public airwaves is a blatant violation of McCain-Feingold. Amazingly, the FCC under Michael Powell shows no interest in enforcing the law in this case.

C. There is a conflict of interest here. One of Sinclair's wholly owned subsidiaries (Jadoo Power Systems) has just been awarded a contract to develop power systems for the US Special Operations Command. The other major investor in Jadoo is Contango Capital Management, located in Houston TX, whose Managing Partner is John Berger who used to manage energy trading books for Enron Corporation and who also served as an advisor to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2002 and 2003. This stinks to high heaven.

D. In case you didn't think he was an asshat, the CEO of Sinclair made the following statement on CNN this morning:

However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?

If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry. Weak job performance ratings that came out last month would have been an in- kind contribution to John Kerry. And that's just nonsense.

This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today. The networks had this opportunity over a month ago to speak with these people. They chose to suppress them. They chose to ignore them. They are acting like Holocaust deniers, pretending these men don't exist.

So press coverage of car bombs and unemployment statistics is equivalent to unfair free campaign commercials for Kerry. And the rest of the press are "Holocaust deniers" for denying partisan political hacks a forum from which they can make baseless thirty-year-old accusations on the eve of a close election.

This from the same media conglomerate that back in April suppressed Nightline's reading of the names of soldiers killed in Iraq because it was "contrary to the public interest." Riiiight.

Re:POWs?

[richie2000]

Max Cleland blew himself up with a grenade on the way to get a beer at an air base. While tragic, it is disgusting that he has let people think he was wounded in combat.

Let people think? I don't think he can force people to think, but this is what he's said himself:

"On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade. A blinding explosion threw me backwards."

Disgusting, indeed. And it wasn't even his grenade. BTW, this happened just four days after his Silver Star citation:

Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968 ... during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh.

When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions.

Continuing to expose himself, Captain Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire.

His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army.

Now, who's stealing who's honor again?