TV channels to rubbish Kerry as ' Traitor ' on eve of US election

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But many people out there dont realize that news is slanted, or that the Sinclair broadcast is a documentary- Those people will watch without looking for a grain of truth or without fact checking, and be unduly influenced- People want to have faith in what they see, especially when it's called 'news'- They want to believe they are getting the facts, that's what the news is supposed to be all about-
------------------------------------------

---

Couple of things. Everyone (including myself, I admit) seems to think that the Sinclair broadcast will be skewed. Why is that? We haven't seen it, and the only comments on its quality I've seen are from a Kerry staffer and the Democratic party chairman. Hardly unbiased critics. Does the fact that it shows Sen. Kerry in a bad light automatically make it a lie? What if it's true? whould you still want to supress it?

Next, if absolute truth is required in news, should CBS give equal time to President Bush after their 60 Minutes show on his Reserve service turned out to be based in part on phony documents?

Third, You seem to have a pretty low opinion of the average American, assuming that they will be influanced by anything they see on TV (except maybe you and the F911 fans, who know slanted info when you see it). Could this be the "liberal eliteism" I've heard so much about ?

Actually, there's plenty of folks who quote F911 chapter and verse as the revealed gospel and defend Mr. Moore with an almost religious fervor. I'm surprised you haven't met any.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sinclair is forcing its networks/affiliates to air the anti-Kerry documentary just before the election on broadcast television, where everyone can see it or stumble upon it. This is very different than having the anti-Bush F911 documentary available only on a pay-per-view cable channel, where even those who have heard about it in advance and want to see it would have to be willing to pay to see it.

That's why different rules govern cable and broadcast media.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shiny:
Sinclair is forcing its networks/affiliates to air the anti-Kerry documentary just before the election on broadcast television, where everyone can see it or stumble upon it. This is very different than having the anti-Bush F911 documentary available only on a pay-per-view cable channel, where even those who have heard about it in advance and want to see it would have to be willing to pay to see it.

That's why different rules govern cable and broadcast media.

---

So CBS didn't force their affiliates to air the Anti-Bush 60 Minutes show based on phony documents? And run commercials advertising it? Networks do tell their affiliates what to show. That's why they're networks.

And after checking the Stolen Honor web site:

http://www.stolenhonor.com/index.asp

I find that they call the film a documentary as well, just like F911.

Tell me the truth. If CBS were running F911 the night before the election, would you, that's any of you out there, not just SHINY, be raising this much fuss, or demanding that Mr. Moore's freedom of speech be taken away? The truth now.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Yes, it would be improper if a company forced all of its networks and affiliates to air F911 right before the election. Now you tell me the truth (not just you Geezer but everyone defending SBG). If you believe that it would be wrong to broadcast F911, then you must agree that Sinclair Broadcast Group is in the wrong now.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sinclair is ordering the stations to air this program. What does that mean? Well, if you look at http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/business/television.shtml you see that Sinclar stations are spread throughout the US. "Sinclair's television group includes 20 FOX, 19 WB, 6 UPN, 8 ABC, 3 CBS, 4 NBC affiliates and 2 independent stations and reaches approximately 24% of all U.S. television households." That's from Sinclair's own web-site. The link actually has a map that shows all the stations.

So what they are asking their stations to do is pre-empt existing agreements with six different networks to air this program. That can't make the networks too happy. But I'm sure there are provisions in the contracts that cover this sort of thing. They are also asking their stations to pre-empt the advertising that runs with the regularly scheduled programs. That can't make the advertisers too happy. But I'm sure there are provisions in the contracts that cover this sort of thing. So they're willing to irritate networks and advertisers that their stations have contracts with. That's irritating a lot of people with money.

This doesn't seem to be a good short term business decision. So why make it? Well, in this instance, it would appear that Sinclair is taking a longer term approach. The ownership has donated primarily (I think it's close to 97%) to the Bush campaign and the Republican party [1]. Follow the money trail. They clearly believe it is in their best interest for Bush to be re-elected. Sinclair owns interest in firms that have received defense contracts [2]. They are pushing for the FCC to relax ownership rules so they can increase their market share [3]. This will only happen under a Republican administration. The airing of the program, two days before the election, can only be seen as an attempt to use their position to attempt to influence the election.

So what? People don't have to watch. They can just turn off their television set or switch the channel. If their shows are pre-empted they should just suck it up and wait for the next week. What's the big deal? Well, because Sinclair operates on broadcast rather than cable, there are certain regulations concerning political programming. If a station airs a program that is basically a platform for one side, then it is required to give equivalent time to the other side [4].

Will this happen? Probably not before the election. The Kerry campaign would be fools to have Kerry be part of this program. It's a political hit piece and even with Kerry given the chance to share his side, the hit piece will go out on the air. The Kerry campaign would rather this program did not air in the first place but they really have no leverage. They can't, and shouldn't be able to, get this program banned through the FCC. So that brings us back to the business side of things.

The only way for this program to not be aired is if Sinclair can be shown that it would be a very poor business decision. I doubt that any market pressure brought to bear would force Sinclair to change their mind. But those are the only tactics that I think are appropriate in this instance. So I fully expect this program to air and I also fully expect that advertisers will withdraw their advertisements from stations (they already are [5]) and people will sell their shares of Sinclair stock (they already are [6]). With the slim profit margin that Sinclar had last year [7], they are really putting all their eggs in one basket. If Bush is re-elected, than the short term revenue loss will be balanced by what they will gain. If Bush is not re-elected, they will be in serious trouble.

So it's a fascinating case of a media company making a decision to use their position and market share to influence an election. Will it work? I don't know. But it does underscore the problems with media consolidation.

Other issues… Is this program biased? Well, there is a lot of overlap between the people who produced this program and the Republican party and the Swift Boat group [8]

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Shiny:
Yes, it would be improper if a company forced all of its networks and affiliates to air F911 right before the election. Now you tell me the truth (not just you Geezer but everyone defending SBG). If you believe that it would be wrong to broadcast F911, then you must agree that Sinclair Broadcast Group is in the wrong now.

Jayne, your mouth is talkin. Might want to look into that.

---

I actually have no problem with anyone broadcasting either one. I have enough sense to not watch something I don't want to. I believe that most other people have this amount of sense as well. Freedom of Speech.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

IF CBS or other network pre-empted normal programming to air F 9/11 AND CALLED IT A NEWSCAST, I would certainly object.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I have relegated the Sinclair story to the back burner for the moment based on a far more important story concerning voter registration. Voters Outreach of America is being accused of destroying voter registration for people who registered as Democrats in at least two states. Here are the local news reports from Nevada and Oregon:
http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2421595&nav=168XRvNe
http://www2.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x47627&La
yout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530

This is some serious crap.

This story was brought to my awareness by Josh Marshall, Atrios, DailyKos, and Kevin Drum.


There are three kinds of people: fighters, lovers, and screamers.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I have to admit I'm kind of puzzled by all this talk of Sinclair "forcing" or "ordering" their stations to air a program, as though the stations were entities with rights and free will, and were being coerced against that free will to do something morally repugnant to them. They are part of Sinclair's company, and they do what the head office tells them. This is not "force", it's the way business operates. The head office tells the branches what to do and they do it, whether it's showing Stolen Honor, or the Presidential Debates. Stations aren't going to "refuse" unless their management is ready to retire very soon. If Sinclair wants to piss off sponsors or networks, that's their business.

I'm also kind of surprised that I'm apparently the only one sticking up for free expression here. Most everyone else, without knowing the content or format of this proposed show, would rather censor it, apparently just because it criticizes Sen. Kerry.

The few answers I got to my question above are hedged about with caveats. Folk are going on about the Republican connections to Sinclair and the film (as though there's no Democratic linkage to F911). Hairs are being split so fine about the difference between documentories and news shows that it would take an electron microscope to see the remains.

Many here also seem to think that the majority of the American people don't have enough spine or sense to change the channel if they see something they don't want to watch. This has got to be some of the most elitest crap I've seen in a while. They obviously don't trust the population to do the right thing, so you'd rather control what they see to keep them from making (in your opinion) a big mistake.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME