As a journalist, i see where both sides are missing the point here.
Let me say that i am AGAINST media mega conglomerates...they DO wield too much power and influence in what gets aired, and often times their choice is
$$$ over ethics. Its not the government censoring things you should fear, its the broadcasters themselves that do this way more often than you'd
In order for the equal time" clause to take effect here, either f911 or the anti kerry film would have had to have come directly from one of the
parties war chests....in other words, the actual political campaigns would have had to finance or produce the program for equal time rule to be in
Since BOTH of the films in question were NOT backed by official political campaigns, they would be exempt form being considered equal time, even tho
they talk about political things/ideas...they arent speaking FOR/AS the voice of either candidate. They are independant programs that happen to have
political slants. weather a documentary is news or not is questionable...i interpret documentary as educational programming not news. Besides, the
stations DID offer to give Kerry time to come and rubuttle. If he chooses not to participate, that is his choice. Lets say Kerry DID come on after
the movie to rebuttle...then sinclair would have to provide time equal to Kerry's time to the republicans in order to fuflill the equal time rules.
(because kerry or his spokesperson DO come from the campaigns directly.) Note: Sinclair would not have to give Kerry time equal to the movie length.
Also, sinclair would have to only give the same time as Kerry was on the air rebutting, to his opponents speaker.
It doesnt matter either way really as we're talking about a PRIVATE company. Yes they have a license from the gov to use public airwaves, and have
some obligations under this aggreement. BUT
As a private company, they do have the right to choose what they wish to air or not. They can also do things that promote their companies overall
political views....show or not show programs that it deems too graphic, pornographic, disturbing, or any other criteria THEY (the company) chooses to
expouse. Do you think Disney is going to allow ABC to air programming that conflicts with their core values? Reguardless of topic?
The fact that moore and his films backers have not let their product go out to be viewed for free should be a clue about their priorities. Its all
about the $$$ and far less about the message. If their political message was that important to them, they would let f911 go to air and not charge an
arm and a leg for it or need ppv.
If sinclair group wants to risk financial profits to run this instead of prime time shows, they can take that risk. Your FAR better off writting to
the sinclair stations advertisers instead of the station directly. A tv stations clients arent really its viewers, its their advertisers....viewers
are a gauge used to determine how much $$$ they can charge for advertisment timeslots. Advertisers are really the income for the stations.
I certantly agree that Sinclair has put a label onto its self by doing obviously partisan things...well they will have to do business with this now
attatched to them. So did CBS when they let Dan Rather run with a cooked story. They can and do have the right to express and support whatever
views they wish as long as they dont violate the laws. In the case of BOTH of the programs in question, neither qualifies as needing "equal
Ultimatly i dont see the problem here...so what that a private company wants to go with a specific product (program) or not? Who cares if f911 or the
anti kerry film are on ppv or regular tv? You as viewers can choose to tune in or not...to pay or not...in order to consume whatever media you
A few quick notes
While i usually oppose most anything James T Lesser says, I found NOTHING on this thread by him that contained language strong enough to get a
warning. Perhaps in a non-mudpit thread he MIGHT have been close to the line, but here in the pit....everything he said in this thread has been
TO ALL: Its not hypocracy by both sides being attempted here its CENSORSHIP of opposing voices they strive for. ANY of you that advocate silencing
of either of these 2 films, especially for political resons, are supporting CENSORSHIP, and you should be ashamed that ignorance cant be denied when
only SOME of the info gets reviewed because others have been silenced. Equality is a bitch isnt it? It means that while you get to hear your voice
beiong heard, you must also tolorate someone elses voice also geting heard.
SINCLAIR REFUSES TO LET LOCAL MARKETS SEE NIGHTLINE
So what? It was legal, and again as a private company, they can determine what products they want to air or not.
SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS:
Well again, its their station, their message. As employees that speak for the station...they can be required to dress a certain way, act in
certain ways, and read the copy they are getting paid to look good reading.
If you dont like the work rules...the workers can seek employment elsewhere.
SINCLAIR REFUSES TO AIR AD HIGHLIGHTING 2003 BUSH ERROR
again..see private company controls over the type, duration, and message a show (product) has. It is the companies choice to determine what
progeramming they offer, its your choice to change the channel.
They can refuse to sell ad time to anyone for just about any reason, just like any other retaiol store can refuse patronage for anythingbut an obvious
SINCLAIR PRODUCES CENTRALIZED RIGHT-WING CONTENT FOR 'LOCAL STATIONS': In a controversial business practice, Sinclair Broadcasting has fired much of
the staff for the local affiliates it owns, instead producing content for its local stations from a central facility outside Baltimore which it then
airs on "local" news broadcasts.
THIS is the EXACT reason im against further mega media conglomerations....i dont care WHAT message the programming has...i do care that moves
tword media centralization are COSTING JOBS in this field.
So what they chose to issue right wing content...they can.
But this move to be centralized (hubbed) is wacking local jobs and affecting the quality and content of your local news. It is BAD for journalism and
free speech. If you dont like sinclair now, just think how much you'll not like them when they take over more stations, wipe away the local staff,
and generically produce your local news from a remote location. More of their voice on more channels, and less options to get around them.
(this is true for ALL major broadcasters that greedilly monopolize markets and centralize ops.)
SINCLAIR AIRS FAKE NEWS BROADCASTS PRODUCED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Sinclair wasnt the only one to air these things. We in the biz get PILES of V.N.R's (video news releases) each day. usually they are always
one sided affairs meant to garner coverage for whatever issue the release came from, and its not always apparent WHO is really backing the fax your
holding. This being said, if they knew the true source or not, of if they knew it was made to look like a news spot or not...it would be thier
choice to run this segment or not. Too bad if you dont like their choice, just change the channel.
I'm frankly shocked our Liberty lovin' board members aren't collectively disgusted regardless of politcal affiliation.
I am shocked, but it has nothing to do with political affiliation, i really dont care about whos channel is spewing what slant....
I care that fewer and fewer options for differing views to be heard as more and more outlets (channels) get monopolized is going to continue to kill
jobs in TV and limit what we see more and more.
The public airwaves,except for really basic rules, stop being public once the broadcaster gets his license from the feds. Then its a private
Free press? Nothings free!