Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[CygnusZ]

New York, NY, Oct. 9 (UPI) -- A conservative U.S. broadcaster whose outlets reach one-quarter of the nation's TV viewers is airing a film that attacks John Kerry just before the election.

Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its 62 stations to preempt regular programming during primetime to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.

The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated U.S. Navy veteran who later protested the war -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the conflict.

The Kerry campaign blasted Sinclair for what it says is strongarming its stations into broadcasting lies to influence the political process, the Times said.

"It's beyond yellow journalism," said Kerry spokesman David Wade. "It's a smear bankrolled by Republican money, and I don't think Americans will stand for it."

The one-hour special, which will be aired between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24 depending on the city, will be followed by a panel discussion to which Kerry will be invited, potentially satisfying fairness regulations, the Times reported.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041009-060025-2603r.htm

Sinclair media.... where have I heard that name before? Oh yeah, that's right:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/01/abc.nightline/

Republican senator and Vietnam veteran John McCain lambasted the Sinclair Broadcast Group Friday for insisting its ABC stations not air the program, calling the move "deeply offensive."

So, I suppose that forcing all these stations to air pro-Bush propaganda is "not offensive" then? Shouldn't this be illegal under campaign contribution law (essentially giving a gift to the Bush campaign that has an airtime value of well over $2000)?

Discuss.

[Zkribbler]

CNN is reporting that this film may trigger the equal-time requirement. Sinclair would poop if it then had to put on an equal amount of pro-Kerry propaganda.

[Berzerker]

The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry -- a decorated U.S. Navy veteran who later protested the war -- of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the conflict.

I believe voting for pro-war Presidents prolonged the war... How did the protestors prolong the war? That sounds like one of those oxy-morons, if Americans were fully supporting the policy, would it have ended earlier?
How? Complete victory? There was no such thing because of Cold War concerns...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

theres nothing special about being anti kerry

[Ming]

And this is different than a feature film how?

One person providing his point of view vs a corporation doing the same... different how?

People can watch or not, just like they could go to a movie. I don't see how anybody should be more outraged with a movie vs a TV show...

The equal time laws... now that's a different story

[Berzerker]

CNN is reporting that this film may trigger the equal-time requirement. Sinclair would poop if it then had to put on an equal amount of pro-Kerry propaganda.

Farhenheit 911

[Ramo]

And this is different than a feature film how?

You don't have to pay for it or go to a theatre to see it, and it replaces normal primetime TV lineups.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ming
And this is different than a feature film how?

The airwaves are public property.

I see no legal way that the stations could not be required to air a pro-Kerry film, such as Going Upriver.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ramo

And this is different than a feature film how?

You don't have to pay for it or go to a theatre to see it, and it replaces normal primetime TV lineups.

What is "normal" is determined by the corporate owners... If you don't want to watch it, you don't have to.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Guynemer
The airwaves are public property.

I see no legal way that the stations could not be required to air a pro-Kerry film, such as Going Upriver.

Now that's a matter of the "equal time" laws... up to the courts.

As far as the owners of the stations wanting to run what they want, they can as long as it doesn't violate any laws... no different than a person distributing a movie.

Hell, Moore wants to run it again right before the election on PAY TV...

[chequita guevara]

It still constitutes a political donation.

[Ming]

That's up to the lawyers... not my field of expertise...

One could argue it doesn't... (I wouldn't )

[Guynemer]

Pay-per-view cable TV is legally different from broadcast TV.

[Ming]

I don't argue that... there is a big legal difference.
As I said, I think it's crap that somebody might be outraged that a corporation would be doing the same thing an individual did, and that they weren't outraged about.

Egual time laws are a whole different matter

[Guynemer]

It's an outrage that a corporate entity is forcing its free broadcast stations it owns to show a political campaign tool without equal time to other side.

Legally and morally different than a pay-per-view cable station or a theatrical showing of a movie.