Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yahoo News

FCC won't block doc

Thu Oct 14, 4:12 PM ET


Susan Crabtree, STAFF

WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) topper Michael Powell doesn't think the federal government should get into the messy business of telling broadcasters what types of political shows they can and cannot air.



Powell said Thursday the FCC (news - web sites) will not step in to prevent Sinclair Broadcast Group from airing an anti-Kerry docu called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" in the final days before the election because the agency does not and should not have the power to do so.

"There is no FCC rule of prior restraint of a program being aired on television," he told reporters following an FCC meeting. "I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so. So don't look to us to block the airing of a program."

The comments were Powell's first public response to queries from 18 Democratic senators and two prominent Democratic House members who called on Powell to step in and stop Sinclair from running the docu on all 62 of its stations, many of which are in battleground swing states.

In their letters to Powell, Democrats charged that broadcasting the film, which focuses on Kerry's role as a Vietnam War protester, would have the potential to violate the FCC's equal time rules. But Powell dismissed that notion, arguing that the equal time laws only require a broadcaster to offer the other candidate an opportunity to respond to the negative depictions.

"And, at least by press reports, that opportunity has been provided," Powell added.

Sinclair invited Kerry to participate on a panel for 15 minutes after the docu airs, but the Democratic nominee declined.

Later, during an interview on CNBC, Powell remarked that the FCC also has no power to investigate the sexual harassment charges that a former producer for "The O'Reilly Factor" has leveled against host Bill O'Reilly.

"The FCC is powerful, but I'm grateful that we're not as powerful as that," he joked. "We investigate a lot of things here, but Bill O'Reilly's sexual behavior is not one of them."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
I heard this too. Kerry and his merry crew are totalitarians at heart. They have no true belief in free speech.

All Administrations punish critical news corporations by pulling their access. Should Kerry win, it's possible no Sinclair employee will be allowed around the President or the Administration. That means they'll continually get scooped. It also means no political favors, like special tax breaks, no government contracts, etc. This is a key reason why criticism of the Adminstration is generally rather poor by the major media companies. They're all afraid of losing access.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
All Administrations punish critical news corporations by pulling their access. Should Kerry win, it's possible no Sinclair employee will be allowed around the President or the Administration. That means they'll continually get scooped. It also means no political favors, like special tax breaks, no government contracts, etc. This is a key reason why criticism of the Adminstration is generally rather poor by the major media companies. They're all afraid of losing access.

Ehh, they might not go that far. The Bush administration has been off the deep-end on this sort of behavior (penalizing and restricting the media). Kerry will almost undoubtably take a more reasonable approach.

-Drachasor

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by GePap


If its the Kosciousko Bridge, perhaps.

But I don't like the Williamsburg-and the Manhattan is butt ugly.

I like the Bayonne Bridge, myself.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, I hardly think they would respond with threats to pull NBC's license. That is pure Putinism.

Wait! Aren't we talking about the same White House staff that outed a CIA agent because her husband demonstrated the lack of credible evidence to support Bush's claim that Saddam was receiving enriched uranium from Africa??

[Ned]

Z, et al. defenders of the Kerry Campaign's Putinisitic tendencies, read the following from the NYTimes. They ARE going after the broadcast license, just as any fair person would understand the threat:

"The Sinclair Broadcasting Group, one of the nation's most powerful television conglomerates, has a sad record of using its public license to promote Republican causes. Earlier this year, Sinclair tried to censor an installment of "Nightline" on its 62 stations when Ted Koppel announced plans to read out the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Now the company, owned by financial backers of President Bush and other Republican politicians, plans to actively join the re-election campaign.

Its plan sounds like the plot of a bad political novel, or an actual election in post-Soviet Russia. The Times and other newspapers reported this week that Sinclair, a Maryland-based company that reaches nearly a quarter of American households, would broadcast a propaganda film in the next two weeks that labels Senator John Kerry a liar, a traitor and a "willing accomplice" of the enemy during the Vietnam War. It claims, falsely, that his antiwar statements inspired the North Vietnamese to step up the torture of American prisoners, and it is filled with other distortions about the war in Vietnam.

Sinclair has instructed its stations, which are heavily represented in swing states like Florida and Wisconsin, to run the film without commercials in the evening. The company already compels them to broadcast editorials and commentaries favorable to Mr. Bush and his policies. But this is a whole new arena, and little different from making the stations give donations to the Republican campaign.

We would be just as appalled if one of the major networks forced its affiliates to broadcast "Fahrenheit 9/11" next week and call it a news program.

The movie that caught Sinclair's eye, a 45-minute diatribe called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," rehashes Republican charges that are familiar to everyone from the latest round of ads attacking Mr. Kerry's antiwar activities: primarily that he lied to the Senate in 1971 about atrocities in Vietnam and that his testimony and the antiwar movement in general aided the North Vietnamese and harmed American soldiers. This line of reasoning neatly dovetails with the Bush campaign's assertions that criticizing Mr. Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is unpatriotic and harms American soldiers.

Eighteen Democratic senators asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop Sinclair from broadcasting the new film, but the commission was right to refuse. As painful as it is to defend this agency, which has shown more interest in Janet Jackson's breast than in really doing its job, we believe that the federal government cannot indulge in that sort of prior restraint.

But the F.C.C. also cannot ignore Sinclair's poor record when it comes to meeting its obligation to act responsibly and fairly in the public interest, a duty it assumed when it accepted custody of a license to broadcast on the public airwaves. Broadcasting "Stolen Honor" within two weeks of the election would clearly violate those commitments.

Sinclair says it is just trying to give its viewers news. Unfortunately, this film is not news, and not journalism. It makes no attempt at balance or fairness. Its interviews with 17 men who were imprisoned and tortured in Hanoi are powerful. But the narrator and producer, Carlton Sherwood, a former journalist on leave from his job in a company that provides "homeland security" services to the government, exploits these brave men and their distinguished service for a cause that he openly says is personal.

Sinclair's First Amendment defenses lack credibility because it denied those rights to "Nightline." At the time, Sinclair's spokesman, Mark Hyman, who doubles as a conservative commentator, said Mr. Koppel's program did not deserve to be broadcast because it had "no proportionality" and ignored other aspects of the issues. It was hard to see how that could describe a tribute to the war dead, but it's a perfect description of "Stolen Honor."

Yesterday, Mr. Hyman seemed to be hedging a bit on Sinclair's plans, saying the program was not finished and would be balanced. But it was unnerving to hear him adhere to his bizarre claim that the major broadcast networks who wisely declined to run "Stolen Honor" when Mr. Sherwood offered it to them were no different than "Holocaust deniers."

If the company is thinking about seriously changing course, it should do it quickly. Sinclair is in dangerous territory. If television companies force their local stations to campaign blatantly, it will not be long before the administrations that have the power to grant licenses begin expecting such favors as a quid pro quo. And the public will question whether it can afford to allow such concentrations of power in the hands of huge media corporations."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/opinion/15fri1.html?oref=login&th

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I don't know which is worse the mock outrage of the NYT's, the pot kettle charges of bias from the NYT's, or the apparent advocacy of shutting down media outlets because they are biased.

Regardless of my feeling that Sinclair should not run this (despite the fact that it will likely gain them large ratings from the strong Bushy base), I find it more than a bit hypocritical of the NYT's to come out this way in light of their own fight to protect their souces and first amendment rights.

Lastly, why don't I believe for one instance "We would be just as appalled if one of the major networks forced its affiliates to broadcast "Fahrenheit 9/11" next week and call it a news program."

[Imran Siddiqui]

They ARE going after the broadcast license

And that is supported by the article, where? Or is this another Ned posts an article to validate his point, even though the article has nothing to do with his point?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Who is they? If this is to imply some movement within the politcal circles to do so. Yes absolutely you are in the right. There is no evidence to support this whatso ever.

But just as obviously, the tone of the NYT's is an advocacy of revokation of Sinclair licensing for bias. A man in glass houses throwing stones arguement if there ever was one.

[DinoDoc]

Poor Sinclair. They go to all the trouble of trying to put on a balanced news show, invite Kerry to show up, and look at the vitriol they get for this simple act.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Poor Sinclair. They go to all the trouble of trying to put on a balanced news show, invite Kerry to show up, and look at the vitriol they get for this simple act.

I bow to the master troller.

[DinoDoc]

WRT all of the threats lobbed by the Kerry camp: Why is it that the Bushies have taken the high road and not threatened CBS and ABC? I have to agree with Ned that the Dems are exhibiting Soviet like tendencies.

[MalevolentLight]

The Kerry campaign is making threats to Sinclair broadcasting saying things like, "They better hope we don't win". All I heard when F9/11 came out was how incredibly accurate it was and how everyone had to see it. I didn't see anything about equal time. And now that it is proven and a well known fact that F9/11 and every other Michael Moore movie is factually inaccurate and in many cases down right blatant lying (splicing images would fall under that category) I hear nothing but praise for it still. Suddenly a REAL documentary with hundreds of vietnam vets to back it up is coming out and you are calling it propaganda and lies before you've even seen it and calling for the FCC to ban it from being aired. What happened to liberals being all for free speech? Just goes to show once again that liberals are only for free speech when it suits their purposes. All hail the communists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
WRT all of the threats lobbed by the Kerry camp: Why is it that the Bushies have taken the high road and not threatened CBS and ABC? I have to agree with Ned that the Dems are exhibiting Soviet like tendencies.

God, you people need to take off the tin foil hats about "the liberal media". It was old 4 years ago-now its just absurd.

[DinoDoc]

Who was talking about a liberal media (TM) in that post? Do you routinely read things that aren't there?