Sinclair to air anti-Kerry special

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Ah Ned, you provide some needed relief from DD

Just because I can show you to not know what you're talking about on occassion is no reason to be rude.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Just because I can show you to not know what you're talking about on occassion is no reason to be rude.

well, if anyone can show anyone to not know about what they are talking about, that is surely you.

[Guynemer]

There are now reports that Sinclair has given the Kerry campaign 3 days to provide them with a rebuttal to air following their program.

This seems like an admission that this is a completely partisan attack, undermining any claim that it is a "news program".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap


well, if anyone can show anyone to not know about what they are talking about, that is surely you.

Aren't you due to mention tinfoil hats soon?

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap




this is so funny- cause you see, it would be beyond absurd. Bad fact checking does NOt equal showing campaign propaganda. That "story" was around in 2000 and has enevr gone away. Of course, you are one of the people (saldy too many) who actually thought Dan Rather would have to quit, or that the story would affect the election- you were wrong then- you are wrong now.

GePap, of course you studiously pretend you don't understand the point so as to not respond with an admission against your interests.

Let me rephrase.

What would your reaction be if Bush threatened to pull the license of CBS because the Rather story was critical of Bush.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor


Point out to me where Kerry or his campaign is behind the 18 senators or the article.

As far as Rather's false-document piece, that is understandable. Some slip-up happened and they didn't check like it should have been. Dan Rather did apologize for it, afterall. I don't see Sinclair ever apologizing for this video.

-Drachasor

IIRC, this BEGAN with Kerry's campaign. The NYTimes has only jumped on the "threat" bandwagnon.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor
As for Sinclair...well...if you really think that John Kerry extended the war in Vietnam and made prisoners be held longer...then that is insane. With such insane charges like that, acting like it is going to be a reasonable documentary is ridiculous. And what do they base it on? Some extraordinary evidence for such an outrageous claim? The testimony of military generals? No, they base it on the statements of some vets and their wives. It simply can't back up the claims.

-Drachasor

Drach, I would like you to refer to Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." There you will see quotes from the NV negotiators to the US that prove that Kerry and Jane Fonda provided them encouragement to continue on without an agreement because, in their view, the US would simply pull out. Kissinger became increasingly worried as time went on that the repeated votes in Congress to pull our troops out unilaterally would soon achieve a majority. It was getting closer every vote.

No, it is a simple truth that Kerry helped delay the war's end.

[Ming]

UPDATE...
Source: Mediaweek.com

Sinclair Clients Pulling Out
October 18, 2004
By Katy Bachman, Todd Shields and John Consoli


Sinclair Broadcast Group’s political ideology last week clashed with its pocketbook, as protesters aimed squarely at the company’s national and local advertisers shortly after news reports broke that Sinclair is making its 62 TV stations in 39 markets pull network prime-time programming to air a one-hour documentary critical of presidential candidate John Kerry.

Sinclair’s management is mandating its airing, describing it as “news.� Caught in the middle are affiliates of Fox (20), WB (19), ABC (8), NBC (4), CBS (3) and two Independents, which collectively reach 24 percent of U.S. households, some in key swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Also powerless are the broadcast networks, who under federal law cannot stop the local stations from preempting their prime-time programs.


“We have no recourse,� said one broadcast network executive. So last week the networks were negotiating with their affiliates, trying to get them to air the film when it would least affect their better-rated shows. It appeared that most of the WB affiliates were willing to air the film on Oct. 21 at 9 p.m., when the WB airs repeats of its dramas.

Sinclair’s Fox affiliates were leaning toward airing the film on Oct. 22 (Fridays are the network’s lowest-rated night). Ditto for Sinclair’s ABC outlets, which seemed amenable to airing the film on Oct. 22 at 8 p.m. But WGME-TV, Sinclair’s CBS affil in Portland, Maine, will run the film on Oct. 24 at 8 p.m., in place of the hit drama Cold Case.

Media agencies were also caught in the middle. “We issued a very brief note to our clients,� said Anne Elkins, executive vp/director of local broadcast for MediaCom. “A number of them told us that they didn’t want to be anywhere close to the broadcast. That may or may not mean anything because they probably weren’t going to be close to it anyway.�

But for many other advertisers, staying away from the controversy meant making sure their ads didn’t run on the day the program aired. One buyer, who asked for anonymity, said at least one national advertiser decided to pull its ads from the stations for the entire week. The buyer, who would not name the client, said the ad run was “of considerable financial value.�

Some local advertisers are responding negatively to Sinclair’s move. Carroll’s Furniture in Arden Hills, Mich., pulled its ads from KMWB (a WB affiliate) in Minneapolis. Likewise, Paison’s and Porta Bella restaurants yanked their ads from WMSN (Fox) in Madison, Wis. HER Real Living Realtors is reported to have pulled its ads from WSYX (ABC) in Columbus, Ohio. Clients wanting off WGME include Hannaford supermarkets, Lee Auto Malls and Joe Bornstein law offices.

In Washington, D.C., Democrats called on Sinclair not to air the show, and some Democratic lawmakers asked federal officials to block the program. Not possible, said officials at the two agencies that fielded complaints. The Federal Election Commission does not act quickly, said spokesman Ian Stirton. And FCC Chairman Michael Powell said he knew of no rule that would let the agency act. He cited First Amendment concerns. “Don’t look to us to block programming,� Powell told reporters.

Public interest groups, including Common Cause, said they may challenge Sinclair’s license renewals if the program airs without balancing content. “The public airwaves should not be used by television executives to promote their partisan political agenda,� said Common Cause president Chellie Pingree.

Activists said they would press the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine—which was eliminated in 1987 and required broadcasters to offer balanced coverage—and the personal-attack rule that a court threw out in 2000.

Last Friday, the Kerry campaign asked Sinclair for airtime under equal-time rules. But some lawyers believe the rules don’t apply since they assure airtime after a candidate’s opponent is given exposure, rather than time to rebut criticisms. Critics said Sinclair’s offer of rebuttal time during the program was insufficient since Kerry would not control the airtime.

Sinclair officials said criticism was “premature� since the final format of the show had not yet been decided.

Still, the controversy left some in the TV industry apprehensive. “The whole industry gets painted with a broad brush,� said one broadcast executive. “There will be renewed attempts at restoring the Fairness Doctrine, equal time. All the vestiges of ’60s regulation that were swept away will be back in play.�

[Ned]

More power to the hard left trying to use economics instead of the government to suppress the truthful report on Kerry's antiAmericanism.

[chequita guevara]

Kevin Phillips, Republican strategist for Nixon, said Kerry ought to wring Sinclair's neck.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
More power to the hard left trying to use economics instead of the government to suppress the truthful report on Kerry's antiAmericanism.

Not true... The Dems tried using legal tactics... and failed. The economic boycott is from the advertisers themselves... who are concerned about being associated with the program... and having customers think bad of them. They are probably some on the hard right involved in the boycott as well. This isn't the hard left banding together... it's a bunch of capitalists concerned their businesses will be hurt.

[Ned]

Ming, understandable that most businesses just want to stay out of political fights.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, I would like you to refer to Kissinger's book, "The White House Years." There you will see quotes from the NV negotiators to the US that prove that Kerry and Jane Fonda provided them encouragement to continue on without an agreement because, in their view, the US would simply pull out. Kissinger became increasingly worried as time went on that the repeated votes in Congress to pull our troops out unilaterally would soon achieve a majority. It was getting closer every vote.

No, it is a simple truth that Kerry helped delay the war's end.

Considering, imho, that you often read too much into things, I find this hard to believe. Also, considering that Kerry was at best an aquaitance of Fonda's, your implied linkage of them together is a bit suspect too.

Also, as the war in vietnam dragged on, it was clearly getting worse and worse. I am not surprised the votes in Congress got closer to a pull-out on their own. Vietnam was something we should have pulled out of earlier, if anything.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing to support your claim that Kerry wanted the war to get worse and not end. He certainly objected strongly to how Fonda did things.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
IIRC, this BEGAN with Kerry's campaign. The NYTimes has only jumped on the "threat" bandwagnon.

As I said, just one guy in Kerry's campaign made an off-hand remark. That is hardly the same as "it started with Kerry's campaign." There is a legitimate reason to be concerned here on the integrity of this "news" however, and that is why many, many people are concerned.

I have no problem with the Kerry's campaign being concerned, I was merely stating that they weren't likely to become the communist dictators certain members of this forum irrationally fear. Many, many people are concerned, including businessmen who are primary worried about their profit.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drachasor

As far as I can tell, there is nothing to support your claim that Kerry wanted the war to get worse and not end. He certainly objected strongly to how Fonda did things.

-Drachasor

Drach, I said Kerry supported unilateral withdrawal.

When did he object to Fonda?

Kerry is honored in the Vietnamese War Museum as one of those leaders of the antiwar movement most responsible for their victory.

Now, if the enemy says this about Kerry, why can't you?