[Actual Politics] Your thoughts on Sinclair Broadcasting Grp

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:14 am

Just curious as to what others think on this.

I'm actually kind of torn. The capitalist swine in me thinks that if you *own* something, you oughta be able to do with it what you want. If that means that you want to broadcast something that doesn't really run afoul of community decency laws, who am I to tell you not to?

...but then there's the part of me that says "there's lots of stuff the FCC won't let you do on the public airwaves". I have an FCC license (still good for another year!) and I remember when I was PD at KCOU FM ("Nonstop kickass buttcheese rockandroll nonstop!") that the license carried with it all sorts of mumbo jumbo about serving the public "trust"...basically you couldn't go on the air and say "The water supply is poison, but Drano is safe to gargle with."

Obviously, those are extremes. But still, there may be "public trust" issues at stake here. I *do* think this is a lousy precedent, as well.

I also think though that Sinclair maybe ought to be allowed to do what they want, and if the consumers in their markets don't like it, let them protest by boycotting the various station's advertisers if they like.

The Mad Hatter · Post by **The Mad Hatter** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:38 am

It's certainly sleazy politics but they do own the stations.

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:13 am

There is a reason that the TV stations get to use the public airwaves for *free* while the cellular companies pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the use of their frequencies. The TV stations have an obligation to not be propagandists for either side.

CBS screwed the pooch big time with Rathergate, but at least they thought they had a real story. This is the debunked claims of the not-so-swifties all over again.

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:48 am

It's troubling.

Sure a case could be made that the lead up to the election is the perfect time to air this from a ratings standpoint, but it sure doesn't seem like just a business decision. Not only a business decision, anyway.

F9/11 was equally troubling in that it was accepted as a documentary by Hollywood. It was not, and Moore has basicly admitted that it was movie length commentary- propaganda if you will.

I understand that we don't have equivalent situations here, that does not mean they have nothing to do with each other. It's things like F9/11 and the democratic party's embracing of Moore that leads to Sinclair.Don't get me wrong, I'm not excusing it. I'm just pointing out that every act of political craziness makes the next one seem more acceptable.

But what is the answer? Will those who rail against the patriot act now accept even more draconian (and dangerous) laws regarding things like this? The road to true campaign reform is paved over the dead body of the first amendment. I suggest that those on the left do what we on the right did in response to the Reagan movie- apply market forces.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:05 am

I actually already pointed out how tainto this is on PopeHat.

I understand capitalism and all that. I understand that they own the TV stations and all that.

BUT. My understanding is that these stations are "public" in the sense that they are various affiliates of the networks (since they've previously pulled Nightline segments). You can't start running what are allegedly propaganda films against the candidate that is not receiveing 98% of your donations, 2 weeks outside of an election.

I recommend that the Congress amends campaign finance reform to add some sort of no bullshit clause. Give the FCC the power to use common sense to say "What you're doing is bullshit - and bullshit gotsta stop" when it comes to political nonsense right before an election.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:50 am

How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?

dmd · Post by **dmd** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:52 am

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?

That was me. I guess all the boxes from the move haven't been unpacked yet.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:53 am

The difference I see between these broadcasts and F911 and even "Unfit For Command" is that Moore's propaganda film and the Swift Boat Vets propaganda book are things that an interested party must purchase to view or read. You have to go out of your way to consume either one. It's highly unlikely that msduncan will "accidentally" watch F911. It's highly unlikely that I'll "accidentally" read "Command".

But it's more likely, and possible, that either one of us, living within range of an SBG signal (I don't, btw) could accidentally see big parts of the anti-Kerry film. It's beamed into homes, whether your home wants it or not.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:00 am

triggercut wrote:The difference I see between these broadcasts and F911 and even "Unfit For Command" is that Moore's propaganda film and the Swift Boat Vets propaganda book are things that an interested party must purchase to view or read. You have to go out of your way to consume either one. It's highly unlikely that msduncan will "accidentally" watch F911. It's highly unlikely that I'll "accidentally" read "Command".

But it's more likely, and possible, that either one of us, living within range of an SBG signal (I don't, btw) could accidentally see big parts of the anti-Kerry film. It's beamed into homes, whether your home wants it or not.

Well put.

Guy Incognito · Post by **Guy Incognito** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:01 am

Anonymous wrote:
triggercut wrote:The difference I see between these broadcasts and F911 and even "Unfit For Command" is that Moore's propaganda film and the Swift Boat Vets propaganda book are things that an interested party must purchase to view or read. You have to go out of your way to consume either one. It's highly unlikely that msduncan will "accidentally" watch F911. It's highly unlikely that I'll "accidentally" read "Command".

But it's more likely, and possible, that either one of us, living within range of an SBG signal (I don't, btw) could accidentally see big parts of the anti-Kerry film. It's beamed into homes, whether your home wants it or not.
Well put.

Bah, forgot to login first.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:04 am

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?

I guess I'd again say that you have to *buy* the newspaper. It isn't dropped for free onto into your bedroom for free. But you have a point: a media outlet should be allowed to express their opinions; that's my conflictedness w/r/t this.

I think, as far as the FCC is concerned, it has something to do with what Running Mn9 was talking about. Sinclair stations "distribute" themselves through means (i. e. the airwaves) controlled by government regulation. Newspapers pay for their own distribution, and handle the means behind that out of their own pockets. Radio stations and TV stations that use government-regulated airwaves to beam themselves into every home in their signal radius maybe *should* have some sort of rules put on them about what they can do with that airspace they've been granted, right?

Again, I go back to the "public trust" thing in the standard FCC broadcast license. We have free speech, but there are things you cannot say in a variety of situations. We allow public use of the airwaves, but maybe there are things you shouldn't be able to use them for.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:12 am

Poleaxe · Post by **Poleaxe** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:24 am

dmd wrote:
Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?
That was me. I guess all the boxes from the move haven't been unpacked yet.

A newspaper editorializes when it endorses a candidate. It's choice of candidates is clearly marked as opinion. The Sinclair stations will apparently run this program without comment or declaration of intentions. It is editorializing without clearly setting forth that influencing the viewers is the purpose of showing the program.

I would have less problem with them showing the documentary if before it aired someone from the network came on and said "We at Sinclaire support Bush, we do so in part because of what you are about to see." That would tip off the audience that a little critical thinking was needed when watching the program.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:34 am

Sorry, fixed the guest login thing.

dmd · Post by **dmd** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:36 am

Poleaxe wrote:
dmd wrote:
Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?
That was me. I guess all the boxes from the move haven't been unpacked yet.
A newspaper editorializes when it endorses a candidate. It's choice of candidates is clearly marked as opinion. The Sinclair stations will apparently run this program without comment or declaration of intentions. It is editorializing without clearly setting forth that influencing the viewers is the purpose of showing the program.

That was going to be my next question. I haven't seen the program, and was wondering about a disclaimer. Yes, I think that is sleazy. I live in a one newspaper town, and it amazes me sometimes when people swallow what is written as gospel truth without any questions as to whether there may be another side to a story.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:37 am

triggercut wrote:I have an FCC license (still good for another year!) and I remember when I was PD at KCOU FM ("Nonstop kickass buttcheese rockandroll nonstop!")

<derail>

You worked at KCOU? When were you there - I used to know a few guys who worked there when I was at MU from 1991-1995.

I've still got one of those nifty "Liquor, Guns and Ammo" KCOU shirts. I like to annoy my wife by wearing it around the house!

</derail>

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:00 pm

Exodor wrote:
triggercut wrote:I have an FCC license (still good for another year!) and I remember when I was PD at KCOU FM ("Nonstop kickass buttcheese rockandroll nonstop!")

<derail>

You worked at KCOU? When were you there - I used to know a few guys who worked there when I was at MU from 1991-1995.

I've still got one of those nifty "Liquor, Guns and Ammo" KCOU shirts. I like to annoy my wife by wearing it around the house!

</derail>

The "Liquor, Guns, And Ammo" T-shirt was *entirely* my baby, start to finish. (Okay, one of the more artistic dudes at the station drew it, but with me standing over his shoulder and making, um, "suggestions"). The inspiration for the T-shirt was that place on the Business Loop that was across the street from the "old" Blue Note, a store that indeed featured a sign promising "liquor, guns, and ammo". Uncle Tupelo namechecked the sign in their song "Whiskey Bottle" (which is about Columbia--it's the "3-hour-away town" in chorus). REM guitarist and art-punk legend Nikki Sudden co-wrote a song called "Liquor, Guns, and Ammo" based on that sign as well.

I was at KCOU from late '87 through spring semester, '92. In 1991 I had to step aside as Program Director to avoid conflict of interest stuff when I started interning for a record label. It was a total blast.

So who from the station do you know???

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:09 pm

I think a big part of problem here is that even if the FCC has the power to enforce it, would they? They are too busy running around censoring the airwaves of sex and language. Plus, their boss benefits from this.

Additionally, this could be considered as a partisan political message and they might owe Kerry equal airtime. But then again who will force them to provide the airtime?

gbasden · Post by **gbasden** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:16 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: I understand capitalism and all that. I understand that they own the TV stations and all that.

BUT. My understanding is that these stations are "public" in the sense that they are various affiliates of the networks (since they've previously pulled Nightline segments). You can't start running what are allegedly propaganda films against the candidate that is not receiveing 98% of your donations, 2 weeks outside of an election.

Speaking of Capitalism, another interesting thing about this is that the Sinclair mothership is ordering these affililate stations to air this "documentary" completely without commercials. Apparently there are some moves to file suit by shareholders claiming that the management is misusing company resources. Interesting angle.

edit - must learn to spell some day.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:33 pm

gbasden wrote:
RunningMn9 wrote: I understand capitalism and all that. I understand that they own the TV stations and all that.

BUT. My understanding is that these stations are "public" in the sense that they are various affiliates of the networks (since they've previously pulled Nightline segments). You can't start running what are allegedly propaganda films against the candidate that is not receiveing 98% of your donations, 2 weeks outside of an election.
Speaking of Capitolism, another interesting thing about this is that the Sinclair mothership is ordering these affililate stations to air this "documentary" completely without commercials. Apparently there are some moves to file suit by shareholders claiming that the management is misusing company resources. Interesting angle.

It would depend on the corporation's charter, but this is definitely an angle they could pursue. I can't see how this will generate any revenue, and Wall Street has been cool to this development. Their stock has been trading down a bit over the last few days. There hasn't been much positive coverage coming out of this.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:27 pm

I think the folks on the lefty blogs have the right idea. Call their advertisers and threaten a boycott if they don't yank advertising and get some heat on their already in danger financial house. If you have funds that invest in Sinclair divest and tell them why. I'm not sure how the legal route will turn out but nothing wrong with a little free market capitalism for these bastards.

Edit: the shareholder revolt has merits too.

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:47 pm

As much as I dislike Kerry, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea. As I mentioned over in the Console Gold thread on the subject, I'm not ready to break out the champagne and start cheering the airing of this program, only to have it come around and bite me in the ass in 2008 when the Dems try to pull the same stunt. It just opens a can of worms I'd just as soon not get into. Politics are dirty enough as it is.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:52 pm

Poleaxe wrote:F9/11 was equally troubling in that it was accepted as a documentary by Hollywood. It was not, and Moore has basicly admitted that it was movie length commentary- propaganda if you will.

There's no incompatibility between documentary and propaganda. A documentary is not expected to be a journalistic effort. Many are, but most have a point of view and go to lengths to be sure that point of view is reflected.

Fireball · Post by **Fireball** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:55 pm

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?

The public doesn't own the newspaper. We own the airwaves. That's also why television news operations don't endorse candidates.

The big problem here is the size of media companies. If there were a logical limit on how many stations a company could own -- say, five -- then Sinclair couldn't use 65 stations as a giant platform so as to have their speech drone out all other speech.

msteelers · Post by **msteelers** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:33 am

The kicker in this case is that they are required by law to extend equal viewing times to both candidates.

The exception to that rule is if the names come up in a news broadcast. Well, when Kerry complained about not getting his equal time on the networks, they changed the program from a "documentary" to a "news-broadcast."

That's just a cheap way to get around the FCC's regulations, but other than changing the rules I doubt there's anything anyone can do about it.

Mr. Fed · Post by **Mr. Fed** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:09 pm

Sinclair stock drops 7.81%. Heh.[/url]

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:12 pm

msteelers wrote:The exception to that rule is if the names come up in a news broadcast. Well, when Kerry complained about not getting his equal time on the networks, they changed the program from a "documentary" to a "news-broadcast."

This, of course, opens them up to libel.

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:20 pm

Wasn't this the same group that refused to air Ted Koppel's reading of all the Iraq war casualties?

$iljanus · Post by **$iljanus** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:37 pm

SuperHiro wrote:Wasn't this the same group that refused to air Ted Koppel's reading of all the Iraq war casualties?

Yes it was, claiming it was anti-war propaganda.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:52 am

Dirt wrote:
msteelers wrote:The exception to that rule is if the names come up in a news broadcast. Well, when Kerry complained about not getting his equal time on the networks, they changed the program from a "documentary" to a "news-broadcast."
This, of course, opens them up to libel.

Which won't matter a lick if it costs Kerry electoral votes. The guy is already silly rich.

noxiousdog · Post by **noxiousdog** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:17 am

Fireball1244 wrote:
Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?
The public doesn't own the newspaper. We own the airwaves. That's also why television news operations don't endorse candidates.

Strangely enough, FOX is running a 30 second Kerry spot during each of the baseball playoffs. What makes it really weird, is that it's a FOX ad.

Unbreakable · Post by **Unbreakable** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:09 pm

Sinclair obviously doesnt like people discussing their propaganda films with other news outlets.

This is why it is so important to the USA that capitalist interests not be government interests. Large amounts of money already grant power; if you allow your government to be run for and by moneyed interests, then the people no longer have a voice (since the government is supposed to BE that voice).

You can always count on the Bush family to bring out the worst America has to offer, thats for sure.

Gebeker · Post by **Gebeker** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:06 pm

Anonymous wrote:How is this any different from a newspaper endorsing a candidate?

For one thing, a newspaper editorial or statement of support for a candidate is something that isn't disguised as commentary. My understanding is that this show is being marketed as if it were a documentary.

Secondly, few newspapers have the exposure that this show is going to get. If the Bumblefuck Chronicle supports Bush, it isn't going to have a major effect on the election. This very well might.

Third, there is the question of whether this is even legal.

Fourth, even newspapers that endorse a particular candidate will usually run editorials that support the other candidate.

Fifth, I'd bet a lot of money that this show is going to be a long series of distortions and outright falsehoods.

Octopus Overlords

[Actual Politics] Your thoughts on Sinclair Broadcasting Grp

[Actual Politics] Your thoughts on Sinclair Broadcasting Grp

Re: [Actual Politics] Your thoughts on Sinclair Broadcasting

Re: [Actual Politics] Your thoughts on Sinclair Broadcasting