A consentration of media ownership and a healthy democracy.



pomod

New Member
Apr 27, 2004
78
0
0
It's hard to argue that the subject of the following article not an example of blatant partisan programming on behalf of Sinclair Broadcasting Group but more importantly it also appears symptomatic of a growing trend in US media. That is, as media services are more and more concentrated into the hands of a wealthy minority, fewer perspectives are open to the average American citizen including international points of view. It's partially why so many Americans are woefully ignorant of things outside their borders. (Before my US friends on this thread get their ire up let me state that this is a generalization, I know) but still, Any time I've visited the US I've found the level of reporting appalling in comparison to the news services of other countries. The BBC or CBC for example often seem more thorough and encompassing than say CNN or FOX. I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on this issue.
_______________________________

TV Group to Show Anti- Kerry Film on 62 Stations
By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: October 11, 2004

Up to 62 television stations owned or managed by the Sinclair Broadcasting
Group - many of them in swing states - will show a documentary highly
critical of Senator John Kerry's antiwar activities 30 years ago within the
next two weeks, Sinclair officials said yesterday.

Those officials said the documentary would pre-empt regular night
programming, including prime time, on its stations, which include affiliates
for all six of the major broadcast networks in the swing states of Florida,
Ohio, Wisconsin, Nevada and Pennsylvania.

Called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the documentary features
Vietnam veterans who say their Vietnamese captors used Mr. Kerry's 1971
Senate testimony, in which he recounted stories of American atrocities,
prolonging their torture and betraying and demoralizing them. Similar claims
were made by prisoners of war in a commercial that ran during the summer
from an anti-Kerry veterans group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Two of the former prisoners who appeared in the Swift Boat advertisement
were interviewed for the movie, including Ken Cordier, who had to resign as
a volunteer in the Bush campaign after the advertisement came out.

Sinclair's plan to show the documentary was first made public by The Los
Angeles Times on Saturday.

Mark Hyman, Sinclair's vice president for corporate relations, who doubles
as a conservative commentator on its news stations, said the film would be
shown because Sinclair deemed it newsworthy.

"Clearly John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his
presidential run; this is an issue that is certainly topical," he said.
Asked what defined something as newsworthy, Mr. Hyman said, "In that it
hasn't been out in the marketplace, and the news marketplace."

Because Sinclair is defining the documentary - which will run commercial
free - as news, it is unclear if it will be required by federal regulations
to provide Mr. Kerry's campaign with equal time to respond.

But acknowledging that news standards call for fairness, Mr. Hyman said an
invitation has been extended to Mr. Kerry to respond after the documentary
is shown. "There are certainly serious allegations that are leveled; we
would very much like to get his response," he said.

Asked if Sinclair would consider running a documentary of similar length
either lauding Mr. Kerry, responding to the charges in "Stolen Honor" or
criticizing Mr. Bush, Mr. Hyman said, "We'd just have to take a look at it."

Aides to Mr. Kerry said he would not accept Sinclair's invitation.

"It's hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing
anything to help elect President Bush even if that means violating basic
journalism standards," said Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman.

Sinclair's plans put Mr. Kerry's campaign in an awkward position similar to
the one in which it found itself in August, when the Swift Boat group first
began running commercials against him containing unsubstantiated charges
that he lied to get his war medals. Mr. Kerry's aides at first held back
from responding, so as not to give the group and its charges more attention
- a decision that some Kerry aides now acknowledge cost him in public
opinion polls.

Mr. Clanton said Mr. Kerry's campaign would call on supporters to stage
advertiser boycotts and demonstrations against Sinclair's stations.

A group of Democratic senators, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts
and Dianne Feinstein of California, readied a letter calling for the Federal
Communications Commission to investigate the move, arguing that the
documentary was not news but a prolonged political advertisement from Mr.
Bush and, as such, violated fairness rules.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, an advocacy
group promoting greater media regulation, said he did not think the film
would qualify for a news exemption. And, he said, even if it did fall under
equal time provisions, those are based on candidate appearances and in this
case, since it is Mr. Kerry who appears, "albeit disparagingly," stations
would be required to show Mr. Bush or possibly the independent candidate
Ralph Nader, if they requested it.

Sinclair was already a galvanizing force for Democrats. The political
donations of its executives have gone overwhelmingly to Republicans,
according to a review of donations on Politicalmoneyline.com. In April
Sinclair refused to run an episode of "Nightline" on its stations in which
the anchor Ted Koppel spent the entire program reading the names of American
soldiers killed in Iraq.

"Stolen Honor" was produced by Carlton Sherwood, formerly a reporter with
The Washington Times. His Web site says he received no money from any
political party or campaign but got initial funding from Pennsylvania
veterans.

The documentary has been distributed by mail order and via streaming
Internet connections. Mr. Hyman said Sinclair was not paying for the right
to broadcast it.
 
pomod said:
It's hard to argue that the subject of the following article not an example of blatant partisan programming on behalf of Sinclair Broadcasting Group but more importantly it also appears symptomatic of a growing trend in US media.
YHGTBSM...1. There is nothing illegal about his. You're just ****** off cause Soros hasn't bankrolled a free airing of michael moores piece of **** mocumentary... 2. Kerry could appear and refute everything displayed but he won't cause he can't. Kerry acts like he's johnny bad ass but reality he is far from it. Here he has a chance to tell these bubba's they are lieing to their faces but...alas, he won't. I wonder why? I would suppose he is too ashamed to face the people his actions negatively effected..
 
zapper said:
YHGTBSM...1. There is nothing illegal about his. You're just ****** off cause Soros hasn't bankrolled a free airing of michael moores piece of **** mocumentary... 2. Kerry could appear and refute everything displayed but he won't cause he can't. Kerry acts like he's johnny bad ass but reality he is far from it. Here he has a chance to tell these bubba's they are lieing to their faces but...alas, he won't. I wonder why? I would suppose he is too ashamed to face the people his actions negatively effected..

Actually, if you re-read my post you'll see that I'm not ****** off nor did I claim it was illegal. Sinclair are a private media conglomerate and can program whatever they choose. I'm not even commenting on the documentary because I haven't seen it. I do feel that a news service that dictates its editorial content along partisan grounds is problematic; but whatever, it's their prerogative I guess and their credibility as a news service that is sacrificed. I was simply posing a question about the role of the press in a so called democracy and whether or not the concentration of the media into fewer and fewer wealthy and powerful hands does that democracy any service.

It's a fact that the mass media in the US fails to report a wide international perspective on global events and consequently it leaves a lot of people in the US who are otherwise too lazy to seek those perspectives out under- or misinformed.
 
pomod said:
Actually, if you re-read my post you'll see that I'm not ****** off nor did I claim it was illegal. Sinclair are a private media conglomerate and can program whatever they choose. I'm not even commenting on the documentary because I haven't seen it. I do feel that a news service that dictates its editorial content along partisan grounds is problematic; but whatever, it's their prerogative I guess and their credibility as a news service that is sacrificed. I was simply posing a question about the role of the press in a so called democracy and whether or not the concentration of the media into fewer and fewer wealthy and powerful hands does that democracy any service.

It's a fact that the mass media in the US fails to report a wide international perspective on global events and consequently it leaves a lot of people in the US who are otherwise too lazy to seek those perspectives out under- or misinformed.
It would be a good news program, for equal time, to document Bush's quasi-foray into the national guard w/o going through the proper channels-lottery. "Did a wealthy Texas oilman-friend of the Bush family use his influence with the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives to get George W. Bush a coveted slot in the National Guard, keeping him out of the draft and any probable service in Vietnam?" Maybe throw in some footage portraying Ashcroft/ "Although Ashcroft's draft board had already
earmarked him for induction--indeed, Ashcroft had
already passed his pre-induction physical--the board
reversed itself and granted the deferment, and Ashcroft
spent the rest of the Vietnam War in Missouri, safe and
sound. And quiet: Although Ashcroft was clearly eager to
avoid going to Vietnam, he never protested the war
." As far as Cheney is concerned "Away from the hearing room, he told the Washington Post that he had sought his deferments because "I had other priorities in the 60's than military service."

"I don't regret the decisions I made," he added. "I complied fully with all the requirements of the statutes, registered with the draft when I turned 18. Had I been drafted, I would have been happy to serve."

But others contend that Mr. Cheney appeared to go to some length to avoid the draft. 5 draft deferrements.

"Five deferments seems incredible to me," said David Curry, a professor at the University of Missouri in St. Louis who has written extensively about the draft, including a 1985 book, "Sunshine Patriots: Punishment and the Vietnam Offender."
Then finish off the piece w/ bush's pampered upbringing-coveted air guard slot which he abandoned, Yale c student, base ball team part owner, unsuccessful oilman (that has changed as of late) ect... He 'aint no cowboy, he's a spoiled rich kid, trying to portray himself as an avg. guy. :rolleyes: Sadly he has alot of gullible americans fooled. They have no-one to blame but themselves, it's all in the public record-except for some of his, convieniently, redacted military records. :mad: The worst part is this person might get reelected either by his drones (supporters) :( or; if that does'nt work, diebold will do whatever is necessary to get the job done ;) , short of bringing in Scalia & Thomas to cast the deciding votes. The far right always wine about the supreme court except for this one instance when it can get their guy into office. Bush is the equivalent of "The Manchurian Candidate" w/o the active duty military background :D
 

Similar threads