Stations told to air anti-Kerry film

[Grojlach]

What liberal media conspiracy?

Stations told to air anti-Kerry film
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Elizabeth Jensen
LOS ANGELES TIMES

NEW YORK — The conservative-leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group, whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation’s homes with TV, is ordering its stations to pre-empt regular programming days before the Nov. 2 election to air a film that attacks Sen. John F. Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War, network and station executives familiar with the plan said yesterday.

Sinclair owns WSYX (Channel 6) in Columbus.

Sinclair’s programming plan is highly unusual even in a political season that has been marked by media controversies.

Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war.

Sinclair will pre-empt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the documentary, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar who are with the plan.

Executives at Sinclair did not return calls seeking comment, but the Kerry campaign accused the company of pressuring its stations to influence the political process. "It’s not the American way for powerful corporations to strong-arm local broadcasters to air lies promoting a political agenda," Kerry spokesman David Wade said. "It’s beyond yellow journalism; it’s a smear bankrolled by Republican money, and I don’t think Americans will stand for it."

Sinclair owns 62 stations, including ones in Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas.

Station and network sources said they have been told the Sinclair stations will pre-empt regular programming for one hour between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24 for the documentary.

No one familiar with the plan was willing to criticize it publicly, some because they said they don’t know all the details of what Sinclair plans for the panel that follows the documentary.

But a number of people privately expressed outrage at the seemingly overt nature of the political attack, which comes at a time when the media are under assault as never before.

Cable’s Fox News Channel was attacked earlier in the summer by a coalition of liberal groups for what they said was its efforts to boost Republicans; in recent weeks, CBS’ Dan Rather has been criticized by conservatives, as well as some nonpartisan journalists, for its 60 Minutes II report that used now-discredited documents in a report claiming President Bush received favorable treatment when in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s.

Democrats have for some time accused Sinclair, a publicly traded company based in Maryland, of a having a rightwing agenda.

The company made headlines in April when it ordered seven of its stations not to air Ted Koppel’s Nightline roll call of military dead in Iraq, deeming it a political statement "disguised as news content."

http://www.dispatch.com/election/ele....html&rfr=nwsl

[ 10-12-2004, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Grojlach]

You people have equal time regulations, right? So I reckon mister Sinclair will have to show Fahrenheit 9/11 or this movie right after that, for fairness' sake.

These elections are getting dirtier and dirtier, though.

[ 10-12-2004, 05:29 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Ronn_Bman]

There is no equal time regulation anymore. If there were every station that aired Limbaugh, Hannity, etc., would have to follow it with an Air America style program, which would mean there would be a need for AA.

My understanding is that Moore wants to have Farenheit 9/11 televised before the election. If he were running for the documentary Oscar this would make him ineligible, but it doesn't effect his run for best picture.

[ 10-12-2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Timber Loftis]

POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war.

Show it! Please! If you can prove to me that an entire war was prolonged by one skinny GI bitching about a war everyone was bitching about, I'll eat my felt nose! Most likely, you'll end up just looking a fool for trying to take history and spin it too hard.

I'd watch it, though.

[Lucern]

POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war.

I don't even get the logic of that statement. What's the mechanism whereby protesting war prolongs it? Spite? I gathered that their claim was that they were tortured as a direct response to Kerry's testimony. I don't doubt they were tortured, but I'm skeptical that the rationality, if any, could even be known - much less linked to 'one skinny GI' as Timber put it (lol).

And I'd watch it too. I wonder if they own any stations that cover my area.

I also caught an argumentative cat-fight on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer between the VP of Sinclair and some kind of representative of the DNC. Sure they both had a naked agenda, but the VP wasn't really standing on much, nor was he very capable of defending what little he was standing upon. The best he could do is frame the documentary in the context of a news story that the other networks passed on.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...air_10-12.html

They actually turned down a Democratic political ad for 'taking statements out of context'. I can't imagine any political ad passing muster on that one. They also made an "offer" to Kerry (and Kerry alone) to come and respond to the film. That's their fair-and-balanced claim I think, though it's an obvious ambush. Pending the quality of the documentary, that may be like inviting GW to respond to the tv screening of F911.

[John D Harris]

So they are a publicly traded company, buy their stock get controling interest and stop the airing of the film. Ain't Capitalism great!

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Grojlach: You people have equal time regulations, right? So I reckon mister Sinclair will have to show Fahrenheit 9/11 or this movie right after that, for fairness' sake. These elections are getting dirtier and dirtier, though.

Actually, I "reckon" that the Sinclair film would need to be shown nationwide (and abroad) in theaters for 3-5 months AND sold on DVD to the general public in order to achieve "equal time". However, F9/11 WILL air on cable the night before the election.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: You people have equal time regulations, right? So I reckon mister Sinclair will have to show Fahrenheit 9/11 or this movie right after that, for fairness' sake. These elections are getting dirtier and dirtier, though.

Actually, I "reckon" that the Sinclair film would need to be shown nationwide (and abroad) in theaters for 3-5 months AND sold on DVD to the general public in order to achieve "equal time". However, F9/11 WILL air on cable the night before the election. [/QUOTE]That's a wholly different thing altogether Cerek, and you know very well that's the case. People actually had to put some effort and extra money into it to actually go and see F9/11; bar public expectation, no one was forcing a cinema or broadcast network to show it (plenty of cinemas had refused it), nor were stations forcing it upon anyone who simply want to tune in to a station's regular programming. I don't think a Sinclair owned tv station has the option of refusal, however.
And I don't agree with F9/11 being aired on the night before the election either (by the way, I thought Michael Moore had yet to find a station for all this?) - though I'd like to see some evidence as to whether the showing of F9/11 was forced by some media tycoon onto the stations airing it as well. And note that if there is such evidence, that's still no excuse for Sinclair's decision - it only proves how rotten and "mainstream" partisan crap has truely become.

[ 10-14-2004, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Gnarf]

Originally posted by John D Harris: So they are a publicly traded company, buy their stock get controling interest and stop the airing of the film. Ain't Capitalism great!

No.

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Grojlach: That's a wholly different thing altogether Cerek, and you know very well that's the case. People actually had to put some effort and extra money into it to actually go and see F9/11; bar public expectation, no one was forcing a cinema or broadcast network to show it (plenty of cinemas had refused it), nor were stations forcing it upon anyone who simply want to tune in to a station's regular programming. I don't think a Sinclair owned tv station has the option of refusal, however.

No, Groj, it is NOT "a wholly different thing altogether" as much as the opponents of Bush would like to say it is.

Sinclair may be able to force their stations to air the program, but they cannot force the viewer to actually WATCH the program. And the ONLY effort required to avoid the Sinclair project is a simple CLICK of the remote.

The core issue is the exposure the Sinclair project will supposedly have on the viewing public...but even in your wildest imaginations, there is NO WAY you could honostly say that one 42-minute program is going to get even a FRACTION of the "total viewing audience" that has already seen F9/11 (and that doesn't include the DVD sales or the pre-election special broadcast). The bottom line is that BOTH projects are nothing more than blantant political messages wrapped up in the guise of a "documentary" or a "news program". And - of the two - F9/11 reached more viewers in it's opening weekend than the Sinclair Project will recieve in their airing.

Also, who is actually gonna WATCH the Sinclair show and how many of those viewers will actually CHANGE thier vote because of it. Do your REALLY believe that someone sitting on the fence - but leaning towards Kerry - is going to watch this drivel from Sinclair and say "Wow...I had NO IDEA he was such a scumbag. Gosh, I better vote for Bush as quick as I can." ? N0. Most likely the ones that watch the show will be the ones that ALREADY think Kerry is a scumbag who is lying through his teeth about his military record. So I really don't think it will have THAT big an impact on the overall vote (though I do concede it won't be from lack of trying on Sinclair's part).

It is no secret that Kerry has virtually NO SUPPORT from ANYBODY connected to the military (according to comments I've heard on the news, radio and from members here at IW who are actually members of the military). In fact, I can think of only one member here with military experience that is definitely a Kerry supporter. Most others are firmly against him already and the show aired by Sinclair isn't going to change those opinions very much in either direction.

Originally posted by Grojlach: And I don't agree with F9/11 being aired on the night before the election either (by the way, I thought Michael Moore had yet to find a station for all this?) - though I'd like to see some evidence as to whether the showing of F9/11 was forced by some media tycoon onto the stations airing it as well. And note that if there is such evidence, that's still no excuse for Sinclair's decision - it only proves how rotten and "mainstream" partisan crap has truely become.

Actually, I have no problem with F9/11 being aired the night before the election. I think Moore should have pushed to have the broadcasts begin about a week before the election, but that isn't how HBO and SHO time do their programming. They only add 1-2 new movies to their rotation PER MONTH...and November 1st would be the earliest F9/11 could be shown to have maximum impact BEFORE the election. He could have pushed to have it added in the October rotation, but that would probably have been TOO soon and the impact would have worn off by November 2. Also, an October rotation would have preceded the release of the movie on DVD - another business/marketing faux pas. I had predicted that F9/11 would be released on DVD about 2 weeks before the election to gain maximum impact - but Moore timed it to coincide with the beginning of the Presidential debates. As usual, Moore knows MUCH more about "perfect timing" than I do.

To be perfectly honost, I actually agree with you about Sinclair (at least in principle). This IS a really "dirty" move on their part and is blantantly political. I agree it is shameful for a media corporation especially to use it's power in such a way, but I still believe the actual impact of the show itself will be far less than anticipated. Now, a good buddy of mine said that this just shows how low Boy George is willing to go to smear Kerry - but that is misleading. There is NO evidence to suggest that Bush or any of his staff had ANYTHING to do with the decision made by the Sinclair execs. I know it is hard for the liberals to believe, but there really ARE people (like the Swifties) who actually DO HATE Kerry enough to launch these attacks on their own WITHOUT the express written permission of the President. I'm sure Bush isn't upset about the action taken by Sinclair, but that is a FAR CRY from being personally responsible for it also.

One other ironic note about the Sinclair Project is that they seem to have taken some lessons from Michael Moore himself. This 42 minute program of thiers would not have recieved anywhere NEAR the attention it has (and thus wouldn't have recieved near the viewers it will) if this "controversy" hadn't recieved the national coverage it has. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to learn that Sinclair themselves were the ones that "leaked" the story to the general media.