Sinclair Broadcasting Group Poised to Break Election Laws

I haven't been to the moon, either. But I have read enough about it and talked to folkd who have been, to know what it is like.

oh, brother...

Then you know, Larry, that it's made of cheese.

Yup, that is how most of us come to know things...not by direct experience but by reading and talking to others who have had the subject direct experience.

OCCOM BILL wrote:



McCain-Feingold's bill was already agreed upon and SIGNED by the President. There isn't anything to bicker about.

What Sinclair is planning on doing would be illegal. Plain and simple.

"Subject direct experience?"

Cost to fly to the Moon: Millions upon millions of dollars

Cost to see Farenheit 9/11: $4 - $9

Simply put, Larry434 chooses to not see this movie, but to mirror the talking points his buddies give him.

The moon isn't a political issue. It's a rock floating in space which effects our tides and wolves howl at.

I speak my opinion based on reading and talking to people who have seen it. Hell, in our discussions on Abuzz, even you did not deny it was good and effective propaganda.

I think you completely missed the point regarding your hysterical anology. And perhaps you can explain how there are no campaing law's precluding this potentially illegal act by SBG?

The fact that this company wants to show the movie opens an interesting can of worms: Who owns the big media companies, anyhow?

Big corporations, for the most part. That's why all the BS about Dan Rather amuses me. You really think he calls the shots at CBS?

These corporations care about their bottom line, because that's how the big shots keep their jobs. Of course, some still want to make some political news, hence the Sinclair people.

Something to bear in mind the next someone blows smoke about The Liberal Media...

So far you've presented an excerpt that refers to "Ads". I don't see anything about movies, documentaries and/or crockumentaries... so unless you can show me where the bill defines "Ads" (and said definition needs to fit "movies, documentaries and/or crockumentaries" to be relevant), you've presented nothing but your own hyper-biased opinion.

Sez you. Prove it.

It is as far as I am concerned.

It is not an "ad".

In Florida, there are 3 members of The Sinclair Group. Sinclair owns and operates 1 major network station, NBC affiliate WTWC ch 40, Tallahassee. Also in Tallahassee, Sinclair has an Outsourcing Agreement with ABC affiliate WTXL ch 27. One other station in Florida is a member of the Sinclair Group, Tampa's WB affiliate WTTA ch 38, with which Sinclair has a Local Marketing Agreement.

In Ohio, there are 5 members of The Sinclair Group. Cincinnati's WB affiliate WSTR ch 33 is a Sinclair-owned-and-operated station. In Columbus, Sinclair owns and operates ABC affiliate WSYX ch 6 and has a Local Marketing Agreement with Fox affiliate WTTE ch 28. Dayton likewise has one Sinclair owned-and-operated station, ABC affiliate WKEF ch 22, and with Fox affiliate WRGT ch 45 there is a Local Marketing Agreement.

In Wisconsin, there are 3 Sinclair Group stations, all Sinclair owned and operated. Milwaukee's UPN affiliate WCGTX ch 24 and WB affiliate WVTV ch 18, and Madison's Fox affiliate, WMSM ch 47.

In Nevada, Las Vegas is home to the 2 Sinclair Group stations in that state, both also Sinclair owned and operated; WB affiliate KVWB ch 21 and Independent KFBT ch 38 (proudly offering "Classic Sitcoms and Your Favorite Movies of Yesteryear )

In Pennsylvania, there are 2 Sinclair Group stations, both in Pittsburgh and both Sinclair owned-and-operated; Fox affiliate WPGH ch 53 and WB affiliate WCWB ch 22.

In the "Swing States" mentioned in the NYT article, Sinclair owns and operates a total of 1 NBC affiliate and 2 ABC affiliates, has an Outsourcing Agreement with 1 other ABC affiliate, and either owns or has agreements with a dozen other outlets.

Essentially, Outsourcing Agreements provide absolutely no umbrella control, merely permitting the parties thereto rights to one another's exclusively produced news programming, and Local Marketing Agreements amount to a contractual obligation on the part of Sinclair to offer its own exclusive programming to no other outlet in the same DMA while Sinclair's Marketing Department handles the advertising sales for the station. In either instance, the local station has the option to utilize Sinclair-provided programming, but is under no obligation to do so, and is entitled to display the Sinclair Group logo.

Only Sinclair owned and operated stations would be subject to a programming decision from Sinclair. Sinclair Group stations, owned or otherwise, are predominantly "Second-Tier Network" affiliates, programatically skewed toward younger viewers, and, accordingly, not "Major Players" in their overall markets. Should the programming decision drive the mainstream media to further hysteria, the effect will be to draw a much larger market share to Sinclair outlets than otherwise would be customary, and likely induce the outlets permitted but not obligated to air Sinclair programming to jump on the bandwagon, thus further enhancing Sinclair's "reach" during that time slot. Politics aside, its a canny marketing move on Sinclair's part. That there could be political ramifications inconvenient to The Democratic Party is merely a bonus brought on chiefly by their own protestations. And frankly, I figure the "Preaching to the choir" observation is right on the mark. Regardless the viewership generated, damned few if any minds are gonna be changed, either by this or by Mike Moore's pay-per-view election eve airing of his mockumentary.

The youth market may well be an especially important one in this election, timber. Not easily discounted, audience-wise.

Of those markets, I'm aware of Madison's Fox channel and Columbus' ABC channel. Those are both "real" channels, likely to get a big chunk of viewers.

What disturbs me beyond all else is that this may well be against the law. They may be using the "news" loophole to violate existing campaign finance laws. A variation of this already happened and was found to not be kosher:



This was found to be propaganda -- not as a term thrown around by conspiracy theorists but actual, dictionary-definition propaganda. Propaganda ain't kosher.

Soz, all political promotion is propaganda.

And some of it is illegal.

No argument there. As far as that goes, I think you can thank McCain-Feingold for much of the current ambiguity and abuse-fostering loopholes.

Larry434 thinks:



It promotes a political agenda. Anything that promotes something like a "political agenda" on television is generally an "advertisement." But if you feel that it's o.k. for CBS and other network affiliates to do the same thing with Michael Moore's film, then you must regard Farenheit 9/11 as actual NEWS, and not a documentary or and ad.

Wow!

Advertising:

c : to call public attention to especially by emphasizing desirable qualities so as to arouse a desire to buy or patronize

F911 is a documentary...cleverly edited and full of propaganda according to what I have read and heard from people who have seen it.

I may have a personal disagreement with it, but I would never seek to censor it...in any venue.

Larry434:

You're completely missing the point. This doesn't HAVE to do with censorship. Sinclair Broadcasting Group could very well put this on pay-per-view as well, and no laws would be broken. But I doubt they would make very much money with such an ill-fated business venture.

To think that SBG would define this piece they're about to air as "news" is egregious, because it obviously isn't. You agree that Farenheit 9/11 is ALSO not news, and so Michael is bound by law to not have it televised on network television so close to the election.