Sinclair Broadcasting Group Poised to Break Election Laws

Here's an interestin' thought ... sure, the piece is not pro-Kerry, but its not pro-Bush and its ABOUT Kerry. Bush theoretically could press a claim for equal time.

Quote:

I could care less if it is aired or not. That is up to Sinclair and applicable law, not you or I.

Of course you don't care. But my guess is that it's up to applicable law,

Isn't that what I said?

And it's always possible that Sinclair will back down, as they are being called on this as we write.

That would be up to Sinclair, which is what I said.

You want to have a fair debate on Vietnam?

'the press' is not the same thing as 'the owners of the station.'

Here's an interestin' thought ... sure, the piece is not pro-Kerry, but its not pro-Bush and its ABOUT Kerry. Bush theoretically could press a claim for equal time.

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.

But acknowledging that news standards call for fairness, Mr. Hyman (of Sinclair, T.)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.

I think what is becoming clear is that people other than folks like the owners of fox channels and all their sister channels (is that what it is called?) should start buying some channel themselves or else we will start to have all our air waves in effect controlled by the GOP kind of like other countries that we complain about.

I guess if they own the channels then they can decide what to put on their channels; however unfair it is.

I think what is becoming clear is that people other than folks like the owners of fox channels and all their sister channels (is that what it is called?) should start buying some channel themselves or else we will start to have all our air waves in effect controlled by the GOP kind of like other countries that we complain about.

I guess if they own the channels then they can decide what to put on their channels; however unfair it is.

revel wrote:

I think what is becoming clear is that people other than folks like the owners of fox channels and all their sister channels (is that what it is called?) should start buying some channel themselves or else we will start to have all our air waves in effect controlled by the GOP kind of like other countries that we complain about.

I agree, and Al Franken's Air America looks like a very promising step in this direction. I have no idea who owns it, but I'm convinced that media capitalism can work for liberal causes too.

revel wrote:

I guess if they own the channels then they can decide what to put on their channels; however unfair it is.

I see nothing unfair about this. After all, journalists are just one ingredent in a mix of people who cooperate to provide news. I resent this "holier than you" attitute I sense among journalists -- this sense that scribblers are in any way more special than the other people who work for, lend money to, or own the news organizations.

revel wrote:

I think what is becoming clear is that people other than folks like the owners of fox channels and all their sister channels (is that what it is called?) should start buying some channel themselves or else we will start to have all our air waves in effect controlled by the GOP kind of like other countries that we complain about.

I guess if they own the channels then they can decide what to put on their channels; however unfair it is.

Unless it contains illegal content, that is true. Would you have it any other way? Certainly government controlled media would not be a viable solution.

I agree that the government shouldn't control the media. But what if one political party controls both the government and the media? Isn't that defacto government control?

... and media is more than just newspapers. But you knew that.

Is endorsement the same as control? But this was a hypothetical question. I'm interested what you think about such a case?

And your opinion as to the question asked?