Sinclair Broadcasting

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

This is in the current issue of Time magazine under the "Verbatim" section, which is composed of various quotes.

Clearly, John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run.  This is an issue that is certainly topical."

-Mark Hyman, vice president of Sinclair Broadcast Group's corporate relations, on why the company plans toair on its 62 stations a documentary attacking Kerry's antiwar activities of 30 years ago. Sinclair argues that the documentary is news coverage, which is exempt from federal equal-time rules.

We do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content."

-Sinclair Broadcast Group, in a company statement last April, explaining why it refused to air a special edition of ABC's Nightline that consisted of reading the names and showing pictures of each of the 523 U.S. soldiers who had died in Iraq.


...yeah...

[Yrrek]

This is in the current issue of Time magazine under the "Verbatim" section, which is composed of various quotes.
-Mark Hyman, vice president of Sinclair Broadcast Group's corporate relations, on why the company plans toair on its 62 stations a documentary attacking Kerry's antiwar activities of 30 years ago.  Sinclair argues that the documentary is news coverage, which is exempt from federal equal-time rules.
-Sinclair Broadcast Group, in a company statement last April, explaining why it refused to air a special edition of ABC's Nightline that consisted of reading the names and showing pictures of each of the 523 U.S. soldiers who had died in Iraq.
...yeah...
[right][snapback]58059[/snapback][/right]

Did you get these quotes online? If so, will you post a link?

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Did you get these quotes online? If so, will you post a link?
[right][snapback]58073[/snapback][/right]

They're current in this week's issue of Time (actual paper publication). Time.com has a habit of putting them up on their website a week or so after publication, so I'd imagine they'll be there shortly.

[Guest]

Doest it really matter?

From a legal perspective I think they are ok. The current election laws are a joke in a sense, as is the interpretaion by the federal Election Board(I think thats the name - Im not sure).

From a real world fairness perspective Michael Moores "F 911" is just as bad if not worse as biased documentaries go,. Since Kerry has went on Stage , with Moore, he shouldnt complain. In a real world perspective it doesnt matter if its on free TV or on DvD - everyone who wants to see it will see it.

I think people trying to present the Sinclaire documentary as "wrong" are just whiny Bush haters.
Much like I think the people who were "enraged" by Clintons affair really just didnt like Democrats.

[eppie]

Doest it really matter?

From a legal perspective I think they are ok. The current election laws are a joke in a sense, as is the interpretaion by the federal Election Board(I think thats the name - Im not sure).

From a real world fairness perspective Michael Moores "F 911" is just as bad if not worse as biased documentaries go,. Since Kerry has went on Stage , with Moore, he shouldnt complain.  In a real world perspective it doesnt matter if its on free TV or on DvD - everyone who wants to see it will see it.

I think people trying to present the Sinclaire documentary as "wrong"  are just whiny Bush haters.
Much like I think the people who were "enraged" by Clintons affair really just didnt like Democrats.
[right][snapback]58085[/snapback][/right]

So and what about the FOXnews network?. Is a channel that televises right wing extremist views over america 24/7 also the same as one little "documentary" by Michael Moore.
Yesterday (on a documentary about FOXnews) I saw this Bill? O'Reilly talk to a guy in his show who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks. It was really disgusting. For me it is really amazing that people with so much hate in their gut can just be on TV so much.
Too me a TV station that brings their personal view as news is thousands of times worse than Moore's documentary.

[Munkay]

Doest it really matter?

From a legal perspective I think they are ok. The current election laws are a joke in a sense, as is the interpretaion by the federal Election Board(I think thats the name - Im not sure).

From a real world fairness perspective Michael Moores "F 911" is just as bad if not worse as biased documentaries go,. Since Kerry has went on Stage , with Moore, he shouldnt complain.  In a real world perspective it doesnt matter if its on free TV or on DvD - everyone who wants to see it will see it.

I think people trying to present the Sinclaire documentary as "wrong"  are just whiny Bush haters.
Much like I think the people who were "enraged" by Clintons affair really just didnt like Democrats.
[right][snapback]58085[/snapback][/right]

Rather than turn this into a pissing contest of who has sent out more biased propaganda than who, let me just say corruption by one part does not justify corruption on the other part.

Murdering one person isn't instantly Just because the opposing group killed two.

There is a larger issue here, which is why I use the word corrupt to describe this propaganda, the issue of hidden biases.

Regardless of who did what, or how bad, presenting any openly biased piece of work as unbiased to the general public is heinous.

I'm not saying everything needs to unbiased, its a fact of life that things do naturally hold one bias or another. The problem is media in general continues to present news as unbiased, and the public often times believes it.

It's on TV, so it must be true, right?

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

So and what about the FOXnews network?. Is a channel that televises right wing extremist views over america 24/7 also the same as one little "documentary" by Michael Moore.
Yesterday (on a documentary about FOXnews) I saw this Bill? O'Reilly talk to a guy in his show who lost his father in the 9/11 attacks. It was really disgusting. For me it is really amazing that people with so much hate in their gut can just be on TV so much.
Too me a TV station that brings their personal view as news is thousands of times worse than Moore's documentary.
[right][snapback]58088[/snapback][/right]

"So and what about the FOXnews network?. Is a channel that televises right wing extremist views over america..."

Perhaps from your perspective. :) I think FOX is right leaning, but not extremist.

I view the right wing extremists as the KKK, Trinity Broadcasting, CBN (700 Club), or the Neo Nazi's.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I think people trying to present the Sinclaire documentary as "wrong"  are just whiny Bush haters.

Nothing wrong with the documentary, which should bear the same skepticism as Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, even if it didn't win a Palm D'Or. If it can't stand on its own, its not worth your time.

It's the abject patronage of Sinclair's Executive that I'm finding objectionable, here... which, oddly enough, falls right in line with the patronage one finds at Fox News. While Fox News might not be extremist, they're certainly well past the borders of objective reporting and hip-deep into being self-congragulatory hyperbolic spinmeisters.

Any legal "safezone" that Sinclair may have found doesn't change the fact that they've crossed a journalistic line, which once crossed, can never be regained. Trust is a hard thing to earn, much less a trusted reputation; neither one are easy to ever attempt to reclaim after a betrayal.

[Occhidiangela]

So and what about the FOXnews network?. Is a channel that televises right wing extremist views over america 24/7 also the same as one little "documentary" by Michael Moore.[right][snapback]58088[/snapback][/right]

And CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, not to mention PBS, broadcast 24/7 all over America, a Lefist agenda.

Your point, eppie, is what? That only the Right Wing should be censored?

Think again.

Occhi

[Guest]

No. There is nothing hidden here. "There is a larger issue here, which is why I use the word corrupt to describe this propaganda, the issue of hidden biases."

I think almost everyone in America knows Michael Moore's movies are biased and I think almost everyone knows that Sinclaire is biased. The biases of both have been well reported by legitimate media.

The arguement that either of these 2 is tricking the public is a red herring. The power of both these "documentaries" is that they excite and mobilize current supporters rather than persuade new ones. Of course its in the interest of both parties to spin the issue as though the opponent is duping someone.



Hidden bias is a serious concern in the media, but these are obvious, overt biases.

[Guest]

Naw, they didnt lose any respect.
Sinclaire didnt have any respect as a news organisation to start with.

The only news outlets they own are a some local stations. Its fair to say that if Sinclaire started a national news org now they wouldnt be respected, but they dont intend to that.

If you dont like it the reasonable response is to either boycott their stations or sponsers because they are partisan contrary to your inclinations.

[Chaerophon]

And CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, not to mention PBS, broadcast 24/7 all over America, a Lefist agenda.

Good God. If CNN is 'leftist', then God knows what Americans must think of the CBC... :rolleyes: But, fair enough - you'd know better than I what perceptions are like in the good ol' U.S. of A.

[Munkay]

Hidden bias is a serious concern in the media, but these are obvious, overt biases.

Assuming this is true:

The power of both these "documentaries" is that they excite and mobilize current supporters rather than persuade new ones.

Why would they air a biased documentary if they didn't intend to convert people?

Lets assume that you are right though, so now current supporters are mobilized. Fueled by the documentary. Call me crazy but I've yet to find mobilized followers of Michael Moore's film that don't beleive that the documentary is vastly, if not entirely, factual and presents the truth.

I still believe at the end of the day there are a lot of uneducated, misinformed people that these stations are banking on persuading with this documentary. These people won't know the biases going into it. Maybe you have more faith in the intelligence of people than I do.

It's the same reason we have warning labels on cans of nuts that say 'contains nuts', or that electric fences/third rails with signs that warn of death if touched. Most of the labels are there because some one was stupid enough to not know that. If I can't rely on people to know coffee from McDonald's can be scawldingly hot, why am I going to rely on them being educated enough to know the biases of a program before they flip on the boob tube? More importantly, why am I going to advocate that in a country where every vote counts equally?

Freedom of speech? Eye for an eye?

Cheers,

Munk

[Occhidiangela]

Good God.  If CNN is 'leftist', then God knows what Americans must think of the CBC... :rolleyes:  But, fair enough - you'd know better than I what perceptions are like in the good ol' U.S. of A.
[right][snapback]58127[/snapback][/right]

BBC and CBC both have at the least a germ of British and Canadian agendas -- which they should, considering where their founding principles come from. If Canada is in the main a bit more Urban Liberal than America, it should not be a surprise to any American or Canadian that BBC would be perceived as "more liberal" or even more "anti American" than a given American based news organ.

If you do not understand the difference between the left of center editorial slant of most American news organs (the National Review is NOT a typical bit of "journalism" in this country) then I can't help you much. I can offer this tidbit as an observation, however.

It is imbedded in the assumption of the press as a watchdog, almost as an advocate of anything antigovernment, that it will be at best neutral, and at worst rabidly anti establishment, as a balance to the various official proclamation. Since Watergate, where the "gentleman's club" relationship with the leadership was dispensed with, and the advent of 24/7 cable news courtesy of Ted Turner, there has been a significant, deliberate anti conservative slant that has more to do with who is running the news organs than any objective, professional journalistic ethos would tolerate.

Why? I don't have all the answers to that, but it's what I have seen. The polarization of news organs will, I suspect, get worse, not better, over time, as the Information age grows and the use of information (which includes the weapons of the news media) continues to be a tool of policy.

Occhi

[Guest]

Because this election depends on turnout not swing voters. Poll after poll the last 3 months shows that a small % of the population is undecided.

The strategy to win this election is to motivate your supporters to actually vote. Stirring up some animosity against an opponent people already dislike is a great way to do this.

Do you follow what is happening in the daily camapign rallies across the US? Both sides are only letting in supporters. This campain is about motivating voters, its not about convincing them.

[Yrrek]

Polls show nothing. Half the country never votes, and it is impossible for them to poll everyone that does vote. I would not use a poll as my source if I were you.

[Chaerophon]

If "leftism" in your context involves establishing one's self as "anti-establishment", then it has different meanings in your context than it does in mine. In one respect, I suppose that it is true that, since CNN and Ted Turner are more prone to advocate a democratic agenda in their editorial perspectives that they are comparatively "leftist". However, whether or not CNN is anti-establishment, it exhibits a marked pro-capital, pro-globalist agenda when compared with domestic sources in my own country. I think that most Canadians would see the "CNN discourse" as right-of-center. That being said, Canadians are far from labour afficionados, and for the past fifteen years we have arguably been under a marked rightward shift in public opinion, not least due to the ownership of 60-70% of our national news outlets by some few (presently only one) idealogues intent on expounding on the overarching rationality of the right.

Basically, my point was that a "centrist" in my own country would most likely be considered a bleeding-heart liberal worst than a democratic senator from Massachusetts in your own. Pro-public health, pro-gun control, pro-welfare, pro-industry subsidization, and, depending on where in the country you are polling, anti-free trade. While it may be little more than a teenage popularity contest, it is telling that a socialist, Tommy Douglas, is poised to win the popular vote on this month's flavour of the week television miniseries "The Greatest Canadian".

For what it's worth, from a more issue-oriented perspective, CNN does not appear very 'leftist' in the global scheme of things. If for you it is more a matter of supporting a "more leftist agenda than the Republicans and neo-cons", then fair enough. In an American context, perhaps you are right. That was my point. However, it's not true elsewhere, and in an issue-oriented context, it is certainly a stretch to think of them as 'leftist' when you consider the potential extent of what really are 'leftist' ideas.

[Guest]

There is no way to repond to that inanity without offending you.

[Munkay]

There is no way to repond to that inanity without offending you.
[right][snapback]58163[/snapback][/right]

Don't worry, I feel the same about your post too. :P

:D

[Guest]

Mine wasnt inane, although you might reasonably disagree with my points.


I was making a post about how how the parties feel they can impact the election most by getting more supporters out to vote rather than by persuading new voters.

In the process of explaining that I mentioned that polls show most voters have decided, so campains wont be able to change many voters minds.





Then Mr Insightful procededs to disagree with me on the account of "polls arent accurrate, because many people dont vote."


So why was that comment garbage?

1 By saying many people dont vote hes actually reinforcing my only point, that much is to be gained by convinced supporters to show up and vote.

2 The fact that many people dont show up to vote has nothing to do with how many are undecided.

3 Polling for election results(which was not even part of my topic) actually is rather sophisticated and acurrate anymore. The reason its so hard to predict results though is that the race is so close that the margin of difference is smaller than the margin or error.



I guess I was able to show that he was talking gibberish with out making a personal insult. Good for me :)