Sinclair media (and similar) and FCC, FCC

[jeff]

From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, contending that Sinclair Broadcast Group wants to help President Bush by airing an anti-Kerry documentary two weeks before the election, wants each station carrying the program to provide a similar amount of time to Kerry supporters.

Sinclair has contended that the program is news, covering an issue of interest and importance to viewers, and has invited Kerry to appear on a post-broadcast program. Kerry has declined.

Sinclair, based near Baltimore, has asked its 62 television stations to pre-empt regular programming to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal." Many of the stations are in swing states that could decide the outcome of the Nov. 2 election.

In addition to this, Sinclair fired its bureau chief, who criticized their plan. See: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...ilm%20Reporter

Given this (and let's not restrict ourselves to this one instance), and considering how the number of corporations owning media outlets has declined (see: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/major_media.htm )

- Should the FCC or FEC demand "equal time"? (Remember that the rules are different for broadcasters than print media and from movies played in theatres)
- Is this news or advertisement?
- Should this be viewed as an illegal campaign contribution?
- Does the fired bureau chief have grounds for a wrongful-firing suit?
- Is the number of companies owning media outlets a problem?

Have at it...

[noodle]

i hate political commercials.
imho, fcc should ban them all.

i'd much rather see a color safe bleach commercial or one with teh snuggle bear.

[esskreemr]

Don't forget that Sinclair group refused to allow Ted Koppel to read on air, the names of soldiers killed in Iraq. Their stated reason was that " the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda".

[achilleus]

- Should the FCC or FEC demand "equal time"? (Remember that the rules are different for broadcasters than print media and from movies played in theatres)

It depends on what the rules are, and how far their power extends.

- Is this news or advertisement?

It's not news, any more than F 9/11 was news. It's dangerously close to a paid ad. Although, then one could use that as a starting point and say things like the whole FOX news network was a paid ad.

Which it's not. It's just poor, biased journalism.

- Should this be viewed as an illegal campaign contribution?

Yes.

- Does the fired bureau chief have grounds for a wrongful-firing suit?

Yes.

- Is the number of companies owning media outlets a problem?

Yes.

[esskreemr]

It's not news, any more than F 9/11 was news. It's dangerously close to a paid ad. Although, then one could use that as a starting point and say things like the whole FOX news network was a paid ad.

Which it's not. It's just poor, biased journalism.

A VERY important distinction between F9/11 and "Stolen Honor" is that Michael Moore does not control the channels of distribution and actually had to fight to get the movie played at all. He followed the channels, the movie was a box office hit.

The other problem is that even with the Boycotts being threatened, the hype is likely to prop up the numbers, just like it did with F9/11.

As for the content... Kerry did say some incendiary things post Vietnam when he was a teenager. It's the chain of events concerning the honors and medals that were conferred that are being maligned. The only "supporting" evidence are the shakey and questionable, in some cases outright fraudulent testimony of a few swift boat vets that may or may not have even met Kerry before they went on air. More than one has recanted his story.

[achilleus]

Very, very true. I would also point out that Michael Moore made no secret of the point of his film. He didn't pass it off as news.

And as noted in the original post, movies have different rules than TV.

[S. Hunter]

The FCC should not be involved. If they want to use their time for political messages, let the market decide. Same thing goes for gourps like MoveOn, if they can buy time, Free market. I don't buy this crap that the government owns the airwaves because the people own them and the government owns what the people do.

[Maeve_Mari]

The FCC should not be involved. If they want to use their time for political messages, let the market decide. Same thing goes for gourps like MoveOn, if they can buy time, Free market. I don't buy this crap that the government owns the airwaves because the people own them and the government owns what the people do.

Sorry, but that's not how the use of public airwaves are regulated.
And the government doesn't own them, they regulate them. And why do they regulate them? So that all of the networks aren't owned by rich conservative republicans (or other acquisitive groups) and prevent true information from being disseminated to the people of the land.

[S. Hunter]

Sorry, but that's not how the use of public airwaves are regulated.
And the government doesn't own them, they regulate them. And why do they regulate them? So that all of the networks aren't owned by rich conservative republicans (or other acquisitive groups) and prevent true information from being disseminated to the people of the land.

The government has to purpose in choosing what is truth and what isn't. They don't even regulate the truth,they regulate it in such a manner that both sides get even spin time. Is that fair? No. Would regulating 'truth' be fare? No, and it would be impossible. Regulation lets the government think for the people, and when the people aren't able to choose their own access to truth, it does exactly what you claim regulation prevents.

[S. Hunter]

Oh yes, and regulating ownership does nothing. Company's can internally change and as such regulating the buying and selling really doesn't effect the balance of things.

[Philistine]

Sinclair stock has lost about 15% since they made this announcement.

A number of lawsuits are either begun or planned in the next few days.

--Philistine

[S. Hunter]

People should have just paid off another station to air the same kinda thing about Bush. What ever happened to free speech? (Alright, Commercial speech, but speech is speech)

[esskreemr]

People should have just paid off another station to air the same kinda thing about Bush. What ever happened to free speech? (Alright, Commercial speech, but speech is speech)

So, basically, I should be able to buy several transmitters, set up in Sinclair's viewing area, and start broadcasting on the same frequency...

[S. Hunter]

Eskreemer: Thats sabatoge :-D When I talk about government regulation, I mean of content. Not of blatant hijacking of a frequency.

[jeff]

First, an apology for a mistake: the thread title should have FCC and FEC (Federal Election Commission), not FCC twice. Sorry.

To the above posts: as Maeve_Mari says, the airwaves are a publicly owned asset, and there is a public interest in fairness (and supposedly public service). To that point, there are rules related to content that are subject to regulation/

[Rogue]

Very, very true. I would also point out that Michael Moore made no secret of the point of his film. He didn't pass it off as news.

Yes, his was a documentary. ( see definition for documentary )

[S. Hunter]

To the above posts: as Maeve_Mari says, the airwaves are a publicly owned asset, and there is a public interest in fairness (and supposedly public service). To that point, there are rules related to content that are subject to regulation/

Equal spin != Fairness! If it were REAL fairness, maybe I wouldn't mind so much, but if you just have two sides spinning, and allowing them each equal time to do so, then its no better than an unregulated media.

[esskreemr]

Eskreemer: Thats sabatoge :-D When I talk about government regulation, I mean of content. Not of blatant hijacking of a frequency.

Sabatoge? Why? Does Sinclair own the frequency? If so, why? Are they assigned the frequency by someone? Are there considerations that have been contracted when the frequency is assigned? Can I just broadcast 24 hours of porn? How about F 9/11, "House of Bush, House of Saud" 24/7?

Does freedom of speech have no conceptual boundaries? What are those boundaries? What are the actual boundaries?

[jeff]

Equal spin != Fairness! If it were REAL fairness, maybe I wouldn't mind so much, but if you just have two sides spinning, and allowing them each equal time to do so, then its no better than an unregulated media.

Of course it's fair - if may not be accurate or nice, it may be ugly and nasty, but the cornerstone of "fair" is "equal access", not "honesty". The benefit of giving more than one side access to the population (over the asset that belongs to it) is that more than one side gets a chance to have its side heard and to point out falsehoods from their opponents. If there's a monopoly on access, owned by only one viewpoint, then we have unfairness. Without an omniscient and impartial judge to say what is true and what is false - and impossibility - that's as close as we can get to a system in which honest fairness is achieved. Or do you have an alternative proposal? If so, let's hear it.

[S. Hunter]

Of course it's fair - if may not be accurate or nice, it may be ugly and nasty, but the cornerstone of "fair" is "equal access", not "honesty". The benefit of giving more than one side access to the population (over the asset that belongs to it) is that more than one side gets a chance to have its side heard and to point out falsehoods from their opponents. If there's a monopoly on access, owned by only one viewpoint, then we have unfairness. Without an omniscient and impartial judge to say what is true and what is false - and impossibility - that's as close as we can get to a system in which honest fairness is achieved. Or do you have an alternative proposal? If so, let's hear it.

You talk of a monopoly of ideas, but there is an oligopoly. Two major viewpoints are the only ones represented in any time. If we are going to have equal access, then it should be enforced for ALL viewpoints. What we do now is the selective enforcement of the most popular viewpoints. Hardly fair or impartial.