Sinclair Fires Journalist

[J. J.]

So who controls media, the owners or the employees?

The owners.  Opebo, that is why they are called owners.

[J. J.]

So who controls media, the owners or the employees?

The owners.  Opebo, that is why they are called owners.

Exactly. Which is why the fact that the employees are liberal is irrelevant; the owners are conservative.

Precisely so.  Some people are so literal-minded on here - you have to spell it out for them. 

I'll certainly agree that the owners of this relatively small group of stations are.  This doesn't qualify as the entire media.  It doesn't even own a station in my market.

[J. J.]

I'll certainly agree that the owners of this relatively small group of stations are.  This doesn't qualify as the entire media.  It doesn't even own a station in my market.

Do you know what percent of US households are covered by Sinclair stations?

No, but I do Sinclair owns slightly less than 7% of all commercial stations in the US and that the bulk of the stations it owns are not affiliated with the any of the three major, and higher rated, networks. 

You seem to be attempting to make two two points:

1.  The owners of media are not liberal.  You've demonstrated that 7% are not.  The other 93+% may opr may not be.

2.  That a lot of households could gain access to the broadcast.  The question is, are they likely to gain this access?  Will Sinclair's ratings go up?  My answer is, probably not.

[J. J.]

I think the two points were:

1)  It is the owner, not the employee journalist, who determines the political bias and campaign efforts of a media institution.

2)  While it is possible that not all owners are pro-Bush,  certainly a lot bigger percentage of owners are for Bush than journalists.

I believe I said that the other owners may or may not be Bush supporters.  We really can't tell from the actions of one corporation.

I've also pointed out that the viewership of this program is likely to be very low.

You'll also notice that I have not used the term "liberal media."  You are stereotyping, again.

[J. J.]

The protestors were required to get a permit to protest on private property.  WHen they filled out the forms the entered the wrong address.  The police turned them away from teh station and made them go to the address they had listed. 

Did they have to move to the left.  :-)

[J. J.]

You can't have 100,000 people trying to broadcast to the same channel. So it's a regulated "trade."

The Congress's power to regulate interstate free trade shouldn't be seen as the power to censor.

Hah, then why can't I see porn on TV?

The public airwaves are effectively leased to the broadcasters and the FCC has had a longstanding record of not censoring political speech.  In 1976, for example, Barry Commoner, the Consumer Party candidate, ran television ads with the word "bull****" in it. 

It was felt that the government should not be censoring political speech, even if this was in questionable taste.

In this case, this is a news show about a subject raised publically.  I am not claiming that it isn't biased, but it still is a "documentary."

I find it interesting that the "liberals" on this sight favor censoring a documentary with political overtones.  They like porn, but they don't like information.

[J. J.]

Quoted from Sinclair by Time Magazine:

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




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

And?

[J. J.]

You don't have a problem with that extreme bias?

I wouldn't call it extreme bias, especially since Kerry was offered a chance to appear (and Bush wasn't).  The Sinclair Group even has Kerry's DC headquarter's number on their website and encourges people to call and ask him to appear.

I certainly would question the news value of reading the names on Nightline, as a number of people did at the time.  Are you claiming that Nightline is bias?  If so, and if this documentary is bais in the opposite direction, perhaps Nightline should run this as a segment, just to balance this out? 

I would certainly argue that the presonal history that a presidential candidate has brought out in his acceptance speech is fair game for a documentary; I'm sure you will agree with that point. 

Now, whether or not this documentary is accurate, I can't tell.  I have not seen it, don't find it really relevant to how Kerry would perform as president, and wouldn't plan to watch it if it was availible in my area.  I would say that it is at least as "newsworthy" as the Nightline episode.  I certainly defend the owners right to show it.

[J. J.]

I will add that Sinclair is not running the entire documentary.

[J. J.]

I depend their right to run it, or not.  Just as I dended Nightline's right to read the names.

They are running a news program on it.

[J. J.]

I depend their right to run it, or not.  Just as I dended Nightline's right to read the names.

They are running a news program on it.

They are running a news program, but this partisan hack job is not news.

Sinclair Broadcasting are greedy owards who have no spine.  They caved into the pressure because the boycott hit them where they live.  Like most Republicans, they worship the almightly dollar.  That is how we always control the greed mongers.  We use the old dollar collar and lead them around like the obedient dogs they are for us.

We use their capitalist game against them.  It sure worked for Michael Moore; now he has $220,000,000.00 to use to promote his liberal agenda.  Is this a great country or what?

BTW, I would not recommend "depending" on a shady, partisan media company with a declining market value...

freedomburns

Typo, I defend there right to run, or not to run a news program, just like I defend Nightline's decision to run the names. 

I also defend the market's ability to determine what runs.  There is nothing wrong with the viewing public saying, "I'm not going to watch the show, if you air it."  I've already said that if it would run in my area, I probably would not watch it and I've raised questions as to if it would be profitable.

[J. J.]

It is extreme bias.  Yes Sinclair asked Kerry if he would appear, but that would be like setting a trap.  These are HARD CORE right wing nuts that own & control the station.  It would be something along the lines of if Air America was a televison network aired "Farenheit 911" and asked Bush to respond after with questions being asked by Al Franken and Randi Rhodes

Hey, I already said, on political grounds, that I would not object if a network would run "Farenheit 911."  It's up to the broadcasters, and Michael Moore.