I’m a Bush supporter and I think this is a mistake. It crosses the line. How does Sinclair expect to be taken seriously on political reporting now? Even if the individual station or reporter is exactingly fair, there will still be the stink of partisanship and corporate influence whether it is there or not.
For the record, I find it difficult to find CBS and ABC credible either after the forged document and political director memo…but Sinclair has done them one better.
I used to work in TV news, as many of you may know from reading some of my other posts…and I’ve never seen anything even close to this behind the scenes.
I think this is the beginning of a slippery slope in which previously self-professed objective news sources become more obviously partisan in an attempt to gain viewer loyalty…and the dollars than come with it.
I expect whoever made this decision at Sinclair is going to be unpleasantly surprised. The Swiftvets have already made their case that there was something shameful and treacherous about the moral courage Kerry showed in testifying to Congress in 1971. Everybody who might be swayed by that argument has already heard it. The airing of this film will, I think, be perceived as overkill, and will alienate more potential Bush voters than it will attract. It will also heighten public awareness of the power of the corporate-controlled media and provoke a backlash against it . . . Yeah! Yeah, go ahead, Sinclair! Air the film!
So when are they going to do it? You’re going to lose this whole week to Monday night football fans and/or baseball fans- you’ve also got the last debate this week. Next week you might get lucky if baseball LCS get done, if not then you lose a big market share. Then the World Series comes in, and Halloween. So about all that’s left is the night before election? And I dare say that the only people who would watch this are already not going to vote for Kerry. If I’m Kerry, I demand to buy time on Sinclair stations and preempt their own preemption. That’s if the FCC allows this blatant smear campaign.
I think the shareholds of Sinclair are going to be upset. They may want Bush to win, but they’d have to agree that sacrificing an hour of prime time programming and the ad revenues for a political agenda is stupid.
Those stations in Florida have already lost a lot of ad revenue because of huricane preemption.
I’m not an expert in prime time television, but looking at ABC’s schedule, I’m going to guess this will probably end up on a Friday or Saturday night. I picked ABC because that is where it would likely end up in the Columbus, OH marketplace. Sinclair also owns a Fox station here, but I doubt it would air on Fox due to Fox’s baseball playoff coverage.
Something tells me those at home watching network TV are not going to be interesting in yet more political mudslinging. Especially over someone’s conduct during the Vietnam war 30 years ago.
No. A local station can pre-empt network programming. In fact, a lot of stations have a certain allowable amount of prime time pre-emptions built ito their contracts.
Of course if a network doesn’t like what an affiliate does, it can look for another affiliate when the contract expires.
True. But there aren’t exactly a lot of unaffiliated TV stations in a given market at any time. There aren’t a lot of TV stations in a given market, period.
There also is the possibility that a boycott of Sinclair’s advertisers is threatened, and the advertisers put pressure on Sinclair. It’s not wise to piss off 40-50% of the purchasing public.
They are alienating nearly half of their viewing audience and giving away the credibility of their news departments. Bush is going to win without this effort from them. I don’t see any upside whatsoever for them doing it.
Carlton Sherwood, eh? The same fellow who created the hard-hitting expose of the Rev. Moon? Titled Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon.. Is that the fellow? Is it the same fellow who started up a security outfit, and was awarded a security contract for the Baghdad Airport, based on an experience and expertise level of zilch?
And are there two Pulitzer Prizes? I"m familiar with the one named for Joseph Pulizer, but there is no mention of Mr. Sherwood there.
The George Foster Peabody Awards were first awarded in 1941 for radio programs broadcast in 1940. The awards, long considered among the most prestigious prizes in electronic media, recognize distinguished achievement and meritorious service by radio and television networks, stations, producing organizations, cable television organizations and individuals. Though there is no set number of awards, no more than 36 have ever been presented in a single year. This free downloadable Winners Book lists all recipients of the George Foster Peabody Award by date.
These are sad a nd terrible oversights on the part of the Peabody and Pulitzer organizations. Mr. Sherwood must be very distraught.
