Here’re the 2004 winners not included in the winners book.
63rd Annual Peabody Awards Winners
March 31, 2004
I encourage concerned citizens to write and call and express you outrage that Mr. Sherwood’s name was indavertently left off of the Peabody winners lists.
Contact: Eric Holder, Peabody Awards Public Relations,
706-542-8983 or 706-255-6437, eholder@uga.edu
According to Disinfopedia
If you don’t believe that, I’m sure that Mr. Sherwood has X-Rays of the shrapnel in his butt which prove he was under fire that day. 
I’ve written to Mr. Holden at UGA. Hopefully he’ll be able to shed some light on the absence of Mr. Sherwood’s name on the lists of Peabody award winners.
From Squink’s cite:
OK. So as one of my workmates, I believe, has worked with the UNHCR, she is able to claim to have won a Nobel Peace Prize?
Dear Mr. Moon:
Carlton Sherwood was a member of a team whose work was awarded the
1980 Pulitzer Prize in Public Service.
The Public Service prize differs from the other 13 journalism prizes
in that it is always awarded to a newspaper (or news service) rather
than an individual. The 1980 Public Service prize was awarded to
Gannett News Service, and Mr. Sherwood and two other reporters were
named in the press release as authors of the prizewinning work.
Sincerely,
Claudia Weissberg
Claudia Stone Weissberg
Website Manager
The Pulitzer Prizes
709 Journalism
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027 USA
212-854-3841
Mr. Sherwood’s Peabody was for this:
Year: 1982
Title: Oklahoma Shame
Producing Organization(s): KOCO-TV
City/State: Oklahoma City Oklahoma
A unique cooperative effort between print and broadcast journalists in Oklahoma brought to light a shocking and sordid story of abuses, neglect, and questionable deaths in homes for the mentally retarded in that state operated by the Department of Human Services. The resulting on-the-air reports were not pretty, were not entertaining, and were not designed to be taken lightly by viewers. The reports were thorough, well-documented, and powerful in their impact. Ultimately, key resignations followed and a long process toward rectifying some of the abuses of the past was begun. For undertaking a tough task which resulted in important and tangible results, a Peabody Award to KOCO-TV, Oklahoma City for “Oklahoma Shame.”Sorry luci.
Better luck next time.
Well, it seems that *they * aren’t so sure Bush is going to win without this effort from them. (Otherwise they wouldn’t do it, right?)
So, in a sense, this is good news for Kerry because it means he has a real chance of winning.
I have already contacted several advertisers on Sinclair Broadcasting Group to express my feelings on this. There is a database of advertisers that can be found here:
http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx
One might also contact any SBG stations in their local market to tell their sales manager that they are going to get in touch with their local advertisers.
Bah! If Bush ran an obstacle course against Helen Keller, he’d still send Karl Rove out to break her knees.
What Republican hypocrisy. CBS planned to show a movie that didn’t gush over St. Reagan- pressure the advertisers and get CBS to dump off to Showtime. And that show had no potential impact on any election. Yet somehow it’s OK for a patently partisan schlockumentary to air right before an election.
Though I agree this is a bad idea and likely to backfire on Sinclair, I do think your title is very misleading. This is a private company deciding to broadcast a show on their own stations. Nothing is being mandated. If ABC made them do it then you can say ABC mandates film be shown by affiliates. I know, its a nitpick.
We may not get to see that show here. Sinclair doesn’t have any stations in Chicago. Of course, somebody else may elect to run it.
And it’s a bad nitpick. From the article referenced in the OP:
Emphasis added.
It was an “an authoritative command or instruction” from the parent company to the general managers of their stations.
Sinclair Ventures, Inc. (wholly owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.) is a primary investor in Jadoo Power Systems, Inc., a company that was “Awarded Military Development Contract by US Special Operations Command” on September 28, 2004.
This stinks. I’m not surprised.
Regarding CBS, while they were wrong to show the documents (where did they come from? I hope we find out), the CONTENTS of the documents are true, as confirmed by Killian’s secretary, even if those specific papers are faked. People forget that thanks to the Republican Noise Machine that insists the entire story be tainted and thrown out because one part of it has questions surrounding it.
Regarding ABC, as Mr2001 said they’re “the people who dare to consider the possibility that one candidate’s campaigning might be more or less truthful than the other’s.” Good for them and it’s about time someone said it.
Yes but they own all the stations. The word mandate implies they are imposing their will on unwilling stations. The stations have no free will they are part of the same entity. “Sinclair Broadcasting to air Anti-Kerry film” would get the point across without the misleading word.
Mandate is a perfectly appropriate word. Are you trying to say that this is not an “authoratative command”? Are you saying that Sinclair is not going “to make mandatory : ORDER; also : DIRECT, REQUIRE” (from m-w-.com)?
The fact that they have the right to mandate something to the stations they own doesn’t change the appropriateness of the term.
Also, I don’t agree with your presumption that they are not imposing their will on unwilling stations. These stations certainly have some sort of autonomy, and I expect that at least a few are against airing the show or being forced to air it at a certain date and time.
Sure if you want to say they are ordering themselves as a corporate entity to do something. That is like saying “Loach mandates he write this post”. I’m not really ordering myself to reply I am just doing it. Of course there are some people at the stations who won’t like it. However, all the stations are part of a private company. They are the company and as such have no free will other than what the head office says. By definition the title may be correct but the connotation is that someone is being forced to run the program. That is not the case.
So, this is a documentary, right? Like that other ‘documentary,’ “Farenheit 9/11?”
Sounds like whining to me. Shouldn’t this be in the Pit?
Fahrenheit 9/11 has not been shown over the public airwaves, and does not violate federal election laws.
This story is getting bigger:
Apparently the swiftie 527 is allowing Sinclair to air the program for free, and Sinclair is not charging the swifties to show it. What’s the legal deal on nonprofit groups, or individuals for that matter, gifting a for profit corporation with valuable goods like this? I seem to recall that the Chicago Reader had objections to Dopers offering to supply them with a free server. How does the Sinclair situation differ from that?