# That Darn Liberal Media! (Sinclair) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486 "2004-10-10T17:42:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/1 "2004-10-10T17:42:36Z")
(Haven’t seen a thread about this yet…) Sinclair Broadcasting, the same group that refused to air Nightline’s episode honoring those killed in Iraq, will have its stations pre-empt regular prime-time programming a few days before the election to air ''Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a smear film on Kerry’s war service and anti-war activities. [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/10/10/anti\_kerry\_film\_slated\_to\_air\_on\_eve\_of\_election/](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/10/10/anti_kerry_film_slated_to_air_on_eve_of_election/) How on Earth is this legal? TV stations can’t just donate two hours of prime-time for a “Vote Bush” commercial; how is this any different? Can you imagine the howling that would ensue if some public broadcaster tried to pass “Fahrenheit 9/11” off as “news” and do the same thing? ---
**Author:** ![Dignan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@Dignan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dignan)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/2 "2004-10-10T17:50:04Z")
Oh, come on, DoctorJ. This is just Sinclair’s attempt to balance the scales of the universe. The media is so far to the left, that it requires that, ahem, fair and balanced organizations like Sinclair show the American people The Truth that the _Libruuuls_ running the media won’t report. If you don’t believe me, then ask Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, they’ll tell you that this is necessary. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/3 "2004-10-10T17:55:11Z")
> [@DoctorJ](#): > > (Haven’t seen a thread about this yet…) > > Sinclair Broadcasting, the same group that refused to air Nightline’s episode honoring those killed in Iraq, will have its stations pre-empt regular prime-time programming a few days before the election to air ''Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a smear film on Kerry’s war service and anti-war activities. > > [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/10/10/anti\_kerry\_film\_slated\_to\_air\_on\_eve\_of\_election/](http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/10/10/anti_kerry_film_slated_to_air_on_eve_of_election/) > > How on Earth is this legal? TV stations can’t just donate two hours of prime-time for a “Vote Bush” commercial; how is this any different? > > Can you imagine the howling that would ensue if some public broadcaster tried to pass “Fahrenheit 9/11” off as “news” and do the same thing? it seems rather sleazy to me…but according to the L.A. Times… the show “will be followed by a panel discussion to which Kerry will be invited, potentially satisfying fairness regulations…” Interesting to see how this plays out, I’m pretty ignorant of FCC laws about this sort of thing. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/4 "2004-10-10T17:59:07Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > it seems rather sleazy to me…but according to the L.A. Times… > > the show “will be followed by a panel discussion to which Kerry will be invited, potentially satisfying fairness regulations…” > > Interesting to see how this plays out, I’m pretty ignorant of FCC laws about this sort of thing. Of course, if Kerry has something else to do _a week before the elections_, that’s just too bad for him. This is pretty revolting. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/5 "2004-10-10T18:14:40Z")
In other words, they’ll balance the slick 90-minute Swift Boat ad by asking Kerry to let some talking head spend a few minutes asking him why he hates America so much. “Oh, we invited Kerry,” they’ll say when he doesn’t show up. “But he clearly has no answers to the charges made in this film.” ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/6 "2004-10-10T18:20:07Z")
Like I said…I’m not real knowledgable about FCC rules & regs…I did find [this](http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm) link… > [@](#): > > The fairness doctrine remains just beneath the surface of concerns over broadcasting and cablecasting, and some members of congress continue to threaten to pass it into legislation. Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. \ > [@](#): > > By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. Until informed otherwise by legal folks here, I think Sinclair’s actions, while disappointing, remain legal. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/7 "2004-10-10T19:14:59Z")
I heard about this yesterday. Pretty shocking and cheeky of Sinclair Media to try this. It’s definitely not right. However, one of the first things I thought of when I heard the news was that [Michael Moore](http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-09-06) would like “9/11” to be shown on network TV before the election: > [@](#): > > Although I have no assurance from our home video distributor that they would allow a one-time television broadcast – and the chances are they probably won’t – I have decided it is more important to take that risk and hope against hope that I can persuade someone to put it on TV, even if it’s the night before the election. Of course, the difference with Moore is that he knows he probably won’t get 9/11 up on broadcast TV before the election, but he’s _trying_. So, what makes me curious is, would some here be outraged by Moore (as they are by Sinclair Media), were he to succeed in getting his movie aired before the election? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/8 "2004-10-10T19:30:53Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > So, what makes me curious is, would some here be outraged by Moore (as they are by Sinclair Media), were he to succeed in getting his movie aired before the election? I’d label it a bad idea, certainly. There is one key distinction, however. Moore’s film has already been seen by millions of people, and has been fact-checked to within an inch of its life. It may be inflammatory, and it may put a heavily partisan spin on the information it presents, but AFAIK it hasn’t been shown to be inaccurate. The Sinclair film, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity. If it’s simply another rehashing of the Swifties claims, there are already some serious concerns about accuracy (and please, let’s not start up with that debate all over again, here). But worse, if it’s a new round of Kerry-bashing claims, they’ll be trotted out when it’s too late for anyone to figure out whether they’re true or not. How would the right-wingers feel if someone, a few days before the election, put a film on a bunch of TV stations in swing states that claimed that Bush had been, oh, I don’t know, convicted of statutory rape when he was a young man, and that the conviction had been wiped off the records through his family’s money and influence? Complete with talking-head interviews with people who claim to have been involved in the whole sordid affair? ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/9 "2004-10-10T19:38:57Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > I’d label it a bad idea, certainly. There is one key distinction, however. Moore’s film has already been seen by millions of people, and has been fact-checked to within an inch of its life. It may be inflammatory, and it may put a heavily partisan spin on the information it presents, but AFAIK it hasn’t been shown to be inaccurate. I’m not going to get into that (I haven’t made a study of the overall opinions and claims of the actual accuracy of movie, though I have seen it). However, I would think that “bad idea” wouldn’t quite cover my feelings for putting an “inflammatory” and “heavily partisan” film on TV the night before the auction, claims of accuracy (in a highly inflammatory and heavily partisan way, of course) aside. I think it would be very bad pool. Same as if a heavily right-leaning (but still “accurate,” in an inflammatory and heavily partisan way) film were to air on TV the night before the election. > [@](#): > > How would the right-wingers feel if someone, a few days before the election, put a film on a bunch of TV stations in swing states that claimed that Bush had been, oh, I don’t know, convicted of statutory rape when he was a young man, and that the conviction had been wiped off the records through his family’s money and influence? Complete with talking-head interviews with people who claim to have been involved in the whole sordid affair? They’d hate it, of course, as the left-wingers will hate this move by Sinclair Media. It’s sleazy tactics. Beyond sleazy. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/10 "2004-10-10T19:45:11Z")
Since most of the claims of the Swifties have been proven false, for the most part, can’t Kerry sue them for defamation of character or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/11 "2004-10-10T19:50:14Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Since most of the claims of the Swifties have been proven false, for the most part, can’t Kerry sue them for defamation of character or something like that? Nah. Public figures are pretty much fair game under our standards for libel and slander. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/12 "2004-10-11T02:38:45Z")
> [@beagledave](#): > > the show “will be followed by a panel discussion to which Kerry will be invited, potentially satisfying fairness regulations…” Yeah, I can just imagine those discussion questions already. Will “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” be the first question, or the last? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/13 "2004-10-11T04:15:58Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > However, I would think that “bad idea” wouldn’t quite cover my feelings for putting an “inflammatory” and “heavily partisan” film on TV the night before the **auction.** Best typo EVER! ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/14 "2004-10-11T04:19:00Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > Nah. Public figures are pretty much fair game under our standards for libel and slander. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. They’re fair game for _satire_, but they have the same protections against slander and libel as any private citizen. There’s a list of celebrities who have succesfully sued the tabloids for libel that’s as long as my arm. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/15 "2004-10-11T05:32:48Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure that’s wrong. They’re fair game for _satire_, but they have the same protections against slander and libel as any private citizen. There’s a list of celebrities who have succesfully sued the tabloids for libel that’s as long as my arm. Not quite. Here’s [a fairly straightforward description of libel and slander law](http://www.expertlaw.com/library/pubarticles/Personal_Injury/defamation.html#3) - see especially the section on public figures. In short, a public figure has to prove an additional element of the alleged offense, “actual malice,” in order to prevail. In practice, that makes it a lot tougher to win the case. When it comes to the Swifties, a lot of the garbage they’ve poured out has been opinion, which, in the case of a public figure, is protected. If they said, “We think **Early Out** is a liar and a thief,” I could go after them. If they said the same thing about John Kerry, he’d have a tough time making his case. A lot of the lies the Swifties have told have been about themselves, of course, and that’s pretty tough for the law to deal with. Fraud, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/16 "2004-10-11T06:28:08Z")
> [@Dignan](#): > > Oh, come on, DoctorJ. This is just Sinclair’s attempt to balance the scales of the universe. The media is so far to the left, that it requires that, ahem, fair and balanced organizations like Sinclair show the American people The Truth that the _Libruuuls_ running the media won’t report. > > If you don’t believe me, then ask Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, they’ll tell you that this is necessary. Either I’ve been whooshed, or this just about the most ignorant caveman spew I’ve seen on these boards in a long time. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/17 "2004-10-11T06:36:51Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Either I’ve been whooshed, or this just about the most ignorant caveman spew I’ve seen on these boards in a long time. Methinks you need to get your sarcasm radar recalibrated. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/18 "2004-10-11T12:28:03Z")
Yep, this is more odoriferous politicizing by the Sinclair group. I’m not sure, though, that the actions of this outfit provide a basis for sweeping claims of the political leanings of American news media. > [@DoctorJ](#): > > Can you imagine the howling that would ensue if some public broadcaster tried to pass “Fahrenheit 9/11” off as “news” and do the same thing? Speaking of public broadcasting, there was an interesting story on NPR this morning on an issue that may have a bit of resonance for **DoctorJ** - the Bush campaign ads on medical malpractice reform. After expressing surprise that this was even a campaign issue\*, given that _x_ Americans don’t have health care insurance (nice bit of editorializing), the reporter went on to interview a spokesman from the Congressional Budget Office (traditionally a pro-Democratic source) and a former Clinton Administration official, both downplaying the significance of tort reform in holding down health care costs. Number of medical groups or doctors interviewed about loss of access to health care due to docs leaving places that are lawsuit magnets or quitting altogether - zero. Just another “balanced” NPR report. Sinclair’s greasy attempts to sway the electorate potentially affect listeners of about 50 TV stations, many of which are located in small to mid-markets with limited viewership (they tend to be way up the dial, i.e. channel 50). NPR has several times the number of affiliates and reaches a much greater share of the voting public. You can decide who has more influence. \*Obviously, Bush & friends are pushing this issue in part to take a whack at John Edwards, and in part to shore up support among traditionally GOP-supporting MDs. Doesn’t make malpractice tort reform a non-issue, though. ---
**Author:** ![Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19adc/32.png) [@Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/19 "2004-10-11T13:00:30Z")
Sinclair Broadcasting Group has 62 stations. And I believe Fahrenheit 911 will be available on pay-per-view on Nov. 1 or Oct. 31. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2004, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/20 "2004-10-11T13:44:32Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Sinclair’s greasy attempts to sway the electorate potentially affect listeners of about 50 TV stations, many of which are located in small to mid-markets with limited viewership (they tend to be way up the dial, i.e. channel 50). [One](http://www.wsyx6.com/) of these small to mid-mimarkets is Columbus, Ohio. A very important city in a crucial state. Sinclair owns ABC 6 and Fox 28. They did not show the Nightline broadcast. I do wonder when they would air it and on which of the stations. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486.md?page=2)