# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/41 "2004-10-12T03:57:04Z")
> [@Alien](#): > > Since noone else picks it up … My impression was that the impact of malpractice lawsuits on the cost of healthcare is very small, only about 1%. Cites? Not tonight. But that the problem isn’t the cases won in the courtroom, but a legal system allowing people to sue for virtually anything for free (just hire a lawyer for a piece of a potential pie). Defending myself against such a charge could cost six or seven figures even before the case appears before court, therefore it’s usually cheaper to settle the case early, even if there’s no blame to go around in the first place. True or false? From [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org): > [@http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html](#): > > Bush recycled his claim that lawsuits force physicians to practice “defensive medicine” that adds substantially to medical costs, and increases federal spending for health-care programs by $28 billion a year. We de-bunked that one back in January. > > As we said then, both the General Accounting Office (recently re-named the Government Accountability Office) and the Congressional Budget Office criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support for that claim. These nonpartisan agencies suggest savings from passage of limits on malpractice damages — if there are any savings at all – would be relatively small. > > Bush’s claim rests mainly on a single 1996 study by two Stanford economists who said caps on damage awards could hold down overall medical costs by 5% to 9%. They studied heart patients who were hospitalized, compared costs in states with and without limits on malpractice lawsuits, and then projected their findings to the entire health-care system. > > But both the GAO and the CBO questioned such a sweeping conclusion. When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” Of course, we know from **Jackmannii** that CBO (and GAO too?) have liberal biases, so I guess we can’t believe them. 😉 ---
**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 12, 2004, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/42 "2004-10-12T12:02:44Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > As for your complaints on NPR, you always bring up these anecdotal cases where we can’t even verify their accuracy, let alone decide how they fit in the larger context. Well, I can remember an NPR report when the one “expert” they consulted was from the Cato Institute. Cite? 😃 > [@](#): > > And, of course, we have FAIR which actually goes beyond anecdotes and gets hard numbers on who they cite. But, I guess you prefer anecdotes. No, I go by what I hear and see. I don’t depend on FAIR (talk about your group with an agenda) to do my thinking for me. Even if you want to claim it’s entirely hypothetical and I made the whole thing up, do you think it’s proper for a reporter to introduce a story about a campaign issue by sniffing that it shouldn’t be an issue at all? Do you believe in separation of reporting and editorializing? Incidentally, I agree that Sinclair is once again shooting itself in the foot with this planned “documentary”. Everyone (Ohio not the least) is sick to death of the Vietnam crap. Viewers will desert these stations in droves, leaving only the hard-core anti-Kerryites to whoop it up. Sinclair reaps another Nightline-style embarassment and opponents get a rallying point. The Sinclair ownership may be politically driven, but man are they _stupid_. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/43 "2004-10-12T13:24:15Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Hell, you’ve been commenting all along. Now you’re just squirming because you can’t defend the indefensible. Dear god, your reading comprehension truly _is_ that poor. Please point out to me where I commented on anything but your CBO contention? Move your lips while you read if that helps. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/44 "2004-10-12T14:06:37Z")
Here’s some info on the guy who is producing this “news piece”: > [@Disinfopedia](#): > > **Sherwood and the Moonies** > > Carlton Sherwood is well known for his purportedly independent investigation of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, Inquisition: The Persecution and Prosecution of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Sherwood concluded that Moon and his followers “were and continued to be the victims of the worst kind of religious prejudice and racial bigotry this country has witnessed in over a century.” Sherwood himself had previously worked for the Washington Times, owned by members of the Unification Church. > > In a story on this book, the PBS television series Frontline obtained a copy of a letter addressed to Moon. The letter was written by James Gavin, a Moon aide. Gavin tells Moon he reviewed the “overall tone and factual contents” of Inquisition before publication and suggested revisions. Gavin adds that the author “Mr. Sherwood has assured me that all this will be done when the manuscript is sent to the publisher.” Gavin concludes by telling Moon, “When all of our suggestions have been incorporated, the book will be complete and in my opinion will make a significant impact… In addition to silencing our critics now, the book should be invaluable in persuading others of our legitimacy for many years to come.”[1] > > **Military experience and Homeland Security work** > > Sherwood is a decorated Vietnam veteran who served as a Marine in Vietnam’s De-Militarized Zone.[2] Sherwood formerly worked for Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, whom George W. Bush later appointed as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. The Bush administration has selected Sherwood to create and manage a new federal website aimed at first responders (police officers, firefighters, etc.). While working as a Ridge administration official, Sherwood directed then-Gov. Ridge’s award-winning broadcast TV and radio operations in Harrisburg. > > Sherwood currently serves as Executive Vice President and Director of Communications of the WVC3 Group, Inc., an anti-terrorism, security firm headquartered in Reston, VA. [3] [4] By its own account, WVC3 is most likely benefitting from the ongoing ‘war on terror’. Its website describes the “fields of homeland security, domestic preparedness, and the global war on terror” as “burgeoning” [5]. Underlining is mine. Good to see the guys has no ties at all to Bush :dubious: ---
**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 12, 2004, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/45 "2004-10-12T14:41:36Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > Please point out to me where I commented on anything but your CBO contention? Yes, that’s precisely the point. I had faith that you’d eventually grasp it. Good show. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/46 "2004-10-12T14:46:52Z")
> [@me](#): > > Provide me with a link and I’ll take a listen. Otherwise, I can’t really comment on it. You’ve been around here long enough to know that most of us won’t accept a third party take on a report that we didn’t hear as fact. Especially when a certain amount of spin is interjected into the retelling. And this is why I wasn’t commenting on your other contention. Are you really that thick? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/47 "2004-10-12T14:47:36Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Cite? 😃 My point exactly. Such anecdotes aren’t really worth much. > [@](#): > > No, I go by what I hear and see. I don’t depend on FAIR (talk about your group with an agenda) to do my thinking for me. Well, we’ve been through this before. I don’t depend on FAIR to think for me but I do use them to provide **hard data**. Of course, they do have a bias, so one has to look at their methodology closely. But, for the most part, they don’t just relate anecdotes. You have a perfect right to go by what you hear and see. But, don’t expect us to treat your perceptions as anything more than what they deserve which is, I think frankly, very little. > [@](#): > > Even if you want to claim it’s entirely hypothetical and I made the whole thing up, do you think it’s proper for a reporter to introduce a story about a campaign issue by sniffing that it shouldn’t be an issue at all? Do you believe in separation of reporting and editorializing? I’d have to see the transcript / hear the segment. (You may be able to find the audio file online…I know you can get some NPR stuff, like Fresh Air audiofiles, online.) From your description, it sounds very strange to me. [And, no, I am not saying you “made the whole thing up”. But, in my experience, people are not always that accurate in relating something they heard.] ---
**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 12, 2004, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/48 "2004-10-12T15:25:24Z")
> [@Nurse](#): > > Provide me with a link and I’ll take a listen. Otherwise, I can’t really comment on it. You’ve been around here long enough to know that most of us won’t accept a third party take on a report that we didn’t hear as fact. Especially when a certain amount of spin is interjected into the retelling. > [@jshore](#): > > I’d have to see the transcript / hear the segment… in my experience, people are not always that accurate in relating something they heard.] It’s interesting that neither one of you appears to have the slightest problem with folks labeling the “Stolen Honor” program as a smear, lies etc., when no one apparently has seen it _or_ linked to a transcript of it. But when a Doper actually _has_ heard a news report that was biased, you are quick to suggest that the account is unreliable. The irony is so deep as to require waders. Blinded by partisan frenzy much? See, I think the Vietnam stuff that’s supposed to reflect so badly on Kerry is overwhelmingly a crock, and airing this kind of thing so soon before the election is pretty transparently a last-minute desperate attempt at electioneering rather than informing. I am also under no illusion about the agenda of left-leaning news organizations that carry far more influence than Sinclair. Sinclair’s foibles prove that it is run by a right-wing dunce(s), and do not “prove” anything about news media biases in general. Even for those who love anecdotes. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/49 "2004-10-12T16:59:22Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > It’s interesting that neither one of you appears to have the slightest problem with folks labeling the “Stolen Honor” program as a smear, lies etc., when no one apparently has seen it _or_ linked to a transcript of it. Thank you for assuming that I am an uninformed dolt. I _did_ go out and look into [SH](http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/background.asp), researched some of their [claims](http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html), looked into some of their questionable [associations](http://www.stolenhonor.com/news/index.asp)with groups that I have come to the conclusion are baseless, and have seen no reason to rush to the film’s defense. On the other hand. The NPR claim that you made doesn’t offer any amount of compelling evidence that I can research one way or the other. In fact, the only evidence I can find that the report even existed, can be found [here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5358531#post5358531) So you’ll pardon me if I take vast left or right wing conspiracies on a case by case basis. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/50 "2004-10-12T17:23:00Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > The work on a rigid cost/benefit basis which says that it’s better for their bottom line in the long run to pay people to go away. The upside of this is that malpractice insurance costs are KILLING docs in a lot of specialties. For a Pediatrician, say, it’s not bad - $8-10K/ year for malpractice insurance. For an OB/Gyn it’s insane - here in Maryland their insurance costs _start_ at $150K/year and go up from there. (These are real numbers from family members in the medical profession) Las Vegas curently has only 78 OB/Gyns to cover a city of half a million people. (This cite is from memory of an article I was reading last week, I have not been able to locate it, so if I am remembering wrong and someone has more correct figures, please post them) Now do you see why Tort Reform is a pretty important issue? You are making the assumption here that the high malpractice insurance costs are primarily due to the lawsuits and that tort reform will lower these costs. It is not clear to me that either of these two are borne out by the facts. [Here](http://www.insurance-reform.org/) is an organization that argues a different point-of-view, namely that the rates seem most strongly correlated with the market…i.e., how well or poorly the insurance companies are doing on their investments. I am not claiming this point of view is completely correct…There are enough characters with high stakes here including insurance company executives, trial lawyers, and doctors that one has to be very careful in ascertaining the truth. But, this point-of-view seems to be one that many seem to be largely ignorant of, perhaps [because of the way that the “liberal media” has covered this issue](http://www.fair.org/extra/0404/newsweek-lawsuit.html). (See also [here](http://www.fair.org/activism/usnews.html).) > [@Jackmannii](#): > > But when a Doper actually has heard a news report that was biased, you are quick to suggest that the account is unreliable. If you are too freakin’ lazy to look it up yourself, could you at least say when you heard it and on what program and anything else that might provide enough context for us to look it up? I apologize for not taking your interpretation of what you heard on the radio as received wisdom. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/51 "2004-10-12T17:38:03Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > namely that the rates seem most strongly correlated with the market Realized this might be unclear…I mean “stock market” not “insurance market”. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/52 "2004-10-12T18:31:48Z")
jshore, I apreciate that the issue is multi-fascited, but the links you posted are not exactly what I would call unbiased, their claims to the conrary notwithstanding. AIR is a component of the CJD (Center for Justice and Democracy), a left wing think tank orininally funded by Michael Moore! Their websites are also loaded with anti-corporate glurge. Methinks there is a slant to their reporting. (Although, as I said, all sides of an issue must be pondered before reaching a conclusion) ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/53 "2004-10-12T18:58:45Z")
The more I look into this, the more I am convinced: it is the duty of the media not just to show _F9/11_, but to counterprogam _Betrayal_l with _F9/11._ ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/54 "2004-10-12T19:12:07Z")
My $.02 on this subject: Sinclair should not be doing this. It makes them look partisan (which they probably are). It isn’t fair to both candidates (which news organizations should try to be). It will ultimately end up costing Bush votes IMO, because of the backlash that results from it. However, it’s not the place of the government to limit what they choose to broadcast. They can turn every channel they own into a 24 hour Kerry bashing network for all I care. People are free to watch or not to watch. The first ammendment is meant to prevent the government from telling anyone what they can or cannot say. This is especially true regarding political speech such as this. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/55 "2004-10-12T20:33:45Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > Sinclair should not be doing this. … It will ultimately end up costing Bush votes IMO, because of the backlash that results from it. Full speed ahead! All _Stolen Honor_ all the time! 🙂 ---
**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 12, 2004, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/56 "2004-10-12T20:36:17Z")
Morning Edition 10/11, babe. **Nurse’s** rendition of “looking into” the scheduled Sinclair program would be more impressive if his/her links amounted to an actual analysis of what the program comprises, instead of just a brief intro on the SH site and some recycled Swift Boat-related glop. It’s reminiscent of those folks who clicked on a couple of Internet sites and were _sure_ that Fahrenheit 9/11 was just propaganda and that they knew _everything_ they needed to know about it. ---
**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 12, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/57 "2004-10-12T20:38:45Z")
I was first addressing the painstaking **jshore** , of course. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/58 "2004-10-12T23:19:21Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > I apreciate that the issue is multi-fascited, but the links you posted are not exactly what I would call unbiased, their claims to the conrary notwithstanding. AIR is a component of the CJD (Center for Justice and Democracy), a left wing think tank orininally funded by Michael Moore! Their websites are also loaded with anti-corporate glurge. Methinks there is a slant to their reporting. (Although, as I said, all sides of an issue must be pondered before reaching a conclusion) Yes, I know they have a bias. I noted that, did I not? > [@jshore](#): > > I am not claiming this point of view is completely correct…There are enough characters with high stakes here including insurance company executives, trial lawyers, and doctors that one has to be very careful in ascertaining the truth. But, this point-of-view seems to be one that many seem to be largely ignorant of, perhaps because of the way that the “liberal media” has covered this issue. (See also here.) And, I am glad you now agree with my point that all points-of-view need to be considered since your original post just assumed one point-of-view was correct without really providing evidence of that. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/59 "2004-10-12T23:38:30Z")
Free speech for me, but not for thee! The new slogan of the Democratic Party? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486/60 "2004-10-12T23:45:56Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Morning Edition 10/11, babe. Well, [here](http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=11-Oct-2004&prgId=3) it is. You’ll find the relevant segment about 1/3 of the way down the page: “Bush Campaign Focuses on Malpractice Reform”. I’ve listened to it 3 times now and I don’t see it quite the way that you do. I guess I’d have to investigate the issue a little more before I decided how it fits in with the larger picture. But, look, first of all, while it doesn’t interview doctors about moving or quitting, it does say that this has happened in some places. Second, the story chose to interview two middle-of-the-road sources. CBO, contrary to your claims, is certainly generally considered a middle-of-the-road source. And, the other guy, who is a former Clinton official, is someone who subscribes to the view that capping damages will in fact lower malpractice premiums although he argues it will not make a big dent in medical costs. I suppose they could have interviewed people who think that defensive medicine causes much higher costs, but on the other side, they also could have interviewed people who argue that the high premiums have more to do with bad investment decisions by the insurance companies and that the correlation between premiums and what sort of law states have capping jury awards doesn’t seem to be very high. (I seem to recall that one of these anti-tort-reform sites likes to quote some insurance industry official who even said that they don’t necessarily promise any sort of reduction in premiums will occur if we have such tort reform.) > [@mks57](#): > > Free speech for me, but not for thee! > > The new slogan of the Democratic Party? The Democratic party (or many in it) have long argued that the airwaves are a public resource and that free speech does not simply mean that the person with the most money gets to drown out everyone else. It means structuring the laws so that the public gets a diversity of viewpoints. Of course, it is to the benefit of the party that caters its economic policies exclusively to the wealthy (as opposed to the party that caters them to the wealthy a lot but not exclusively) to have things structured so that economic power translates into a political monopoly. And, I can thus understand why some (although fortunately not all) Republicans want it to be this way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/that-darn-liberal-media-sinclair/268486.md?page=4)