Whataburger Responds Quickly!

I got an email back today explaining that Whataburger had, in fact, pulled their ads from Sinclair.  This is very encouraging news!  Whataburger expressed real concern about the possibility that Sinclair may have violated FCC regulations as well as basic principles of journalistic integrity and ethics.  They are awaiting a response from Sinclair- one that will rectify this situation.

Keri B. Kinsey

Sinclair

Earlier this month the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which owns 62 stations in 39 markets and has an audience comprised of about a quarter of the American public, announced that just before the election it will order its affiliates to air a program about Senator John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism. The so-called documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," is highly critical of Kerry and includes charges that his 1971 comments about atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam directly led to the further torture of U.S. prisoners of war at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Directed by Carlton Sherwood, a former aide to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, the film includes interviews with a number of former POWs who claim that Kerry's televised Senate testimony had the effect of prolonging their captivity. Sinclair has ordered that its stations preempt an hour of regular primetime programming for the special less than two weeks before Election Day.
    With a closer analysis, anyone with just a hint of olfactory function can understand that this stinks. First, and perhaps most importantly, four brothers who have donated $121,000 to Bush and the Republican Party in the past five years own Sinclair, whose stations are notorious for their right-wing stance. For example, the company pre-empted the April "Nightline" program on which Ted Koppel read the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, denouncing it as "unpatriotic." What makes the airing of the anti-Kerry program so problematic is that it is being advertised as news and not opinion. In a free society we are all entitled to our views, but when such beliefs are touted as journalism and not commentary the public is put at risk. According to American University communications professor Jane Hall, "People in the news business are supposed to present both sides of the story. They are not supposed to have an agenda." There is no doubt that Sinclair has an agenda, and that agenda includes ensuring Bush's re-election.
    Speaking of presenting both sides of the story, I agree with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that this action is a clear violation of federal election laws related to equal time. In a letter to Sinclair's President and CEO David Smith, the Kerry campaign notes that according to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines, "a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate's campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate `quasi-equal opportunities." The letter goes on to make the important point that the public airwaves, which belong in essence to the people, should not be employed to support one candidate over another. Sinclair's argument that this is a free speech issue falls short because they claim the film is fact and not opinion. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and a company that owned so many stations ordered the showing of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" just before the election and claimed it was news?
    In response to Sinclair's decision, the DNC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) and over one hundred Democratic members of Congress requested that the FCC examine the matter. FCC chairman Michael Powell responded by saying, "Don't look to us to block the airing of a program." Apparently the chairman is too busy worrying about any future wardrobe malfunctions to find the time to investigate.
Incidentally, under Powell's leadership, the FCC in 2003 voted to change several of its media ownership rules, including those limiting the number of TV stations one corporation can own and banning the cross-ownership of a TV station and newspaper in the same market. According to Freepress.net, "Such media concentration not only violates the premise of a competitive marketplace, but it makes a mockery of the notion of a free press enshrined in the Constitution." The current controversy involving Sinclair could not provide a clearer illustration of why many have spoken out vehemently against the FCC's revisions and why a federal appeals court recently overturned several of the rule changes and sent them back to the FCC for revision. The idea that one company can own such a large number of media outlets is not only harmful to the consumer in terms of limiting competition, it also brings up the issue of how such a company could use its stations to influence public opinion. Allowing companies with clear political agendas, either left or right leaning, to control a vast number of media outlets is a disservice to the American people and should be viewed with skepticism by all who seek a society in which diverse opinions are encouraged.
    It should be noted that not all the executives at Sinclair saw eye to eye about the airing of "Stolen Honor." The company's Washington bureau chief for its news division spoke out angrily in opposition to the decision to show the program. Jon Lieberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter, said of the film, "It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway the election. For me, it's not about right or left - it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election." Not surprisingly, Lieberman was promptly fired for his courageous and honest comments.  
    Throughout America, there are countless organizations with clear political agendas. Many of these have invested a great deal of money and effort into advancing their causes, including supporting a particular candidate. This is exactly how it should be in a nation that so values freedom of speech and opinion. However, the use of the public airwaves under the guise of fair and balanced journalism, such as that planned by Sinclair, sets a dangerous precedent and gives insight into how perilous the ownership of a large number of information outlets by one company can be. In her Sunday editorial Molly Ivins wrote, "The Sinclair Broadcasting Group has moved this election into the realm of creeping fascism, state propaganda, Big Brother, and brainwashing." I'm not so sure she's wrong.

Media concentration

I am curious:  If media concentration is an issue for CommonCause, will they be joining online activists in their opposition to Digital Rights Management (DRM) and other techniques protected by the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).  Currently you are dealing with media concentration that has been built through the market, but with DRM protected by the DMCA you have media concentration enacted in a combination of east-coast-law (DMCA, enacted in Washington) and west-coast-law (DRM, enacted as software authored in silicon valley and embedded in communications devices).

The problems you observe are minor compared to where we will be in the future.

Note: It was the "Democrats" that enacted the DMCA, and in many ways it is the Democrats that must change their political views if there is to be any future democracy in the USA.

Code is Law: require transparancy and accountability in software..

Syracuse PostStd front page vs Sinclair antiKerry

Syracuse sponsors on Sinclair are urged to speak out for fairness and balance in Syracuse TV/radio news and opinion--by sponsoring a lefty like Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, Arianna Huffington, Thomm Hartmanm after their current sponsorship of Rush Limbough, Mike Savage, O'Reilly, Dave Beck, Coulter,  ad nauseum.

Our most persuasive point:
that Syracuse sponsors on Sinclair/Fox should  know that voter
registration and polls (done by ABC TV)  of the Syracuse metro
audience indicate that only 28% identify themselves as Republican, but 35% identify themselves as indepenents, and 32% as Democrats.

From The Syracuse Post-Standard Front Page
"Sinclair scales back broadcast of anti-Kerry film"
Wednesday, October 20, 2004 By William LaRue  Staff writer

The owner of WSYT-TV (Channel 68) said Tuesday it won't air "in its entirety" a controversial documentary critical of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

But the company left open the door to the possibility that significant portions of "Stolen Honor" might still be included in a one-hour news special at 8 p.m. Friday on WSYT and many of the company's 61 other TV stations around the country.

Meanwhile, an organizer of two Syracuse rallies to protest the Sinclair special said he'll decide today whether to pull back on those efforts.    

The special, "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media," will partly focus on how documentaries and other media are being used to influence voting, which has become an issue during the current presidential campaign, Sinclair said in a news release.

The company added that the special also will examine allegations of media bias and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage.

This promised focus on media and politics is a contrast to earlier reports based on interviews with a spokesman for Sinclair. The Los Angeles Times said Sinclair initially informed its staff and its stations that it planned to show the entire 42-minute film, followed by an 18-minute panel discussion.

Although invited to participate, Kerry declined.

Based on those initial reports, the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission that argued the special would constitute an illegal contribution to President Bush's campaign.

"Stolen Honor," an independently made documentary, centers on criticism by former U.S. prisoners of war that Kerry prolonged their plight through his anti-war activities after he served in Vietnam.

On Tuesday, Sinclair's news release stated, "Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary 'Stolen Honor' in its entirety. At no time did Sinclair ever publicly announce that it intended to do so."

Sinclair did announce last week that it would air a news special without commercials on all of its 62 TV stations - including WB affiliate WNYS-TV (Channel 43) at 9 p.m. Thursday and Fox affiliate Channel 68 in the same time period Friday. Sinclair said Tuesday it will air the special once in each city where it has stations in order to minimize disruption of programming.

Aaron Olander, general manager at WSYT and WNYS, did not return telephone calls Tuesday seeking comment.

Syracuse activist Austin G. Paulnack, [member of Common Cause and Syracuse Moveon] who was organizing two anti-Sinclair protest rallies scheduled for Thursday, said he would decide today whether to go ahead with them. He said they might be moved to Friday to coincide with the new time period for the special.

He said he was "puzzled" by what Sinclair now plans and "pleased there's been some reconsideration of showing 'Stolen Honor' in its full 42 minutes."

Paulnack has been helping to promote a national campaign that's lobbied companies in Syracuse and elsewhere to stop advertising on Sinclair's stations. The group at www.boycottsbg.com said Tuesday it counted close to 80 advertisers that have pulled commercials.

The group's list includes Thunder Alley Sports, a motorcycle shop in Fulton. Co-owner Scott Grants said he got about 100 e-mails and 35 calls threatening to stop doing business with the shop if it continues to advertise with Sinclair.

He said the shop won't pull its spots. However, he is upset with Sinclair because he's in the middle of a political spat.
© 2004 The Post-Standard.
====

Austin Paulnack, coordinator, Syracuse Accountability Project, public-policy watchdog group of senior citizens and students.

Pulling the plug on Sinclair

Kanoski & Associates:
We have pulled our advertising on our local Sinclair station.  Thank you for your email and input.
Jean Richards
Marketing Manager
Kanoski & Associates

Cellular Internet :
Dear US Cellular Customer,
Thanks for visiting our website and taking the time to write to us.
As a non-partisan corporation, U.S. Cellular does not take a position in the presidential race. We have no plans to cancel our advertising on Sinclair affiliates. However, we believe the program "Stolen Honor" does not provide an optimal environment for our advertising. Therefore, we have instructed Sinclair affiliates not to run U.S. Cellular commercial spots within two hours of the program's airing.
I do apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you again for contacting U.S. Cellular.
Caroline
U.S. Cellular Internet Team

The rest of the responses have been automated responses saying they will eventually personally answer the email.

Let's keep the pressure on !

Sincerely,
Raegen Salais

pulling the plug on Sinclair

Lame response from General Mills!

Thank you for contacting General Mills.

Many consumers have written to share their views on this issue.  Some have   urged General Mills to use its influence as an advertiser to ensure that the media reports the news in an unbiased manner. Some have urged General Mills to continue advertising, and have threatened to withdraw support for our products if we alter our advertising plans.  Passions run deep on both sides, particularly this close to an election.    

Whenever possible, General Mills does strive to preview the programs on which our advertising appears.  We do so to assure that we do not advertise on programs inconsistent with the family-oriented nature of our products. This works well with entertainment programs produced and available for advance screening, but pre-screening of news broadcasts is usually not possible.

Our view in this area is clear.   We believe one of the fundamental elements of our society is the freedom of the press.  Companies such as ours, in our view, should not attempt to influence, control or pre-empt the content of news through the leverage of advertising sponsorship. To do so would undermine that fundamental freedom.

From time to time, any one of us as viewers may consider a particular news story to be inaccurate or imbalanced.  News organizations do err.  Judgment is not always well applied.  One major news organization recently acknowledged that errors were made in stories relating to the current presidential election.  When such errors occur, certainly a price is paid in terms of reputation.  But errors and questionable judgment are an acceptable price to pay, in our view, to assure the presence of a free and independent media in our society.  

As viewers, each of us is free to make a choice.  We can choose to patronize or not patronize programs with our viewership.  We can choose to patronize or not patronize particular television stations, or even entire networks.  

Similarly, advertisers may choose not to sponsor certain broadcasts, a particular network or specific publications because of their journalistic standards and judgment. But advertisers should not attempt to control or pre-empt news programming prior to broadcast or publication. That, in our view, would be inappropriate.

In this instance, as in the example cited earlier, passionate voices are calling on advertisers to insert themselves into the election by threatening to boycott those who remove or who do not remove their advertising.

We choose to stand with freedom of the press.

We welcome the views that you and others have shared with us.  You may rest assured that we will remind the networks we sponsor that the integrity of their reporting reflects on the companies that advertise during their broadcasts.

Hopefully, you will understand our views - and the importance we place on a free press.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact us and share your views.

Sincerely,

General Mills

In other words, GM just said, "Kiss our butts!  We've got money, power and political influence riding on this election with Bush!"

KidByte

KidByte - Fightin' stupidity where ever I find it!

Two Advertiser Responses

Sincerely,

John E. Rooney
President & CEO
U.S. Cellular
-----------------

Dear Concerned Consumer:

Thanks for contacting us about Sinclair Broadcast Group's plans to air
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal."

We haven't reviewed the content of this program, nor would we advertise in
it.  One of our guiding principles is that we don't advertise in programs
where there is expression for or against a given political candidate.  

The way we spend our advertising dollar is important to us.  For most TV
programming, we're able to review the content on a show by show basis before
making any advertising decisions.  You may see some of our commercials air
on the Sinclair Broadcast Group's network during shows that we've already
agreed to appear in.  The networks also have control over TV programming and
can choose to preempt regularly scheduled programming with different
programs, such as this one.  

We appreciate your comments and I'm sharing them with those responsible for
television sponsorship.

Sincerely,
Marilinn
Iams Consumer Care, North America

Responses from Sinclair Advertisers in KC

"Dear Valued Lowe's Customer,
Thank you for your comment regarding concerns about advertising on the Sinclair Broadcasting network.  Lowe's does not advertise in political programming.  We will not advertise within this political documentary, nor will the company's local advertising appear on any Sinclair stations the day the stations air the documentary.

Lowe's has a strict company policy specifying that its advertising is not to run in controversial programming.  The company advertises primarily in national, network prime-time television programs, cable outlets and on local stations in select markets.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Lowe's Customer Care"

(of course Lowe's also pulled advertising during "Desperate Housewives", which I like, but that's another issue - lol)

A portion of the response from Ford Motor Company:

"We appreciate your input regarding our advertising.  We believe one of the most effective ways to connect with customers and generate mass awareness of our products is through television advertising.  We treat our purchase of commercial time as we do any other prime time,
mainstream television program.  By buying commercial time on top-rated shows, we are not making judgment on the specific content of the show but simply making an optimized attempt to reach our many customers through award-winning television programming.

Ford advertises on many networks and our commercials run on their
affiliate stations, including those in the Sinclair group.  We do not
endorse candidates or advertise on programs that are partisan.  We do
not endorse or support in any way the broadcast of the show in question, "Stolen Honor."

From Iam's :
"We haven't reviewed the content of this program, nor would we advertise in it.  One of our guiding principles is that we don't advertise in programs where there is expression for or against a given political candidate.  

The way we spend our advertising dollar is important to us.  For most TV programming, we're able to review the content on a show by show basis before making any advertising decisions.  You may see some of our commercials air on the Sinclair Broadcast Group's network during shows that we've already agreed to appear in.  The networks also have control over TV programming and can choose to preempt regularly scheduled programming with different programs, such as this one."

and a portion of Mattel's response:
"We have discussed your comments with the appropriate area at Mattel. Mattel's policy is to work with our advertising agencies to pre-screen all programming that Mattel commercials are placed in.   We do not endorse or support a specific political party or candidate, and would not support any related programming with our advertising.

We advertise on a broad range of stations, including local, national and cable programming.  As you can imagine, advertising decisions are made with advanced planning and we had no prior knowledge of Sinclair's actions at the time of these decisions.

Our philosophy at Mattel is to support candidates and parties through the Mattel Political Action Committee, which is filed publicly with the FEC (federal elections commission).

We suggest that if you have concerns pertaining to Sinclair's broadcasting practices that you contact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) directly. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can be contacted by logging onto WWW.FCC.Gov or by calling 1-888-225-5322."

DISAPPOINTED