|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation : Media : Protest Activity : Right Wing |
|
List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
Current rating: 0 |
by citizen pain
(No verified email address) |
17 Oct 2004
Modified: 03:15:56 PM |
Channel 15 News: Where ideology comes first
Includes Sinclair's National [Fish] Wrap, spoonfed from the conservative media monopolists to you by Mark Hyman
Fed up with Sinclair? Then circulate this handy list of sponsors of inclair's abusive use of the public airwaves to air far-right propaganda as "news." |
Some have mentioned that boycotts can lead to legal action against groups sponsoring them. Well, no group needs to sponsor a boycott. All people need to do is take action individually. Here is my contribution, a list of all identifiable commercial sponsors of the Saturday, Oct. 16 10pm WICD Channel 15 News.
Do whatever your conscience allows to remind these sponsors and their local outlets that supporting propaganda by buying ad time on Sinclair stations has a price in lost business.
Countryside Chevrolet [in Chrisman, IL]
Yoplait Yougurt
Ford/Sirius Satellite Radio
SBC/Yahoo DSL
Hyundai
Chrysler/Dodge
3aday.org [some dairy indiustry promotion group]
Sullivan/Parkhill [weather tower cam]
National City Bank
Chevrolet Trucks/Central Illinois Chevy Dealers
Big Lots
Arby's
Illinois Lottery
Shields Auto Group
Honda
Subway
Jos. Kuhn's & Co.
The News-Gazette
In addition, these political candidates bought time on WICD News:
Bill Grunloh R ["preserving the sanctity of marriage" "Our values in action'"]
Bob Flider D
Barack Obama D
The first guy is probably completely comforatble with advertsiing on Sinclair. Flider may need the market penetration in a tight race around Decatur. But Obama??? C'mon Barack, you don't need to give money to Sinclair to buy commericals in order to whip Keyes' ass at this point. Pull the ads and make a point of making Sinclair pay for it's abusive practices.
Related Article:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display/21048/index.php |
Related stories on this site:
StopSinclair.org
| 
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Media Firm Accused of Dodging FCC Rules |
by Leon Lazaroff
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2004
|
Poised to pre-empt programming on its 62 television stations to run a negative documentary about Sen. John Kerry, Sinclair Broadcast Group has come under fire from critics calling it partisan and questioning whether it is failing federal broadcast requirements to reflect local interests.
Members of Congress and independent media groups have questioned the company's willingness to respect "localism," a section of federal law that requires media companies to cover local issues and provide an outlet for local voices.
"Sinclair has turned localism on its head," said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of America, a union of 300 consumer groups. "Instead of using its right to pre-empt national programming to preserve a local voice, it wants to impose its political will on 62 local stations."
Sinclair's practices as a television operator have also been criticized for removing local control. The company increasingly uses "distance-casting" whereby local news, sports and weather is uniformly broadcast to its many stations from Sinclair's headquarters in suburban Baltimore.
Television viewers receive on-camera reports from "News Central" that appear to be coming from local stations. Sinclair spokesman Mark Hyman delivers conservative commentary that must be carried on local news reports.
"Their whole business model is about cutting operating costs," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a legal watchdog group. "They fake the localism by presenting the hometown station feel but without any of the presence and journalism that local communities deserve."
Widespread ownership
Sinclair's stations include 20 Fox affiliates, eight from ABC, six from UPN, four from NBC, three from CBS and 19 from the WB, a network partly owned by Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune. Sinclair has a "shared services" arrangement with two additional stations.
According to the Center for Public Integrity, Sinclair owns or operates two stations, called "duopolies," in more markets--20--than any other media company in the country. The company, which reported 2003 revenues of $738 million, also owns or operates more television stations--62--than any media company.
Sinclair did not respond to repeated requests to comment for this article. However, a telephone recording at the company's headquarters says, "The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized. Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are being promoted by groups pushing a political agenda."
Listeners are given a phone number for Sen. Kerry's campaign office in Washington, D.C., and asked to urge him to appear on the show. Kerry's campaign on Friday asked that each station carrying the "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" documentary provide a similar amount of time to Kerry supporters.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and 84 other House Democrats on Thursday joined 19 senators in calling for the FCC to investigate Sinclair's apparent intentions to air "Stolen Honor" on its stations just days before the Nov. 2 election.
Democrats strike back
Prompted by Sinclair's plans to run the documentary, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) this week pledged to attach limits to media mergers to one of a handful of spending bills that must be approved before legislators adjourn at the end of the year.
FCC Chairman Michael Powell made clear that the commission would not attempt to stop Sinclair from airing the program. While emphasizing that he was unsure whether the program would trigger "equal-time" rules, Powell emphasized their importance when discussing controversial issues.
"We do have equal-time rules and I do think that in a political season it is beneficial for both sides of an issue to be heard," Powell said at a public appearance Friday in New York City.
Launched in 1971 with a single UHF station in Baltimore, Sinclair grew rapidly during the 1990s, buying stations mostly in medium-size cities such as Milwaukee, Dayton and Nashville.
Using a business arrangement known as a Local Marketing Agreement, or LMA, Sinclair became the operator of stations in markets where it already owned a television broadcaster.
Sinclair operates six LMAs through a company called Cunningham Broadcasting, previously known as Glencairn Ltd. Cunningham is controlled by trusts in the name of Carolyn Smith, the mother of Sinclair president and CEO David Smith, as well as two Sinclair vice presidents, Duncan Smith and Frederick Smith, and Robert Smith, a director on Sinclair's board.
The FCC established LMAs in the early-1990s to assist failing stations or to help start-ups share costs for such expenses as maintenance and advertising with older, established broadcasters.
However, Schwartzman says Sinclair used these business arrangements for the sole intention of eventually acquiring the stations themselves. "Sinclair has operated these LMAs as little more than a fig leaf for all but owning them outright," he said. "They've been pressed on this but unfortunately this FCC has let them off the hook."
Sinclair's use of LMAs goes back to 1991 when it purchased WPGH-TV in Pittsburgh and then sold a Pittsburgh station it already owned, WCWB-TV, to a station employee, an African-American named Edwin Edwards. Edwards became the president of Glencairn, owning it under a minority tax-incentive program.
Between 1994 and 1997, Sinclair acquired second television stations in San Antonio, Greenville, S.C, Asheville, N.C. and elsewhere, placing them under Glencairn.
When the FCC liberalized its "duopoly rules" in 1999, permitting companies such as Sinclair to own two stations in markets with eight or more independent television owners, Sinclair applied to the FCC to purchase all of Glencairn's stations.
However, Rainbow/PUSH, which has historically lobbied broadcasters to cover minority issues, filed a complaint charging that the company had "misrepresented facts and concealed the true extent of their business relationships" to own television stations that otherwise would not have been permitted under federal rules.
Pulitzer Broadcasting and Post-Newsweek Stations, a joint venture between the Washington Post Co. and the magazine by the same name, filed similar complaints with the FCC alleging that Glencairn was a Sinclair shell operation.
Practices called `disquieting'
In November 2001, the FCC fined both Sinclair and Glencairn $40,000 for violations to the 1934 Communications Act. However, FCC Chairman Powell and two other Republican appointees approved Sinclair's request to purchase all but six stations. Shortly afterward, Glencairn's name was changed to Cunningham Broadcasting.
In his dissent, Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, called Sinclair's practices "disquieting." He said the company's maneuvering "raises questions of whether these stations were merely owned by Glencairn but controlled by Sinclair until such times as Sinclair could own them under our revised multiple ownership rules"
Rainbow/PUSH filed a follow-up petition in 2003, still pending before the FCC, that calls on the commission to determine whether Sinclair's present and past conduct of its LMAs makes it qualified to hold licenses to use the public airwaves.
At present, rules governing duopolies are in flux.
In June, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ordered the FCC to rewrite rules that would have allowed one company to own as many as three TV stations, eight radio stations and a newspaper in a single market.
The FCC has not announced whether it will appeal the 3rd Circuit Court's decision.
© Copyright 2004 Knight-Ridder
http://www.realcities.com |
|
Risks Seen for TV Chain Showing Film About Kerry |
by nytimes via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2004
|
October 18, 2004
Risks Seen for TV Chain Showing Film About Kerry
BY BILL CARTER
Senator John Kerry could find his presidential hopes damaged this week when the 62 television stations owned or managed by the Sinclair Broadcasting Group carry a documentary about his antiwar activities 30 years ago.
But the Democratic nominee for the White House may not be the only one adversely affected.
Sinclair - the nation's largest owner of television stations, many of them in electoral swing states - is itself running a significant financial and political risk by telling its stations to pre-empt regular programming and carry the film. Already, Sinclair's decision has alienated some advertisers; enraged consumer and media watchdog groups, who are vowing to challenge its station licenses when they come up for renewal; and given pause to some analysts and investors considering the company's financial outlook.
Representatives of Sinclair did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment. But the company, whose executives have been among the largest media contributors to President Bush, has said the documentary deserves to be seen because it is news, and as such does not fall under federally mandated equal-time provisions for political candidates.
In the film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," former prisoners of war in Vietnam call Mr. Kerry's 1971 Senate testimony a betrayal that prolonged their captivity. In that testimony, Mr. Kerry quoted other veterans talking about American atrocities.
The Kerry campaign has called the film a politically motivated attack that is unfair and inaccurate.
Last week, the Kerry campaign formally asked Sinclair for equal time to respond to the film, a move that could lead the Federal Communications Commission to consider whether to order the stations to allow a response.
Sinclair is no stranger to political controversy. In April, its eight ABC affiliates pre-empted the "Nightline" program in which Ted Koppel read aloud the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq. Sinclair declared the show "unpatriotic" and harmful to the war effort, adding that "Nightline'' was motivated by an antiwar agenda; it instead offered its ABC affiliates a special that debated the issue.
Earlier this year, Mark Hyman, the vice president for corporate relations at Sinclair who doubles as a conservative commentator on the company's newscasts, took a crew to Iraq to find what he called the untold positive news of the war. And after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Sinclair ordered newscasters at its Fox affiliate in Baltimore to read patriotic statements praising President Bush.
But the furor over "Stolen Honor'' appears to be affecting Sinclair in ways these previous actions did not. In some cities - among them, Portland, Me.; Madison, Wis.; Springfield, Ill.; and Minneapolis - local advertisers, including car dealers, furniture makers, supermarkets and restaurants, have taken their commercials off the company's stations.
"I've decided I don't want to advertise on them," said Adam Lee, the president of Lee Auto Malls, which owns 10 auto dealerships in Portland Me., and has ordered its advertising off the CBS affiliate, WGME. "It's a public trust. It seems they're abusing it. If it were a news show and they were really trying to do a fair and balanced story on both sides, that would be a different matter. I don't think they are. That's not their intention.''
Groups, including Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns, Media Access Project, Media for Democracy and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, are putting together a database listing all Sinclair advertisers and will try to persuade others to withdraw their commercials. Among those on the list are chains like Applebee's International, Best Buy, Chili's, Circuit City, Domino's Pizza, Lowe's, Papa John's, Subway, Taco Bell and Wal-Mart Stores.
The groups are also vowing to find groups in cities with Sinclair stations who will challenge the broadcast licenses of every Sinclair-owned station over the next several years. Such challenges almost never result in lost licenses, but they often result in heavy legal costs for the station having to defend them.
In addition, some analysts said Sinclair might have hurt itself in the continuing battle over loosening media ownership rules, a fight in which Sinclair has been a leader. Efforts at further deregulation were stalled this year when the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, ordered the F.C.C. to reconsider its relaxation of such rules.
A report issued by the firm Legg Mason last week cited the controversy over the film and asked the question, "Is this good for investors in terms of increasing the odds for favorable deregulation?" The conclusion: "We think not."
Blair Levin, the managing director of Legg Mason and a former F.C.C. official, added in a telephone interview, "Deregulation usually happens when you do it quietly."
Leland Westerfield, a media analyst for Harris Nesbitt Gerard who has followed Sinclair since 1998, had already listed the company as an "underperforming" stock. Now, he said, the company seems to be more at risk.
"The recoil from Democrats at the F.C.C., and frankly moderate Republicans alike, suggests that Sinclair might be harming itself short term in revenues and long term in deregulation tactics," he said. "If the company intends to curry favor with the Republican free marketers and swing the scales back toward the deregulation of media, Sinclair may have harmed its own cause by hardening the resolve of the consumer advocates."
With the documentary becoming a point of contention in the presidential race, Mr. Levin said, Sinclair could face a no-win situation. If Mr. Bush is re-elected, Sinclair has created a circumstance where the deregulation it wants would be widely interpreted as what the Legg Mason report called "the Sinclair payback provision." If Mr. Kerry wins, he might try to lead the F.C.C. to consider regulations that could hurt Sinclair's position.
It appears to have only reinforced the opinions of some F.C.C. commissioners. Michael J. Copps, a Democratic commissioner on the F.C.C., said last week that Sinclair's action was "an abuse of the public trust.''
Other F.C.C. staff members said Sinclair might be more vulnerable than other companies because of the leading role it has played in exploiting certain loopholes allowing it to operate more stations in a market than regulations have allowed. Sinclair has a number of so-called L.M.A.'s, or local marketing agreements, that permit a company to program and run a second station in a market even though it does not own it.
But the F.C.C. officials said Sinclair had L.M.A.'s for five stations with the Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation; Carolyn Smith, the matriarch of the family that controls Sinclair, has an ownership position in Cunningham. The officials said the commission had been divided over the L.M.A's originally.
The controversy of the last week comes at a time when Sinclair's stock, like that of other local broadcasting companies, has already been hammered by a sluggish advertising environment and the dashing of deregulation hopes. It has fallen 53 percent this year. It dropped 7 cents, or 1 percent, on Friday to close at $7.04, near its 52-week low of $6.87. Before The Los Angeles Times first reported Sinclair's plans to show the documentary more than a week ago, the stock was at $7.50.
But several of the company's opponents predict that the comments of analysts and defections by advertisers are not likely to affect Sinclair's executives. "They don't seem to mind being criticized or questioned," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, the president of the Media Access Project, a group that advocates greater media regulation. He and other critics noted that Sinclair has always been an unusual company, run by a family that pays little heed to conventions in the business.
Sinclair was begun by Julian Sinclair Smith in 1971 with one UHF station in Baltimore. His four sons now oversee a company that operates in 39 markets, from Columbus, Ohio, to Tampa, Fla., and last year posted net income of $24 million on revenue of $739 million. The chief executive is David D. Smith.
Mr. Westerfield said Sinclair deserved credit for being innovative in areas like digital television and for its aggressive techniques in finding ways to expand despite F.C.C. hindrances, which have resulted in the company's owning or managing two stations in 21 of 39 markets (so-called duopolies).
"I fully credit them for that pioneering spirit,'' Mr. Westerfield said, "but not for journalistic integrity."
One journalistic flashpoint has been the centralized newscast operation that feeds many of Sinclair's stations, always including the conservative commentaries by Mr. Hyman. "Fox News sells itself as a conservative contrast to the perceived liberal media," Mr. Westerfield said. But he added, "The last time I checked, local weather and the unfortunate news events you see on local television don't conform with a left or right point of view."
The company has defended its centralized newsgathering operation in the past, arguing it is an efficient way to cut the costs of local journalism and brings news to small stations that otherwise would go without and bolsters existing newscasts with material they could not afford.
Ultimately, however, most investors care little about the politics of a company, except when it interferes with making money. Barry Lucas, senior vice president for research at Gabelli & Company, a major Sinclair shareholder, summarized his philosophy as: "Make money, not news."
"My point of view is simple,'' he said. "I am apolitical on this, but I don't like to see media companies above the fold on Page 1."
"You are dealing in a business that people in public office have some influence over,'' he added. "In this case, we are talking about a regulated business by parties in Washington, and in my estimation it does not make a lot of sense to take a sharp stick and punch it in the eye of potential regulators. Those guys at Sinclair better watch out if Kerry is elected."
Geraldine Fabrikant, Jacques Steinberg and Stuart Elliott contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
@%< |
|
Re: List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2004
|
Thanks for the list, I will be sure and patronize these folks.
Jack |
|
Re: List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
by imcsta
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2004
|
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) Current rating: 0
17 Oct 2004
Thanks for the list, I will be sure and patronize these folks.
Jack
Like you patronize us? |
|
Re: List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2004
|
Dear imcsta
yeah, that's pretty much it.
thanks,
Jack |
|
Re: List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2004
|
You people ARE aware that the only reason Sinclair has stepped forward to give these veterans a venue to voice their concerns is because the mainstream media has all but ignored them, and along with the liberal Democrats, done everything possible to destroy their Constitutional right TO free speech? IF the news media had simply done their job, simply reported the news rather than trying to manipulate it, this would all be a non issue atthis point in time. If Sinclair is what it truly takes in this Country for people who have first hand knowledge of the truth to speak out, then that's a sad state of affairs for this Country. And remember, IF what these people say is not true, Kerry has a flock of lawyers who will sue them into oblivion for libel and slander. And if what they say IS the truth, then Kerry won't touch them, but his liberal operatives will be all over the place calling them liars.
What are you people, AFRAID of the TRUTH, or what??? |
|
Sinclair shares plummet |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2004
|
 |
Now trading at a 52-week low.
Note that it's only a few years ago when it was trading at $30; now it's only a fifth of that. Maybe that's why they're so desperate to curry favor with Bush?
@%< |
|
Down 8% for the day |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2004
|
|
Here's just today; down 7.95% at the moment. |
|
Sinclair Fires Washington Bureau Chief |
by AP
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
18 Oct 2004
|
BALTIMORE (AP) -- The Washington bureau chief for Sinclair Broadcast Group said he was fired Monday after he criticized the company's plans to produce a news program based on a documentary critical of John Kerry's Vietnam-era anti-war activities.
Jon Leiberman said he was fired by Joseph DeFeo, Sinclair's vice president for news, and ``escorted out of the building.''
``I was told I violated company policy by divulging information from a staff meeting to The (Baltimore) Sun in this morning's edition,'' Leiberman said late Monday.
That staff meeting took place Sunday at Sinclair's headquarters in Hunt Valley, Leiberman said. It was announced that the news division would produce an hourlong special based on the documentary ``Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,'' he said.
The documentary features former prisoners of war accusing Kerry, a decorated veteran who took up the anti-war cause upon returning from Vietnam, of prolonging the war and worsening their plight.
Earlier this month, Sinclair ordered its 62 TV stations across the country to pre-empt regular programming to air the documentary.
``They're using the news to drive their political agenda,'' Leiberman said. ``I don't think it served the public trust.''
Leiberman, 29, criticized his employer in an interview with The Sun published Monday. ``I have nothing to gain here -- and really, I have a lot to lose,'' he said in that interview.
Sinclair in a statement late Monday said that ``we are disappointed that Jon's political views caused him to violate company policy and speak to the press about company business.''
``We have no further comment on the actions of a disgruntled employee or an ongoing personnel matter,'' the statement said. ``Viewers can grade Leiberman's opinion versus the reality when the finished product is aired.''
The reporter, who was tapped by Sinclair last year to start the company's four-person Washington bureau, said he had a contract that ran through next August. Sinclair told him that he was fired for cause and would receive no severance and his benefits ended immediately, Leiberman said.
He added that Sinclair would not waive his noncompete agreement, which means he cannot work for a broadcast outlet in any market that has a Sinclair station.
Leiberman started with Sinclair in 2000 as a reporter for WBFF-TV in Baltimore, Sinclair's flagship station. He said late Monday, ``I don't like not knowing where my next move will be and how I'm going to take care of my family.''
He added: ``I really feel like I can sleep at night and I can be OK with my decision'' to criticize Sinclair publicly. ... I know I stood up for the principles of objectivity. In journalism, all we have is credibility and objectivity.''
Also Monday, a Vietnam veteran filed a libel lawsuit claiming he was falsely portrayed as a fraud and a liar in ``Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal.''
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press |
|
Shareholder actions against Sinclair and its officers |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2004
|
I've read about two shareholder actions that are going to come down today:
(a) A shareholders demand for equal time, arguing that the highly partisan stance of the company unnecessarily alienates -- well, the half of the country that'll be voting for Kerry:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190004
(b) What appears to be an impending lawsuit against company officials for insider trading: "Famed shareholder attorney William S. Lerach will hold a news conference at 1 p.m. today to discuss insider self-dealing by officers of Sinclair Broadcasting, the Baltimore-based television chain that is forcing its affiliates to show a propaganda film that attacks presidential candidate John Kerry. He will release a set of demands aimed at making Sinclair executives disgorge millions of dollars in unjustified profits taken out of the firm when stock prices were high during the past 12 months."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38393
So the answer to the question, "will this turn out to be as self-defeating a move as their "Nightline" gaffe?" is turning in to a resounding "yes, indeedy."
@%< |
|
The interview the guy was fired for |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2004
|
Sinclair employee decries planned program on Kerry
D.C. bureau chief calls it 'biased political propaganda'
By David Folkenflik
Sun Staff
Originally published October 18, 2004
The Washington bureau chief for Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group's news division angrily denounced his employer last night for plans to air an hourlong program that is to include incendiary allegations against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for his anti-war activism three decades ago.
"It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election," said Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter for more than a year. "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."
Repeated efforts to reach Sinclair officials for comment last night proved unsuccessful.
Sinclair sparked national headlines this month by ordering its 60 stations to broadcast a program that will devote significant time to charges that Kerry's nationally televised remarks in 1971 about atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam spurred the torture of American prisoners of war. (Sinclair has business relationships with two additional stations that are not scheduled to air the show.)
The broadcasting company's plan has drawn formal protests from Democrats for both the program's content and its timing -- less than two weeks before Election Day. It plans to pre-empt an hour of regular prime-time network programming for the special on each of the stations over a several-day period this week. While Sinclair has invited Kerry to respond to the allegations, campaign aides have dismissed that offer as insincere.
Sinclair reaches about 24 percent of American viewers, with a presence in 39 markets, most of them in smaller regions. But many of them can be found in pivotal political states such as Michigan, Missouri and Ohio.
Leiberman spoke out yesterday after a mandatory staff meeting attended by Sinclair's corporate news division at company headquarters in Hunt Valley.
"I have nothing to gain here -- and really, I have a lot to lose," Leiberman said. "At the end of the day, though, all you really have is your credibility."
Leiberman, 29, is a Baltimore native who has a degree in journalism from Northwestern University and has worked at stations in Topeka, Kan., and Albuquerque, N.M., as well as Sinclair's WBFF in Baltimore.
The program draws from a documentary called Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, produced by Carlton Sherwood, a prize-winning journalist who has close ties to Bush administration officials.
Sinclair staffers were told the show would be presented as news, not opinion, Leiberman said.
Some industry analysts have decried Sinclair's plans. "People in the news business are supposed to present both sides of the story," said American University communications professor Jane Hall, a media critic for Fox News Watch. "They are not supposed to have an agenda. They are not supposed to want to affect the outcome of the election with something they label news."
Leiberman said he was anguished by his decision to speak out. But, he said, the influence of commentator Mark Hyman and Chief Executive David D. Smith has been devastating. "There is going to be a concerted effort on the part of my colleagues to make this as balanced a program as they can," Leiberman said. "But the selection of the material -- dumping it on the news department, and giving them four days, and running it this close to the election -- it's indefensible, in my opinion."
Leiberman said he told Sinclair's vice president for news, Joseph DeFeo, that he would not contribute to the program and that DeFeo suggested the reporter could lose his job.
DeFeo did not return messages seeking comment.
The Smith family, which controls Sinclair, has long been a financial backer of Bush and other Republicans, including Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
Now, Leiberman said, the conservative bias of Sinclair executives is too palpable to ignore. "All I want is for them to address these issues," Leiberman said. "Let the journalists do what the journalists do -- cover the news."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/elections/bal-te.sinclair18oct18,1,1814607.story
@%< |
|
Re: List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
by NRA4Freedom
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2004
|
>..."Let the journalists do what the journalists do -- cover the news."
I agree totally! And IF the media were doing so, this whole thing would not even be having to be discussed. The reason it is being discussed is because the media is biased, and intent on controlling what "news" the people get to hear. So sad. |
|
Stock slide continues; stockholder discontent |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2004
|
Sinclair shares continue to decline
Glickenhaus & Co. protests Sinclair-backed documentary
By Jon Friedman, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 2:38 PM ET Oct. 19, 2004
NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- Shares of Sinclair Broadcasting Group continued to fall on Tuesday and hit a 3 1/2 year low during the trading session.
Sinclair, whose shares have dropped about 15 percent since the close of trading on Oct. 8, sparked a firestorm in the media industry last week when it said its 62 television stations will show a documentary from Oct. 21-24 called "Stolen Hours." The film blasts presidential John Kerry's military service record during the Vietnam War.
Sinclair's stock (SBGI: news, chart, profile) declined 22 cents to $6.27 in midday trading. [It's now lower still. -- @%<]
The company's stations reach about 24 percent of the U.S. households that have television sets.
Also on Tuesday, Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street firm with clients who own about 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, sent a protest letter to Sinclair Chief Executive David Smith, and the company's board of directors.
Glickenhaus general partner Jim Glickenhaus, whose firm has about $1 billion in assets under management, told CBS MarketWatch he has a simple request.
"Let there be a rebuttal, so no one can accuse you of taking a position," he said.
"Simply, as a fiduciary matter, we have to protect our shareholders," Glickenhaus said. "This has nothing to do with politics."
"Management is not acting in the interest of shareholders," he said. "By showing something that's clearly propaganda, they are damaging the network."
Glickenhaus said he was worried that "advertisers have already pulled ads."
A call placed to the office of Sinclair's Smith seeking comment on Glickenhaus' actions wasn't returned.
"If they (have) a bias, mainstream people are not going to want to advertise," Glickenhaus said.
"They could lose their licenses," Glickenhaus said. "They're going incur all sorts of challenges to their licenses
@%< |
|
More shareholder discontent |
by AP via gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
19 Oct 2004
|
Shareholders challenge Sinclair on Anti-Kerry documentary
By ALEX DOMINGUEZ
Associated Press Writer
October 19, 2004, 1:47 PM EDT
BALTIMORE -- Shareholders Tuesday challenged plans by media giant Sinclair Broadcast to air a documentary critical of presidential candidate John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities, warning that the controversy surrounding the broadcast may hurt the value of their investment.
New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi sent a letter to Sinclair on behalf of the state's pension fund, which he said owns shares in the broadcasting company. San Diego attorney William S. Lerarch also planned a teleconference Tuesday afternoon to "discuss insider self-dealing by officers of Sinclair Broadcasting."
And Media Matters, a media advocacy group announced that it was underwriting the costs of a shareholder action, demanding that Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., provide equal time to those with views opposed to the allegations in the documentary.
A spokesman for Sinclair did not immediately answer phone calls from The Associated Press for comment.
The suburban-Baltimore based company has said it plans to air some or all of the documentary "Stolen Honor" this week at various evening hours on all 62 of its stations. Those stations reach up to 25 percent of U.S. TV households, the company says.
The 42-minute documentary features former prisoners of war accusing Kerry, a decorated veteran who took up the anti-war cause upon returning from Vietnam, of prolonging the war and worsening their plight. Sinclair said last week it hadn't been decided how much of the documentary would appear in the completed show.
The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission contending that airing the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.
Critics have also called for an advertising boycott of the company.
In midday trading, Sinclair shares were off another 2 percent Tuesday, dropping 14 cents to $6.35 a share on the NASDAQ exchange. Sinclair stock dropped about 8 percent on Monday.
In his letter to Sinclair, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, a Democrat, said the $115 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund holds 256,600 shares of Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. and questioned the impact of showing "Stolen Honor" on the value of the shares.
Among the questions raised in the letter, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press: the cost of foregoing an hour of commercial time to show the documentary; how many advertisers have pulled their spots from Sinclair stations and how much that has cost the company; and the impact on ratings.
"Given the stock's already poor performance, it would seem that any bad news would risk reducing investor interest and, thus, risk a lower stock price," the letter reads.
Hevesi said only three of the company's directors appear to meet NASDAQ's independence criteria and notes Sinclair shares have dropped from $15.02 in January to below $7, while other stocks in the sector have increased.
"Some critics suggest that Sinclair management is more interested in advancing its partisan political views than in protecting shareholder value. They say Sinclair's partisan agenda also risks alienating viewers, advertisers and regulators," Hevesi wrote.
"By appearing to tie the future prospects of the company so closely to the outcome of a national election, are you adding political risk to the normal economic and business risks that face our company?"
Media Matters said a letter from Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street firm with clients who hold stock in Sinclair, was delivered to the Sinclair CEO David D. Smith and the company's board of directors, demanding that they immediately "provide those with views opposed to the allegations in the film an equal opportunity to respond."
Smith and his three brothers are on the board of directors of the company, which they turned into the nation's largest chain of stations after taking over the lone UHF station owned by their father.
Media Matters said it may seek a court order prohibiting the airing of the documentary if an answer was not received by the close of business on Tuesday.
"Our mission is to thwart conservative misinformation in the media and ensure that the media offer the American public fair and balanced access to news and information," Media Matters President and CEO David Brock said. "We determined a stockholder effort is the strongest remaining course of action to force Sinclair to reconsider its decision to air Stolen Honor."
Glickenhaus & Co. General partner Jim Glickenhaus said Sinclair's CEO and directors have a financial obligation to shareholders.
"We are not partisan. We are investors," Glickenhaus said. "Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view. Otherwise the company is placing its future and the value of our investment in jeopardy, by putting the renewal of its FCC licenses at risk, alienating local advertisers, and opening itself up to libel suits against the company."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
@%< |
|
Sinclair Broadcasting’s Long History of Journalistic and Corporate Deception |
by Jason Leopold
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
21 Oct 2004
|
Sinclair Broadcasting Group has tried to influence the outcome of elections long before the media company became a lightning rod for criticism due to its decision to air a controversial documentary ten days before the Nov. 2 election critical of Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry’s activities during the Vietnam War.
Two years ago, Duncan Smith, vice president of Sinclair, gave then Maryland GOP gubernatorial candidate Robert Ehrlich extensive use of a luxury helicopter Smith owned and billed Ehrlich’s campaign—at a discounted rate of $1,000 an hour—only after an inquiry by the Baltimore Sun. Smith’s company, Whirlwind Aviation, Inc., rents out the aircraft for $2,500 an hour. “Ehrlich used the helicopter at least six times during and after the gubernatorial campaign,” according to a Nov. 20, 2002 Baltimore Sun story. Smith said at the time that the remaining fee of more than $13,750 would be picked up by Whirlwind and listed by the company as an “in-kind” contribution to Ehrlich’s campaign.
The campaign donation appeared to violate campaign finance laws because it wasn’t reported in a timely fashion. Moreover, the donation raised ethical issues for Sinclair. The media company owns two television stations in Maryland and was providing Ehrlich’s campaign with favorable news coverage, while attacking Democratic incumbent, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend.
“If you're an entity that owns a news outlet that is supposed to provide fair and balanced coverage of the campaign, and yet at the same time are providing aid to one of the candidates in the campaign, that puts them in a severe position of conflict," Christopher Hanson, who teaches journalism ethics at the University of Maryland's Philip Merrill College of Journalism, told the Sun. "I don't see any way around that.”
Sinclair never told its television viewers that it gave Ehrlich use of Smith’s helicopter during its coverage of the campaign. Furthermore, none of the trips Ehrlich took in the helicopter were reported in campaign finance documents his committee filed months after Ehrlich first started using the helicopter, a violation of state law requiring donations to be listed when they are received. Sinclair’s Smith refused to comment about the two-year old scandal.
But the conflict went even further and it highlights the problems with relaxing federal rules governing media ownership. While Ehrlich campaigned for governor, a campaign that he eventually won, he also lobbied the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Sinclair who was embroiled in a licensing dispute with the agency. The FCC chastised Ehrlich for intervening on Sinclair’s behalf without disclosing that the company provided him with use of its helicopter.
In September, Sinclair and Ehrlich once again made headlines as a result of the media company’s cozy relationship with the governor. Sinclair produced a series of tourism ads in which Ehrlich appeared and waived its production fee on the condition that the state of Maryland purchase $60,000 worth of time on a Sinclair-owned station to air them, a deal which Ehrlich agreed to.
A week after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sinclair Chief Executive David Smith and his three brothers who control the media company handed down an edict to their news and sports reporters, and even a weatherman, at the company’s flagship Baltimore television station, WBFF, requiring the broadcasters to follow up each on-air report with a statement conveying full support for President Bush and the war on terror.
The Sun reported that several journalists objected on the grounds that it would undermine their objectivity. Reporters and management, however, reached a compromise. The message read by reporters on-air said that it came from "station management."
“Still, according to at least four people at WBFF, some staffers believe they now look as though they are endorsing specific government actions,” the Sun reported in Sept. 18, 2001 story. “Several people interviewed at WBFF described the choice as "no-win": do something that could erode their reputations as objective journalists, or appear unpatriotic and uncaring toward the victims of last week's terrorist attacks.”
Sinclair also aired spots on its 60 other stations during the aftermath of 9/11 declaring support for President Bush and other government leaders to battle terrorist groups
The controversies continued to pile up.
Then in December of 2001, Sinclair was fined $40,000 by the FCC in December 2001 for exercising illegal control of business partner Glencairn Ltd., the FCC determined after spending three years investigating the companies’ relationship.
The FCC’s three Republican commissioners said Sinclair and Glencairn were liable for misinterpreting FCC policies. Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps wanted the FCC to pursue harsher penalties against Sinclair, saying Sinclair has repeatedly 'stretched the limits' of FCC ownership rules. “Several factors contributed to the FCC’s finding that Glencairn’s president and former Sinclair employee Edwin Edwards did not exercise control of his companies,” according to a Dec. 1, 2001 report in the trade magazine Broadcasting & Cable.
”His incorrect report on the amount of debt Glencairn would assume with the purchase of several Sullivan stations. Purchase rights held by Sinclair for Glencairn stations at prices well below market rate. Glencairn’s agreement to sell all but two of its stations to Sinclair as soon as the FCC relaxed rules restricting ownership of local TV stations,” the trade publication reported.
The controversies surrounding Sinclair’s blatant political leanings took its toll on the company’s stock, but none more so than an announcement the company made on Christmas Eve 2002 by Sinclair’s board of directors who voted in favor of investing $20 million in cash in Summa Holdings Ltd., which owns auto dealerships, retail tire franchises and a leasing company controlled by Sinclair CEO David Smith.
In a post-Enron world, the deal appeared to be a serious conflict-of-interest. Sinclair said Summa would spend money to advertise its auto dealerships on Sinclair-owned television stations. The deal sent Sinclair’s stock plummeting 17 percent on Christmas Eve, a historically light day for trading, and sparked shareholder outrage, with many stockholders calling for a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation and threatening to file shareholder lawsuits.
Sinclair told its shareholders at the time that it set up a special committee of outside directors to evaluate the investment and approved the deal, saying a conflict did not exist.
"Because the automobile industry represents the largest category of advertisers for television stations, and because Summa is a profitable and well-run company, we believe that the Summa investment is an attractive one for Sinclair," said communications attorney Martin Leader, who chaired the committee of outside directors.
Now, two years later, Sinclair plans to air a controversial documentary on Friday, 10 days before the Nov. 2 election, highlighting Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry’s antiwar activities during the Vietnam War. But the move is backfiring on the company big time.
More than 80 of Sinclair’s advertisers have abandoned the media company’s five-dozen television stations since last week, according to National Public Radio, due to fears of a massive public boycott. Moreover, Sinclair’s stock has been battered over the past two days, falling 10 percent to settle Tuesday at a 3 ½ year low of $6.35—a direct result of its decision to air the anti-Kerry film, “Stolen Honor,” on a majority of its television stations.
The company’s decision to broadcast the documentary and its impact on Sinclair’s shares has led to another shareholder revolt and at least one prominent securities litigator, William Lerach, has threatened to take legal action against the company.
But on Tuesday, David Smith, Sinclair’s chief executive, said Sinclair would not air the anti-Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor.” Instead, Sinclair stations will broadcast a “special one-hour news program” entitled “A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media,” which will “focus in part on the use of documentaries other media to influence voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on the content of certain of these documentaries.”
“The program will also examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage,” according to the news release.
But, according to the company’s news release, excerpts of “Stolen Honor” will be aired “in the context of the broader discussion outlined above” and will discuss the allegations surrounding Senator John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s raised by a number of former POWs in "Stolen Honor."
Joe DeFeo, Sinclair's Vice President of News said, “As with all news programming produced by Sinclair's News Central, ‘A POW Story’ is being produced with the highest journalistic standards and integrity. We have not ceded, and will not in the future cede, control of our news reporting to any outside organization or political group. We are endeavoring, as we do with all of our news coverage, to present both sides of the issues covered in an equal and impartial manner.”
Sinclair claimed on Tuesday that company executives have met privately with members of Kerry’s campaign, “including a recent face-to-face meeting with senior campaign officials, for approximately two weeks in order to negotiate participation in the special by either Senator Kerry or his designee.”
Kerry has declined Sinclair’s invitation.
Smith said those involved in producing the documentary “have endured personal attacks of the vilest nature, as well as calls on our advertisers and our viewers to boycott our stations and on our shareholders to sell their stock. In addition, and more shockingly, we have received threats of retribution from a member of Senator John Kerry's campaign.”
A spokesman for the Kerry campaign vehemently denied the allegations, and Wall Street doesn’t buy it either. Many of Sinclair’s largest shareholders have said privately that Smith has failed to take responsibility for the firestorm he created and has blamed Democrats for the toll his actions have taken on the Sinclair’s finances.
Indeed, as Jim Glickenhaus, general partner of Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street firm whose clients own about 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, said Tuesday in an interview with CBS Marketwatch, Sinclair “management is not acting in the interest of shareholders. By showing something that's clearly propaganda, they are damaging the (broadcast) network.”
© 2004 Jason Leopold |
|
Re: List of Sinclair/Ch 15 News Sponsors |
by Jack Ryan
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Oct 2004
|
Glad to see how you lefties are catching on to how the market works. I thought you hated market forces, but they work don't they.
Jack |
|
