|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Elections & Legislation : Media : Political-Economy : Protest Activity : Right Wing |
|
Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
Current rating: 0 |
by Elizabeth Jensen
(No verified email address) |
15 Dec 2004
|
Political groups say the TV broadcaster is filling the nation's airwaves with Republican bias
Sinclair's local station is currently a NBC affliate, WICD on Ch. 15. Mark Hyman is a regular feature of its "news" broadcasts. A protest occurred at the station's studio's during the election controversy stirred by Sinclair's showing of a blatantly anti-Kerry "documentary" on the public's airwaves in October. |
NEW YORK β A coalition of liberal political groups is launching a nationwide protest against Sinclair Broadcast Group, charging that the 62-station TV broadcaster, which was also the target of intense criticism during the presidential campaign, is misusing public airwaves with partisan news programming.
The groups, led by Media Matters for America, today will announce a campaign to pressure Sinclair's advertisers with letters. The groups, however, are stopping short of demanding an advertiser boycott.
The campaign is one of the first broad attempts to reenergize liberal political activists in the wake of the Democrats' electoral defeat in November. Others involved include MoveOn.org, Free Press, Campaign for America's Future, Working Assets, Alternet, MediaChannel, and filmmaker Robert Greenwald, who made "Outfoxed," a film released in the summer that alleged Republican bias at Fox News Channel.
The anti-Sinclair campaign will be run through a new website, SinclairAction.com.
The main focus of the protest is the nightly "The Point" commentary by Mark Hyman, who is Sinclair's spokesman and also oversees the company's Washington lobbying.
A recent Media Matters analysis of "The Point" editions from Nov. 2 to Dec. 1 found that the commentaries repeatedly attacked former Democratic candidate John F. Kerry, former President Clinton and other Democratic politicians. Hyman has referred to Democrats as the "Angry Left," charged that there is a liberal bias in the media and expressed support for Bush administration policies.
The commentary airs on about 40 of the 62 stations that Sinclair owns, programs or manages, reaching about one-fourth of U.S. homes with televisions.
Hyman couldn't be reached for comment Monday. Company executives have denied bias in their programming, but say they give attention to points of view that other media outlets ignore.
Sinclair drew controversy β and the ire of Democrats β in October, when The Times reported it planned to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," a film critical of Kerry, on all its stations just days before the tightly fought election.
The network backed down after the publicity led to threats of an advertising boycott, complaints from Democratic politicians and threats of shareholder action. On Oct. 22, Sinclair aired what many analysts called a largely balanced news program about Kerry on about 40 stations.
Sinclair, a publicly traded company, owns stations affiliated with the six major networks.
The new letter-writing campaign and website will seek to point out to advertisers "what they are supporting, on the notion that many of them may not know, and also ask them to join us in an effort to hold Sinclair accountable," said David Brock, president of Media Matters for America.
He said the group would like to have a dialogue" with Sinclair, with the goal of possibly getting the TV group to allow rebuttals to "The Point" or even add another commentary with a more liberal point of view.
A boycott "might be considered down the road" if the first approach doesn't work, Brock said.
Filmmaker Greenwald said he helped put the coalition together after speaking to political activist groups in the days after the Nov. 2 election and finding a "grass-roots desire to participate and have something to do other than wait two years for an election."
The issue of perceived media bias β for both conservatives and liberals β was a hot button during the campaign and has shown little sign of dying down since the election.
When MoveOn.org polled its members on important issues to tackle over the next four years, "media reform" came in second β behind "election reform." Conservatives, meanwhile, have continued their efforts to highlight what they see as liberal bias in the media.
They cite, among other examples, Dan Rather's report on President Bush's 1970s military service, which was based on what CBS now says were unverified documents.
Sinclair could be vulnerable to criticisms of bias because it operates on over-the-air TV licenses, which are subject to Federal Communications Commission scrutiny, unlike cable networks. The FCC can take away licenses of station owners who don't operate in the public interest.
Sinclair's license renewals for six stations in North and South Carolina are being challenged by the nonprofit group Free Press.
Β© Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com |
See also:
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.sinclairaction.com/
|
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
Comments
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2004
|
I for one think that this is something worth backing with concerted effort. I recall the first time that I saw one of those hokey soliloquies from Mark Hyman on WICD. I half thought that it was a joke, until I saw another equally terrible one the following week. Soon thereafter, and following discussions with a few colleagues, I sent in my letter to WICD expressing both my dismay over the clearly biased burps in their news broadcasts, and my unwillingness to watch their station's programs, or any other Sinclair station, until such biased asides stopped. To this day, I do not watch WICD. It's an exercise in self-caricature.
I think that taking such direct, individual action is the least that we can do. Perhaps we ought to initiate a discussion about doing something more focused. Or, if people are already planning and doing such things, they can post some information here about how to increase the pressure on Sinclair stations.
I can't help but laugh at the charges of "liberal bias" in the mainstream media. That chimera long ago ceased to apply, and is now so laughably inapplicable and in fact reversed in favor of the right wing that we really, really need to respond. The current condition of media and political discourse is nothing short of pathetic, thanks to right-wing pressure on our pusillanimous media. |
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by More COmmon Sense
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2004
|
On the other hand, I could say that I have a problem with WEFT broadcasting Democracy Now!, a clearly liberally biased program, over the public airwaves.
By FCC standards, a broadcast company must give a certain amount of time per 24 hours for public information (i.e. news). A certain portion of our community and country are conservative and believe in what Hyman has to say. The other portion are liberal and don't care for what he has to say. Ok...big deal. Tune to another channel. This is like protesting WDWS because they air Rush Limbaugh.
The public airwaves are just that, public. Hyman has just the same amounts of rights as you or I do to spout off whatever we like. Anyone of us can start a broadcast company of our own. All you need to do is apply for a liscense (which is free!!!), purchase the proper equipment, and maintain it to FCC standards.
You have a knob....use it to tune in something you like.... |
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Dec 2004
|
There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference between WEFT and WICD. One is that WEFT is listener-supported to a significant degree, giving those who tune in the opportunity to contribute to shows whose content is not often heard elsewhere which, for those who might not know or remember, is the purpose of public broadcasting. Also, WEFT broadcasts National Public Radio news programs, which typically include a range of pundits, commentators, and journalists whose politics are far from universally liberal by any honest assessment.
WICD hardly fits either bill. It is owned by a large corporation largely shielded from the same kind of public involvement and, until recently, media scrutiny that NPR has fielded for years. Additionally, there is no counter-weight to Mark Hyman's silly editorial broadsides from liberals or, as he pejoratively terms them, the "angry left."
In case you weren't paying attention, "More COmmon Sense," turning the dial is exactly what I have done, what I told WICD I would do because of its noxious one-sided editorials, and what I have urged others to do in a concerted manner. The issue isn't simply content, it's exclusive content. WEFT hardly has news shows and content that are only liberal or left-leaning. Can we say the same about WICD's blatantly biased right-wing editorializing? Hardly. |
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by More Common Sense
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
16 Dec 2004
|
GRG -
Your points are well taken on the difference between WEFT and WICD. In fact, I was rather expecting them. In both cases, the stations get funding by their viewers and listeners. WEFT gets their funding directly from the listeners through pledge drives and donations. WICD gets theirs through a similar, but more indirect way. Advertising. WEFT can do the same thing, but they don't. No big deal, just two different ways of going about the same thing,
But this is not the point. WICD and Mark Hyman represent the views and opinions of a large group of people in it's broadcast footprint. WEFT, or should I say, the people who broadcast under WEFT's callsign, represent the views and opinions of another group of people. If everything was of the same point of view, then the opposing side would be angry, whether left or right leaning.
If you don't agree with someone's political or social point of view, don't support it. Whether it is the RNC or the Dixie Chicks, don't give your money to people you know that support causes you disagree with..... |
|
Re: Real Common Sense |
by Thom Pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
22 Dec 2004
|
Bow to your corporate master serf!!
It's simple....
1. A CORPORATION IS AN INSTITUTION NOT AN INDIVIDUAL (HUMAN) AND... SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN INDIVIDUAL (HUMAN) IN THE EYES OF THE CONSTITUTION!!! REGARDLESS OFA CORRUPT SUPREME DECISION.
2. THEREFORE, A CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS (HUMANS).... OR CIVIL OR HUMAN RIGHTS!!!
3. ALSO, AS AN INTITUTION CORPORATIONS ARE NOT democratic AT ALL. AT BEST, THEY ARE AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES OR AUTOCRATIC FIFEDOMS!!! WHO ARE, MORE THAN EVER, PREPARED TO SUBVERT our democracy FOR ECONOMIC GAIN.
4. ON PAPER... YES, ANYONE COULD START A CORPORATION AND A MEDIA COMPANY. BUT, IN REALITY THIS IS A PRIVELEGE RESERVED FOR THE RICH.... (licensing and filing fees, the cost of equipment, favors [i.e., bribes disguised as campaign donations] IN CONGRESS/WHITEHOUSE/FCC, ETC... IN SHORT, THEREFORE NOT THE LEAST BIT INCLUSIVE OR democratic. WHICH THE HOLY "FOUNDING FATHERS" WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT.
5. THE CLAIM THAT THE VIEWS OF SINCLAIR REPRESENTS THE VIEWS OF ITS COMMUNITY (SMALL OR LARGE) IS A 'CHICKEN OR THE EGG ARGUMENT AT BEST.'
Finally, corporations have become 'our' aristocracy and therefore, the greatest threat to what little democracy we have in the US is not "terrorism" but the kind of unbridled corporate power run amok that Sinclair is a fine example of. |
|
Re: more common sense? |
by thom pain
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Dec 2004
|
Response to more common sense....
Sure... a B.O.D. can be a form of democracy, kind of like giving the squires a vote but not the peasants (workers) or the freeholders (community)... but only for a select and privileged few...would you agree? Just like once upon a time in america, circa founding fathers time, 'democracy' was legally restricted to 'white, male, property owners (including human property)' and it was still revered as democracy? Kind of like that? Or maybe a Jim Crow democracy, poll tax and all?
Sure, even as a lowly worker or citizen, if you own a few shares you might get to register a small bit of consent or dissent occassionally.... but because the decision-making power in a corporate hierarchy is based on your power to, you might say, 'purchase votes'.... the power of an economically privileged few (whether acquired by the pure accident of birth or 'hard work') will almost always trump the will of a few pee-ons. As they say, membership does have it's privileges...doesn't it? Sounds more like our national elections than democracy. First the wealthy get to vote with thier cash, then we get to choose the lesser evil, or greater, from THIER choices... end of story. A 'free-market politbureau' of sorts.... Market-Leninism is here!! Woo-hoo and they'vegot Pravda (Truth?) too!!!!!!
Also, whether the 'free enterprise' the founding fathers supported and the corporate oligarchy that we have today look anything alike is highly debatable. In fact when Eisenhower, in no way some peacenik liberal by the way, warned of the dangers of rising power (corruption) of the Military Industrial Complex in the '50's he was only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Both he and Thomas Paine would probably, rightfully, call the economic and political reality that we have today what exactly what it is.... a 'plutocratic tyranny,' with an occasional plebescite to pacify the masses.
Plus, corporations generally are not like small businesses only larger. They have more in common with the robber barons that Teddy Roosevelt went up against (monopolies and cartels who desire domination of a market) than a general store. Their raison d'etre is about the same as Conan "crush your enemies, and relish in the lamentations of their women!," but in this case their enemy, as they see it, IS small and local businesses (think WalMart). Ask a struggling local business-person in town (besides a bar) what they think of the large MNCs on the edge of town and they'll tell you... they've told me. WalMart/Sinclair/Gap.... any of them, are not members of our community, they don't care about us anynore than they do a worker in a sweatshop in Juarez as long as they can fleece our money and productive effort (labor) from us before we choke on our Big Mac we're nothing to them! and the worker, comminity member, small business, or local entrepeneur is just another obstacle to increasing the profit margin or reducing the bottom line. (If they can't be reified or reducated... then they must be eliminated like defective widget).
I admit, I am no friend of the Republicans, even the old-style ones, (and the Dems are no better!! Good cop/Bad cop still a cop) BUT the nascent observations of Roosevelt and Eisenhower are correct the greatest threat to our economy and democracy is simply corporate power.
Power corrupts and Corporate Power corrupts completely!
Thom Paine where are you? America needs some Common Sense! |
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Dec 2004
|
"More Common Sense":
Again, you ignore the fundamental differences between not simply the importance of the funding differences between public and private broadcasting, but more importantly the differences in content on NPR-affiliated stations and those that large corporations own. NPR affiliates by any sober estimation broadcast a variety of opinions ranging from those critical of modern corporate capitalism to those that staunchly defend it, implicitly and explicitly. It is not difficult to find a wide range of shows either on PBS or NPR that routinely broadcast on financial matters without a hint of criticism or mention of exploitation of workers or consumers, that broadcast right-wing opinions such as McLaughlin Group, Tucker Carlson, William F. Buckley (in one of the longest-running shows on PBS ever), Wall Street Week, and others to complement liberal views from people such as Tavis Smiley and others. No such parity exists on WICD. There are no counter-editorials from liberals or progressives to Mark Hyman's insipid editorial gibberish, none.
Let's remember that media companies are supposed to ensure people's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in return for their nearly wholesale control of the boradcast airwaves. Their task, in addition to providing important and necessary information for the good of the public, is to ensure that they protect and advance the constitutionally protected rights of everyone on their airwaves. It is important to remember that these airwaves, once purchased by a large conglomerate such as Sinclair, do not or at least should not become the fiefdom of an unaccountable corporation such as Sinclair. They have a broader duty which Sinclair is failing to fulfill. It certainly did not represent broader public interests with its rejection of advertisements from Move-on.org and other progressive sources during last fall, when it dubiously claimed that it did not want to become involved in politicizing issues such as the war, health insurance, and other vital national issues during a presidential campaign. At the same time, Hyman's duplicitous mug routinely appeared on the airwaves his company controls to criticize John Kerry with no counter-editorials. This was a prime example of wealthy corporate control overriding the puiblic interest, with opposing interests willing and entitled to purchase airtime to broadcast their views rejected by a corporation using its control to broadcast only one view, its view.
Lastly, it seems as though your responses only confirm my stances against Sinclair. It goes without saying that it's my right to oppose Sinclair's heinous abuse of its ownership of an important slice of the public airwaves. Implicit in your comments is an attempt to individualize the response to Sinclair's behavior, that the "proper" response would simply be for a disgruntled indivudal to change the channel, and let Sinclair, for all its wrongdoing, just be Sinclair. Yet it should be clear that Sinclair's actions affect a wider audience, many of whom do not agree with the one-sided editorials that Sinclair broadcasts. It is not for Sinclair to broadcast one viewpoint, but a range of viewpoints. When it fails to do so, as it continuously does, it is for the public to act en masse, not only as individuals, to pressure Sinclair to act appropriately. Your transparent attempts to blunt public protest against Sinclair won't work. People and media-reform organizations already realize how bad the problem has become and are far along in their opposition. Perhaps you have an individual or corporate interest in trying to atomize opposition to Sinclair's behavior, perhaps not. However, the public certainly has a right and responsibility to oppose Sinclair, just as right-wingers act en masse to oppose actions in media institutions that they oppose. Sinclair has a responsibility to the public, not just to its ownership, that you need to recognize. |
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by goodriddancegipper
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
30 Dec 2004
|
Thom Pain:
Keep up the good work. I enjoy your postings.
GRG |
|
Re: Protest Launched Against Sinclair, Including Local Affliate WICD, Ch. 15 |
by Karyn Turk
karynturk (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
22 Jul 2005
|
|
I don't like them pushing the Republicans and using their POWER to futher brain-wash the already brain-washed society. This society is too conservative and need to make some much needed changes. |
|
