“Smear” rhetoric aside (not having seen the show, I’ve no way to judge it, nor do I trust the predictable reaction from the Kerry campaign team), it certainly feels like an escalation of the awful campaigning-by-media-proxy trend of the current election cycle for the Sinclair broadcast group to preempt normal programming for an anti-Kerry film.
Sinclair has told its stations — many of them in political swing states such as Ohio and Florida — to air “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” sources said. The film, funded by Pennsylvania veterans and produced by a veteran and former Washington Times reporter, features former POWs accusing Kerry — a decorated Navy veteran turned war protester — of worsening their ordeal by prolonging the war. Sinclair will preempt regular prime-time programming from the networks to show the film, which may be classified as news programming, according to TV executives familiar with the plan.
Because what this campaign needs, of course, is more mudslinging.
On the other hand, I tend to fall on the side of free speech (and free criticism thereof) in such things. How many of the folks protesting Sinclair’s actions here would be objecting if they were broadcasting Fahrenheit 911 (which, in fact, may show up the night before the election on pay-per-view), or a Moveon.org anti-Bush documentary? I seriously doubt it.
Classifying the broadcast as “news” strikes me the same as classifying F911 as a “documentary,” and putting on a discussion panel to which Kerry is invited doesn’t seem to be “fair” (and, thus, may be subject to FCC action) — but, then, I’d still rather put such stuff out there and let people refute it than try to silence it ahead of time. Free speech needs to outweigh civility and fairness, especially in an environment where civility seems to have already gone by the wayside, and fairness is well on its way there, too.
Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself. She is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
      — Thomas Jefferson
Of course, I’m also not convinced by any means that what either Kerry or Bush were doing three decades or so ago bear that much relevance to what they are doing or proposing to do now.
(via BoingBoing)
I realize the temptation to think the other side is just as bad is pretty strong, but in this case I think you’re dead wrong.
I do think this is a they-oughta-lose-their-license move, but that’s not because I’m a partisan. My partisan attitude does not trump my belief in as fair and equitable electoral process as we can manage to attain. Just because I’m for the other team does not mean I support selective enforcement of the rules.
Fair enough. I still suspect the outrage from some quarters would be far less if we were talking about something that slammed Bush than something that slammed Kerry. Others would be as principled as you.
I remain dubious over too many overt measures to enforce a “fair and equitable electoral process.” For one thing, it makes it far too easy to play games with the system (what does actually quality as news vs. campaigning, and does the truth of the matter discussed affect that decision, and who gets to decide, and when). Like campaign finance reform, efforts to crack down on what people say and do, with dollars or money, tend to slip through the cracks in the system.
The main concern, which I share, is that where there is partisan control over the media — be it “liberal” or “conservative” (your conspiracy theory may vary) — the speech and information may be fettered not by law, but by who owns the printing press. I don’t necessarily buy the argument that the Internet makes liberal/conservative control of the newspapers or networks meaningless. I don’t have a good answer for that, but I’m also unsure that trying to impose a “fairness doctrine” during campaign season is a good answer, either.
There are, as they say, nuts on both sides and I am sure there are Republicans disgusted by these tactics just as there are Democrats who feel we should emulate them.
As I understand it, the breaks on media influence in political matters was two-fold — equal time laws and restrictions on media ownership. Over time both of those have been significantly eroded.
While I tend to prefer a free market, I think there are good reasons for media ownership restrictions. Indeed, I think they are preferable to equal time laws, as they can be rendered more objective.
Other then the fact that it is illegal…
11CFR114.2:
National banks and corporations organized by authority of any law of Congress are prohibited form making expenditures as defined in 11 CFR 114.1(a) for communications to those outside the restricted class expressly advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified political party, with respect to an election to any political office, including any local, State or Federal office.
(2) Except as provided at 11 CFR 114.10, corporations and labor organizations are prohibited from:
(i) Making expenditures as defined in 11 CFR part 100, subpart D;
(ii) Making expenditures with respect to a Federal election (as defined in 11 CFR 114.1(a)), for communications to those outside the restricted class that expressly advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified political party; or
(iii) Making payments for an electioneering communication to those outside the restricted class.
And 11CFR100.29:
Sec. 100.29 Electioneering communication (2 U.S.C. 434(f)(3)).
(a) Electioneering communication means any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that:
(1) Refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office;
(2) Is publicly distributed within 60 days before a general election for the office sought by the candidate; or within 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a convention or caucus of a political party that has authority to nominate a candidate, for the office sought by the candidate, and the candidate referenced is seeking the nomination of that political party; and
(3) Is targeted to the relevant electorate, in the case of a candidate for Senate or the House of Representatives.
So as long as you don’t “expressly advocate the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s) or the candidates of a clearly identified political party” you’re fine? If you simply say that Candidate X is a scum-sucker who kicks the canes from the hands of the elderly and tortures small kittens in his kitchen, but don’t say “therefore don’t vote for this creep,” you’re in accord with the law?
That’s the problem with trying to legislate speech restrictions.
Nice…
Sinclair spokesman Mark Hyman said the Hunt Valley, Md.-based company decided to air the film after it was rejected for airing by the major broadcast networks.
“This is a powerful story,” Hyman said. “The networks are acting like Holocaust deniers and pretending these people (the POWs) don’t exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them.”
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA101204.04A.Sinclair.10e2aae06.html “target=”new”>reg req’d