That’s got to the most fucking idiotic claim in the world, by the way, that we have a “liberal” media. If you’ve watched reporting during this presidency or during the “blame Clinton” years in the 90’s, it’s pretty clear that the media has little liberal anything… if anything, the media has leaned to the right over recent years in terms of their political reporting. Increased corporate ownership of our major media outlets is part of the reason that the media feels less willing to take risks or support populist or liberal issues.
The latest example of this is the Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the same people that refused to air the Nightline episode that named all the American casualties. Well, they’ve decided to air an anti-Kerry film called Stolen Honor about a week before the elections. They will preempt the network programming on each of their stations in order to air the film and then will host a panel discussion afterwards. As Josh Marshall puts it:
Basically it’s a 90 minute Swift-Boat ad which Sinclair is ordering stations seen in a quarter of the nation’s households to show a week before the election.
It actually is affiliated with the Swift Boat 527… I’ve been keeping CNN on more often at work lately and they’re putting up a URL for the film in their new commercials, both of which are distortions of Kerry’s testimony in front of Congress.
This ought to be illegal. I’m sure the Republicans who were complaining that advertising for Fahrenheit 9/11, a movie released in major theaters many months before the election, should be banned from airing will file the same complaint with the FEC and FCC about this, too.
In case you were wondering, Sinclair executives have given 97% of their money to Republicans this election cycle.
“It’s not the American way for powerful corporations to strong-arm local broadcasters to air lies promoting a political agenda,” said David Wade, a spokesman for the Democratic nominee’s campaign. “It’s beyond yellow journalism; it’s a smear bankrolled by Republican money, and I don’t think Americans will stand for it.”
Sinclair stations are spread throughout the country, in major markets that include Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Las Vegas; its only California station is in Sacramento. Fourteen of the 62 stations the company either owns or programs are in the key political swing states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where the presidential election is being closely fought.
Station and network sources said they have been told the Sinclair stations — which include affiliates of Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, as well as WB and UPN — will be preempting regular programming for one hour between Oct. 21 and Oct. 24, depending on the city. The airing of “Stolen Honor” will be followed by a panel discussion, which Kerry will be asked to join, thus potentially satisfying fairness regulations, the sources said.
Kerry campaign officials said they had been unaware of Sinclair’s plans to air the film, and said Kerry had not received an invitation to appear.
The only way this could be even remotely fair is if they preempt another hour or two and air Going Upriver or Fahrenheit 9/11.





October 9th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
This is really interesting from the prospective of free speach vs election law. As it is a “documentary” is probably isn’t classified as campagining…even though it obviously is. Just as 9/11 probably was campaigning. 9/11 probably had a bit more protection, since people had to pay to see it. The only potential violation I see is that preempting an hour of TV may be equivalent to a campaign donation and that may exceed certain limits. Although if set up as a 527, they may be allowed to get as much TV time as they can.
This is going to open up a huge can of worms. When is political speach protected and when does it fall under campaign donation regulations. I suspect that this type of behavior is going to go to court and that many of the campaign financing rules are going to be thrown out.
October 9th, 2004 at 10:49 pm
except that (theoretically) we all own the airwaves, and broadcasters license them from us (the government) in exchange for certain obligations….
October 10th, 2004 at 7:43 am
I don’t think that view is well supported by law. The licenses for exclusive use of the airwaves are quite expensive and the bandspace is sold to companies.
October 10th, 2004 at 9:45 am
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but you’re wrong. They’re licenses. The stations have certain obligations under the license, which is a contract just like any other. There are periodic renewal periods, though the windows are quite large. Some obligations you may have heard of include so many hours of children’s programming, so many hours of news, etc.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA454236.html?display=Top+of+the+Week&referral=SUPP
October 10th, 2004 at 11:03 am
Yes, having written a broadcast license application, I can say that you are correct that there are regulations. However the licenses are bought and sold. The companies that own the stations and the license have broad discretion over what is aired. It would be difficult, if not impossible to define something as “campaigning” and something else as “not campaigning” for the purposes of election law. There will always be a blurry line. We have a hard enough time doing it with obscenity. Not to mention that it would fall under the FCC and not the FEC.
Any law which attempted to make this illegal would impinge on free expression. Stations and their owners don’t have to be unbiased…and you can’t legislate them to be so.
A far better solution would be to limit the number the licenses one company or individual can hold and to lower the cost of the licenses. That way, one person can’t control a large segment of the market and consumers get more choice. That would be a winning situation for consumers.
October 10th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
but they have an obligation to give equal time to both candidates… you’re acting as if they have no obligations relating to elections and campaigning… they DO.
you’re right about the ownership situation being an underlying problem here… I agree, and that’s why I give money to the organizations I give to… The FCC has made it clear that they don’t care about the competitive space of broadcast television because they claim so many cable channels exist. There are numerous problems with this logic, but I don’t have the time right now to detail them. Best thing I can do is point at http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/ .
October 10th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
They are obligated to provide equal access to the CANDIDATES. Sinclair is not providing access to Bush, although the benefit is to him. What is also interesting, is that CFR 73.1941, which talks about documentaries, specifies that access is required if the candidate is central to the documentary. In a bizarre twist, it could be argued that Bush could ask for equal access, since Kerry, his voice, and likeness are appearing in the film, even if it is negative (the rules do not distinguish). By having a discussion afterward, they probably are meeting USC 315 and can reasonably argue they are acting in the public interest and are providing reasonable oppertunity to discuss an issue of public importants. They could also argue that the film is central to the discussion and that the issue can not be advanced without it.
You can argue that law hasn’t kept up with negative advertising and 527s, but these guys are clearly within the law.
October 10th, 2004 at 4:27 pm
no one is arguing that this is illegal… you only argued that it wasn’t illegal…
I’ve just been responding that campaign financing laws with regard to TV have some basis in law that won’t make it a slam dunk for campaign finance opponents…
regardless, I should start interpreting the PDR
October 10th, 2004 at 4:31 pm
and to make my point clear, my thought about the FEC/FCC complaints is that the Republicans that complained about Moore’s film’s advertising should complain about this for consistency… both are “violations” of the same sort in terms of the campaign finance guidelines.
I wonder if there’s another way to argue this, as the film is affiliated with a 527…
October 11th, 2004 at 3:40 pm
Disinfopedia has some useful pages on the Stolen Honor attack-flick:
Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal
Carlton Sherwood - producer
Red, White & Blue Productions, Inc. - production company
WVC3 Group, Inc. - Sherwood’s spooky ‘homeland security’ company
October 11th, 2004 at 4:34 pm
Jo - your claim that Vietnam veterans returned to the U.S. “to … be spit on” has been demonstrated to be nothing but an urban myth. See here or here or here.
Further, Kerry merely reported to Congress what he had been told by other “winter soldiers” regarding the atrocities that were committed in Vietnam (which I would hazard to guess have been committed in one form or another in any war in which you have a combination of young people, danger and adrenaline), which have since been substantiated. Ever heard of Mai Lai?
Finally, there’s a huge difference between this and F9/11. People had to *pay* to see F9/11 (and the studio had to pay to air advertisements for it). Sinclair is broadcasting anti-Kerry propaganda *for free*, with the intent of affecting the outcome of the election. Sounds like an in-kind contribution to Bush, to me.
And once again, the “liberal media” is a joke.
Finally, if you really want “America to decide,” support a call for Sinclair to show Stolen Honor back to back with Going Up River, or the PBS special on Mai Lai. I’d gladly support an airing of *both* sides.
October 11th, 2004 at 4:35 pm
One too many “finallys” there…
October 11th, 2004 at 4:46 pm
For more info on the Winter Soldier investigation, try here (please actually read the whole thing, don’t latch on to one or two sentences), or here (free registration required - feel free to use plastic/plastic). For more on atrocities in Vietnam, go here.
October 11th, 2004 at 10:28 pm
Stop Sinclair Broadcasting: Here are a few letters which might serve as a guide to try and stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing its partisan movie as ‘news’. I sent these letters today;
SIGN THE PETITION
http://www.stopsinclair.org/index.php
They reply with links to senators, affiliates, FCC etc.
To Senators;
Dear Senator _________________,
I request that you address this issue on the Senate floor and appeal to other senators;
Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns 62 television stations across the Country, including major broadcast networks in swing states, including Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, has ordered all of its stations to Broadcast the anti-Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor” next week. Affiliates include - Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, as well as WB and UPN. These stations are ordered to broadcast this during primetime on all of their networks.
In a time of war, we should honor those who have served this country. During an election, we should protect our democracy from special interest groups who control our broadcast networks and news stations.
I appreciate your voice and your contribution to the democratic process.
Thank you, __________________
To the FCC;
To: ‘Michael.Powell@fcc.gov’
Cc: ‘Jonathan.Adelstein@fcc.gov’; ‘KJMWEB@fcc.gov’; ‘Michael.Copps@fcc.gov’; ‘Kathleen.Abernathy@fcc.gov’; ‘fccinfo@fcc.gov’; ‘campaignlaw@fcc.gov’
Subject: Stop Sinclair Broadcasting
Dear Michael Powell,
I am writing to you today asking that you and the FCC take immediate action against Sinclair Broadcasting for programming and ordering their affiliates to air a blatantly partisan film that attacks a specific federal candidate so close to an election. For Sinclair Broadcasting to order their 62 television stations across the country and affiliates (Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, WB and UPN) to change their existing program venues to broadcast the anti-Kerry documentary “Stolen Honor” next week, so close to a federal election, is a violation of a fair and ethical election process and broadcast news standards.
I understand that Electioneering Restrictions and Disclosure Under The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), state: “funds from corporations (whether nonprofit or for-profit entities) and unions may not be used to pay for ‘electioneering communications’, which are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that:
- refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate;
- are broadcast within 60 days before the general election of the candidate or within 30 days before the party primary, convention, or caucus that nominates the candidate;
- are targeted to the “relevant electorate,” i.e., over 50,000 persons in the State or district that the candidate seeks to represent.
Exemptions are provided for news stories, commentaries, editorials, and candidate debates and forums. BCRA gives the FEC authority to make additional exemptions, so long as they do not promote, support, attack, or oppose a Federal candidate.”
A political documentary is not ‘news’, nor is a political movie ‘news’. Airing a debate after a movie does not make it ‘news’. For Sinclair Broadcasting to present this movie during prime time as news or as commentary, editorial, or as a debate is overstretching a reasonable interpretation of a fair and ethical election process and broadcast news standards. Additionally, Sinclair Broadcasting has given almost exclusively to Republican candidates in this federal election, 97% according to the Center for Responsive Politics, further clarifying the partisan agenda this major broadcasting corporation has.
Please let Sinclair Broadcasting know that they are operating outside of the law. Their license should be suspended and the movie “Stolen Honor” should be banned from airing so close to an election.
Lastly, this is a problem because Sinclair Broadcasting owns so many stations across the country. A solution to this problem is to limit the number the licenses one company or individual can hold and to lower the cost of the licenses. By restricting the number of station a company may own, one person cannot control a large segment of the market and consumers would get more choice.
Sincerely, ___________________
October 12th, 2004 at 1:47 pm
I commend Sinclair for plannuing to show this movie.
I am a retired Air Force Colonel, and I lost a number of friends and colleagues in Vietnam. I personally know one of the Two Congressional Medal of Honor winners who are part of the POW group shown in the Movie, Colonel Day. He and the other POW’s in this movie are True Heroes, unlike the Fake kerry. (Day happens to be the most highly decorated military person since Douglas MacArthur)One of my best Friends and Classmates from the USAF Academy also won the Medal of Honor for his heroism under torture while a POW in Vietnam. He did not return:they killed him. Five other classmates of mine died as POW’s in North Vietnam.
Meanwhile, Kerry hs gotten away with a “Pass” on his treasonous activities…
October 12th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Which treasonous activities are we talking about, and which of those are being talked about in the movie?
I’m sorry to hear of the friends and colleagues you’ve lost, but I don’t believe that Colonel Day and others in the movie are speaking honorably and truthfully about the activities of Kerry after the Vietnam War. I’ve listened to Kerry’s testimony, read the transcripts, even read mini-histories of the Winter Soldier investigations and Kerry’s testimony. None of those sources seem to agree with the Swift Vet and POWs For Truth 527 ads I’ve watched on CNN.
By all accounts, the movie Stolen Honor is simply a rehash of those same ads, just longer. In other words, it’s bordering on outright lies and really is misleading deception.
Look, if you have a problem with Kerry speaking out after the war, that’s fine. Take that message to the streets and proclaim it with ad buys. Lying about what Kerry said and distorting that record doesn’t reflect well upon those claims. It sure doesn’t honor the memories of those POWs that you speak so highly of. Their memories shouldn’t be hijacked for lies from either side.
I’m not a retired Air Force Colonel, nor am I special in any way. I’m just a regular guy interested in regular truth.