Media giant tries to shape public opinion

The Sinclair Broadcast Group owns 62 stations in 39 markets and has an audience comprised of about a quarter of the American public.

Earlier this month, this media giant announced that just before the election it will order its affiliates to air a program about Sen. John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activism.

The so-called documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," is highly critical of Kerry and includes charges that his 1971 comments about atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam directly led to the further torture of U.S. prisoners of war at the hands of the North Vietnamese.

Directed by Carlton Sherwood, a former aide to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, the film includes interviews with a number of former POWs who claim that Kerry's televised Senate testimony had the effect of prolonging their captivity. Sinclair has ordered its stations to preempt an hour of regular primetime programming for the special less than two weeks before Election Day.

With a closer analysis, anyone with just a hint of olfactory function can understand that this stinks. First, and perhaps most importantly, four brothers who have donated $121,000 to Bush and the Republican Party in the past five years own Sinclair, whose stations are notorious for their right-wing stance.

For example, the company pre-empted the April "Nightline" program on which Ted Koppel read the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, denouncing it as "unpatriotic." What makes the airing of the anti-Kerry program so problematic is that it is being advertised as news and not opinion. In a free society we are all entitled to our views, but when such beliefs are touted as journalism and not commentary, the public is put at risk.

According to American University communications professor Jane Hall, "People in the news business are supposed to present both sides of the story. They are not supposed to have an agenda." There is no doubt that Sinclair has an agenda, and that agenda includes ensuring Bush's re-election.

Speaking of presenting both sides of the story, I agree with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that this action is a clear violation of federal election laws related to equal time. In a letter to Sinclair's President and CEO David Smith, the Kerry campaign notes that according to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines, "a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate's campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate 'quasi-equal opportunities.'"

The letter goes on to make the important point that the public airwaves, which belong in essence to the people, should not be employed to support one candidate over another. Sinclair's argument that this is a free speech issue falls short because they claim the film is fact and not opinion. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and a company that owned so many stations ordered the showing of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" just before the election and claimed it was news?

In response to Sinclair's decision, the DNC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) and over 100 Democratic members of Congress requested that the FCC examine the matter. FCC chairman Michael Powell responded by saying, "Don't look to us to block the airing of a program." Apparently the chairman is too busy worrying about any future wardrobe malfunctions to find the time to investigate.

Incidentally, under Powell's leadership, the FCC in 2003 voted to change several of its media ownership rules, including those limiting the number of TV stations one corporation can own and banning the cross-ownership of a TV station and newspaper in the same market.

According to Freepress.net, "Such media concentration not only violates the premise of a competitive marketplace, but it makes a mockery of the notion of a free press enshrined in the Constitution." The current controversy involving Sinclair could not provide a clearer illustration of why many have spoken out vehemently against the FCC's revisions and why a federal appeals court recently overturned several of the rule changes and sent them back to the FCC for revision.

The idea that one company can own such a large number of media outlets is not only harmful to the consumer in terms of limiting competition, it also brings up the issue of how such a company could use its stations to influence public opinion. Allowing companies with clear political agendas, either left or right leaning, to control a vast number of media outlets is a disservice to the American people and should be viewed with skepticism by all who seek a society in which diverse opinions are encouraged.

It should be noted that not all the executives at Sinclair saw eye to eye about the airing of "Stolen Honor." The company's Washington bureau chief for its news division spoke out angrily in opposition to the decision to show the program. Jon Lieberman, Sinclair's lead political reporter, said of the film, "It's biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway the election. For me, it's not about right or left - it's about what's right or wrong in news coverage this close to an election." Not surprisingly, Lieberman was promptly fired for his courageous and honest comments.

Throughout America, there are countless organizations with clear political agendas. Many of these have invested a great deal of money and effort into advancing their causes, including supporting a particular candidate. This is exactly how it should be in a nation that values freedom of speech and opinion. However, the use of the public airwaves under the guise of fair and balanced journalism, such as that planned by Sinclair, sets a dangerous precedent and gives insight into how perilous the ownership of a large number of information outlets by one company can be.

In her Sunday column, Molly Ivins wrote, "The Sinclair Broadcasting Group has moved this election into the realm of creeping fascism, state propaganda, Big Brother, and brainwashing." I'm not so sure she's wrong.

Sources:

http://www.star-telegram.com

http://www.news.yahoo.com

http://www.freepress.net

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.sun-sentinal.com