PDA

View Full Version : Sinclair retreats on Kerry Film.




Xtremehkr
Oct 20, 2004, 11:59 AM
Sinclair retreats on Kerry Film (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sinclair20oct20,1,2648211.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)

NEW YORK — Facing advertiser defections, a viewer boycott and a plummeting stock price, as well as strong opposition from Democrats, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. scrapped its plan to air a film that attacks the 1970s-era antiwar activities of Sen. John F. Kerry, and will instead run a special produced by its news division incorporating parts of the movie.

The decision not to run all of "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" came after several shareholder complaints against the company were announced Tuesday, sending Sinclair shares down 3.5% after a nearly 8% slide Monday.

Sinclair, which owns or controls stations that reach nearly a quarter of all American homes with televisions, also scaled back the number of outlets that would air the revised program, called "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." It will air Friday on 40 of Sinclair's 62 stations, including three each in the crucial swing states of Ohio and Florida.

According to a Sinclair news release issued late Tuesday, the program would look at the use of documentaries to influence voting in the 2004 campaign, as well as at media bias and the content of "certain of these documentaries." "Stolen Honor" was the only film cited in the news release.

Sinclair's announcement caps 10 days in which the company found itself under assault as a symbol of the effects of media consolidation. Its plan to air the film — never announced publicly but communicated widely to its employees, its stations, its network partners and "Stolen Honor" filmmaker Carlton Sherwood — drew sharp criticism after it was disclosed in The Times, partly because the proposed air date fell so close to election day in an intensely fought presidential race.

Democratic senators and representatives protested to the Federal Communications Commission, and the Democratic National Committee complained to the Federal Election Commission that the broadcast would be an improper in-kind contribution to the Bush reelection effort. FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said the agency wouldn't intervene.

Sinclair executives are top donors to the Republican Party, and the company has previously been criticized for eschewing localism in favor of a centralized news operation run from its Maryland headquarters. Critics and even some Sinclair employees said that approach had blurred the line between journalism and right-skewing commentary.

The Sinclair news department got the assignment to do the news program on Sunday, according to Jon Leiberman, Sinclair's Washington bureau chief. Leiberman was fired Monday for violating company policy by telling the Baltimore Sun he had refused to work on the program. In an interview with The Times, Leiberman said he thought the program should be labeled commentary, not news.

Critics said the new program would probably still represent a wide airing for the charges that Sherwood made in the 42-minute "Stolen Honor" — namely that Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities prolonged the ordeal of American prisoners.

"Why do you need to report this issue in a special on a Friday night in prime time before the election?" said Jay Rosen, chairman of New York University's journalism department. Sinclair's centralized newscast seems "invented just for this purpose, when the bosses think some story is being neglected and they want to be sure it gets out to its stations," Rosen said.

Kerry's campaign, which had demanded equal time on Sinclair stations to counter "Stolen Honor," had turned down Sinclair's request to have the Democratic candidate appear to discuss the "Stolen Honor" charges.

Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said of the new development: "It remains to be seen whether they decide to put their own narrow interest ahead of the public's trust."

Bill Kovach, founding director of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, said the Sinclair case represented the "fear of the opponents of media consolidation — that ownership could do just this."

Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo.com, a Web log, had been encouraging the protests, said the activists forced Sinclair to change course: "This wouldn't have happened four years ago," he said, noting that "an infrastructure for mobilization" now existed among Democrats.

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, said in a statement that the company had "backed down." "It seems as if the public pressure was more than it could bear," he said.

Sherwood, the filmmaker, said, "Of course I would have hoped that the entire film would have been aired," adding that the company's executives had his "highest respect for all the criticism and financial losses and difficulties they have had to endure as a result of this." He declined further comment until he could confer with Sinclair.

Sinclair executives didn't return calls for comment. According to the press release, the program will air at 8 p.m. Friday (7 p.m. Central time) on stations including Sinclair's only California outlet in Sacramento. Previously, Sinclair had told the networks with which it was affiliated that its stations would preempt network programming for "Stolen Honor" beginning Thursday.

The company said it would limit the airing of the special to one station in each city to "minimize the interruption of normally scheduled programming." The firm has been a beneficiary of relaxed federal limits on the number of stations one company can control in a market; Sinclair runs two or more outlets in 21 markets nationwide.

Sinclair's actions came after a day of increased shareholder pressure and evidence that the controversy was drawing wider attention to its already-sinking share price.

On Tuesday, Glickenhaus & Co., an investment firm holding 6,100 Sinclair shares, sent a letter to Sinclair's board and its chief executive, David D. Smith, asking that they immediately "provide those with views opposed to the allegations in the film an equal opportunity to respond." The letter threatened legal action to stop the broadcast otherwise, citing Sinclair's obligation to shareholders. The action was underwritten by the left-leaning advocacy group Media Matters for America.

Also Tuesday, William Lerach, a San Diego attorney with Democratic ties who represents major institutional investors, wrote to Sinclair on behalf of clients — the only one he would name was the 1199 Service Employees International Union Greater New York Pension Fund — saying it was "extremely troubled" by the company's recent downward revision of its expected third-quarter earnings, due out Nov. 4.

Lerach asked that the board take action against what he said was possible insider trading by three senior executives in the last year. Such a request is standard prelude to a shareholder suit, which Lerach said could be filed soon.

New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, a Democrat, sent Sinclair a letter Tuesday in his capacity as trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which holds 256,000 Sinclair shares, questioning how the controversy "will improve performance and add to shareholder value."

Sinclair's Smith, in the press release, called the experience of preparing the special "trying for many of those involved. The company and many of its executives have endured personal attacks of the vilest nature," he said, as well as the boycott threats and calls for shareholders to sell stock.

"More shockingly," he said, "we have received threats of retribution from a member of Sen. John Kerry's campaign."

Kerry spokesman Clanton called the charge "ridiculous," saying, "The only threat here is Sinclair Broadcasting who's trying to use the airwaves for partisan political purposes."

Smith added in his statement, "We cannot in a free America yield to the misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence and trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not agree."


Nothing like some good news to start the day.



solvs
Oct 20, 2004, 01:26 PM
I actually did want to see it. Simply because Moore was going to let them run F911 for free if they showed it. They couldn't say no, because then it would look (more) suspicious. But couldn't say yes, because we know Bush has screwed up, but what Kerry did 30 years ago during an unpopular war seems a little less important.

Maybe I'll see it sometime. After the election. Good news though.

Xtremehkr
Oct 20, 2004, 02:22 PM
I actually did want to see it. Simply because Moore was going to let them run F911 for free if they showed it. They couldn't say no, because then it would look (more) suspicious. But couldn't say yes, because we know Bush has screwed up, but what Kerry did 30 years ago during an unpopular war seems a little less important.

Maybe I'll see it sometime. After the election. Good news though.

Where did you hear that? I was listening to M Moore live on NPR yesterday and he had just found out that he had been blocked from showing F911 on Pay Per View even. At that point he was wanting to find out who because his company would not tell him. I am really disturbed by the lack of transparency lately.

Oh, showing F911 on PPV is not the same as broadcasting it on national tv for free. PPV is no different from having the movie available to see at theatres or at Blockbuster.

I've heard the spin that justifies what the Sinclair group was doing by saying that it is counterbalanced by M Moore placing something on PPV. I wholeheartedly disagree with that assertion, to see F911 you would have to have cable or dish access and consciously pay a fee to see it.

The Sinclair group are using their position as a large media owner to pre-empt normal programming in order to show partisan propaganda that is freely available to all.

If that claim were true, I am sure it would have been mentioned here before. Though if you have a link I would love to see it, I don't think M Moore would have ever turned down that deal.

solvs
Oct 20, 2004, 06:50 PM
If that claim were true, I am sure it would have been mentioned here before. Though if you have a link I would love to see it.
I admit, I don't think I have a link handy, but I can try to find one later. I believe I heard it referenced on Al Franken's show, but it might have been somewhere else. I watch a lot of TV news, and flip around a lot.

It was after they said they wouldn't be showing F911 on PPV, but they were still going to show the Anti-Kerry movie. He made a comment about just giving it to Sinclair to show and not charging them for it. Don't know if he was serious, but considering he's telling people to d/l it and getting some places to give the DVD away for free, I didn't doubt that he would offer. Agree with him or not, he does not want Bush to be re-elected and is willing to put money where his mouth is. (insert joke here)

On a related note, I hear Farenhype 9/11 is on sale exclusively at Overstock.com. Think it will be as popular and pull in millions? :D

Lyle
Oct 22, 2004, 10:53 AM
If this election season hasn't gotten weird enough for you yet, the New York Times published an overall positive review (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/arts/television/21stan.html?ex=1099022400&en=3d84a732b293b65f&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1) of "Stolen Honor" yesterday. An excerpt:
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," the highly contested anti-Kerry documentary, should not be shown by the Sinclair Broadcast Group. It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television.

This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.

Sinclair, the nation's largest television station group, reaching about a quarter of United States television households, backed down this week and announced that it would use only excerpts from the 42-minute film as part of an hourlong news program about political use of the media, "A P.O.W. Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media.'' That's too bad: what is most enlightening about this film is not the depiction of Mr. Kerry as a traitor; it is the testimony of the former P.O.W.'s describing the torture they endured in captivity and the shock they felt when celebrities like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden visited their prisons in North Vietnam and sided with the enemy.The reviewer acknowledges that the film contains some "distortions intended to hurt Kerry at the polls," but seems to conclude that the film does an effective job of portraying the "real subject of the film: the veterans' unheeded feelings of betrayal and neglect."

SPG
Oct 22, 2004, 12:11 PM
SINCLAIR HAS NOT BACKED DOWN.

They are taking a 42 minute film and excerpting it into a 60 minute show. Huh? 42 is less than 60, so there's plenty of room to show almost the whole thing and have a ultra right winger spew about Kerry to fill in the other 18 minutes.
The company has lost $90million in value, $40million personally by the family that owns it and made the decision to use their network of stations as a political in kind contribution and they are not backing down. This "change" is a smokescreen to make people think they are backing down.
Check out http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ for more info. Scroll down.

Farenheit 911 will not be shown. Michael Moore made the offer, but of course SBG turned it down cold.

zimv20
Oct 22, 2004, 12:26 PM
Farenheit 911 will not be shown. Michael Moore made the offer, but of course SBG turned it down cold.
because, after the rebuttals, it would have turned into a 30 hour show.

Lyle
Oct 22, 2004, 02:40 PM
Farenheit 911 will not be shown. Michael Moore made the offer, but of course SBG turned it down cold.link?

SPG
Oct 23, 2004, 12:19 AM
link?
No link. Heard it from the man himself in person the other night here in Seattle. He then joked about getting a projector and playing it on the side of their HQ building.

Lyle
Oct 23, 2004, 11:25 AM
No link. Heard it from the man himself in person the other night here in Seattle.Oh, say no more. As long as it's a reliable news source like Michael Moore, it must be true.

SPG
Oct 23, 2004, 02:18 PM
Oh, say no more. As long as it's a reliable news source like Michael Moore, it must be true.
WTF? How much more reliable a source can you ****ing ask for?!?! The man who made the movie and owns it, and made the offer, tells me directly out of his own mouth in front of me and a whole bunch of other people and then you say that's not reliable?
Just 'cause it didn't happen on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's this whole other world away from the computer where real people, even some famous ones, really do things in real life.

skunk
Oct 23, 2004, 03:38 PM
There's this whole other world away from the computer where real people, even some famous ones, really do things in real life.
Link?


:D

Xtremehkr
Oct 23, 2004, 07:13 PM
Just quoting the LATimes article. They have backed down somewhat but not much, I was heartened by the fact that there were some people mentioned in the article who are taking action though.

solvs
Oct 23, 2004, 07:51 PM
They have backed down somewhat but not much, I was heartened by the fact that there were some people mentioned in the article who are taking action though.
I've also heard of people in the film not wanting it shown because it distorts what they say more than a Michael Moore film. :D I was afraid to say anything without someone asking for a link. :p If I hear on TV straight from the person themselves, there's often no link. Sorry.

Lyle
Oct 24, 2004, 07:54 AM
WTF? How much more reliable a source can you ****ing ask for?!?! The man who made the movie and owns it, and made the offer, tells me directly out of his own mouth in front of me and a whole bunch of other people and then you say that's not reliable?I don't question that you heard him say this. It is, however, suspicious to me that -- as far as I can tell -- no news organization has reported on Mr. Moore's alleged offer for Sinclair Broadcast Group to show Fahrenheit 9/11 for free on their stations. A lot of people have written a lot of words about both SBG and F911 and it seems like at least one of those people would have mentioned this tidbit. I mean, wouldn't you report this in your story about the controversy if you were a reporter? I even went to Michael Moore's own web site (http://www.michaelmoore.com) and couldn't find any reference to it.

Just 'cause it didn't happen on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen. There's this whole other world away from the computer where real people, even some famous ones, really do things in real life.Again, to be clear, I'm not questioning that you heard him say this. But it's my observation that Mr. Moore is sometimes prone to exaggeration (and I'm trying to be nice here) and so yes, I do take his claims with a grain of salt.

IJ Reilly
Oct 24, 2004, 12:30 PM
I don't question that you heard him say this. It is, however, suspicious to me that -- as far as I can tell -- no news organization has reported on Mr. Moore's alleged offer for Sinclair Broadcast Group to show Fahrenheit 9/11 for free on their stations.

I don't understand this statement. You don't doubt that Moore said this, but his offer is still "alleged?"

edit:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=170253

Lyle
Oct 24, 2004, 02:33 PM
I don't question that you heard him say this. It is, however, suspicious to me that -- as far as I can tell -- no news organization has reported on Mr. Moore's alleged offer for Sinclair Broadcast Group to show Fahrenheit 9/11 for free on their stations.I don't understand this statement. You don't doubt that Moore said this, but his offer is still "alleged?"I will concede that now that Moore's said it in public, Sinclair could at least take it as an informal offer. There's no evidence (that I've seen) that he had actually made such an offer (and was rejected) beforehand; e.g. ABC news reporting that "When Moore made his offer, a spokesman for Sinclair Broadcast Group said, 'We respectfully decline Michael Moore's offer and ask him to bite it.'"

The point that I was trying to make is that just because someone makes a statement in front of a large group of people, it doesn't mean that the statement is true. I think SPG's argument (and I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent it) goes like this:

Michael Moore claimed that he'd offered to let Sinclair show F9/11 for free but they "turned [his offer] down cold."
Since SPG and everyone in the audience heard Moore make this claim, it must in fact be true that (a) the offer was made and (b) the offer was rejected.
To apply this reasoning to a different example that everyone reading this forum is familiar with:

Early in 2003, President Bush made the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He made this claim on national television, to a very large audience.
Since millions of Americans heard Bush make this claim, it must in fact be true that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
At best, the ABC News story that you linked to confirms part of what SPG has already said: that Michael Moore has now made at least an informal offer. It only speculates on what Sinclair's response would be.

pseudobrit
Oct 24, 2004, 02:52 PM
The point that I was trying to make is that just because someone makes a statement in front of a large group of people, it doesn't mean that the statement is true. I think SPG's argument (and I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent it) goes like this

Bush's statement was one of evidence.

Moore's statement, by his making it, made it true. If I get on a national platform and offer my money or services to someone, haven't I made the offer, regardless of whether or not I called up their main office beforehand?

IJ Reilly
Oct 24, 2004, 03:13 PM
Lyle, your reasoning on this is so perverse I hardly know what to say. A quick bit of googling produced several article recounting Moore's offer. Apparently he's been making this statement in get-out-the-vote speeches for some time. Clearly he's teasing Sinclair, and knows full well they will never accept his offer -- but that changes nothing in the nature of the offer. Also, for the record, Sinclair has frequently declined to comment in news stories about their plans to air the anti-Kerry film, so they certainly are not going to rise to Michael Moore's bait.

solvs
Oct 24, 2004, 11:11 PM
Thanks for the link.

I had heard it several places, but did not have a link. Sinclair's official response is "no comment". We will never know, because they will never actually say yes or no. But seeing as how they are not showing it, and chose instead to not show the Kerry film, we can only assume by the facts that it will not be shown. If it is shown, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. Unlike with Iraq, where there were no WMDs and no ties to Al Qaida, and he actually had evidence to support this fact. He chose to look at the evidence that there was and showed that to Congress and the UN. As more evidence came out, people began asking questions. Your argument is tenuous at best.

Moore has been giving his DVD away at certain stores, telling people to d/l it for free, and offering to let TV stations show it (free or not). No one has accepted, and there is no evidence that he has turned anyone down who has offered. Therefore, unless it is shown, the evidence points to the fact that no one wants to show it. Somehow, I have the feeling that if he did turn someone down, we would have heard about it. People would love to prove that he isn't as altruistic as he says he is. Since he is offering, and the networks are saying "no comment", I think that actually proves they won't show it.

By your logic it would be more like saying there might be WMDs or ties to Al Qaida, but since we don't know for sure, we shouldn't attack until we are sure. Which is what we should have done. Which if we did, I would not be voting for Kerry.