Sinclair Broadcasting: Fairer And Balanceder
By now most of you very smart people have already heard--and have been rightly outraged--by Sinclair Broadcasting's decision to preempt primetime programming with a disgusting anti-Kerry smear "documentary" on the eve of election night. This, remember, is the same company who refused to run Nightline's tribute to American soldiers killed in Iraq... on grounds that is was "too political".
You would think that it would be hard for even the most Rovian of Republican political strategists to be able to spin this any other way but what it is: a partisan hatchet-job; and possible violation of FEC law. But they're trying. Their logic goes like this (really, I'm not making this part up): news stories about car bombs and dead soldiers and job losses help John Kerry, so it's only fair to balance things out with "stories" like this (credit to Hyman for also comparing critics to Holocaust deniers--that took real courage). It's the same mentality that keeps Foxnews around.
One could only imagine the outrage if, on Nov. 1st, CBS decided to preempt all its regular programming to air 'Farenheit 9/11'. One could only imagine a lot of things, though; and most of us know that Republican irony and piercing hypocrisy always seem to fall on deaf ears.
Anyway, Minnesota's local Sinclair affliate wants to know what you think.
posted by Anonymous @ 5:47 PM |
| 
13 Comments:
Ah. You mean like if "60 Minutes" were to devote segment after segment to books (published by CBS' corporate cousins) that excoriate the President (and are later proven false?)
Or if the same show were to air a story based on forged documents, without any pretense of fact-checking, because of an institutional preference for a Kerry presidency?
Or slanted the news coming from overseas to hype the problems in Iraq and ignore, completely, the progress that's been made in more than 2/3 of the nation, because they'd hate to report any of the president's successes?
I dunno. My sense of outrage is getting pretty worn out.
Oh, by the way - what's "disgusting" about the show in question? Do you have any empirical quibbles, or do anti-Kerry points just bum out out on basic principle?
Hey Mitch, is this the same media that kowtowed to the Bush Administration after 9/11 and with their justifications for preemptive strike against Iraq?
I've spent many, many hours researching and editing a segment about what's wrong with the media, including interview segments of Hinderaker going off on the NY Times and Washington Post. He claims, like much of the right, that the vast majority of the media is controlled by The Left and Democrats.
He's referring to reporters and editors. First of all, it's very difficult to measure bias. The Pew Research Center survey of national newsrooms showed the majority of journalists - 54% - called themselves "moderate." 34% described themselves as liberals (up from 1995), and 7% conservative. [I'd sure bet lots of money these figures would be radically different at FOX news and Sinclair Broadcasting.]
Now, you can argue about those moderates - I'd be willing to bet those are journalists who (a) really are centrist, and/or (b) feel that their political leanings don't or shouldn't factor into their profession.
I'm much more convinced that bottom line pressure is what's responsible for the current state of journalism. I'm not alone - fully 2/3 of journalists feel bottom line pressure is 'seriously hurting' the quality of news coverage. Most journalists feel that leads the media to pay less attention to complex stories, and that journalism is headed in the wrong direction.
Ever heard of, "If it bleeds it leads"? Some research shows that violence and crime garner more ratings. Most of the media is a for-profit business. Hinderaker tried to dismiss the impact of ownership on the state of the media, and that's just willfully and surprisingly ignorant.
Oy, I could go on, but back to editing....
Ugh. If the tables were turned and some station with as much coverage as Sinclair made showing "Fahrenheit 9-11," or even "Going Upriver" a requirement for its stations in prime-time, you know that the tighty righties would be pissing their pants about the whole ordeal. Ridiculous.
Why don't they just send out a DVD like the lefties do?
stopsinclair.org
JasonC: "You didn't seem to argue the basic premise of the post, though, Mitch: that this is a blatant GOP hatchet job. Do you want to argue that point?"
That's why I asked, at the end of my comment, what you (plural) thought was so hatchet-y. I haven't seen the program, but I know the left tends to regard any dissent from the Kerry line as "hatchetjobbing", so pardon me if I don't jump on board based on your word...
Chuck Olsen: "Hey Mitch, is this the same media that kowtowed to the Bush Administration after 9/11 and with their justifications for preemptive strike against Iraq?"
What about their coverage after 9/11 do you consider "kowtowing"? And they hardly went along with Iraq - they sniped at it for most of the 18 month run-up to the war./
" I've spent many, many hours researching and editing a segment about what's wrong with the media, including interview segments of Hinderaker going off on the NY Times and Washington Post. He claims, like much of the right, that the vast majority of the media is controlled by The Left and Democrats."
And he's right. You've spent many hours researching? I spent many years *working* in the media! So when you say...
"He's referring to reporters and editors. First of all, it's very difficult to measure bias. The Pew Research Center survey of national newsrooms showed the majority of journalists - 54% - called themselves "moderate." 34% described themselves as liberals (up from 1995), and 7% conservative. [I'd sure bet lots of money these figures would be radically different at FOX news and Sinclair Broadcasting.]"
What you omit is that of those who call themselves "Moderate", the vast majority voted Democrat (LA Times surveys of newsrooms during every election from 1984 through the nineties; haven't seen the ones from the last election, but I doubt they've changed much). And so what if they figures are different at Fox?
"I'm much more convinced that bottom line pressure is what's responsible for the current state of journalism. I'm not alone - fully 2/3 of journalists feel bottom line pressure is 'seriously hurting' the quality of news coverage."
But yet, every editor and executive producer I have ever known or met HOWLS with anger at the suggestion that the bottom line affects *their* coverage of the news.
Most journalists feel that leads the media to pay less attention to complex stories, and that journalism is headed in the wrong direction.
" Ever heard of, "If it bleeds it leads"? Some research shows that violence and crime garner more ratings. Most of the media is a for-profit business. Hinderaker tried to dismiss the impact of ownership on the state of the media, and that's just willfully and surprisingly ignorant."
Sure, but chalking it up to the bottom line is equally ignorant; it's not like your typical editor would be finding a better way to explicate Federalism to a new audience if they didn't have to worry about ratings...
ryan: "Ugh. If the tables were turned and some station with as much coverage as Sinclair made showing "Fahrenheit 9-11," or even "Going Upriver" a requirement for its stations in prime-time, you know that the tighty righties would be pissing their pants about the whole ordeal. Ridiculous."
There's this thing that's been happening for the past, I dunno, 30 years or so. Conservatives have been complaining about liberal bias in the way news is covered, and in the way "entertainment" is presented. Remember "The Day After" (Most of you were probably five when that came out). It was a two-hour puff piece for the nuclear freeze movement that aired on ABC in 1984 (!!!). Pop culture has been vilifying conservative archetypes in big ways and small since the seventies. What do you think Michael Moore could possibly add to that?
Chuck: "Why don't they just send out a DVD like the lefties do?"
Nah. That'd support independent filmmmakers. Eww. That's why we have talk radio.
Well I'm sure that everyone feels a whole lot more comfortable with Sinclair's decision after watching the 1 hour Kerry for President commercial on Frontline last night.
The producers of Frontline must be avid StarTrib readers. They have aped the Strib's tactic of dividing their editorial section evenly: half to promoting Kerry and half to bashing Bush.
Can't wait to see how the producers of "Stolen Honor" manage such fair and balanced reporting!
Hmm. I'd be willing to bet that Frontline and PBS have nowhere near the viewership that Sinclair has across the country.
Mitch, I had to talk to my great-great grandfather to get some information, (You'll have to excuse me for being a spring chicken, I was only 9 when the film played on ABC in November of 1983.) and he told me that although the movie had an anti-nuclear war slant, conservative pundits got their chance to speak out in a discussion on Nightline following the film. Something tells me that Sinclair has no such plans and the Fairness Doctrine no longer exists (as it did in 1983) to make them act.
Mitch - I hope to respond more later... but good point about the LA Times survey, I have to track that down and put it in my segment. I'm basically breaking up Hinderaker's "lefty media" spiel with factoids to give the bigger picture, so I want to include those votings stats.
Point about FOX/Sinclar - nothing wrong with it, but those are two huge media companies with an overt right bias which dilutes the "all big media is lefty" charge. Hinderaker says "We (the right) have more guerilla media... blogs and talk radio."
Swiftee - Well, according to my co-worker, who is a Republican and plans to vote for Bush again, the Frontline piece was fair and unbiased.
-junior scientist
junior scientist said: "Well, according to my co-worker, who is a Republican and plans to vote for Bush again, the Frontline piece was fair and unbiased."
OIC. His name wouldn't happen to be Some Guy would it?
At 5:30 PM, Jonathan said...
"Never you mind all the free air time Bush gets as the incumbent, and who knows how much campaigning he's doing on our tax money."
Campaigning on the taxpayers dime is not right, so I'll tell you what.
You tell all of your lefty pals to denounce lefty politicians who do it(that would be all of them) and I'll do the same for right wingers (same number).
Not...THE Doug?
Well, consider me properly put in my place. ;^)
DO NOT INCUR MY WRATH...THE DOUG WILL OBLITERATE YOU!
--The Doug
Post a Comment
<< Home