Sinclair Broadcasting Orders Affiliates to Preempt "Nightline"
 

I hope this has not been discussed already. I couldn't find it on a search.

Apparently, Sinclair Broadcasting - which owns many ABC affiliates - ordered their affiliates to not air "Nightline" on Friday night because Ted Koppel was going to read the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

Here is their reasoning

Naturally, there has been quite an uproar over their decision.
I disagree with their actions. I believe their decision is just as politically motivated as they claim Koppel's to be. Sinclair Broadcasting has given more than $65,000 to Bush's campaign compared to $1,500 given to Democrats.

The constitution states that Congress may pass no law abridging the freedom of the press. What about the power of corporations to prevent the dissemination of information?

What's your take?

I don't know if that particular episode would have scored high in the ratings, and thus Sinclair may have just been interested in Neilsen, but that doesn't change my hatred of media barons.

Censorship = more interest = more viewers, nice one Sinclair.

This is the problem with corporations owning multiple stations in multiple markets. Or, even better, multiple stations in a single market. If they have an agenda, they can control what people see or hear.

No one forces anyone to watch anything. Network programming is being eroded by cable as it is. Apparently Sinclair thinks it's viewers are stupid and cannot thiink for themselves.

I started to watch Nightline, turned the channel, but came back when nothing else was on. What I noticed:

Lots of senior Sargents, the backbone of the Army, are getting killed.
3 or 4 Lt. Colonels, Majors, and Captains each have fallen in the line of fire.
Marines are really, really, really young.
There was a 44ish private.
The Air Force is safest.

I wondered about the motivation of Koppel and ABC as well but was suprised about the lack of controversy after the "Coffin photos" flap.

They have a right to determine what goes out over their stations plain and simple.

Yes they do have a right to decide but it isn't a simple as that...

The real issue for me is their insistance on claiming Nightline is politically motivated. The issue is that they claim to know what is best for their viewing public.

The truth is they are big Bush supporters and don't want to do anything to support an opposition (real or imagined).



Here's a question: What is so wrong about honouring the war dead?

Speaking for myself, I don't need corporations like Sinclair Broadcasting filtering my television viewing.

Of course, that won't keep it from happening on a daily basis

You beat me to it, yournamehere. All I can do is agree, wholeheartedly, and add that I am educated, and intelligent enough, to effectively filter my own television viewing, thank you very much.

Context is everything.
If Ted Koppel was doing this as a stunt, to illustrate the number of dead, and to undermine the war effort, then to hell with him, and his hairpiece.
If, on the other hand, it was being done as a tribute to those that have fallen...then press on Ted, and sorry about the hairpiece remark. It looks really...spiffy.

I can agree with your premise. Yes, they do have a right to control the content of their affiliates. I guess the question I have is: should they?

Would we feel the same way if the government had ordered the stations to preempt the show? If we would differently, then what causes us to feel comfortable with a corporation taking such an action?

As an affilitate of ABC, Sinclair can choose air whatever they want from the Network. They license certain programs made available by ABC but can always show local programming or other licensed programs.

I find it amusing that they substituted Nightline with a Dharma and Greg re-run.

The turth of it is they drew more attention to Nightline in their efforts to censor the show than if they had just let the show air...

I'd be interested to see if there was a blip in the ratings for that program elsewhere in the US.

Can anyone get those ratings?

It is exactly as simple as that. They can choose to air things or not air things for almost whatever reasons they choose. The viewing public can stop supporting them if it's an issue.

How would you suggest they stop supporting them? Do you think the average Neilsen viewer knows who owns their ABC station? Do you think they'll stop watching ABC because it's Sinclair? Do you think the Neilsen ratings will indicate that? It's not as if the viewing public can vote on their TV remote not to watch Sinclair broadcasts. Your answer is simplistic to the point of being facile.

Damned facts and their anti-bush bias!
:)

Gave me a big smile. :)

Yeah, it's odd how they don't want something so Bush-damaging going over their networks, considering they love Bush so much. :rolleyes:

Covering up the photos of the coffins of those who gave their lives defending their country is a horrible attempt to keep the public from seeing the real sacrifice, the real cost of war.

If he did this specifically to show that "covering up" the loss of life to this "war" is horrible and disgusting, then I applaud him for his integrity.

It IS disgusting to cover up the loss of life, to continually downplay the real cost of Bush's war. If you want to talk about honoring their memory and their sacrifice, then covering up their deaths is a horrible DIShonor.

No, they can't. Public airwares are a shared resource tightly regulated by the FCC. In exchange for a license to those airwares, TV stations agree to a whole host of government rules.

Not so long ago, for example, there were clear "equal access" laws for political campaigns. That has mostly gone away now, but the idea that a TV station can air whatever they want, when they want is far from the truth.

But anyway, this censorship had the opposite effect. The ratings for the broadcast were much higher than the network thought they would be. So in reality Sinclair took what looks to be a non-political broadcst (to me) and turned it into a big win for the anti-Bush crowd.

Not exactly what he wanted, I think. :)

There are multiple options in this age of satellite tv. Consumers have a choice. They can stop watching, they can organize protests of advertisers, they can attend stock owner meetings, they can write letters, hell they can protest the station itself. It is a company and its customers are important to it that's the facile, simplistic truth accept it or not.

I never said they didn't agree to certain rules. I said they have the right to air or not air things for ALMOST any reason they choose. They can choose to air Janet Jackson baring breasts or whatever they like so long as they are willing to face the consequences. This is not censorship but I don't feel like getting into that whole debate since it's been discussed on more occassions than I care to think about here at TFP.

until we pass laws making it illegal not to tell the whole truth in reporting, corporations can and will dictate what is going to be aired. We have a lot of alternative sources that give us the names.

While I don't support censorship, I also don't support what Koppel is doing.

Reading names is NOT reporting any news and I can think of no other reason to do it except to undermine the war effort.

Maybe it does undermine the war effort, as it is being undertaken at this point. But then, so what? When the facts are anti-Bush the only alternative is to lie. Or ignore it.

Reading the names is reporting news. We have lost 761 americans so far with 4133 injured, many of those seriously handicapped for life.

Reading all of these names is honoring their sacrifices. It is bringing each man and womans name and face to a national audience so that they haven't died in total obscurity. It was done in a classy and respectful way. I think every serviceman who has died on duty deserves it.
Additionally, yes the broadcast is meant to show to america the price we have paid thusfar. It will allow those who watch to see the faces of brothers, sisters, sons, daughters and friends who are gone. We can reevaluate whether what we are doing is worth it or not that way.

Or we can just stay in the dark until the administration tells us what we need to know.

We have always been at war with Eurasia.

You're right. It's not reporting the news. But I don't think that it undermines the war effort, so much as it puts names, and faces, to what is otherwise just a cold benign number.

I somehow think that we owe it to these kids to, at the very least, know who they were, and what it is, exactly, that they have given up.

or

it's all just a lot of posturing. That, I would find reprehensible.

I just read today that Nightline's ratings were considerably up for that particular program.

Does anyone watch George Stephanopolous's show? He always wraps up with pictures of the soldiers and Marines killed that week (taken by family members and friends and platoon-mates), and it is always silent, and always very poignant. I recommend you all check it out.

Also go here if you haven't been already:

www.arlingtoncemetery.net/iraqi-freedom.htm

edit: To Lebell, Bill O'Rights: How is reading the names of those killed in the last week or month not news? Undermining or not, are the names of our servicemembers not noteworthy?

I think this gets to the root of what may be at issue here. As Americans, we have a win-at-any-cost attitude. We see it in sports, academics, business, entertainment, etc. Many people say we are in this war to win, and winning means convincing Iraq to adopt our method of government. We also have an administration that believes the ends justify the means. If we have to kill for peace, so be it. If we have to censor for freedom, so be it. All that seems to matter is that we now believe the intent of us going into Iraq was to install a democratic government.

Naturally, the administration does not want anyone questioning our motives and as long as the war maintains popular support, there will be no serious questioning. Undermining the war effort will erode this support and the demand for answers from this administration will become greater. One thing this administration has shown a disdain for is answering questions openly and honestly. Therefore, support for this war must be maintained at any cost, even if it means keeping those dead in obscurity.

I believe there is a corollary to "win at any cost" that is just as bad: Stop at any cost.

I don't see anyone suggesting the corollary here... There is difference between understanding the cost of war and thinking everything is hunky-dory.

I can't speak for everyone out there, but I think that there is a general consensus from those of us who opposed this war in the first place. That would be that we never should have gone to Iraq to begin with, but now that we're there, we need to finish what we started. The stop at any cost movement doesn't have much steam in our country...yet. What happens in the next few months will largely determine just how much steam that movement gathers, if any.