Site Presented By
Sunday, Jul 12, 2009
The right-wing network's decision to force its affiliates to air anti-Kerry propaganda is one of the lowest moments in the history of television news, says the former head of the FCC. And it may unleash a backlash.
Oct 14, 2004 | "We do not believe political statements should be disguised as news content."
Policy statement, Sinclair Broadcasting, April 2004.
Kerry campaign officials aren't the only ones outraged over Sinclair Broadcasting's order to its 62 television stations nationwide to preempt regular programming days before votes are cast Nov. 2 to air "Stolen Honor," a highly charged documentary critical of Sen. John Kerry. The move breaks with a long-standing tradition among broadcasters of covering presidential campaigns as part of their obligation to serve the public interest, and to do so with at least a patina of honesty.
Sinclair's unprecedented move once again raises questions about the effects of rampant media consolidation, the deregulation that allows a small number of large conglomerates to own so many outlets, let alone use them to advance an obvious political agenda. The controversy over "Stolen Honor" has also thrust little-known Sinclair before the klieg lights, drawing attention to its news department, whose public spokesman has no experience whatsoever in journalism. And it reveals a publicly held corporation, operating on the public airwaves, run by a hypocritical chief executive, preaching conservatives values by which he himself has been unable to live.
"Ordering stations to carry propaganda? It's absolutely off the charts," says former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt, who served under President Clinton. "Any FCC chairman, from the left or the right, would agree with me. I'd be shocked if you could find any other broadcast conduct like this" in the history of American television.
Bob Zelnick, chairman of the Department of Journalism at Boston University, a self-described conservative who says he intends to vote for President Bush, calls Sinclair's decision "an unfortunate precedent" that runs counter to "good journalism" and "is not what network news ought to be about." A former Pentagon correspondent for ABC News, Zelnick says, "Whether you're liberal or conservative, if you have roots in the journalism profession, there are core values that transcend and need to survive election to election. You avoid airing, very close to election, highly charged, partisan material that takes the guise of a documentary."
"If I were a Sinclair news director I'd quit," says Dow Smith, professor of journalism at Syracuse University and a former NBC news director in Detroit. "I'm certainly not going to encourage any of my students to work for Sinclair."
But for many Sinclair employees, already embarrassed by the company's blatant political agenda, which is broadcast daily through partisan, name-calling commentaries that local stations are commanded to air, without even the pretense of balance, the controversy hasn't been shocking. Instead, they have a feeling of déjà vu. "It's so bizarre it's almost dreamlike," one Sinclair manager told me, speaking on condition of anonymity. (Sinclair employees are warned that talking to the press represents grounds for dismissal.) "I can't imagine this isn't going to blow up in their faces.
"Working for Sinclair," says the manager, "you're used to news decisions being made that are influenced by marketing and promotion. You get that stuff. You understand that's the way the world works. With this, you just go, 'What's the point?' What are they trying to do?' This shows me that Sinclair doesn't give a shit about their employees because there's no communication plan [about "Stolen Honor"]. They just decide it [at corporate headquarters] and let everybody deal with the mess."
Six months ago many Sinclair employees were embarrassed when Sinclair took the extraordinary step of banning its ABC affiliates from showing a special edition of "Nightline" in which anchor Ted Koppel read the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. The move prompted picket lines at some its affiliates and blew out phones lines and e-mail servers at others. Yet that may have been only a dry run for the current controversy, which is shaping up as perhaps the media battle of the election. Angry Democrats are contacting Sinclair's advertisers urging them to pull their business or face consumer boycotts. On Friday, organizers from StopSinclair.org will deliver a protest petition with 100,000 signatures to Sinclair's headquarters in Hunt Valley, Md. On Wednesday, 85 members of Congress demanded that the FCC investigate Sinclair. The main phone line to Sinclair was alternately busy or went unanswered for virtually the entire business day, making it impossible to get a response from company officials for this story. "They have no idea what they've unleashed," says the local Sinclair manager.
Sinclair's stock, which is already underperforming, dragged down by the weight of the company's enormous debt, a consequence of mismanagement at the top, drooped even more following the "Stolen Honor" announcement. And that comes on the heels of the stock hitting its 52-week low in late September. (Sinclair trades for roughly $7. In 1995 the stock traded for $45, and that was before the late '90s stock market surge.)
"Sinclair corporate has an identity they've decided on, but they're having a hard time getting folks in the hinterland to jump onboard," said one television news insider. Referring to the directive to local stations to run daily right-wing commentaries dubbed "The Point," delivered by Sinclair's vice president of corporate relations Mark Hyman, the source says, "People who work at the local stations hate it. They just cringe."
The "Nightline" imbroglio was bad enough. In a written statement, Sinclair claimed ABC's "action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq." Sinclair's general counsel said of "Nightline's" tribute to the American dead, "We find it to be contrary to the public interest."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blasted Sinclair's decision: "There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq." In response, Sinclair V.P. Hyman tried to demean the military service of the decorated former prisoner of war, "To be perfectly honest, it's been 25 years since [McCain's] worn a military uniform."
But the "Stolen Honor" flap has gotten uglier. The film was made by Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam veteran and former reporter for the conservative Washington Times. He also authored a book that served as a vigorous defense of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the alleged cult leader who owns the newspaper. Sherwood is a personal friend of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and worked as a media consultant for Ridge while he was Pennsylvania governor. Appearing on Fox News this week, Sherwood insisted he had been "slandered and vilified" by Kerry's antiwar activities more than three decades ago. Two of the Vietnam veterans who appear in "Stolen Honor" were also part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth smear campaign this summer.
Prominently featured in "Stolen Honor" is retired Air Force Col. Leo Thorsness, a Vietnam prisoner of war for six years, with a long political career as a Republican. In South Dakota, he ran for the U.S. Senate against George McGovern in 1974 and Tom Daschle in 1978, losing both times. Then he moved to Washington state, where he was elected a state senator. Thorsness claims Kerry's antiwar activity helped prolong the war and made POW's suffer. Twelve years ago during the 1992 presidential campaign Thorsness made the same accusations against Democratic candidate Bill Clinton -- that his antiwar protests as a student had aided and abetted the enemy.
