Sinclair to Preempt `Nightline’ on ABC Stations, Cites Politics
Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. ordered its ABC affiliates to preempt tomorrow’s broadcast of “Nightline,” which will air the names and photos of U.S. military personnel who have died in combat in Iraq, saying the move is politically motivated.
“Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq,” the company said in a faxed statement. Sinclair, which owns 62 U.S. television stations, said ABC is disguising political statements as news content.
The media masking political statements as news? Say it isn’t so!
Good for them – this is the right thing to do.
Mainstream Media continues to live in the past. FOX News channel is the ‘new age’ and ‘new way’ to bring news. They have liberals AND conservatives AND warn you when they politicize something and when they are not.
Speaking of being out of date check out the Democratic Party Platform!
American Optimist
Good for Sinclair. Only a blind bat or a Liberal couldn’t see that this is politically motivated. This has nothing to do with those who gave the last full measure of devotion for their country or their loved ones. It’s all about getting Republicans in general and GWB in particular out of the way. Some may be credulous enough to buy into this but a good part aren’t. And I say again, good for Sinclair.
Good for them! I suppose if Ted K were serious, then ABC would have no problem paying the going rate for ad time that the others pay!
where are the liberals on faux news?
Alan Colmes.
Steve Smith? I forget his name… The Main guy that appears just before Neal Cavuto.
Geraldo Rivera is also Liberal.
I find Fox to be one of the most objective televised news programs being aired today. The programs that have subjectivity openly say so- Bill O’Reilly even says he is no longer a reporter, but an entertainer, as an example. What more do you want?
Ted
i have a lot of respect for o’reilly. he said he would apoligize to his viewers if there were no WMDs and he did along with saying he is disillusioned as to why we went to war int he first place.
why not honor the americans killed in action? why is this partisan isssue?
It it s partisan issue because Nightline has made it so.
Sinclair Broadcasting, in a reponse to a letter from John McCain writes:
“It is “Nightline’s” failure to present the entire story, however, to which Sinclair objects. “Nightline” is not reporting news; it is doing nothing more than making a political statement. In simply reading the names of our fallen heroes, this program has adopted a strategy employed by numerous anti-war demonstrators who wish to focus attention solely on the cost of war. In fact, lest there be any doubt about “Nightline’s” motivation, both Mr. Koppel and “Nightline’s” executive producer have acknowledged that tonight’s episode was influenced by the Life Magazine article listing the names of dead soldiers in Vietnam, which article was widely credited with furthering the opposition to the Vietnam war and with creating a backlash of public opinion against the members of the U.S. military who had proudly served in that conflict.”
Nightline’s aim is not to report the news, or to comment on the news, but to INFLUENCE the news.
Take care.
In case you want to see the entire Sinclair response, it can be found here:
http://www.sbgi.net/
Sorry for three posts in a row.
For those who think that there is no political motivation in the Nightline broadcast, put the fact that Koppel admits that the idea behind the show was a article in Life magazine in 1968 which turned out to be a major anti-war statement with the fact that Koppel appeared on “Air America” Friday morning bashing the Bush administration handling of Iraq and any logical, thinking person will come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than a political stunt.
This little tidbit is taken from a solider that served in Iraq:
“My own unpolled sense is that most soldiers would be pretty uncomfortable with–if not downright offended–by Ted Koppel’s decision to decontextualize their sacrifices by simply reading off the names one by one on the air.”
“I could say it’s another example of how network media is out of touch with the sensibilities of military families, but that would oversimplify things. It’s entirely possible that had ABC News realized exactly how this plays with the Joes and their families, they would take the same decision utterly…”
“It doesn’t matter if the motivation is to undermine popular support for the war by listing the names in numbing monotony, or if it’s somehow a clumsy catharsis on the part of ABC News staffers. In either case, the drive is to serve the interests of the staffers of ABC News. Not the soldiers and Marines themselves, and not the viewing public.”
Case closed.
Q: Why has the right wing never been exposed for what it really is?
A: Becuase President Bush has the media in his pocket!
Seriously, why anyone would give an ounce of credibility to Sinclair or any piece of news they broadcast, after this incident, would be byond me.
This is the same thing that we have seen with Clear Channel radio (whose corporate heads have strong financial ties to Bush), not only with the whole Dixie Chicks incident, but the company also threatened to pull any concert where they fel anti-war setiment would be expressed on stage.
I find my own station to be somewhat hesitant in criticizing this administration, but they see thier audience for what it is (significantly older and therefore mostly conservative).
Please be aware that I fully understand the environment that I am posting this message in, consequently why it will either fall on deaf ears orbe totally removed (not surprising). But I just want to make people aware of how the right wing uses its deep pockets to constantly abuse the public airwaves, and in the process, the public interest.
Please, feel free to email and debate this issue. I just want everyone here to know that I am NOT decidedly liberal, and I don’t buy that the media is liberal. It is, however, bought and paid for.
GoldenArcher – it’s a simple thing, really.
It’s called respect for the families of our fallen heros. Respect for their privacy during an especially difficult time.
It isn’t as if the numbers of soldiers KIA are any kind of secret to anyone – and no one is trying to keep the numbers a secret. But to publish pictures, names, birthdates and hometowns is cutting it a little too close to home for some of the family members, I am sure.
It goes hand in hand with the ban on coverage of the dead soldiers coming home in coffins. I support the ban for one reason alone – political agenda. Both sides of it.
If it were for a touching tribute for the sake of national mourning, ok.
If it were a liberal anti-war group to publish for the sake of war protest – - absolutely not.
If it were a conservative pro-war group to publish for the sake of supporting the war by trying to appeal to heroic heart strings – still, absolutely not.
The hypothetical death of my child would be something very protected and private for me and my family. I absolutely would not want for it to be used to push anyone’s agenda – - in support of or against any military action. I would have to say that my childs life meant more than all that . . and to have his death ‘glorified’ in such a manner….well, until they find a better solution for it I still remain in support of the ban.
And the question remains — why only the soldiers who have died in Iraq? Why not the soldiers who died in Afghanistan?
My only answer to that could be because it’s politically motivated as a protest, of sorts, against the war in Iraq.
Prove me wrong.
Lisa — this is not neccessarily meant to ‘prove you wrong.’ I see in your post that you’re focusing on the one thing that it has become much to easy to lose sight of — the human emotion of losing a loved one in conflict.
That being said, there is the coverage of the Arizona Cardinals’ Pat Tillman, who was killed in Afghanistan. ESPN (owned by ABC of course) has presented the story as a touching tribute to a man who gave up his material wealth to do what he felt was right.
While I do not agree with them raising one soldier above the level of others simply because he was a professional athlete, I think you would have to agree that his story has been presented without any political spin.
Do you agree?
I agree with you that raising one soldier above the rest simply because of his status makes it seem that his life was more worthy than the hundreds of others who came before and went after him.
I think the story of how he came to be a soldier is a very inspiring and patriotic one for anyone to hear. I would also agree with you that the story, itself, was presented in a nonpartisan manner by the major networks.
I would also imagine that the family was in agreement for the story to be told to the extent that it was. The family probably encouraged it. Of course, I wouldn’t know that for sure, but I’m assuming.
I would also imagine that Koppel and “Nightline” did not go through the pains of obtaining the perspective of each of the fallen soldiers family….or even so much as permission to use their photos and personal details in their media program.
Again – why not the soldiers in Afghanistan, too? Are their lives any less important? Why limit it so? I feel that every soldier who has died in any type of combat situation deserves the utmost recognition and pride of their country…and deserves just as much of a tribute as the other.
My feeling is that it’s political spin. Following Koppel all these years, he hasn’t exactly proven to be without a great deal of bias…so call me cynical, in that regard.
GoldenArcher,
While you say that you would not give credibility to anything Sinclair Broadcasting choses to broadcast, I would wonder why you would give credibility to Ted Koppel’s claim that the broadcast was not a political statement?
Koppel appeared on Air America Friday morning to bash the administration. Koppel and the producer of Nightline have said that the idea of the broadcast came from a politically motivated article in Life magazine published during the Vietnam War.
You question Sinclair’s credibility, but what I cannot fathom is why aren’t you questioning the credibility of Koppel and Nightline?
Secondly, does it really make any sense to you that Clear Channel’s contributions to the Bush campaign have resulted in them having to pay some of the largest fines in broadcasting history?
As for the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel seemed to be reacting to the outcry from their listeners. The listeners were telling stations they did not want to listen to the Dixie Chicks on the radio. Shouldn’t a company listen to the people upon which its livelyhood depends?
I happen to believe that there is a bais in the media that leans to the left. Survey after survey shows that the majority of reporters, editors and producers in this country consider themselves to be liberal in their thinking. It is natural and totally expected that their liberal sentiments would color their writings, and broadcasts.
To say that the media is owned by, or protected by the right wing simply goes against reality.
Take care.
I’m with Lisa, if this program was to honor the soliders who have died then why not list the names of ALL who died, including Afganistan?! Because they have an agenda!
I appreciate everyone’s response to my post. While I respectfully disagree with your views, I feel that the manner in which you have debated this issue deserves much credit.
One thing to consider though — while I work for a TV station, I do not consider myself a member of the media because I am not responsible for any journalistic content. Still, in our market, most of the stations skew to the right, because of the older demographic. In short, the media isn’t libneral OR conservative — they’re just covenient.
Again, thank you all.
Yeah – That Left Wing Lunatic and draft dodger Senator John McCain, what does HE know? – Give me a break – You Conservative nuts are just a bunch of parots. Give polly a cracker (couple of hundred buck tax break) and you will send our men and women off to die for Halibuton. Times are a changing Chicken Hawks – President Kerry, Vice President John McCain, Attorney General Alan Dershowitz, FCC Commissioner Howard Stern, Sec of the Interior Ted Turner, Sec of Defense Tom Hayden will be happy to assist you all in psychologial counseling. HA HA HA – God/Buddah/Alla Bless All Of You
What does John McCain know? Hmmm…. well, Senator McCain had an opinion on this issue. If we were all parroting what conservatives said, we would have all fallen in lock step with Senator McCain. We didn’t.
So you see Jeese, the very point you are trying to make is contradicted by the facts you present.
Take care.
This is an interesting contrast…
Golden Archer’s debate style is realistic, logical and is somewhat rational.
Jesse’s debate style in irration, non-factual based and tends to illustrate that he/she is actaully the parrot in this thread (Gawd, how many people have I seen post similar drivel?) He/she makes no point and only reason for existance is to agite (can anyone say “todd”?)
Jesse- if you wish to be taken somewhat seriously on this BBS, I would suggest to attempt a different approach, instead of the parroting/troll approach that is never sucessful.
Ted