BS: More right wing US media censorship

Subject: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 04 - 05:42 PM

I'm surprised no mention has been made of yet another right wing media company censoring national news.

From AlterNet:

"Sinclair Broadcast Group on Thursday ordered its eight ABC affiliates to pre-empt Friday's "Nightline" broadcast of the reading of the names of US military personnel killed in Iraq, saying the program is "motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

In 2004, Sinclair executives gave 98 percent of their political contributions to GOP candidates.

The math ain't too tough to figure out on that one.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 May 04 - 07:46 PM

"pre-empt"?: that would mean they were instructed to read the names out first.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 04 - 07:53 PM

It was mentioned (and a link provided) on the "soldiers torturing Iraqis" thread I think. No one seems to have commented on it though.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 04 - 07:57 PM

I'm a bit conflicted on this one myeself, since I see Koppel as being an agent of corporate media as well. Maybe it's two elements within the corporate media monster duking it out. I've been thinking lately that maybe we're seeing a new set of faultlines forming between different factions of the ruling classes. I'm curious to see how this continues to unfold.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 04 - 08:03 PM

I agree CarolC, but if you read William Buckley, he would say the faultlines have been trembling for some time. He is one of those conservatives that believe that putting all the conservative eggs in the business basket, and abandoning the political arena to corporate privatization, will only lead us down the path to perdition, not to mention to a tremendous ennui among the chattering classes, who find business dull, but money and power interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 04 - 08:04 PM

Sorry, I meant to raise both my eyebrows and open my eyes wide at the end of my last sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 04 - 08:39 PM

Hmmm... time will tell, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 04 - 08:46 PM

It will.

Meantime, I fantasize about Ted Koppel and his Patriot Act Media Brethren being embedded in a great sand sinkhole in an Arabian desert, and Al Jazeera getting the scoop.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 03 May 04 - 11:44 AM

But how will they complain about the liberal media if they don't allow it to exist?

Bad move here on there part. If it had come off as a "liberal media" thing instead of a tribute it would have worked on their part afterward.

The one thing that hasn't been shown about this war is a comprehensive listing of the casualties. I mean we hear numbers and totals, see a face now and then, but unlike other wars where you personally knew some of the combatants (whether drafted or volunteers) I don't know that any of the deceased have even come from my neck of the woods!

It's also funny that they have allowed the use of the names and images of the WTC to bolster the cause (in the superbowl even!) but get angry about showing the people who are making the sacrifice for the cause? It's not like it is one of their children that would have his name read or picture shown.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 04 - 12:59 PM

What's going on seems pretty self-evident. Bush may not be the brightest bulb on the tree in that he has difficulty formulating complete sentences, but I think he's smarter than we tend to give him credit for. If not, then other members of the cabal such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Rove certainly are. They know full well that reports of body counts and pictures in the media of body bags and coffins coming back from Vietnam had a lot to do with spurring the anti-war movement in the Sixties. They're not about to let that happen this time. That's why the hissy-fit over the recent photo and the firing of the woman who took it and released it to the press.

I don't think the Bush administration had anything to do with the Sinclair Broadcast Group deep-sixing this particular showing of Nightline. I don't know anything about SBG. They aren't extant in my neck of the woods. But from this action, I tend to think that the SBG management is hard-charging right-wing and fully aware of the role media played in triggering the Sixties protests. This is a case of purposeful self-censorship.

The contrast between what is loosely called the "liberal media" and some of the main-stream and right-wing media is interesting. Called the "liberal media," because they broadcast programs such as NOW with Bill Moyers and Frontline—and, surprisingly enough 60 Minutes from time to time—PBS and some few others broadcast programs that feature stories about things that, as a member of a hopefully "informed electorate," you need to know. In the main-stream media, much of what passes as news doesn't qualify as news at all; it's "infotainment." While people are getting killed in Iraq, they devote hour after hour of air time to trivia, such as Janet Jackson flashing a boob for three-quarters of a second. They avoid anything that might make the government or their sponsors angry by not reporting stories that an informed electorate needs to know if they are really going to be an informed electorate.

On NOW with Bill Moyers this past Friday, Moyers interviewed Bob Edwards, who is moving from NPR Morning Edition anchor to special correspondent. Edwards had several good comments about what does and does not constitute news. One of the essential requirements is that a reporter (and his editor) have the guts to stick his neck out when he knows he's going to take a lot of heat for it. Edwards said that a really good newsman probably has few friends. Or you would certainly judge how good he is by looking at the friends he does have.

Sinclair either has no guts or they have an ax to grind. Probably the latter.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:15 PM

I saw the Bob Edwards interview too. Also on Bill Moyers the week previous, was one of the BBC execs who was canned in the wake of the WMD/David Kelly affair. He said news organizations, have no business whatsoever being "patriotic".

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:33 PM

I'm still puzzled about that "pre-empt" - does the word have some other meaning in the USA?

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:39 PM

You missed the most obvious right wing censorship on this program.   The american people.    Few people watched the show as the ratings dropped below normal levels for this show.    The american people censored the show.

I did see an interview with Sinclair.   He is an active member of the national guard and didn't trust the slant that he felt Koppel would have with the show.    Sinclair said that if the show was a tribute he would have been the first one to support it.    I am not sure you want to trash this guy.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Bobert
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:48 PM

Not to worry, Chief Chaos, the "liberal media" lie is crizzeled in stone as far at the right (which they ain't...) is concerned. No matter how conservative it gets, and it's still swinging hard to the right, they will always think it too liberal...

See, they just think because they control so much of the wealth that they have a lower standard of behavior than they expect of the working class and they just don't like for folks to point out that little situation... Porblem is, we knoew they are crooks by the way the frun the country and we don't need the media to tell us. All we gotta do is look around at what's going down... Don't take a wheatherman to tell which way the wind blows, but you know all this...

Ahhhh, BTW, is everyone aware that the FCC deregulations were part of the Omnibus budget legislation? Purdy danged sneaky...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:56 PM

"I am not sure you want to trash this guy."

Because he is using the people's airwaves, and has no right to decide for us what we should or should not be allowed to see.

I think the FCC ought to pull their broadcast license.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 04 - 02:09 PM

I can certainly understand the relatively low ratings for the show, Larry. I have to admit that I didn't watch it, not because of lack of respect for those who have been killed, but because first, I have been aware all along (I regularly watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, which ends most programs by showing, in silence, photos of those killed in Iraq when their death is confirmed and photos become available), and second, watching a show consisting of the recitation of some 725 names was not something my wife and I cared to do just before going to bed. I suspect that we were not the only ones.

As I said, I am not familiar with SBG because they don't broadcast in the Pacific Northwest. But whatever their reasons for not airing that particular edition of Nightline, others on both sides have been trying to make political hay out of it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 03 May 04 - 02:38 PM

We used to have a similar situation in North Carolina with NYPD Blue. The local media refused to run it and substituted old Billy Graham revivalist hour shows. I guess we were supposed to pray for our bretheren who were getting to see Dennis Franze's butt.

I don't think this should be allowed. Whoever owns the cable company gets to decide what you watch? Am I going to be able to watch the Republican convention or Democrat convention based on whatever part of the country I'm in because the cable owner is a Rep. or Dem.?
I think the suggestion of the FCC pulling their license is a good one. We got all upset aout a boob flash as it would influence young minds and was inappropriate, but the conglomeration who owns the cable company or network affiliation gets to influence our minds by denying anyone to profer a viewpoint with which they disagree?

If I were ABC I'd have a close look at contractual obligations with the affiliates and have a nice little meeting...in a courtroom with the highest paid lawyers in the industry!

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 04 - 03:05 PM

McGrath, in the US, pre-empt, when used in this kind of context, means that the show that was regularly scheduled to air will be replaced with some other show.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 04:16 PM

What does pre-empt mean in any other context?

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 May 04 - 04:47 PM

Main Entry: pre·empt
Pronunciation: prE-'em(p)t
Function: verb
Etymology: back-formation from preemption
Date: 1850
transitive senses
1 : to acquire (as land) by preemption
2 : to seize upon to the exclusion of others : take for oneself (the movement was then preempted by a lunatic fringe)
3 : to replace with something considered to be of greater value or priority : take precedence over (the program did not appear, having been preempted by a baseball game —Robert MacNeil)
4 : to gain a commanding or preeminent place in
5 : to prevent from happening or taking place : FORESTALL, PRECLUDE
intransitive senses
: to make a preemptive bid in bridge
- pre·emp·tor /-'em(p)-t&r/ noun

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 03 May 04 - 05:07 PM

It's easy to say the people own the airwaves.

But a broadcasting company owns the equipment to broadcast it on.

So, their ball, their rules.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 04 - 06:05 PM

It's not only about who owns the equipment. It's also about who chooses what's newsworthy.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 04 - 06:12 PM

Actually, it's the public's ball and the FCC is supposed to administer it in the public interest. They decide, on the basis of how well the public interest is served, which broadcasting companies get to play with the ball. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.

Then along came the Bush administration and Michael Powell.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Bobert
Date: 03 May 04 - 07:43 PM

This ain't about transmitter ownership but *licensed* frequencies and that's where the collision has occured with the public getting shafted while Mickey Mouse, Rupert Murdock and ClearChannel are now lickin' their chops.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: Once Famous
Date: 04 May 04 - 03:03 PM

No, it's not.

I'm not agreeing that Sinclair is right or wrong philosophically.

Only that they DO own the stations, chose not to air this particular program for reasons that they do not have to explain to you, and chose to air something else instead.

I believe they have a right to air any COMMERCIAL programming that they want to or are network affiliated with. In case you forgot, all you thumping telecommunication lawyer wannabes out there, Nightline is a commercial broadcast. The Sinclair stations are affiliated with ABC and not owned by them.

I love how the same individuals keep crying foul all the time. If you don't like a broadcaster's political view, don't watch them. Or buy your own station and air what you want.

Subject: RE: BS: More right wing US media censorship
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 04 - 04:22 PM

What Martin just said.

DougR