Blogging the final days of the election

[juliagoolia]

October 18, 2004 | 4:15 p.m. ET



Update on Sinclair's sin (David Shuster)

A week ago, I wrote about the decision by the Sinclair Broadcast Corporation to air a factually inaccurate and journalistically reprehensible film on its 62 television stations. My colleague Joe Trippi has spoken articulately (on this blog and in his new book) about the "bottom up power" of the Internet in putting the heat on organizations.

For those of you wondering where the battle stands with Sinclair, here is an update:

Thanks to sites such as www.boycottsbg.com, Sinclair's advertisers continue to face a relentless barrage of calls and criticism.
Last week, Sinclair's stock price fell by 6 percent.
The film's producer, (Carlton Sherwood with Red, White, and Blue Productions) is now being sued for libel by a highly decorated Vietnam vet named Kenneth J. Campbell. (Campbell says the film's footage of him at a 1971 war protest with the accompanying narration leaves viewers with the false perception Campbell had lied about his military service.)
The legislation Sinclair is counting on to improve its long term financial difficulty is in deep trouble. (Senators of both parties say the Sinclair controversy has single handedly reversed whatever momentum existed to ease big media ownership.)
Despite all of this, Sinclair still intends to broadcast "Stolen Honor," in its entirety, as soon as this week. Sinclair continues to describe the film as "news," even though it was released (and picked apart) at a press conference six weeks ago.

"Stolen Honor" has several prominent factual errors: First, former American POWs are quoted on camera as saying, "we stayed two more years because of the demonstrators like Fonda and Kerry... I figure they owe us two years." I have no doubt that some POW's feel that way. Others, however do not. And they are not included in the film. The film also disregards historical facts— the war stopped when the Nixon administration, in 1973, negotiated an end. History shows it was the lack of a settlement before then, not any protests, that kept the North Vietnamese fighting.

Secondly, part of John Kerry's original testimony, as depicted in the film, is edited so that it begins in mid-sentence. This editing makes it seem that John Kerry was making dramatic and specific eye witness allegations when in fact he always attributed those allegations to the testimony of other U.S. soldiers.

Third, the film only features former POWs who say John Kerry's name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we've spoken to dozens of POWs who've spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and they never heard John Kerry's name mentioned once.

Sinclair seems unconcerned with the factual errors in the film, the pressure on Sinclair's advertisers, or the lack of confidence the market now seems to have in Sinclair's management. But even if Sinclair's executives don't care... investors will. And whether you support John Kerry or oppose him... now is not a great time to be an investor in a company as reckless as the Sinclair Broadcast Corporation.

Questions/comments? [e-mail]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6275475/#041018

[Moderator]

1. Duplicate topic--Please continue discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x79737