Censoring the Airwaves

[eaprez]

This is a letter I wrote the the editor of the local paper (The Columbus Dispatch, Columbus, Ohio)

Friday, May 07, 2004
Censoring The Airwaves

Last Friday, the decision made by Sinclair Broadcasting not to broadast Friday's edition of Nightline was big news across the country. For those of you who happened to miss the story, Nightline devoted last Friday's program to the reading of the names of those solider's who had lost their lives. Sinclair Broadcasting ordered its affiliates not to air the program because in their view the only motivation ABC news could have had was a political one. They believed that the intent of the program was not to honor the fallen soldiers, but to sow seeds of doubt about the Iraq war in the minds of the American People.

I guess it is possible, as was suggested, that some support for the war would have melted away after the airing of this program. I am left wondering if they themselves truly believe in the reasons for war - for if they truly believed then they should also have been able to believe that it was possible that the program would have garnered new support - that the public, not wanting these lives to have been given in vain, would have concluded the cost was worth it and stood firm in their support.

The Bush Administration has misguided the American people about the reasons for this war since the drumbeat for it began in 2002. They have changed their rationale for it several times in reaction to media scrutiny. The current, most repeated, reasons are that we went to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people and to bring democracy to Iraq. In reality, our reasons were not so noble as that. We invaded Iraq because we were told that it was an imminent threat to the security of the United States and to the safety of its citizens. The majority of American’s supported this invasion out of fear because the President told us Iraq had ties to Al Queda and by association to 9/11. In hindsight, we know much of what we were led to believe is untrue.

If the case for the invasion of Iraq were built upon hard evidence rather than half-truths and speeches with inflammatory language, a 40-minute program dedicated to reciting the names of the war dead would not have been viewed by Sinclair or others as a threat. If this war were truly a just cause, then names of the dead would have rallied the public. Those who feared the airing of this show (the White House being one of them), did so because they know the evidence is weak, that people are beginning to ask questions and support is melting away. Those who once supported the war are now thinking that perhaps the reasons for war were not so clear after all and are worried that the exit strategy is just as unclear.

It is not enough to embrace the reasons for going to war. It is not enough to wave flags and wear them on our lapels. Those who advocate war must also be willing to face the costs. The costs in lives lost, and the costs to the families behind the names. The President seeks to hide the financial costs of this war by keeping needed funding out of the budget until after the election – which is clearly a political maneuver. It is, however, disgraceful and obscene for him, for the military heirachy, for Sinclair Broadcasting or for anyone to try and hide and deny the cost in human lives.

Sinclair may have the legal right to decide what the public sees over its airwaves but their moral obligation to the public far outweighs their right to be censors. The public has a right to the facts both good and bad so as to make an informed decision about events which affect them. Suppressing the evidence of what is going on in Iraq is not the way to garner or maintain support. We who are supporting this war with our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles... and billions of dollars - are entitled to a free and open press -and should not be subjected to a media corporation’s political agenda.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that it was Sinclair and not ABC who played politics with this program. Their rationale for the censorship was in itself was political. They questioned Nightline’s choice of reading the names of the troops killed in combat rather than read the names of the private citizens killed in the terrorist attacks. The network did broadcast a list of the victims of 9/11 on the one-year anniversary. In addition, 98% of Sinclair's 2004 political contributions went to republicans (mediachannel.org, 4/29/04). It was Sinclair who sent a news crew to Iraq to cover the "good news" that was allegedly going unreported in the rest of the media. (It is obviously the fruits of all that good news that we see now.) Sinclair executives also required stations to air editorial statements in support of the Bush administration shortly after 9/11. (Extra 11-12/01). By these actions they are clearly trying to mold public opinion. To point the finger at ABC is rather hypocritical.

Those who missed the program entitled "The Fallen" can still view it on the ABC News website.

[Bandit]

1. Very Good

Hope it gets read by many. Truth has a way of oozing out doesn't it?

[workforpower]

2. Well done,

but it won't be published. Letters need to be small,one paragraph. Ask about the papers policy. You have written a good op-ed piece. Perhaps they could run it as such.