At issue: Nightline's decision to read the names of the war dead in what it contends is a tribute — and the decision by David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group to black out the show on his company's stations because he basically considers it anti-war propaganda. This is one of those issues that started in talk show radio and has blossomed from there.
Arizona Senator John McCain sent Smith a stinging letter which he says he writes to "strongly protest" the blackout. McCain notes that he is a war supporter and writes, in part:
"I find deeply offensive Sinclair's objection to Nightline's intention to broadcast the names and photographs of Americans who gave their lives in service to our country in Iraq....
"But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences.
"War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves."
Wait a minute...Using the almost-verbatim standard contemptuously applied to The Moderate Voice last week when he advocated publishing military coffin photos, McCain MUST be an unpatriotic, closet-liberal who is disrespectful of the dead and can't think for himself.
Or could it be that patriotism comes in many forms — even in the confidence that the bulk of people in a democracy aren't children, can decide for themselves, and can stand by valid policies that require sacrifice.
And that the costs of war judged to be necessary to defend American interests shouldn't be kept "out of sight, out of mind" at all in deference to the people who fell defending American interests.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Krystle
Both sides have a good point, however how does "David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group" think he can determine if this is disrespectful? If people do not want to watch it, they won't, but it is a great way to honor the Americans who served for us. I dont like this war we are in but we still must support them.
thank you
2 - Jim
McCain continues to be the only independently thinking and respectable Republican out there. Thanks for posting this news.
3 - The Dude
It's about time "Nightline" read the names of the dead. American soldiers deserve more respect than be listed as numbers; we need to know their names and faces ... Then again, the dead Iraqi citizens aren't even listed as numbers.
But the Sinclair Broadcast Group need not worry; most Americans won't even tune to that anti-war propaganda called "Nightline" -- We'll all be watching "Elimidate."
4 - Marc
To paraphrase: "Dude, where's my awareness."
"Dude," if you had the slightest knowledge of the subject I feel sure your comment would have been written in another way. As it is, you are led to believe that Nightline is only showing a list of names, in fact names, home towns, and photos will be shown, at 2 second intervals.
On to Nightline, and I say this as a USN (ret) Vet. This is nothing more than a political hack job that Koppel and Nightline is famous for. Here are Teds own words when asked about the show being aired during sweeps weeks.
"it seems to me absolutely silly that anyone would suggest that we were doing this for ratings. In point of fact, we were sitting around unaware that it was sweeps, that's how dumb we are at Nightline."
Another Network hack also used the same excuse. "Dumb" indeed. We are to believe that Ted, who has been in the business for over 40 years, had no idea it was sweeps week! Puh-leeze, they are both liars! Keep in mind that the ratings pulled during sweeps determine the advertising rates that an be charged, and lead to Ted's nonsense and B Walters abhorant "Adopt a baby Game Show" she has this week.
The secondary question is why only those that sacrificed in the Iraq campaign? Why not have additional time (10mins have already been added), and air the names and photos of those lost in Afghanistan?
Koppel has a very long history of political statements masked as "News" or "special interest" stories.
Brent Bozell noted 10 examples of Koppels' extreme bias that only goes to reinforce the point. They can be read here.
http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/1997/col19970313.asp
Koppels "dumbness" in not recognizing Sweeps week and the omission the KIA'S from Afghanistan only lead to one conclusion. Its time for Ted to head for the Political Hack Retirement Home.
5 - bhw
The issue isn't whether or not Ted Koppel is biased or is presenting an anti-war message. The issue is whether or not a single individual who has the power to censor speech because he doesn't like the message.
In fact, you want to make the argument that Koppel's show IS a political hack job, well, then, you're just giving it even more First Amendment credence: political speech is what the founding fathers were most concerned with protecting. The FA is really about political speech, and not, say, the right to say the "seven dirty words."
What this issue is really about for me: how BAD an idea it is to continue to allow media consolidation. What if this Sinclair Broadcast Group controlled 1000 stations instead of seven?
6 - bhw
The issue is whether or not a single individual who has the power to censor speech because he doesn't like the message.
I is stoopid.
That sentence fragment should say "whether a signle individual SHOULD HAVE the power to censor...."
7 - Nick Jones
"Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail..."
That pretty much explains the ban, doesn't it?
Whether you see it as a tribute, an antiwar statement, a sweeps stunt, none or all or some combination of the above, someone has decided that it's a viewpoint that must be censored. Someone doesn't want people to see the program and think for themselves. It's all part of the narrowing of 'acceptable' discourse since 9/11 - black-and-white, either/or, "you're either with us or against us." A marginalizing of opposition opinion, maintaining that there's only one 'true' way to believe.
8 - RJ Elliott
I have no problem with the publishing of the photos, OR the reading of the names of the fallen. My two cents...
9 - RJ Elliott
BTW, Sinclair has every right to not air this particular segment. Just like Clear Chennel had every right to dump Stern.
Private companies make their own decisions. And their decisions are not "censorship."
REAL censorship is the government banning something. The government currently bans kiddie-porn. I guess they are guilty of censorship in that instance, but who in their right mind disagrees with this?
Anyway, I may disagree with Sinclair's position on this, but he has every right to do so.
10 - bhw
He does have the right. But we ought to fight hard to prevent the FCC from allowing too many media outlets to be owned by too few people/companies. We need a diversity of voices, not a single voice [or lack thereof].
11 - bhw
Private companies make their own decisions. And their decisions are not "censorship."
REAL censorship is the government banning something.
No, it doesn't have to come from the government to be REAL censorship. It has to come from a position of power. When the government restricts speech, it's censorship by the government.
When a powerful individual does it through his control of media outlets, it's still censorship.
You don't need the government to make it so.
12 - jadester
if you want to know who the US fallen in Iraq are, you can find them at the washingtonpost.com web site
13 - Nick Jones
If Sinclair has the right to ban a news show, then let's not keep up the pretense of "the airwaves belong to the public".
14 - Al Barger
BHW, you are beloved but WRONG in comment 11. Private companies have a right to pick what they show on their own stations. That is THEIR First Amendment right.
I think the Sinclair group are TOOLS. I disagree with their position entirely, but it was Sinclair's decision to make.
It's only censorship when you forbid other people to make an expression, not when you decide not to do it yourself. Those are two TOTALLY different things.
Yes Nick, I'd just as soon be done with this arbitrary pretense of airwaves belonging to the "public" ie the government. Sinclair Broadcasting pays for the towers and the programming, etc.
15 - Mac Diva
I've posted my entry from Mac-a-ro-nies about the Nightline controversy here. Ted Koppel is one of the journalists I admired enough to consider a role model. My respect for him grows even more as he confronts efforts to bully him and silence the press like this one.
16 - RJ Elliott
ABC didn't air today's San Jose vs. Colorado hockey game in my area. Is this "censorship"?
If someone submits a book to a publishing house, and they refuse to publish it, is that "censorship"?
Sinclair is making a perfectly legitimate decision. One I don't agree with, but hey: It's a free country.
17 - Mac Diva
bhw deserves more credit than she is being given. Yes, Sinclair owns its apparatus, by it is in a business that requires government licensing and serves a quasi-governmental function. In the absence of a GOP dominated FCC, I think there would be legitimate grounds for a complaint here.
Furthermore, Sinclair's message extends beyond its stations. It hopes to chill speech about the war in general, and, influence other affiliates to pressure Nightline. If Sinclair gets its way, we will see something similar to what happened to Doonesbury after it incited Right Wing ire.
18 - RJ Elliott
Sinclair's message extends beyond its stations. It hopes to chill speech about the war in general
Hmm. But I thought:
Sinclair aired a special program in place of Nightline. The program discussed the merits of the war
Hmm...
19 - RJ Elliott
Yes, Sinclair owns its apparatus, by it is in a business that requires government licensing and serves a quasi-governmental function.
Hotels and restaurants require government approval as well. Are they serving a "quasi-governmental function"?
TV programming is not a "quasi-governmental function." It's mostly for entertainment. (The government somehow existed prior to the invention of the television.)
Sometimes "the media" deals with news, but the government can disseminate its version of news through its own arms: NPR, VOA, and PBS.
Private business that own TV and/or radio stations and have government approval can run whatever type of programming they want to, within some limits.
20 - Mac Diva
After Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), a case I love to teach, an argument can be made that most private enterprises serve a quasi-governmental function. When the enterprise is directly regulated by government, the premise is strengthened. I'm sure bhw, a con law buff, will follow the reasoning.
21 - RJ Elliott
From here: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/199/
Facts of the Case
The owner of Ollie's Barbecue, in Birmingham Alabama, refused to serve blacks in apparent violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Part of the Act prevented restaurants serving interstate travelers, or receiving a substantial amount of their food from interstate commerce, from discriminating on the basis of race.
Question Presented
Does a restaurant's refusal to serve blacks burden interstate commerce to an extent that Congress can legitimately prohibit such discrimination?
Conclusion
The Court found that discrimination in restaurants posed significant burdens on "the interstate flow of food and upon the movement on products generally." Furthermore, argued Justice Clark, discrimination also posed restrictions on blacks who traveled from state to state. Congress's solution to this problem was appropriate and within its bounds to regulate interstate commerce.
Yeah. This case sounds REAL relevant...
22 - bhw
It's only censorship when you forbid other people to make an expression, not when you decide not to do it yourself. Those are two TOTALLY different things.
It's the samet thing, Al. Censorship doesn't just occur before the speech happens. It can occur afterward, because we have many ways of distributing the speech. Sinclair prevented its stations from airing the usual programming specifically because of its content. I'd call it censorship, too, if they decided not to air it because it was too racy, rather than too political.
It's the old tree in the forest question: If Ted Koppel sits in a studio and speaks, but nobody airs the tape, can anyone hear him? Sinclair's decision prevented Koppel from speaking publicly in those markets.
The first two definitions of "censor" From dictionary.com:
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
Definition 1: The speech has already occurred and is stored in some medium. THEN the censor acts to prevent others from having access to that medium. It fits this situation perfectly: one man removed material he felt to be politically objectionable from the airwaves that he controlls.
Definition 2: The act of censoring takes place after the speech -- in the form of a letter -- has been written. The person speaking/writing is censored when the speech doesn't reach its intended audience. The letter is meaningless if the its recipient never sees it.
If that isn't censorship, I don't know what is.
23 - bhw
MD, what is con law? Constitutional law?
24 - Eric Olsen
yes
25 - V.M.R.
If Nightline was really sincere about
our Fallen Heros, Then why didn't they
devote the whole 40 minutes commercial
free? In the ABC market area I live in,ABC showed commercials about every 200 names. And these commercials were for new homes, new cars, and the one that really ticked me off was one for
gambling at Tunica Miss. showing all
these happy people having a good time.
These Brave men and women will never
again enjoy the pleasures of this life
and ABC wants me to believe that they were showing respect for the dead! No
way, this is being used to further another agenda. Commercials of that nature were nothing more than a hypocrisy. Did anyone really listen to the double speak by Ted Koppel? I rate
Koppel right up ther with Howard Stern and Jerry Springer. Ted Koppel has no
integrity, nother whatso ever to offer
the American public. If people would really listen to ABC news they more often than not, refer to President Bush
as Mr.Bush, and when they talk about Clinton, its President Or former President Clinton, ABC in no more than a Liberal Mouth Piece. The Sinclair Broadcast Group knew what ABC was going to do and was not going to be duped by their biased ways.