Sinclair Broadcast Group

Posted by: sean

Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 08:25 AM

Here is the link to the website that shows the contact information for the companies who advertise on Sinclair stations. I just created a form letter that I sent to a good number of the companies listed. You can do the same and here's the link: <a href="http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/default.aspx">link here</a>.<br><br>I added a little personal note to the bottom of many of the emails, but that takes more time.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: cherry

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 08:29 AM

Thanks Sean.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 08:49 AM

Don't forget to send a boycott letter to the advertisers of:<br><br>-The CBS Evening Kerry<br>-World News Tonight with Peter Jennings<br>-NBC Nightly News<br><br>... To protest their support of these three news outlets (which are called the mainstream media) as they failed to cover the Swift Boat Vet story. Well, they technically *did* cover the story, but only by taking the position of the Kerry Campaign (smears, lies et al.).<br><br>Kumbaya, brothers and sisters, and I'll see ya at the protest!<br><br><embed src="http://homepage.mac.com/barnett112/.Music/kumbaya.wav" width=320 height=25 controller="true" autoplay="false" type="video/quicktime"><br><br><br>By the way, Sinclair has invited John Kerry to use their air time to respond to Stolen Honor. Kerry has refused.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: sean

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 09:38 AM

matt, i never expected you to join this boycott effort and i think you know that you weren't the target audience of my post. thanks for chiming in with you sarcasm.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: newkojak

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 09:42 AM

Imagine the inverse and decide for yourself if it's fair or legal.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 09:48 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p><br>Imagine the inverse and decide for yourself if it's fair or legal.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>Well Michael Moore is offering F911 on the cheap on pay per view on election day. Perhaps he'll drop it to $1 or less, but then again I can't imagine him letting money slip through his grubby hands.<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 09:53 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Imagine the inverse and decide for yourself if it's fair or legal.<p><hr></blockquote><p>If a company like Sinclair is just as frustrated at the SEVERE lack of fair coverage by the Big 3 on this issue, why shouldn't they let the voices of these veterans be heard? Again, Sinclair has offered Kerry equal time to respond. What's not fair? Sounds like Sinclair has decided to step up and provide balance.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 10:04 AM

why shouldn't they let the voices of these veterans be heard?<br><br>I beieve the Swift Boat Vets got ENORMOUS coverage. <br>John O'Neil was interviewed on every network Sunday show. The SBVT story was covered on all network news.<br><br>As Tom Oliphant has stated, none of it meets the bare minimum of journalistic standards. Hearsay, third-party testimony and opinion ... "Almost conclusive' doesn't cut it in the parts of journalism where I live"<br><br>"You haven't come within a country mile of meeting first-grade journalistic standards for accuracy." Watching the media's reaction to the Swift boat controversy, it's clear that many journalists agree with Oliphant.<br><br><br><br>Your complaints and hatred of CBS explains this all too well the need to uphold journalistic standards.
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 10:20 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I beleive the Swift Boat Vets got ENORMOUS coverage.<p><hr></blockquote><p>The Swift Boat Vets were on op/ed shows like O'Reilly or Hardboiled, but not covered on NBC, CBS or ABC (other than receiving Kerry Campaign treatment: liars / smearing Kerry).<br><br>For example, Dan Rather had how many people on supporting the Texas / Alabama (Bush lied) Air National Guard story? He even devoted time covering it on 60 Minutes. How many times has Rather had *any* Swift Boat Vet on the CBS Evening News? Not once. How much time has he devoted to them or their story on 60 Minutes? Not once. You don't see a problem with that?<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
Posted by: garyW

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 10:29 AM

You don't see a problem with that?<br><br>...my point about upholding journalistic standards. <br><br>You must be kidding yourself to think that NBC/CBS/ABC news didn't report on the SBVT story during August. It seemed to me you couldn't get away from it.<br><br>
Posted by: morserj

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 10:45 AM

Weren't you in favor of Sinclair's decision to block nightline's reading of the dead soldiers names to honor their service because Sinclair felt it was a political message made to look like news? Now they are broadcasting a one sided documentary and calling it news, and you don't have a problem with that? You don't see the hypocrisy?<br><br>--------<br>Ryan<br><br>11-02-04 end of an error
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 12:51 PM

Daily Press (Victorville, CA)<br><br>Wednesday, October 13, 2004<br><br><br>OUR OPINION: Stolen honor, stolen choices<br><br><br>Unless a coalition of United States senators get their way, a 42-minute film about John Kerry's effect on American POWs during and after the Vietnam War is going to be aired by 62 television stations across the country sometime before Nov. 2.<br><br>The stations, owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., serve about a quarter of the nation's homes with TV sets ... which means pretty much a quarter of the nation's homes. The film, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," was made by a man named Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam vet, and is, according to most reports, vehemently anti-Kerry. In it, according to those who've already seen it, former Vietnam prisoners of war allege that Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned home from Vietnam prolonged their own ordeal for two years by boosting the morale of the North Vietnamese military.<br><br><br><br>Improper use<br><br>The 18 senators involved in the coalition signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking for an investigation, and what they want to know is whether Sinclair's plan to air the film would be an improper use of public airways. Sinclair has said it will preempt regular programming to show the film, which is what's prompted the call for an "investigation." <br><br>No doubt you've already figured out that the senators are all Democrats. California's senior senator, Dianne Feinstein, is of course among them. They're seeking an investigation because they're fearful that the film will sway enough "undecided" voters to affect Nov. 2's outcome, and their intent is to intimidate Sinclair into canceling its plan.<br><br>Consider, now, the mindset involved here. The Democrat senators believe that government has the right to determine and control content on privately owned television stations. Underlying this belief is that viewers can't be trusted i.e., they're too stupid to determine for themselves whether the material "Stolen Honor" presents is worthy of their consideration. <br><br><br><br>Liberal mode<br><br>But those viewers are not a captive audience; they can simply change the channel, or hit the off button. TV markets Sinclair serves are the same as TV markets across the country; a vast variety of choices regarding content are available. And exercising choice over what to watch is basic to individual freedom. But the coalition senators, in true liberal mode, want to limit those choices by filtering out messages they don't agree with.<br><br>Did John Kerry's activities following his return to America from Vietnam affect the treatment and prolong the imprisonment of the POWs? We don't know; we weren't there. But the POWs were, and some perhaps even a majority believe so. Is hearing and watching them say so too inflammatory and one-sided for the electorate to properly, and fairly, digest? In the partisan judgment of the coalition, the answer is yes. <br><br>And what were members of that coalition doing when Dan Rather used "60 Minutes" to publicize forged documents impugning George W. Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard? Calling on the FCC to investigate CBS? Well, no. They were applauding.<br><br>Steve Williams<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:02 PM

you posted that long article that fails to mention the main argument against Sinclair . . . that the FCC allows Sinclair to broadcast on PUBLIC AIRWAVES through a license that Sinclair receives from the FCC. the FCC doesn't regulate Sundance, HBO, movie theaters (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), etc.<br><br>sometimes i wonder how so many conservatives can be so easily duped by karl rove's tactics. then i see a post like yours. <br><br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:07 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you posted that long article that fails to mention the main argument against Sinclair . . . that the FCC allows Sinclair to broadcast on PUBLIC AIRWAVES through a license that Sinclair receives from the FCC. the FCC doesn't regulate Sundance, HBO, movie theaters (e.g., Fahrenheit 9/11), etc.<br><br>sometimes i wonder how so many conservatives can be so easily duped by karl rove's tactics. then i see a post like yours.<p><hr></blockquote><p>What are you afraid of? Surely you know how the on/off button works.<br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: sean

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:19 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What are you afraid of? Surely you know how the on/off button works.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>that's sure ignorant given what you just posted in the article. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The stations, owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., serve about a quarter of the nation's homes with TV sets ... which means pretty much a quarter of the nation's homes . . . [the video] was made by a man named Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam vet, and is, according to most reports, vehemently anti-Kerry.<p><hr></blockquote><p>do the math.<br><br><br>--<br>one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:29 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In reply to:<br><br>What are you afraid of? Surely you know how the on/off button works.<br><br><br>that's sure ignorant given what you just posted in the article.<br>In reply to:<br><br>The stations, owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., serve about a quarter of the nation's homes with TV sets ... which means pretty much a quarter of the nation's homes . . . [the video] was made by a man named Carlton Sherwood, a Vietnam vet, and is, according to most reports, vehemently anti-Kerry.<br><br><br>do the math.<p><hr></blockquote><p>But those viewers are not a captive audience; they can simply change the channel, or hit the off button. TV markets Sinclair serves are the same as TV markets across the country; a vast variety of choices regarding content are available. And exercising choice over what to watch is basic to individual freedom. But the coalition senators, in true liberal mode, want to limit those choices by filtering out messages they don't agree with.<br><br>Wouldn't want to disfranchise anyone, would you?<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: garyW

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:29 PM

What are you afraid of?<br><br>A belligerent assault on decency by corporate douchebags with a political agenda to influence an election? <br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:35 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A belligerent assault on decency by corporate douchebags with a political agenda to influence an election?<p><hr></blockquote><p>It sounds to me like a story that has compelling reason to be told. Let me decide on the decency, agenda and influence, douchebag.<br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: garyW

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:45 PM

A compelling story that you are free to buy at stolenhonor.com and which will be saturated on FoxNews as newsworthy clips, discussions and interviews. Nobody is censoring or supressing the story.<br><br>As I've said all along, Sinclair's stockholder's will ultimately decide if this is a wise choice. Just the same as overstock.com's decision to send 5000 copies of FarenHype to the troops is going to have some corporate consequences in it's wake.<br><br><br><br>
Posted by: SlapLeather

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 01:51 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A compelling story that you are free to buy at stolenhonor.com and which will be saturated on FoxNews as newsworthy clips, discussions and interviews. Nobody is censoring or supressing the story.<br><br>As I've said all along, Sinclair's stockholder's will ultimately decide if this is a wise choice. Just the same as overstock.com's decision to send 5000 copies of FarenHype to the troops is going to have some corporate consequences in it's wake.<p><hr></blockquote><p>There is a noteworthy effort to censor or suppress the story.<br><br>And they will choose, as will I.<br><br><br><br><br>got to let your eyes adjust
Posted by: garyW

Re: Sinclair Broadcast Group - 10/13/04 02:12 PM

For any Sinclair subscriber (25% of the country), if they turn on their TV on Nov.1 between 8-9pm EVERY NETWORK CHANNEL is showing "Stolen Honor". Those affiliats have no choice but to show it because the corporation that owns them says so. And you're defending choice? If Sinclair was showing "Going Upriver" there would be cries that it was akin to a nazi takeover and a corporate propaganda coup, not that it is a compelling story that needs to be told.<br><br>