Put down that remote you baby, Big Media knows better than you!
Apparently, tomorrow night, 30 April 2004, Nightline intends to boradcast a show during which it will read the names and air pictures of American soldiers who have died in combat in Iraq.
The total combat deaths in Iraq so far is 523.
You can take the broadcast for what you will, a tribute or a comment on the situation. Or a some of each.
It seems some people won't get the chance to make up their own mind because Big Media simply wants you to have none of it.
Sinclair Broadcast Group is pulling the show from the air.
quote:ABC Nightline Pre-emption
The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of "Nightline" will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.
There is no organization that holds the members of our military and those soldiers who have sacrificed their lives in service of our country in higher regard than Sinclair Broadcast Group. While Sinclair would support an honest effort to honor the memory of these brave soldiers, we do not believe that is what "Nightline" is doing. Rather, Mr. Koppel and "Nightline" are hiding behind this so-called tribute in an effort to highlight only one aspect of the war effort and in doing so to influence public opinion against the military action in Iraq. Based on published reports, we are aware of the spouse of one soldier who died in Iraq who opposes the reading of her husband's name to oppose our military action. We suspect she is not alone in this viewpoint. As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of "Nightline' this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.
We understand that our decision in this matter may be questioned by some. Before you judge our decision, however, we would ask that you first question Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001. In his answer, we believe you will find the real motivation behind his action scheduled for this Friday. Unfortunately, we may never know for sure because Mr. Koppel has refused repeated requests from Sinclair's News Central news organization to comment on this Friday's program.
We respectfully disagree with Sinclair's decision to pre-empt "Nightline's" tribute to America's fallen soldiers which will air this Friday, April 30. The Nightline broadcast is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country. ABC News is dedicated to thoughtful and balanced coverage and reports on the events shaping our world with neither fear nor favor -- as our audience expects, deserves, and rightly demands. Contrary to the statement issued by Sinclair, which takes issue with our level of coverage of the effects of terrorism on our citizens, ABC News and all of our broadcasts, including "Nightline," have reported hundreds of stories on 9-11. Indeed, on the first anniversary of 9-11, ABC News broadcast the names of the victims of that horrific attack.
In sum, we are particularly proud of the journalism and award winning coverage ABC News has produced since September 11, 2001. ABC News will continue to report on all facets of the war in Iraq and the War on Terrorism in a manner consistent with the standards which ABC News has set for decades.
Clearly, what's the phrase I've heard, you're only as liberal as the people that own you.
The Sinclair Broadcast Group stations not airing the broadcast:
KDNL � St. Louis, Missouri WSYX � Columbus, Ohio WLOS � Asheville, North Carolina and Greenville / Spartanburg / Anderson, South Carolina WXLV � Greensboro / Winston-Salem / Highpoint, North Carolina WCHS � Charleston / Huntington, West Virginia WEAR � Mobile, Alabama and Pensacola, Florida WGGB � Springfield, Massachusetts
7 stations.
Viewers in 7 areas can�t make up their own mind about watching a television show because Sinclair Broadcast Group thinks they shouldn�t.
Which brings up an interesting side piece, media ownership which is being concentrated as the FCC allows companies to own an ever increasing share of the outlets.
So, next time the FCC tries to allow media outlets to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer large companies, you might want to drop them a line telling them it is not in the best interests of the American people.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
You're missing the point Jay.
Sinclair Broadcast group is the only "real" and "honest" media around here. Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yes, you're right.
Silly me.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's their station and their airtime so it's their call.
Wither you agree or not, the broadcast's timing is rather suspicous: why not wait untill the war/occupation/liberation/whatever is really over before broadcasting this?
What purpose does this broadcast serve other than undermining morale and support for the war effort? It's not as if there's a story that goes with this broadcast and as things stand, they'd have to re-broadcast an updated version of it every week so as to not exclude anyone... What does this hope to contribute other than to pull on the ol' heartstrings and cater to the lowerst common denmominator of the viewing audience?
Sinclair is only advertising and piquing intrest by refusing to air the broadfcast though... I can see their opposition as justified in that their advertisers and any military falilies might well find this objectionable (and regardless of how much research goes into the broadcast, some people will be left off their listing).
To many grieving families, this broadcast will only rub salt into fresh wounds: but hey, it's all good if they get high ratings, right?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
You really think they're going to get higher ratings by airing an hour of still portraits with someone reading off names? I suspect there will be very few people (of those who can watch it) who will watch it at all, much less sit through the whole thing.
This country has suffered thousands of military casualties over the past year. Many more Iraqi civilians have been killed or wounded in the same time. All this has been done in the name of, first, disarming Saddam Hussein of weapons he didn't have and, second, giving the Iraqis freedom that they still haven't gotten. Our government has done nothing but lie to us before, during, and after the war, and the vast majority of the media have done nothing but back them up.
Now one news show attempts to make people aware of even a fraction of the death our government has wantonly spread among even its own people, so perhaps at least those hundreds of soldiers might not have died in vain, and all you can do is accuse them of looking out for their own profits?
It's all the media outlets that have done nothing but support Bushco who help extend this war indefinitely. Their the ones who should be accused of using the war to their own advantage. After all, the longer Bush keeps killing people, the longer they can keep doing stories about it.
"Nightline" is making at least some attempt here to show the public just how bad things really are�to broadcast the truth, which is supposed to be the news media's only purpose for existing�and they're the ones accused of profiteering.
If that's the attitude of our country today, maybe we deserve a president like Bush.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
They're broadcasting the "Truth" by who's standards?
Who chooses what casualties they'll show?
If it's only those lost in Iraq, it sure slights the fallen in Afghanistan.
As to ratings, I really cant be sure if this'll be a big hit or not: I bet it's advertised as "a very special nightline" or some crap to make everyone feel obligated to watch.
It's strange, if they tried showing all the victims of 9/11 this way, it'd be seen as completely tasteless.
I can see both reasons for and against this kind of show, but as long as soldiers are dying daily, its all a bit premature. If they want to "put a face on the victims" they should describe indivuals and their reasons for going to war, not just a rollcall of the dead.
It'd be nice if they mentioned why those people were there- the personal reasons they went, not just the fact that they died while serving their country.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Overt censorship just really bugs me.
Really.
quote:Sinclair owns and operates, programs, or provides sales services to 62 stations in 39 markets, according to its Web site.
In addition its ABC outlets, Sinclair's television group includes 20 Fox, 19 WB, six UPN, three CBS and four NBC affiliates, and two independent stations.
It reaches approximately 24 percent of all U.S. television households, according to the Web site.
24% of the households in the United States will have to read a book...that's not such a bad idea...because of an overtly political decision to censor a program.
Or as U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey puts it...
quote:"The decision by Sinclair ... to keep this program off its stations is being made by a corporation with a political agenda without regard to the wants or needs of its viewers," Hinchey said. "This move may be providing a chilling look into the future if we allow media ownership to be consolidated into fewer and fewer hands."
quote:The network initially said the 30-minute telecast would be limited acknowledging only the 523 U.S. troops killed in combat since the start of the war in March 3002. But on Thursday, ABC said it would expand the program to 40 minutes to include another 200 or more Americans who died as a result of accidents, friendly fire or suicide.
I'm not na�ve enough to think that self-censorship doesn't happen all the time with our lap-dog press corps, but there is more than one way to look at this broadcast, and it's just plain wrong for Sinclair Broadcast Group to make that decision for 24% of America.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It's strange, if they tried showing all the victims of 9/11 this way, it'd be seen as completely tasteless."
Funny. That's precisely what Sinclair suggested they do. And ABC responded by pointing out that they did broadcast the names of the 9-11 dead a year-and-a-half ago.
"I can see both reasons for and against this kind of show, but as long as soldiers are dying daily, its all a bit premature."
Oh, right. Let's wait 'til they're all dead.
"If it's only those lost in Iraq, it sure slights the fallen in Afghanistan."
Granted, Bush fucked up Afghanistan pretty royally, too. But the casualties there are much lighter, and at least it wasn't a botched idea from the get-go.
They're focusing on the casualties in Iraq because those are the ones that are out of control, and that the administration and the majority of the media are doing their damnedest to downplay into seeming nonexistence.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I can see both reasons for and against this kind of show, but as long as soldiers are dying daily, its all a bit premature."
It's premature for people to know the unadulterated truth? Namely that the war in and occupation of Iraq aren't as clean and neat and spotless as BushAd would have them believe?
Oh, and speaking of interesting sidepieces you don't hear much about...
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Oh, and speaking of interesting side pieces you don't hear much about...
Not particularly pleasant revelations, as I'm sure even the most ardent neo-con would agree, but not terribly surprising given the complaints from British and Australian (and possibly others, I'm not sure) officers about the way US troops treat the Iraqis. Given the 'all terrorists are scum and all those captured are terrorists' line put about by some in the US government and military it really shouldn't come as a vast shock. What I found surprising is the apparent lck of interest the US media has hd in the story (page 20-something in the Washington Post, I believe). Hopefully it is only a small number who have actually gone this far.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It seems that John McCain (R-Arizona) disagrees with the actions of the Sinclair Broadcast Group.
McCain Letter to Sinclair Broadcast on Preemption of Nightline
Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following letter today to Mr. David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in response to the preemption of this evening's Nightline program:
I write to strongly protest your decision to instruct Sinclair's ABC affiliates to preempt this evening's Nightline program. 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.
I supported the President's decision to go to war in Iraq, and remain a strong supporter of that decision. 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.
There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. 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.
And if you are interested, you can read more about right-wing agenda driven media presence here.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
At this time, I do think this bit of programming is in bad taste. It slights people in other areas, and possibly those that are yet to die. If nearer to the beginning of November I would call it politically motived. On whether the show was for or against the war effort the show needs to be seen.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Exactly, Ritten.
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "I can see both reasons for and against this kind of show, but as long as soldiers are dying daily, its all a bit premature."
It's premature for people to know the unadulterated truth? Namely that the war in and occupation of Iraq aren't as clean and neat and spotless as BushAd would have them believe? Premature because the deaths havent stopped: all this does (besides pander to those that already oppose the war) is to briefly mention a name and not mention none of the person.
They'll re-run this to death as casualties mount and conviently avoid all the living breathing servicemen/women that know they're making a real diffrence (regardless of how botched the whole operation is becoming). [quote] Originally posted by Jay: [QB]I'm not na�ve enough to think that self-censorship doesn't happen all the time with our lap-dog press corps, but there is more than one way to look at this broadcast, and it's just plain wrong for Sinclair Broadcast Group to make that decision for 24% of America.
How exactly is it making any decision for 24% of america? You think that 24% of America would actually be watching Nightline? That figure is just the percentage of americans served by Sinclair: not the actual Nightline viewers. That's literally millions upon millions more viewers than Nightline is likely to ever draw on any night.
There's the potential to deprive those viewers from seeing the broadcast, but if all those millions really wanted to see the program, Sinclair would have to bow to the viewer demand or forfit an incredible marketshare and really piss off his advertisers that paid to run their commercials on Nightline.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
That's quite the hoop you put up for yourself to jump through.
It's abundantly clear that not very viewer allegedly served by Sinclair would have watched the show. What's more, no one ever made that claim.
What IS clear is that Sinclair made a decision for the people it allegedly serves so that NO ONE can watch the program.
That's roughly 24% of the population they decided can't make up their own minds whether or not they want to watch the show. Even if they never watched it ever in their lives, Sinclair made the decision for them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, you made that claim by stating that Sinclair "and it's just plain wrong for Sinclair Broadcast Group to make that decision for 24% of America." when in fact it's likely less than one tenth of one pf those 24% at best.
Splitting hairs...I agree that their deciding not to broadcast this sets a bad precedent but it's highlighting the underlying problem that the FCC has allowed this kind of unfair semi-monopolization of television.
At the same time though, it's their station and it's their right to air something else instead of programming that might be deemed offensive by the programming department- people actually paid to forecast audience reactions.
Should there be more choices for news coverage? Sure! Dozens in fact! Oh wait, there are!
Th rollcall of the fallen soldiers is not cassified info or anything and a simple search will yield numerous stories on the people that have died.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, you made that claim by stating that Sinclair "and it's just plain wrong for Sinclair Broadcast Group to make that decision for 24% of America." when in fact it's likely less than one tenth of one of those 24% at best.
Splitting hairs...
I agree that their deciding not to broadcast this sets a bad precedent but it's highlighting the underlying problem that the FCC has allowed this kind of unfair semi-monopolization of television.
At the same time though, it's their station and it's their right to air something else instead of programming that might be deemed offensive by the programming department- people actually paid to forecast audience reactions.
Would you still be upset about it if Nightline was pulled on that night by ABC themselves for the same reasons as Sinclair? Doesnt Sinclair have at least some say in what it's stations broadcast?
Should there be more choices for news coverage? Sure! Dozens in fact! Oh wait, there are!
The rollcall of the fallen soldiers is not cassified info or anything and a simple search will yield numerous stories on the people that have died.
Just because FOX and CNN dont show pictures of returning caskets or the corpses of the dead doesnt mean that nothings being reported or that Nightline's list is new information.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If anyone's interested, here are some other tricks Sinclair has pulled in the past. My favorite is when they aired fake news stories that the Bush administration had created with public funds.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Intresting stuff, but I'd like to see it from a real news-site. One that can go a paragraph or two without cute quotes like:
quote:Wolfowitz should be strapped into the chair, Clockwork Orange style.
I'm not saying the claims arent true, just that I want to see these supposed facts from somewhere more objective.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, Captain Contrary, click through...click through the links to see where the information came from.
The comment in question was from the blogger, Atrios.
I linked to the Center for American Progress page in an earlier post. They are the ones making the claims.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A website even less impartial than Rush Limbaugh.
Grreeeeat.
How about something showing where this information is actually coming from?
Something that cites real people, established, verified figures, FCC invigation for wrongdoing, or even a major newspaper article.
This actually sounds sensible:
quote:"If they wanted to do a program on, is the cost of this war in human life worth it, and discuss that issue and explain the benefit of what [the U.S.] is doing and what the cost has been and allow people to comment on it, that public debate we would welcome.
"But without any context and any discussion of why we're there and why these lives are being sacrificed, it will unduly influence people," Faber said.
If that's their point of view, it sure sounds reasonable to me.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Premature because the deaths havent stopped: all this does (besides pander to those that already oppose the war) is to briefly mention a name and not mention none of the person.
So what you're saying is that, until all Iraqis go about their lives eating Happy Meals at their local MosqueDonalds and duly hoisting their new Flag of Liberation� like good patriots instead of burning it, the death toll really shouldn't be publicized at all so as to not OFFEND anyone still serving there?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
If it is to be a tribute shouldn't it be done when everyone is back home???? How often have tributes been given before the mission is completed in the past???
If you do it to often it just becomes routine, while tributes, by there very nature, are supposed to be something special to memorialize the people that have been killed.
I didn't watch the show, so I don't know how it was handled, but just by the timing, it seems to say something like, 'For this "easy" war these lives have been lost, and most after hostilities ended, How many more?'
So what I am saying is that it should have been done after our troops are home, wolfing down fast food joint burgers, saluting our colors, and getting on with life to the best of their ability.........
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Premature because the deaths havent stopped: all this does (besides pander to those that already oppose the war) is to briefly mention a name and not mention none of the person.
So what you're saying is that, until all Iraqis go about their lives eating Happy Meals at their local MosqueDonalds and duly hoisting their new Flag of Liberation� like good patriots instead of burning it, the death toll really shouldn't be publicized at all so as to not OFFEND anyone still serving there?
In what alternate universe did I ever even allude to that? If you want to make something up and attribute it to me, please make it something violent and slanderous.
I'm saying that it's premature to air such a show now and it can be (and has been) seen as an antiwar statement to only show those killed in the war with no other commentary- and, SUPRISE! It's an election year where people's opinion of how Iraq is being handled will sway many voters.
I think we're witness to the political viewpoints of Nightline's producers clashing with those of Sinclair television.
Nothing objective in either viewpoint really.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"So what I am saying is that it should have been done after our troops are home..."
So, somewhere around 2025, probably?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It'd still get more attention than those that died in GW1 or Afghanistan.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"So what I am saying is that it should have been done after our troops are home..."
So, somewhere around 2025, probably?
If that is what Bush got us in to, then, yes.....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Nothing objective in either viewpoint really."
No, but TV almost never is.
Besides, this show was not INTENDED as an objective commentary, but to forward an Opinion of Something. Now that may not have been politically convenient (or entirely agendaless), but not premature. If anything, it boosted public awareness (on those stations where the show wasn't yanked off the air, anyway) in a time when such a boost was needed the most, and I can only applaud that.
"I think we're witness to the political viewpoints of Nightline's producers clashing with those of Sinclair television."
Well, yeah, but censorship of ANY viewpoint that doesn't fit into the agenda of whatever company owns the station broadcasting it always raises big red flags with me, ESPECIALLY during an election year.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
This is actually a lose lose situation for me....
I can not agree with either party for their actions.....
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)