Oct. 12th, 2004

ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
A link from another site:

From Reed Hundt, Former Chair, FCC ...

Dear Josh:

Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters and honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

-- Reed Hundt


Re: the so-called liberal media:

In the 2004 political cycle, Sinclair [whose television outlets reach nearly a quarter of the nation's homes with TV--CBG] executives have given nearly $68,000 in political contributions, 97% to Republicans, ranking it 12th among top radio and TV station group contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign finance watchdog group.

Yeah.
ceebeegee: (Helen)
I did a funny photo shoot today. A humor magazine called Jest is doing some sort of parody of "The Women of Hamas" or something like that. Per their request, I brought several disparate sets of lingerie (plus a couple of pairs of shoes) to the shoot at their offices in Midtown, where I posed in the lingerie, while wearing a blue burkha. My face and hair were never seen, although you could see the underwear. They had some good props, like an American flag, a cap and a pocketbook, with which I played around as well. A fairly quick shoot, under an hour. I got to see the results (they shot it digitally) and they looked funny as hell.

Man, those things are hard under which to breathe. They're actually pretty awful, like being shrouded. And I lost my balance several times as well.

So damn glad I live in a country where I can wear almost anything I want.
ceebeegee: (Red Heather)
From Yahoo! News:

After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the Smiths' company, Sinclair Broadcasting Group Inc., ordered its local anchors to read editorials backing the administration against al Qaeda. [Note: Obviously I have no problem with the ideological bent, just the political one.]

...

In the four days since the Los Angeles Times disclosed that Sinclair has told its stations to preempt regular programming and air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," by former Washington Times reporter and Vietnam veteran Carlton Sherwood, industry executives have said they cannot think of a precedent involving a major television chain.

...

But Heritage Foundation media analyst Mark Tapscott called it a free speech issue, saying: "Why are we even thinking about limiting what a media organization can publish? There are lots of things in the world that are unfair."
[It is not a Free Speech issue, asshole. No one's saying YOU can't say it--on your own dime. You're free to print up a newspaper, buy a website, shout it from the street. But you're getting the use of the airwaves FOR FREE--the public airwaves that belong to all of us--and with that gift goes the expectation of fairness and responsibility to the public trust. And if you're so concerned about freedom of speech, why are you forcing your journalists to toe the line? Jeez, no wonder this guy is pushingpushinpushing for less government--because the less the FREE airwaves are regulated, the less accountability.]

and this:

Mark E. Hyman, the company vice president who went to Iraq in search of uplifting news, is an unabashed Bush supporter and Republican Party donor who delivers a daily commentary on Sinclair stations. He told viewers last month that Kerry had enlisted in the Navy to avoid the draft...

Wait--he enlisted to avoid the draft? Doesn't that sound a bit...counter-productive? *whisper* Dude--Kerry served in Vietnam. Bush is the one who tried to avoid the draft. Does this guy even realize how rabid he sounds? His diatribes should at least make sense.

Sigh. Report the facts, please. We're all adults--don't try to teach me, or talk down to me, or tell me what to think, especially not on the FREE airwaves.
ceebeegee: (Default)

THE ULTIMATE SILENCE
October 12, 1998




Six years ago today, Matthew Shepard was murdered for being homosexual.

What will you do to end the silence?

Click here to post this on your own page or weblog




Love thy neighbor, y'all. We are all brothers and sisters.
ceebeegee: (digitized pumpkin)
I bought so much more thpookineth tonight. There's a new store in Rockefeller Center, a new Papyrus, and I was sucked in as I walked past. So much Halloweeniness. I could NOT help it--I bought a pumpkin safety pin thingy, some adorable pumpkin mittens and some other cute stuff.

I am so Halloween's bitch.

Profile

ceebeegee: (Default)
ceebeegee

May 2020

S M T W T F S
     12
3456 789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 10th, 2025 10:37 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios