Friday, October 15, 2004
The behavior of the Sinclair Broadcasting Group is another reason to think that our democratic system is in danger of starting to look like Russia's.
The short of it is that Sinclair, which owns 62 television stations across the country, is forcing its affiliates to show an anti-Kerry documentary. This is a blatant effort to influence the election. Normally, broadcasters are required to balance their programming. Sinclair claims it invited Kerry to participate in a discussion afterward. Simply put, this is the most egregious abuse of public airwaves. It is every bit an effort to influence the election.
It's a nasty first step toward media companies using their unique and privileged position to influence elections. I don't know that anyone will be as craven as Sinclair - indeed the backlash may reaffirm the dividing line between advocacy and reporting - but it's creepy. I can only hope that the financial and legal consequences of Sinclair's misdeeds are so immense that no one ever thinks of following in their footsteps.
The short of it is that Sinclair, which owns 62 television stations across the country, is forcing its affiliates to show an anti-Kerry documentary. This is a blatant effort to influence the election. Normally, broadcasters are required to balance their programming. Sinclair claims it invited Kerry to participate in a discussion afterward. Simply put, this is the most egregious abuse of public airwaves. It is every bit an effort to influence the election.
It's a nasty first step toward media companies using their unique and privileged position to influence elections. I don't know that anyone will be as craven as Sinclair - indeed the backlash may reaffirm the dividing line between advocacy and reporting - but it's creepy. I can only hope that the financial and legal consequences of Sinclair's misdeeds are so immense that no one ever thinks of following in their footsteps.
