DNC, activists react to Sinclair
Reaction to the Sinclair anti-Kerry documentary story (10/12/04 RBR Daily Epaper #199) has been loud and widespread. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt have denounced plans to air "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," and 18 US senators have fired off a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell demanding an investigation into the legality of the broadcast (see related story). And the Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
The DNC contends that the broadcast amounts to advertising benefiting the Bush campaign, and as such constitutes an illegal campaign contribution.
The DNC is not counting on any relief from the FEC, and admits as much on its website. It is calling on supporters to call Sinclair affiliates to register their opinion, and is collecting signatures for a petition to the TV group asking that it change its plans.
Other groups are urging constituents to contact the sales managers at Sinclair stations and, more to the point, the advertisers who use those stations, to express displeasure with the broadcast.
Taking a page from decency advocates, some groups are planning challenges of upcoming Sinclair license renewals. One, Free Press, notes that Sinclair is operating 11 stations under LMAs, under which, it says, the owners are "legally-required to maintain their own programming authority." It says Sinclair may be "forcing programming decisions upon their LMA-operated stations."
RBR observation:
Point 1: Whether Free Press will have any success challenging license renewals is highly questionable, and on the LMA issue, it is flat out wrong. In most full-scale LMAs, the brokering party, in this case Sinclair, does indeed make most of the programming decisions, and legally so. The licensee, however, is legally responsible for whatever Sinclair does, and should exercise oversight. If Sinclair, for example, broadcasts indecent programming on an LMA station, the owner of that station would be liable for the fine. In other words, the owner turns over its air to Sinclair at his own peril.
Point 2: We have long advocated that opponents of indecent or otherwise objectionable programming hit broadcasters where they feel it the most - - their wallets - - rather than wait around for the government to do something for them. A license challenge is an iffy proposition, especially in a case like this where it isn't clear that Sinclair is doing anything specifically against the law or the regs. One dropped local account, on the other hand, would be felt immediately.
Are you reading this from a forwarded email?
