Can’t argue with moving images…
Josh Marshall is all over the Sinclair Broadcasting flap. Here’s one of his many entries. Here’s coverage by The New York Times.
I think Sinclair ought to be able to broadcast whatever (entertainment) nonsense it pleases. As long as the public airwaves remain public (probably not long), however, Sinclair should operate in the public interest–and part of what that should mean is that Sinclair attempt to be fair. Inviting John Kerry to a forum regarding the “documentary” is a dodge. Why? Because of the type of medium television is. If they allow him to stop the documentary and comment as it plays, I’d say this would be fair. But as it is, the relentless temporal nature of television ensures that it’s not possible to counter assumptions, premises, and assertions before they become accepted as part of a larger argument.
This situation is not analogous to a newspaper endorsing a candidate. Newspapers do not use a resource belonging to the public as the primary medium of transmitting messages. Newspapers are free–as are cable news organizations–to publish (almost) anything they please.
And for those of you who enjoy rooting out political bias in the media: here it is! Ooooooops. Pardon me. I have the impression that most bias crusaders are conservative ideologues rooting out liberal bias. So I suppose this bias is A-OK.
But that’s hardly interesting. I’m far more interested in the assertion by the Sinclair spokesman (as seen on TV!) that the film represents news. The first time I heard this I snorted beer all over the TV screen 
You gotta love a flack who can speak such nonsense with a straight face. One might make the claim, and be quite correct, that the “documentary” is news because of the situation Sinclair created by forcing its affiliates to show it.
Frankly, I don’t think showing this film will have any effect on the election. Perhaps this is really an example of the commercial bias.
For more analysis and less snark, I suggest you read what Jay Rosen has to say.
Just when I thought my opinion on this was too weird, lo and behold, some lefty blogger sums it up nicely for me. A Mr. Vaidhyanathan, guest-blogging for Eric Alterman, says Sinclair should go for it, that we need less government control, not more, and what we really need on our airwaves is a more “serious, bold politically engaged set of political voices” because “(r)ight now we have boring, spineless media.” This is exactly right —- for too long the battle cry has been “but that’s how it’s always been done”. No time like the present to shake up the stasis in the press/media. Thanks Mr. V! http://www.msnbc.com/Default.aspx?id=3449870&p1=0
If they allow him to stop the documentary and comment as it plays, I’d say this would be fair. But as it is, the relentless temporal nature of television ensures that it’s not possible to counter assumptions, premises, and assertions before they become accepted as part of a larger argument.
This has been the complaint, nearly word for word, against gotcha! news magazines like 60 Minutes and many other formats that label themselves news or investigative journalism on TV.
I have the impression that most bias crusaders are conservative ideologues rooting out liberal bias. So I suppose this bias is A-OK.
No, but it is interesting to watch liberal ideologues suddenly become sensitive to political bias in broadcast media with the recent rise of conservative radio and TV.
I would also point out for anyone to dispute that political ideology has been a long debated (nearly 70 years) topic with many self-proclaimed victims.
Tim… Overt bias on the public airwaves concerns me–whether it’s Sinclair or PBS. Overt bias as practised by private companies using private resources concerns me not at all, largely because I think it is uninteresting and nowhere near as important to understanding journalistic behavior as the structural biases.
Dr. Cline,
I wonder how much it really matters to the public today, or especially tomorrow, that a broadcaster (or broadcast TV producer) decides to air content that is also readily available on the web; as many political ads and documentaries already are. Today, the issue simply seems to be quantitative audience and left over qualms of the defunct Fairness Doctrine.
Is there a distinction anymore between broadcast, cable, satellite, fiber … which are all transport for a myriad of content? Public shmublic. Everything goes through the spectrum somewhere. Bundled content is transmitted. Only broadcasters are scrutinized.
In fact, if we consider progress being net savvy, linking, and a greater transparency of the process/reasoning, then why wouldn’t other media attempt to incorporate and replicate web content as well?
I particularly like the use of the Reuters-esque scare quotes around “documentary.” I suppose that’s the same as “documentary” filmmaker michael moore.
But how is this different from Dan Rather’s rather obvious hatchet job on President Bush?
Bryan… I believe those quotes need to be there for Michael Moore’s work, too. The quotes merely indicate the “documentary” is not the correct noun and is used ironically.
Tom… re: bringing the web into it
This is happening. I think transparency is exactly one of the benefits of this new medium.
I think the issue is the use of “public” airwaves — i.e., ostensibly, the airwaves are owned by the public, regulated by the FCC, and that broadcasters hold their license, in part, to “serve the public good.”
That’s why I called for the public to demand an FCC investigation of CBS — using their “news organ” on a public (utility) airwave to broadcast what appeared to be propaganda (Memogate and Draftgate) designed to influence a presidential election. I think the same holds true for Sinclair Broadcasting.
I think it as worthy of FCC investigation as the Wardrobe Malfunction. And I think it would ’serve the public’ to spark a discussion of propaganda, and the management of a public utility.
Keeping media and government apart
Maybe fodder for another Cline contemplative composition?