Friday night the Sinclair Broadcast Group pre-empted local programming on 40 of its local television stations to show "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media." Sinclair's "Story" was not part of the original plan: the conservative-leaning media conglomerate had originally planned to air a documentary that described presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam-era service in a very unflattering manner. If it had chosen to do so it would have abdicated its journalistic responsibility and picked up a set of pro-Bush pom-poms.
The name Sinclair gained national attention earlier this year when it banned its ABC affiliates from showing a special "Nightline" segment in which Ted Koppel read the names of American soldiers killed in Iraq. Earlier this month Sinclair again stepped into the national spotlight when it announced it was planning on airing "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal," a virulently anti-Kerry film by Carlton Sherwood. Of course the decision to air such a blatantly political program on broadcast television anytime would have been controversial, but given the close and contentious presidential race, people took especially keen notice this time.
The point at issue here is not whether Sinclair is entitled to the same degree of political free speech as everyone else: they are. As a broadcaster, however, they use limited resources (bands of the broadcast TV spectrum) and thus must be regulated to ensure that the public good is served. This means that when Sinclair decides to bill a blatantly political program as news it is running afoul of not only media ethics standards but also the law. Sinclair is entitled to its thoughts, but it is not entitled to mislead the American public, especially in swing states very close to the election. In the same vein, CBS News would be just as worthy of contempt if it broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" as news.
Americans are fortunate enough that they were able to discover Sinclair's intentions early and counter in an unusually strong showing. The planned broadcast was opposed by not only Democrats and media watchdogs but also moderate Republicans, investors, and industry watchdogs. This diverse group agreed that Sinclair's plan was bad for American democracy and the doctrine of local control and worked to apply pressure on the station to change their plan. The result was Friday night's programming, which was deemed journalistically responsible by a consortium of media watchdogs.
Americans are lucky that Sinclair decided to do the right thing and back down from its original position. It should not be confident that broadcast corporations like Sinclair will always act with the public in mind. More than applauding Sinclair for its choice on Friday we should scold it and others like it for proposing the broadcast of political commentary under the guise of news.
