The problem with Corporate ownership of news outlets …

Is that news consumers suffer when journalistic decisions come from the corporate end, and not the journalists.

From a David Folkenflik article in the Sun today:

The Sinclair Broadcast Group will yank Nightline from its seven ABC stations tonight because of a plan to devote the show to reading the names of the hundreds of American service members killed in Iraq, which Sinclair says is intended to damage support for U.S. actions there.

Ted Koppel, anchor of the ABC News program, is attempting to “disguise political speech as news content,” said Mark Hyman, Sinclair’s vice president for corporate relations. “He’s welcome to participate in political speech, but this purports to be a news program. There is no journalistic value here.”

I’m astounded. This is journalism if ever I heard it; Koppel is not making biased or partisan claims, he isn’t lying or distorting the truth. He is reporting the deaths of our troops in America’s current war. How is that political speech? Moreover, how is Hyman’s blocking of this report not political speech? He’s not even a journalist, he’s a businessman. Why is he making journalism decisions in place of the paid professionals such as Ted Koppel?

It seems rather obvious to me that the Sinclair group has a bottom-line [or political] interest that greatly diverges from the values of journalism they claim to uphold.

UPDATE: From CNN — “According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair’s top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.” None donated to the Kerry campaign as far as records show.

Fortunately, the journalists at Sinclair’s stations aren’t so easily cowed. Leroy Sievers, executive producer of Nightline, said: “If you agree with the war or disagree with the war, these people here have died in our names. We think it’s the least we can do, to list their names.”

I agree. It’s atrocious that corporate headquarters is passing down an ultimatum prohibiting what they call “political speech,” when that very action is political in its unquestioning support for Bush and the war.

I wonder what other news Sinclair has banned from being broadcast? And if you’re wondering, this affects WBFF in Baltimore and also a station in Columbus, Ohio, among others.

Proud to report that WBFF [Fox Baltimore] journalists objected internally to the proclamation, as they ought to. In journalism, even broadcast journalism, the public’s right to know should always trump corporate interest. Especially when it leads the public to believe that said corporate interest may be deep in the pockets of the current administration.

Good job, gang, and shame on you, Sinclair.

April 30, 2004 | Filed Under politics

nearby posts

« « previous: Apartments are for the birds. | next: Tina Fey’s hotness: A double-edged sword » »

Comments

4 Responses to “The problem with Corporate ownership of news outlets …”

dan on April 30th, 2004 2:54 pm

FYI, that station in Clumps, Ahia, is WSYX.
d
Daniel on April 30th, 2004 3:24 pm

It turns out I have both a snark and a blather for you today. In my opinion, devoting the entire show only to the dead soldiers does seem particularly one sided considering the emotionally chaged nature. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to see some amount of political bias in it.

However…

Silencing a viewpoint because it is counter to yours is censorship and that makes it reprehensible. The intelligent thing for the Sinclair Group to have done would be to purchase local commercial time on their stations (during the show) to present an opposing viewpoint. Perhaps to talk about some of the living soldiers who are fighting on behalf of their country.
MB on May 1st, 2004 11:49 am

Thanks, Dan S.

Dan P., perhaps it is a little political, but as Sievers said in an article today in the Sun, and I’m paraphrasing, since when is honoring our war dead a problem?

But I agree that your solution above would be a good and fair one. It is the American tradition to register protest, not to censor.

Fortunately this news [as well as the Dover photos of soldiers’ coffins] has allowed all of us to debate a different aspect of the war — its toll on our soldiers. Whether or not one believes we were justified in entering Iraq, we cannot ignore the fact that a number of our troops have lost their lives in the fight, and they deserve recognition and honor.
Daniel on May 4th, 2004 12:53 pm

“…a number of our troops have lost their lives in the fight, and they deserve recognition and honor.”

Absolutely, but all our dead soldiers deserve the same recognition and honor. I wonder if Mr. Koppel plans to honor the soldiers that have died and will die *since* his broadcast in the same way, especially since the show took a significant ratings hit.

“…since when is honoring our war dead a problem?”

Memorials are fine, but fairness to all involved and political posturing are reasons why it’s proper to wait until the end of the conflict to erect them. (even if the memorial is made of names being read on television) It just makes me wonder what the motives were behind reading the names at this time. *If* the dead are being used as a political bludgeon I don’t see much honor involved, and that should be a problem.