Boo Hoo! Media Corporate 'Giant' Sinclair is SO UNFAIR!

The organization NOW sent an 'Action Alert' urging us to 'STOP' "media giant" Sinclair from "forcing" the stations they own to broadcast an anti-Kerry "documentary" on the grounds it is a fake "news event" that is "bashing presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry." It urges us to contact our Congresscritters and urge them to challenge Sinclair's license.

"Remember, broadcast television stations are required to serve the public interest. It serves only George W. Bush and big business when the public airwaves are used to tip a national election. Thanks for taking action to protect our democracy and your rights. "

Right.

I'm sure if media "giant" Sinclair, with its enormous network of 82 stations, were trying to force a showing of, say, Far.911 down their stations' throats and influence the election *against* GWB -- NOW would be on that too, with as much enthusiasm. As they were with the recent CBS screwup--after all, fair's fair.

And the bastards are telling the stations they own what to broadcast! The perfidy!

Imagine -- a media organization with an opinion about politics, wanting to influence the election! Shocking! No media organization should try to influence the electorate in such a partisan way, everybody knows that! After all, it's the "public" airwaves..... ha ha ha.

What a crock.

Yours truly,

A Libertarian who doesn't think either of these knuckleheads is a bargain, but I know self-serving partisan 'outrage' when I see it....

--Michael McCarthy

---
followup, this from the Cato Institute Oct 22 2004:

“Sinclair Broadcast Group's decision this week not to air ‘Stolen Honor,’ a documentary on John Kerry's post-Vietnam antiwar activities, is being cheered by liberals as a victory for truth, honor and the Democratic Party,” according to a Wall Street Journal editorial. In “First Amendment on Sinclair's Side,” [http://cato-subscriptions.org/c.html?rtr=on&s=77z,94mv,949,9m8l,ffs3,mda8,g6zl] John Samples, director of the Center for Representative Government, writes: “Free speech is in the public interest. Voters benefit from having more information rather than less in the weeks prior to an election. Candidates and political parties see free speech in a more self-interested light. Free speech can cost them the presidency or control of Congress. Everyone -- Democrats, Republicans, and third parties -- striving for power at one time or another wants to suppress free speech."

My point exactly, but more succinctly put.