Protest Sinclair Broadcasting and Pay per View

If you want to protest something, protest to Sinclair Broadcasting for FORCING it's more the 60 stations to run an anti-Kerry documentary just a few days prior to the elections, WITHOUT offering a counter story like "John Kerry, going up river" or Michael Moore's F9/11. Complaints to the FCC would be appropriate as well as to Sinclair themselves threatening to boycott their stations and advertisers.

Also, Pay Per View had signed a contract with Michael Moore to show his documentary F9/11 prior to the election and they have now broke that contract and pulled the showing of the documentary. Moore himself is sueing and I'm sure he would appreciate your voices in this matter as well.

Such obvious right-wing control over what gets on TV is totally unacceptable. What gives them the right to choose what we see, or don't see on TV by throwing their money AT, and asserting their clout against networks??

 

I think that it's a good thing. Moore's 9/11 was seen by a whole lot of people in the theatres, it will provide a good counterbalance. If Kerry wants an anti-bush movie, he should do just what Bush did and start throwing $ at Sinclair.

 

Michael Moore has offered his movie free of charge to the Sinclair Broadcasting Co. to run as a counter to the anti-Kerry flick. I don't think they took it. They are known for their conservative bias, therefore I don't think it would matter how much money the Kerry folks threw at them....I doubt they would buckle.

 

I think that they would buckle... while free-of-charge wouldn't even move me to broadcast a political movie if I owned a network.

Bush paid good money to have his flick broadcasted, I am certain of that. Kerry should do the same.

Plus, if Sinclair wants to stay concervative, it is thier right and previlage.

 

On their site they are asking for comments regarding this matter. I suggest that those who are interested use this...


http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtml

comments@sbgi.net

 

Just TELL me what stations they own. I'm there.

 

Done.

Can't help but wonder if it's not just another smoke screen though.

 

Quote: Plus, if Sinclair wants to stay concervative, it is thier right and previlage

I cannot disagree with you more. They own hundreds of stations throughout the US, and forcing them to show an obviously biased film destroys any objectitivty a legitimate news source may have. Not only are they approaching the level of a Clearchannel type monolpoly, but they are also major funders of the Bush campaign. we need more REAL news, unbiased and non-partisan in this country, it is one of the alleged pillars of American society.

Yet another example of the US media going easy on the Bush presidency.

 

Look, after F9/11, which was in the movies or months and which god knows how many millions of people saw, to say a television network for 1 night can't put on an anti-Kerry film is asinine.

 

If sinclairs group wants to put it in movie theaters that's fine..the thing is,they are FORCING people to watch it if they watch their channel..Michael Moores movie, wasn't forced, you had an option to either Buy a ticket and watch it, or not..so, it's not a good thing unless it's put in a movie theater

 

• October 12, 2004| 9:42 p.m. ET

Sinclair's sin (David Shuster)

Imagine if the CBS television network pre-empted "60 Minutes" this Sunday and broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Many of you might be thrilled. But many of you would be disgusted and outraged, calling it a deliberate, misleading, and unfair ploy to impact the presidential election at the very end.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. isn't CBS. But Sinclair does own 62 television stations, including 35 affiliated with the major broadcast networks. (20 Fox stations, 8 ABC, 4 NBC, and 3 CBS.) And Sinclair is ordering all of its stations to pre-empt regular programming and run, as early as this weekend, a partisan documentary about John Kerry titled "Stolen Honor."

The film attacks Kerry for his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam more than 35 years ago. Mark Hyman, a spokesman for Sinclair, says "the documentary is just part of a special news event that we're putting together." Actually, it's not a news event. The film was released, (and picked apart) at a press conference five weeks ago.

Some of my colleagues have made an issue out of Sinclair's partisan history. 97 percent of their political contributions have gone to Republicans, they sent a team to Iraq to find the "good news" the rest of the media wasn't reporting, and etc.

But my issue with Sinclair is in regards to this film... and Sinclair's intention to run the film "as is." Without a major overhaul, this film should be rejected... and it has to do with journalism's requirement that you "get the facts right."

"Stolen Honor" has several prominent factual errors: First, former America POWs are quoted on camera as saying "we stayed two more years because of the demonstrators like Fonda and Kerry... I figure they owe us two years." I have no doubt that some POW's feel that way. But the fact is, the war stopped in 1973 when the Nixon administration negotiated an end. History shows it was the lack of a settlement before then, not the protests, that kept the North Vietnamese fighting.

Secondly, part of John Kerry's testimony as depicted in the film starts in mid-sentence. "They cut off ears, limbs, heads..." This editing makes it seem that John Kerry was making the allegations, when the sentence actually begins with Kerry saying, "They said they..." The difference is crucial. In reality, as opposed to this film, John Kerry always attributed those dramatic allegations to the testimony of other US soldiers.

Thirdly, the film only features POWs who say John Kerry's name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we've spoken to dozens of POWs who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and say they never heard John Kerry's name mentioned once.

Balance requires these opposing voices be included in a "journalistic film." But, alas, this isn't journalism that Sinclair is practicing.

Some of you might be thinking, "Well, wait a second, Michael Moore splashed his anti-Bush film in movie theaters across the country." That's true. But there is a huge difference between forcing voters to buy a ticket to watch a partisan film... and showing something partisan over the free television airwaves. If Sinclair wants to sponsor "Stolen Honor" in movie theaters across the country, more power to them. But television stations are a different matter regardless of your political leanings. Because remember, if it is Sinclair and "Stolen Honor" this Sunday, would you be comfortable with CBS and "Fahrenheit 9/11" next Sunday?
http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtml

Also those who want to protest..
http://www.democrats.org/action/200410120001.html

 

I wouldn't be comfortable with F911 or Stolen Honor on free TV right before the election. Sinclair is using a sleazy tactic. They are going to pre-empt their regular programming, show the entire film commercial free, free of charge, a few days before the election, and force all their stations to show it. There used to be at least some decency in the TV industry years ago.

 

So Bush has given tons of money to Sinclair to do this? Anyone want to comment on this or what the facts are? I'd like to know who the groups are, if any, who gave money directly to Sinclair to do this and how much money.

I know that Sinclair has given its money to politicians and that 97% of it has gone to republicans.

So now the few corporations that control our public airways are making decisions on their programming based on which politicians gives them the most kickbacks, as opposed to having some minimal sense of decency, ethics, and fairness. Great.

 

Yes, he offered it, and said so last night on Jay Leno, free of charge, since they say they aren't biased..But, I am with you I don't think they took it..because they are being very biased.

 

From my understanding it is not Bush who gave the money for this airing, its that the owners of this company have given money to the republicans and have an interest in Bush winning the election.

 

From google: List of Sinclair Stations

Also from Liquid List:

The Liquid List gets letters that you should act on! Read:

This is our next step in the Boycott Sinclair.

Why we need to contact ALL Sinclair Broadcasting Group advertisers.

The CEO & the other powerful people at Sinclair Broadcasting Group make most of THEIR OWN MILLIONS by way of company stock.

Top owners of SBG stock:

These are the insiders at Sinclair Broadcast Group who will make the decision whether the smear about John Kerry will be aired.

Dyson Ehrhardt has 11,810,500 shares
This person LOSES $11 MILLION DOLLARS for every dollar the stock goes down

David D Smith has 11,347,320 shares
This person LOSES $11 MILLION DOLLARS for every dollar the stock goes down

Duncan J Smith has 11,072,300 shares
This person LOSES $11 MILLION DOLLARS for every dollar the stock goes down

Robert E Smith has 7,448,855 shares
This person LOSES $7 MILLION DOLLARS for every dollar the stock goes down

Frederick E Smith has 500,000 shares
This person LOSES $1/2 MILLION DOLLARS for every dollar the stock goes down

Thats OVER $40 million dollars they lose for every dollar the stock goes down.

Great but how do we make the stock go down?

We contact “ALL” advertisers on Sinclair Broadcasting Group and advise them we will not be purchasing any of their products if they continue to advertise on Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

This includes “BOTH” National and local advertisers.

If a National advertiser like KMart says they can not control whether their advertising runs on Sinclair Broadcasting Group or not I explain that if I were in their position I would find a way to make sure their advertising does not support Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

LIST OF ADVERTISERS


VERY IMPORTANT: Now to really make sure the price of SBG stock starts dropping very quickly EVERYBODY should contact the following Institutional and Mutual Fund holders of SBG stock. ( SEE BELOW )

Each person should contact the following Institutional and Mutual Fund companys.

The fastest way to contact these companys is by email. Write one email. Save it to your drafts folder. Now just copy & paste.

When you contact these companys all you need to do is state you are contacting them because they are holding a great deal of Sinclair Broadcasting Group stock worth millions of dollars.

Next you state that you are advising them that if Sinclair Broadcasting Group goes forward with airing the smear documentary about John Kerry you will be participating in the boycotting of all advertisers who continue to support Sinclair Broadcasting Group.

Next you say I am advising you of the pending boycott so that you will have the needed time required for you to sell all your stock shares in Sinclair Broadcast Group so you do not lose millions of dollars if the stock should start losing value.

Next you advise them that if they decide to continue to hold Sinclair Broadcasting Group stock and it does decrease in value we will be notifing all their investors that they were notified ahead of time about the pending boycott which provided the needed time to sell the shares before the decrease in the value of the stock.

This will provide the investors with documented proof that the investor can use to recover any monetary looses incurred from the fund company.


TOP INSTITUTIONAL HOLDERS

Earnest Partners LLC
customer.service@harborfund.com

Gamco Investors Inc
http://www.gabelli.com/corporate/contact_board.html

Morgan Stanley
http://www.morganstanleyindividual.com/customerservice/contactus/

Westfield Capital Management Company
mfearey@wcmgmt.com

Neuberger Berman, LLC
sbutler@lehman.com

Putnam Investment Management, LLC
https://www.putnam.com/individual/index.html?start=contact

Barclays Bank Plc
customer.relations@barclays.co.uk

Blackrock Inc.
http://www.bfm.com/askbr/mailbr.html

Janus Capital Management, LLC
http://ir.janus.com/comment.cfm


TOP MUTUAL FUND HOLDERS

Morgan Stanley Special Value Fund
http://www.morganstanleyindividual.com/customerservice/contactus/

Franklin Mutual Ser Fd-Mutual Shares Fd
http://www.franklintempleton.com/retail/jsp_app/global_nav/cust_serv/em_sel_cat.jsp

Janus Special Equity Fund
http://ir.janus.com/comment.cfm

Harbor Small Cap Growth Fund
customer.service@harborfund.com

Invesco Sector Funds Inc-Invesco Leisure Funds
https://www.aiminvestments.com/generic/0,,-1_5506,00.html

Morgan Stanley Inst Fd Tr-U.S. Small Cap Value Port
http://www.morganstanleyindividual.com/customerservice/contactus/

Van Kampen Small Cap Value Fund
https://www.vankampen.com/ContactUs/GeneralQuestions.asp

FMI Focus Fd
https://scs.fidelity.com/accounts/services/content/visitorsend_frame.shtml

American Skandia Tr-Gabelli Small-Cap Value Port
service@prudential.com

 

The corporations that own these TV stations get something in return indirectly for acting this way, much like doctors get something in return from the pharmaceutical industry for the way they act.

Sometimes all that owners of TV stations understand is money. Then other groups have to step in and boycott them or, reluctantly, petition the government to pressure the owners to act with some sense of decency if they can't do it themselves.

 

thank you Pear Tree

 

News are never legitamate or objective. This will not be anything new.

There are no real news. Moore did not give objective, legitamate points in 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine, why should Bush?

 

No one forces people to watch their channel in the first place. You have an option of either watching the sinclair channels or not... the power is literaly in your hand.