Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?
Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for president are obtained from television.
-- Reed Hundt, a former chairman of the FCC.
This histrionic, often specious and deeply sad film does not do much more damage to Senator John Kerry's reputation than have the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's negative ads, which have flooded television markets in almost every swing state. But it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism.
-- ALESSANDRA STANLEY (NYT)
As noted here, one of an ongoing series of entries on the matter by Talking Points Memo (just one blogger on the case), Sinclair appears to have changed its mind about having their outlets air an anti-Kerry documentary in its entirety. They will just use parts of it to show a somewhat less blatant piece slanted against one side. The first quote suggests the problem with this matter: the public airwaves are not like partisan papers that promote a certain political point of view. And, the power of a mega-news corporation like Sinclair Broadcasting that can force local affiliates to air such a thing is a rather blatant example of the dangers of media consolidation.
I'm supportive of protests that raise such concerns, especially given the documentary was scheduled to air only ten days before the election. I hate to have the government decide when news organizations draw the line, though various people have pointed out the matter was really equal time, FCC chair Michael Powell's apparent implications aside. On the other hand, Ms. Stanley has an interesting take on it, though she seems to miss a major point. The hackneyed partisan nature of the piece (I'm going by media reports here) suggests the people she says have a chance to let out their anguish are being used.
Some way to allow them to have their say! A truly balanced documentary that combines this with the pro-Kerry coverage of the events would not be that bad of an idea. This, however, seems a bit too complicated for the likes of network news. And, so the era's passions continue to fester, and a chance for better understanding becomes but a matter of politics.