Sinclair Broadcasting: Stolen Honor morphs into "POW Story"

In the face of mounting fury from investors, activists and politicians, Sinclair Broadcasting still intends to air a Stolen-Honor-related-program activity. The station announced today that they will incorporate parts of the film into a program called "A POW Story." I have not seen the film, or, obviously, the "News" Program. So I do not know whether it is an honest film or presentation or not.

It has been alleged by people who have seen the film that uses some very cagey editing around Kerry's Testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971. Two clips posted on the Stolen Honor website are reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. In other words, they are long on accusations and short on evidence. It is highly likely we will all have to go through a debunking process once the program airs.

There are two issues that should be explored regarding Sinclair's broadcast.

1. The nature of the program

First, what kind of program will "A POW Story" be? So far, it is a mystery. Today's press release spins the project thusly:

The news special will focus in part on the use of documentaries and other media to influence voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on the content of certain of these documentaries. The program will also examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage.

Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts,the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary "Stolen Honor" in its entirety. At no time did Sinclair ever publicly announce that it intended to do so. In fact, since the controversy began, Sinclair's website has prominently displayed the following statement: "The program has not been videotaped and the exact format of this unscripted event has not been finalized.

Characterizations regarding the content are premature and are based on ill-informed sources." While the news special will discuss the allegations surrounding Senator John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities in the early 1970s raised by a number of former POWs in "Stolen Honor," it will do so in the context of the broader discussion outlined above. The program will be hosted by Jeff Barnd, the Emmy award winning co-anchor of Fox 45's 10:00 News which airs
on WBFF-TV, Sinclair's flagship station in Baltimore, Maryland.

I think we can read the tea leaves. We will probably see a presentation arguing that liberal elites are manipulating public opinion via films, mainstream media and websites. I think we will see an evisceration of documentaries and their corresponding filmmakers critical of the President. The word "filter" is GOP talking point code for the So Called Liberal Media (SCLM). I then believe we will see an unveiling of documentaries that the "filter" has supposedly prevented you, Joe Public, from seeing. These documentaries will include Stolen Honor. The program will probably address "attempts by candidates and other organizations to influence media coverage" by documenting Democratic efforts to squelch the airing of the program itself. I am predicting that what will make this show a news show is the Fox News label and talent, the news crawl at the bottom and the bold claim that you can trust the content because they say so: It will be fair and balanced therefore it is fair and balanced. I will be pleasantly surprised if the reality differs substantially from the above described scenario.

2. To air is to err

Secondly, should the program be aired at all? This question speaks to the tension between Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and laws governing ownership and administration of the airwaves. This tension is not trivial. The major players are battling for much more than a dollar in pursuit of virtual turf. The prize in this fight is not money. The prize in this fight is your mind. Now is the time for Americans to seek to understand the legacy of freedoms granted to us via our constitution in the context of the complicated media landscape of daily life.

The Communications Act of 1934 built on its predecessor, the Radio Act of 1927, to establish the cornerstones of US media policy. According to the TV Museum:

The obligation to serve the public interest is integral to the "trusteeship" model of broadcasting--the philosophical foundation upon which broadcasters are expected to operate. The trusteeship paradigm is used to justify government regulation of broadcasting. It maintains that the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource belonging to the public, and only those most capable of serving the public interest are entrusted with a broadcast license. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the government body responsible for determining whether or not applicants for broadcast license meet the requirements to obtain them and for further regulation of those to whom licenses have been granted.

The idea that the airwaves are a limited commodity is out of date. This has been demonstrated by the virtually limitless offerings of cable television. However, the concept of Public trust is most definitely not out of date. The US trend towards privatizing and consolidating media outlets only highlights the need for station owners to act in the interest of the public. The reason? It isn't that airwaves are in short supply. Station owners are in short supply. Therefore there are a limited number of outlets of information. The fewer the number of outlets of information, the higher the standard of integrity must be in order to insure that public discourse remains untainted by the designs of the merchants of ideology.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration offers a very clear discussion of the Public Interest Standard in Broadcast Television:

The government's exclusionary licensing arrangement was justified by requiring that broadcasters act as public fiduciaries. Their primary duty would be to serve the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as expressed in both the 1927 and 1934 Acts. The Federal Radio Commission that was created by the 1927 Act described the "public trustee" model in this manner:

[Despite the fact that] the conscience and judgment of a station's management are necessarily personal....the station itself must be operated as if owned by the public....It is as if people of a community should own a station and turn it over to the best man in sight with this injunction: "Manage this station in our interest..." The standing of every station is determined by that conception.(3)

In support of these concepts, the law is abundantly clear. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code) Section 73.1941 [47 CFR §73.1941] Equal Opportunities addresses political discourse:

e) Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

There is an abundance of evidence and observation that supports the idea that Sinclair is in the process of creating and airing a show that does not serve the public interest. One executive producer of the show has been fired for going public with allegations that Sinclair is creating a political hatchet job in the guise of news. The Owner of Sinclair's "Stolen Honor" production company is a Bush appointee. One of the ex-POWs portrayed in the documentary is suing the producers for inappropriately editing his comments to make him look like a liar. There are extensive and deep ties to the Republican Party by those in the film, the producers of the film and the management of Sinclair. Former Federal Communications Commission chairman Reed Hundt and several chairman of Journalism schools have decried Sinclair's decision as way out of bounds:

"Any FCC chairman, from the left or the right, would agree with me. I'd be shocked if you could find any other broadcast conduct like this" in the history of American television.

I have not seen an extended argument that favors airing the program in support of the public good. There is a small subsection of people that maintain that Sinclair airing Stolen Honor is the same as Michael Moore making Fahrenheit 9.11. This is specious. The act of remitting value for the product changes the dynamic of the relationship. There would be no controversy if Sinclair made the film available on pay-per-view. The other argument for airing the show centers around censorship. Of course, Sinclair is not being censored. They are being called to uphold the 60-year-old tradition of broadcasters as stewards of objectivity.

Sinclair's foray into thought control may also be illegal on an entirely different front. Their move has cost shareholders approximately $140 million. Investors will try to recoup losses in court.

On balance, Sinclair's decision to air "A POW Story" violates its role as a stweward of the public trust and threatens its status as a conduit of objective news. Additionally, it clearly has made a poor decision on behalf of its shareholders. For these reasons, the company should withdraw the program.