Why can't the FCC stop Sinclair?

[DemMother]

Does anyone know any of the legal arguments that support Sinclair's classification of propaganda as "news?"

It seems so blatantly wrong. I don't understand why the FCC isn't all over this. I just don't get it at all.

[salin]

1. My hope is that there is so much heat and publicity around this

that Sinclair reverses itself before air time.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Especially when the public starts questioning whether Homeland

Security funds were used to make this movie..did you see my thread?

[rndmprsn]

2. Michael Powell

you think the guy that gave away the air-waves and local media to giant corporations would EVER stand up to them?

[Wapsie B]

4. Exactly.

If anything Powell would loosen regs even more. He needs to be shipped out when Kerry takes office.

[Wind Dancer]

5. Like father, like son!

It's a shame these people sold their souls.

[TrustingDog]

13. yep. nepotism, schmepotism all over the place.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. Ummm... because they don't want to?

Do I win a prize or anything? :shrug:

[DemMother]

7. I guess I should have worded the question differently.

Aren't there some hard and fast rules about what is news and what isn't? This movie they want to show is obviously not news.

I wonder if there is anyone else--besides local advertisers--who can be pressured to force the FCC to look into this.

[Shoeempress]

6. I would think the FEC would have the ability to regulate this activity.

Seems like a huge contribution directly to Chimpy after the close of the time for contributions.

[Vincardog]

8. WE know the shrub would fire them, if they had any INTENT to challenge him

[serryjw]

10. FEC is the answer not FCC

I have to believe Jk's people are working on this. MM's F9-11 was shown many months ago. NO on required a threatre to air it. This will be a requirement for the affiliates and airing on the PUBLIC airwaves less than 30 days before the election? This is nothing short of propaganda that EVEN 3rd world countries don't do!

[ewagner]

31. Correct

at the very least a complaint should be filed...asking for an injunction.

[DemMother]

9. The Commerce Committee seems to be the oversight committee for the FCC

John McCain is the chairman.
Barbara Boxer is a member.
So is John Kerry


John Dingell and Henry Waxman are on the House committee.

I'm going to contact Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman's offices and also John McCain.

[factcheck]

11. Don't waste your time

The FCC has absolutely no jurisdiction in this case.

If the 'movie' they were going to show contained obscene or truly objectionable material, it MIGHT be different. And I don't want to hear how YOU think the contents may be obscene or objectionable.

The FCC simply cannot tell television stations or networks what they can or cannot broadcast so long as the material broadcast does not directly violate the content rules. And this wouldn't.

This would be like a large group of people deciding they don't like a particular TV show because they do not agree with the subject matter. Their ONLY recourse would be to complain to the network and/or stations involved. However, I have to be honest, if the network and/or stations involved (or, like in this case a large media company) have a vested interest in the material, they would air it no matter what.

In fact, the FCC's actions in this sort of matter could generally only be reactive rather than proactive. They could decide whether fines were called for and then levy them AFTER the fact. And, if a company's interest is large enough, any amount of fines that could be levied would not be enough deterrent anyway.

You can write letters to Sinclair, you can contact advertisers, etc. However, Sinclair will do what they want to do regardless of what you or I think because, like any corporation, their own agenda is all that counts.

[KharmaTrain]

19. Obscenity Doesn't Matter, Either

The FCC has been rendered useless...a wholy-owned subsidiary of the NAB...the National Association Of Broadcasters...the large lobby that is dominated by the large broadcast corporations to maintain their domination over the airwaves and keep competitors and the government out.

While the FCC could fine..ala Janet Jackson...there are no blatant violations, and even if the FCC were an honest broker, an investigation would take months and end up doing nothing to Sinclair. A fine? What is a couple thousands dollars when your corporation makes billions from those PUBLICLY-owned radio and television frequencies.

The best way to view it...the FCC is an absentee landlord...they collect the rent (spectrum fees) but let those living on the property to determine what happens to that property...turning it into a whore house and as long as no one says anything it's gonna stay that way.

As I've posted before, there are smart ways to take on this company...and that can create lots of problems for Sinclair...all legally...and could end up with investigations into the company, fines and even license challenges and revocation. But this will take a coordinated effort and is possible with the growing muscle of us here on DU.

Broadcast re-regulation has to be a priority in a Kerry administration...rolling back the elements of the '96 Telecom bill that allows for these companies to own so many broadcast properties with little accounting. Instead efforts have to be made to return stations to local ownership...empowering people rather than stiffling their voices and choices.

Cheers

[chaumont58]

12. Shirley, you jest!

A repuke FCC? What have you been smokin'?

[bush equals idiot]

15. There

is more sizzling going on behind the scenes right now than you'd ever dream. First of all, it's incontovertably illegal according to the FEC statute. Second, the news shows haven't started reporting on it yet. They will soon, probably Monday. Sinclair might be thinking this is not such a good idea. Why have FEC law if it isn't enforced? There is no gray area. It is illegal.

[DemMother]

16. Thank you.

Glad to hear that instead of all the cynical, uninformed posturing. I wasn't sure who had jurisdiction. I am going to call Waxman's office tomorrow.

[Fluffdaddy]

18. Behind the scenes .......How do you know this ?

What is your source ?

[Barney Rocks]

17. I'm not panicking over

this anyway--the Vietnam stuff is ALREADY out there. It has been responded to--and people are sick of it. I could see this backfiring on them rather than hurting us.

[baltodemvet]

21. It WILL backfire!

1. It will energize our side
2. It will give Kerry the last word.

[Barney Rocks]

27. That is exactly how

I feel. When I first heard about this, I got upset--but now--I am laughing at them. They don't have anything new--they are rehashing the same old crap that everyone has heard about and it makes them look desperate and mean.

I say--let them go ahead and try it! We will prevail.

[baltodemvet]

29. yup

Bring it the @#%$ on!

[bush equals idiot]

20. Here is all you need DemMother

"Electioneering Restrictions and Disclosure Under The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), state: "funds from corporations (whether nonprofit or for-profit entities) and unions may not be used to pay for 'electioneering communications', which are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that:

- refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate;

- are broadcast within 60 days before the general election of the candidate"

[Fluffdaddy]

22. Could you simplify that for us High school grads an non lawyers ?

[Tesibria]

23. What if Stolen Honor Producers are "donating"

... this only says can't use funds ... not can't provide a "free" news program ... ???

[Crunchy Frog]

24. I remember reading that it would be illegal

for any TV stations to even run an advertisement for F9/11 during this period. That it would violate campaign laws.

If that would be illegal, I don't see how this film could possibly be legal.

[Cats Against Frist]

25. What if this is just a way to get free publicity for the film

if it's definitely a violation of FEC rules -- why would they attempt it? To get the media to report on it, and then they point people to a web site.

Much cheaper than advertising, no?

[LittleClarkie]

26. And I thought they couldn't own two stations in the same city

How do they own both 18 and 24 in Milwaukee then.

My only consolation is that they own stations in some of the most Democrat leaning areas we have. I don't think they have a prayer of shaking Milwaukee or Madison away from Kerry, and the suburbs are already Bushed.

[bush equals idiot]

28. They are trying to get around it

by saying they are inviting a panel, including Kerry after the film to rebut the content of the film.

The difference is they are requiring their stations to pre-empt regular scheduled programming on NETWORK television.

This is a gestapo use of the public airwaves for partisan political smearing of a federal identified candidate for president.

[The Wielding Truth]

30. Can we get an injunction?

Edwards should know a judge who could put a stop to this.

[Onlooker]

32. There's no way they'll stop Sinclair

The FEC has pretty much made its intentions clear to let everyone but the actual Presidential campaigns have a free for all. This approach has hurt us (Swift Boat Liars, Sinclair) and helped us (MoveOn and F911). In theory they could probably stop Sinclair but I'm sure they won't. I think we should put our energy into giving people a choice of something else to watch besides an anti-Kerry commercial.