Is there a difference between Sundance airing Pro-Kerry

[AVID]

concert three weeks before the election and Sinclair airing Anti-Kerry movie two weeks before the election?

Is it the percent of market share / share of voice that crosses the line?

Sinclair 25% of market.

Sundance? .05%

Is that the only difference?

Edit - spelling

[Roland99]

1. Sundance vs. Sinclair

Cable vs. Public airwaves



Hmmm...


Nope...apples and oranges, my friend.

[Chimpanzee]

2. because Sundance

is cable and Sinclair is broadcast?

[berner59]

6. Sundance is premium cable too...

and most people who buy it know what they're getting and WANT what they're getting...

Sinclair is ramming down their viewers throat...

[blm]

3. Cable isn't bound by FCC rules. Sinclair uses PUBLIC AIRWAVES.

.

[TexasProgresive]

7. Amen

Sinclair should have to give equal time since he's using our air waves.

[Longhorn]

4. Yes. Sundance is a cable channel.

Sinclair is planning to broadcast on federally-licensed airwaves.

[Lefta Dissenter]

5. let's see...

music and a 'get out the vote' message vs. The Lies and Trashing of the character of John Kerry. yup, it certainly seems like there's a difference to me!!! :shrug:

[AVID]

9. OK -

makes sense to me. Thanks

[KittyWampus]

8. Besides Cable/Network... One Is PRO Candidate & One Is ANTI Candidate

just saying :)

[seabeyond]

10. smearing with unsubstanstiated stories

why not just create a story that bush had four abortions, killed handful of people, snorked coke in the whitehouse..........on public airwaves

would that be the same as a kerry supporter showing a movie representing kerry in a good light. in factual data

[Lefta Dissenter]

16. Hey,

How quickly can you get that put together? ;)

[seabeyond]

19. lol lol lol

that was a surprise. made me laugh. thanks

[dolstein]

11. Seeing how Fox News is on 24/7

I don't see how anyone should be the least bit upset about what the Sundance Channel is doing. Serious, it's beyond question that the Fox News functions as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party.

And there's a big difference between cable and the networks. And Sinclair isn't simply filling an empty slot in the schedule. It is ordering affiliates to preempt network broadcasting, which is something local stations almost never do.

I think a better analogy would be if George Soros owned a bunch of network-affiliated television stations and ordered them to preempt network broadcasting in order to air Farenheit 9/11. Could you image the uproar on the right if that happened?

[sonicx]

13. Soros should try that

;)

[Eric J in MN]

15. Can Soros buy CNN? nt

nt

[sonicx]

18. probably could. not sure if he wants to. nt

[liveoaktx]

12. Cable which you PAY for versus Broadcast which has to serve

the public interest and gets to use the airwaves....... FREE.

[mmonk]

14. Yes

premium cable.

[calmblueocean]

17. Over-the-air broadcasters have a public responsibility

It's part of their licensing requirement.

Former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt explains it this way:

"How can it be part of a broadcaster's public interest obligation to aspire to alter the perceptions of the audience about a presidential candidate by showing biased content that in no way reflects either breaking news or even-handed treatment of the issues? Why should a broadcaster keep its licenses if it behaves in this manner?"