7 ABC affiliates ordered not to air 'Nightline'

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: BDawg
From Senator John McCain

McCain Letter to Sinclair Broadcast on Preemption of Nightline
Fri Apr 30 2004 11:29:49 ET

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) issued the following letter today to Mr. David Smith, President and CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, in response to the preemption of this evening's Nightline program:

I write to strongly protest ...

But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences.

There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq. War is an awful, but sometimes necessary business. Your decision to deny your viewers an opportunity to be reminded of war's terrible costs, in all their heartbreaking detail, is a gross disservice to the public, and to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. It is, in short, sir, unpatriotic. I hope it meets with the public opprobrium it most certainly deserves.

Hmmm, what's that phrase again?...Ah yes.....PWNED!


Seriously, trying to censor this program (no matter what perceptions you may percieve) is far worse that the UMass student article calling Pat Tillman an asshole (in so many words.)

If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Its called the knob.

For Bush supporters to feel so threatened by the realities of the war speaks more to the morality of their war than the motivations of those who wish to discover them.

 

[maluckey]

I have to say that I feel it disrespectful of the fallen Soldiers, and to those still fighting, to run the show, but I feel that the show has the right to do as it wishes. I would petition the show to withold the name of my relative from this list if I had lost someone in this conflict.

This show should air when it (the confilct) is all over. I'll wager that it won't, because after the fact, there is no controversy or ratings.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: maluckey
I have to say that I feel it disrespectful of the fallen Soldiers, and to those still fighting, to run the show, but I feel that the show has the right to do as it wishes. I would petition the show to withold the name of my relative from this list if I had lost someone in this conflict.

This show should air when it (the confilct) is all over. I'll wager that it won't, because after the fact, there is no controversy or ratings.

How is it disrespectful to say that a soldier died in combat serving his or her country?

 

[Gaard]

Does the airing of Nightline have the same effect as coffin photos? Is the outrage over this because of the content, or the perceived political statement of showing this content?

 

[tallest1]

How exactly would the people here positioned against the showing of Nightline honor the dead? Would you rather it be hidden in page 34 of the New York Times? or perhaps make a memorial like the WW2.... oh wait, there is no WW2 memorial! But if you'd rather these people fighting so that you may enjoy freedom remain nameless and faceless, expect no sympathies if any good deeds you commit are forgotten.

 

[Gaard]

The way I see it, if you're against the airing of this it is because of one of three reasons...

1) The content itself.
2) The perceived political statement of airing this.
3) The results of airing this content.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Gaard
The way I see it, if you're against the airing of this it is because of one of three reasons...

1) The content itself.
2) The perceived political statement of airing this.
3) The results of airing this content.

The only people against it are just a bunch of chick-hawk Bush cheerleaders who don't really care what happens as long as Bush stays in office.

 

[sandorski]

Whether it is a political statement or not is a moot point. Iraq was and is a huge blunder that has caused the US more damage than 9/11. Attempting to hide the true cost of the Iraq War is the biggest Political Statement by far!

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Hafen


Hmmm, what's that phrase again?...Ah yes.....PWNED!


Seriously, trying to censor this program (no matter what perceptions you may percieve) is far worse that the UMass student article calling Pat Tillman an asshole (in so many words.)

If you don't want to watch it, then don't. Its called the knob.

For Bush supporters to feel so threatened by the realities of the war speaks more to the morality of their war than the motivations of those who wish to discover them.

The neo-cons seem to be ignoring the McCain letter that calls the Sinclair decision "unpatriotic."

For supporting the Sinclair decision, are they vicariously unpatriotic?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Gaard
The way I see it, if you're against the airing of this it is because of one of three reasons...

1) The content itself.
2) The perceived political statement of airing this.
3) The results of airing this content.

The only people against it are just a bunch of chick-hawk Bush cheerleaders who don't really care what happens as long as Bush stays in office.

Well, let's see here. If your "chick-hawk Bush cheerleaders" remark refers to posters in this thread, then you are sadly mistaken. Three of the posters in this thread who expressed somewhat negative reactions to this particular Nightline episode are all military veterans. Galt served 6 years (I think). UQ and I are both retired military.

But if you weren't refering to the posters in this thread, then kindly disregard this comment.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I'm sure bed-wetting, liberal cowards like Kerry bothered to call and complain...

Its amazing. Low life, real life cowards like Bush can make jokes of looking for WMDs. But lets not show any pictures or read any names of the dead soldiers. If the war is so right, there should be no problem with either of these things. But then again our wartime, weekend warrior president, doesn't want folks to see or hear the truth.

 

[burnedout]

Some various thoughts:

Indeed, our fallen should be honored in the most respectable, dignified manner possible. However, we might ask ourselves if this episode in fact truly honors those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Re: Senator McCain's letter: I guess since y'all interpret my comments as subscription to the "Neo-con" philosophy, I might as well temporarily attempt to fullfill that illustrious distinction. Senator McCain makes a request that he thinks as just. Basically, he requests that the Sinclair organization puts politics aside and honors our fallen.

But I will say this much. If this particular episode were about U.S. military achievements in Iraq and a communications network decided to boycott, then I guarantee some of you would be saying that such boycott is their inherent right.

In conclusion, my question still stands: Will Mr. Koppel also choose to honor our fallen in Afghanistan during this telecast? If not, then why?

 

[Gaard]

Three of the posters in this thread who expressed somewhat negative reactions to this particular Nightline episode are all military veterans.

Not to be a nit-picker, but you must be better than me at reading the unspoken word. I don't think either of them commented on this decision.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Three of the posters in this thread who expressed somewhat negative reactions to this particular Nightline episode are all military veterans.

Not to be a nit-picker, but you must be better than me at reading the unspoken word. I don't think either of them commented on this decision.

Also note the disclaimer:

"But if you weren't refering to the posters in this thread, then kindly disregard this comment."

 

[glugglug]

According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Must be that liberal media I keep hearing about.

 

[Gaard]

So let me get this straight. Sinclair basically leans right and doesn't want anything that it percieves as leaning left to be aired...which is their right.

For a second there, I was under the impression that Sinclair nixxed Nightline because it's episode was, in their words, political.

IOW, it's not that it's politically motivated (itw), but it's politically motivated from the wrong end of the political spectrum. Is that right?

 

[maluckey]

Burnedout,

You are correct, that some of the posters (myself included) are far from being Chicken-Hawks. I also want to add that I am a DAV and veteran of the first gulf War. I feel that the airing of this particular show is an attempt to politicize, not honor the fallen. Soldiers don't give their lives for one political party or the other. They give their lives for the country as a whole. The country can honor them, and their fallen buddies when the action is over.

This show has no effect on helping the troops to fight, and could jeopardize their morale and welfare. Most combat troops would likely not get to see the show anyways, and I'd wager that many combat MOS soldiers are openly hostile to the airing of their buddies name for ratings and politics. It is something that Jane Fonda and Hanoi John would support, and something I do not.

Like I said. This would never be shown after the conflict, because there is no sensationalism or poitical benefit from doing so.

 

[burnedout]

Sorry I left you off that little list, maluckey.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Some various thoughts:

Indeed, our fallen should be honored in the most respectable, dignified manner possible. However, we might ask ourselves if this episode in fact truly honors those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Re: Senator McCain's letter: I guess since y'all interpret my comments as subscription to the "Neo-con" philosophy, I might as well temporarily attempt to fullfill that illustrious distinction. Senator McCain makes a request that he thinks as just. Basically, he requests that the Sinclair organization puts politics aside and honors our fallen.

But I will say this much. If this particular episode were about U.S. military achievements in Iraq and a communications network decided to boycott, then I guarantee some of you would be saying that such boycott is their inherent right.

In conclusion, my question still stands: Will Mr. Koppel also choose to honor our fallen in Afghanistan during this telecast? If not, then why?

My best guess its a little patriotism, a little FU. Regardless, I don't see the neccesity of having to read the Afghan KIAs during the same program. The claim can be fairly made that this program marks both the conclusion of the bloodiest month of the war and the 1yr anniversary of end of major combat, so focuses and reflects on those major events. Afghan can be covered at its own appropriate date. If Nightline never does, then the complaints have more of a leg to stand on.



The News Hour concludes all of its broadcasts with pictures and names of the recently fallen and a moment of silence. They tastefully show both patriotism and reverence IMO.

As I said earlier, I don't really get the point of Nightlline's newscast. It just sounds, well, boring. It doesn't do them any good, and isn't the most effective way to show due reverence to the families. I don't think its necc wrong tho.

 

[mastertech01]

The actions by Sinclair will more than likely cause more people to watch it than would have. Every time one of these controversial decisions are made it attracts the attention of people from all around the nation and media that would have otherwise ignored the broadcast completely. I think left alone the average "Nightline" regular viewer would have switched the channels to see what else was on rather than view the entire braodcast. The average American doesnt give a damn about the names and faces of our fallen heros, any more than people killed each day on our highways or in tragic incidents and homicides. If it didnt affect them personally they feel sad for a moment and thier minds move on to other things.

The best way to attract people to something distastefull is to make a big deal about it and decide you are going to try to stop people from seeing it. That draws the curiousity seekers in to see what it is that is so bad. Its truly laughable. Its all a game with the networks and they know how gullible the average American is.

As a veteran I feel great pain in seeing so many of our fine soldiers die in this or any other cause. I feel for thier families and for their communities whom lost a great citizen. I dont need to hear thier names, or see thier photographs. I also know that if it werent for the bloodshed, crippled bodies, broken families, and great horror that most people will never know, that this nation would not exist nor would we be able to be free to debate issues such as these. For all the sadness and pain of thier loss, there is much to be grateful for that they were there to serve and thier sacrifices will not be lost. A soldier fights for what his nation stands for and thier loss should not be looked upon in shame, but rather in humble appreciation.

To treat these soldiers as VICTIMS rather than the heroes that they are is indeed the ultimate in disrespect to them and thier families.IMHO

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The actions by Sinclair will more than likely cause more people to watch it than would have. Every time one of these controversial decisions are made it attracts the attention of people from all around the nation and media that would have otherwise ignored the broadcast completely.

I think you're giving Americans a little too much credit. Take a poll next week, 99% will have no clue about this.

 

[maluckey]

Mastertech01,

Well said.................

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Mastertech01,

Well said.................

Agreed, well said MT.

However it appears that Sinclair is the ones casting our fallen as victims by Censoring the Broadcast that stands for Freedom for which our soldiers died for. It is a sad irony.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
The actions by Sinclair will more than likely cause more people to watch it than would have. Every time one of these controversial decisions are made it attracts the attention of people from all around the nation and media that would have otherwise ignored the broadcast completely. I think left alone the average "Nightline" regular viewer would have switched the channels to see what else was on rather than view the entire braodcast. The average American doesnt give a damn about the names and faces of our fallen heros, any more than people killed each day on our highways or in tragic incidents and homicides. If it didnt affect them personally they feel sad for a moment and thier minds move on to other things.

The best way to attract people to something distastefull is to make a big deal about it and decide you are going to try to stop people from seeing it. That draws the curiousity seekers in to see what it is that is so bad. Its truly laughable. Its all a game with the networks and they know how gullible the average American is.

As a veteran I feel great pain in seeing so many of our fine soldiers die in this or any other cause. I feel for thier families and for their communities whom lost a great citizen. I dont need to hear thier names, or see thier photographs. I also know that if it werent for the bloodshed, crippled bodies, broken families, and great horror that most people will never know, that this nation would not exist nor would we be able to be free to debate issues such as these. For all the sadness and pain of thier loss, there is much to be grateful for that they were there to serve and thier sacrifices will not be lost. A soldier fights for what his nation stands for and thier loss should not be looked upon in shame, but rather in humble appreciation.

To treat these soldiers as VICTIMS rather than the heroes that they are is indeed the ultimate in disrespect to them and thier families.IMHO

BS. The 2(hero and victim) can be and is used all the time. It is not disrepectful, it is just uncomfortable for some. What you want, it seems, is political expediency, an ability to carry out a war without domestic opposition. If you truly feel that your opinion is honourable, perhaps you should protest the next Veterans Day ceremonies where the past fallen are not only considered Heroes, but also Victims.

A Democracy will not function if Truth is hidden from it.

 

[SithSolo1]

I can't believe they aired commercials. To me that is totally disrespectful.

Commercials run as best as I can remember:

1st set:

Volunteer America or something like that, not too bad.

2nd set:

New Mercury mini-van
Ortho Ant killer

3rd set:

Nissan Titan
Mercury mini-van
maybe something else

4th set:

Same mini-van commercial as 2nd set
local Nissan dealer ad
some bug killer ad

All were totally uncalled for IMO, esp: the car ads. Can't they go 30mins-1hr without running a damn commercial. It's not like they are losing so much money that they'll go out of business.