Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ot score one for the good guys
due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing
thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"George" wrote in message ... due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Doesn't anyone find it curious that there is only "right wing propoganda"? You never hear references to "left wing propoganda"! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote: "George" wrote in message ... due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Doesn't anyone find it curious that there is only "right wing propoganda"? You never hear references to "left wing propoganda"! first you need to get the left into a position of power they can not order a janitor to change a roll of TP right now and usually left leaning propaganda is dismissed as insane ranting glad I am neither right or left this election I am voteing democrat but only beacuse it is the right choice for America's future George |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing
thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Not so. Sinclair will not be _requiring_ its stations to show it, and what will be shown will be excerpts, not the whole film. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Not so. Sinclair will not be _requiring_ its stations to show it, and what will be shown will be excerpts, not the whole film. Not according to Yahoo news due to emails , plummeting stock prices and advertizer reaction the project has been scraped in its entirety I could most likely still cut and paste the yahoo news story as it was posted just this morning George |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Not so. Sinclair will not be _requiring_ its stations to show it, and what will be shown will be excerpts, not the whole film. I don't create the news if you have more current updates feel free to post them Sinclair Bows and Pulls Anti-Kerry Film Threatened with a shareholder revolt, and facing the loss of advertiser dollars and a viewer boycott, Sinclair Broadcast Group has dropped its plan to air the anti-Kerry documentary 'Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal.' Sinclair had been feeling the heat from all angles since ordering its 62 stations nationwide last week to preempt their regular programming and run a commercial-free 'documentary' criticizing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's anti-war activities during the Vietnam War. After word got out that Sinclair was forcing its 62 stations to air 'Stolen Honor' this week, advertisers quickly began pulling their ads from Sinclair owned stations including Portland, Maine; Madison, Wisconsin; and in Springfield and Minneapolis, Illinois. Web logs and public-interest groups had called for boycotts and threatened to challenge Sinclair's FCC licenses. Groups such as Common Cause, the Alliance for Better Campaigns; Media Access Project; Media for Democracy and the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ have been compiling a database listing of other advertisers on Sinclair-owned stations in hopes to try and persuade them to reconsider their commercials on the company's stations. Since Sinclair's decision to air Stolen Honor became public in early October, the company's stock has fallen nearly 13 percent, as of the close of the market on October 18, wiping out nearly $90 million in shareholder value, Media Matters for America reported. This caused shareholders to put their own pressure on Sinclair. Media Matters For America reported yesterday that Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, took action against Sinclair on behalf of its clients by firing off a letter to Sinclair's CEO and directors, demanding that they immediately 'provide those with views opposed to the allegations in the film an equal opportunity to respond.' 'We are not partisan. We are investors,' General partner Jim Glickenhaus told MMFA. 'Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view. Otherwise the company is placing its future and the value of our investment in jeopardy, by putting the renewal of its FCC licenses at risk, alienating local advertisers, and opening itself up to libel suits against the company.' |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Not according to Yahoo news
due to emails , plummeting stock prices and advertizer reaction the project has been scraped in its entirety I could most likely still cut and paste the yahoo news story as it was posted just this morning I was going by what I heard on Public Radio last night. Obviously, tomorrow was another day. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
A few years ago, David Horowitz complained bitterly about the fact that
he was not permitted to speak at some university somewhere because the student government body decided that he promoted hatred. He ranted on and on about censorship and free speech and how left wingers always try to suppress free debate, so finally someone-- unfortunately, I forget who-- invited him to address the same issue in regard to Bob Roberts University, which banned anybody to the left of Joseph McCarthy, but which welcomed him as a speaker. I thought it was very instructive and revealling that Horowitz suddenly could think of all kinds of good and reasonable excuses for banning a given speaker from a college campus. Suddenly, there was no argument too facile or contrived to justify censorship and thought control. The acrobatics he performed would have but Mary Lou Retton to shame. It was remarkable that he could not just come out and say, "Well, Bob Roberts University is also wrong." It would have been so simple, and might have actually led some people to not regard Horowitz as a raving hypocrite on the issue. For the record, I thought the University that banned Horowitz was absolutely wrong to do so. Bring him in. Let the free exchange of ideas and opinions take place. Let people decide fairly which set of ideas has more credibility. To me, the hallmark of a superior set of beliefs has always been its confidence and composure in the face of dissent. So if you were to attend political rallies for our two great nominees today, wearing a t-shirt in support of his opponent-- which candidates' supporters are confident and composed? Richard Crowley wrote: "George" wrote in message ... due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Doesn't anyone find it curious that there is only "right wing propoganda"? You never hear references to "left wing propoganda"! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: Not according to Yahoo news due to emails , plummeting stock prices and advertizer reaction the project has been scraped in its entirety I could most likely still cut and paste the yahoo news story as it was posted just this morning I was going by what I heard on Public Radio last night. Obviously, tomorrow was another day. the only thing that remains constant is change time will tell what they do G |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... "George" wrote in message ... due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George Doesn't anyone find it curious that there is only "right wing propoganda"? You never hear references to "left wing propoganda"! I hear about it all the time. It's usually referred to as "left wing garbage." Norm Strong |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Bill Van Dyk wrote: A few years ago, David Horowitz complained bitterly about the fact that he was not permitted to speak at some university somewhere because the student government body decided that he promoted hatred. He ranted on and on about censorship and free speech and how left wingers always try to suppress free debate, so finally someone-- unfortunately, I forget who-- invited him to address the same issue in regard to Bob Roberts University, which banned anybody to the left of Joseph McCarthy, but which welcomed him as a speaker. I thought it was very instructive and revealling that Horowitz suddenly could think of all kinds of good and reasonable excuses for banning a given speaker from a college campus. Suddenly, there was no argument too facile or contrived to justify censorship and thought control. The acrobatics he performed would have but Mary Lou Retton to shame. It was remarkable that he could not just come out and say, "Well, Bob Roberts University is also wrong." It would have been so simple, and might have actually led some people to not regard Horowitz as a raving hypocrite on the issue. For the record, I thought the University that banned Horowitz was absolutely wrong to do so. Bring him in. Let the free exchange of ideas and opinions take place. Let people decide fairly which set of ideas has more credibility. To me, the hallmark of a superior set of beliefs has always been its confidence and composure in the face of dissent. So if you were to attend political rallies for our two great nominees today, wearing a t-shirt in support of his opponent-- which candidates' supporters are confident and composed? There is free speech let them air anything they want after the election this was clearly(IMO) a smear campaign aimed at discrediting a decorated veteran and leader of the greatest country in the free world but by the same token,if i was running for president, one should not be allowed to plaster pictures of me giving my infant son a bath and label me a child pornographer/abuser the whole story needs to be presented wether Sinclair intened to present a fair and completely factual piece void of political slant will not be known but going by thier history and reputation I can easily say it did not seem likely so free market pressure worked to prevent a travasty of the highest order from takeing place George |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
It's more than a little ironic that we are currently besieged with
right-wing media pundits-- on the radio, on TV, in every newspaper-- hollering about how the media is just dominated by left-liberal intellectuals. normanstrong wrote: I hear about it all the time. It's usually referred to as "left wing garbage." Norm Strong |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
That's news to me, where did you hear this? I haven't heard any report
that they've backed down. However some are trying to put on the pressue: Letter: New York Comptroller Questions Sinclair Alan G. Hevesi Comptroller 110 State Street Albany, New York 12234 State of New York Office of the State Comptroller October 18, 2003 Mr. David D. Smith, CEO Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. 10706 Beaver Dam Road Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Dear Mr. Smith: As New York State Comptroller, I am the sole trustee of the $115 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund. We hold 256,000 shares of Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. As a shareholder, I am writing to ask about some recent actions that have brought a great deal of publicity to our company. I would like to understand how these actions will improve performance and add to shareholder value. It has been reported publicly, and confirmed by representatives of Sinclair, that you have ordered all of our 62 television stations to reserve an hour of prime time sometime later this week to show a film titled "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" and that this film will be shown with no commercial interruption. It is my understanding that this film deals with issues related to the Vietnam War and Sen. John Kerry's actions during and after that war. The film is very controversial and, according to press reports, has been called by some "an anti-Kerry attack masquerading as a documentary." Please understand that because of our size and out investing perspective, we are not short-term traders, but rather long-term investors eager to work with management that seeks to build long-term value in our companies. I would appreciate it if you would provide answers to the following questions as soon as possible: What is the cost to our company of foregoing an hour's worth of commercial time for all 62 stations? Critics say showing the film amounts to an in-kind contribution to President Bush worth millions of dollars. Is there any offsetting benefit to our company from the loss if this income? Will the film be shown with no commercial interruption because advertisers were not willing to buy commercial time during its presentation? There are press reports that some advertisers are boycotting Sinclair in response to the decision to run this film. How many advertisers have pulled their ads and how much will this cost our company? What has been the impact of this controversy on overall ratings for our 62 stations? Since the cost of advertising is directly related to ratings, what has been the financial impact of that change in ratings? It is important to television stations to attract as large as possible an audience. It would seem that even appearing to take sides in a hotly contested presidential election would provide a substantial risk of alienating some significant portion of the potential audience. Has this controversy affected our stations ability to attract a broad audience? One of the largest shareholders, Barry Lucas of Gabelli & Co., which owns about four percent of Sinclair, has been quoted as follows: "I don't want my media companies that cover the news to be making news." Given the stocks' already poor performance, it would seem that any bad news would risk reducing investor interest and, thus, risk a lower stock price. What has been the impact of this controversy on the views toward the company of Wall Street analysts and other key investors? Are investors, especially large investors, selling out of Sinclair stock? What was the role of our company's board of directors in the decision to show this film? In its 2004 Proxy Statement, the company acknowledges its "relatively small number of independent directors on the Board." In fact, only three current directors appear to meet the independent criteria established by Nasdaq. As a result, the board can draw on only these three directors to serve on Audit and Compensation Committees and to perform the Nominating Committee function (although the board has also named one non-independent director to serve on two committees). Does the board believe that these three independent directors alone possess the requisite skills and can make the time commitments needed to effectively perform the important functions of these committees? Do you have any plans to increase the number of independent directors? Our company has not produced good returns. Sinclair's shared have lost about half their value in 2004. The price per share of Sinclair's stock has declined from $15.03 on January 2, 2004 to $6.94 as of today. During the same time period Sinclair's performance has plummeted by 53.9%, while other stocks in its sector (the Russell 2000 Consumer Discretionary sector) increased by 2.4%, and the Russell 2000, on the whole, increased by 1.8%. What are your plans for improving returns for shareholders? Our company has two types of shares with unequal value. It is our experience that this arrangement entrenches management and may harm performance. We trust that you are also strong believers in capitalism and competition. Please explain how this concentration of power benefits shareholders who own the majority of the shares, but have a minority of the voting power. Please discuss how this arrangement has affected our company's performance. Some critics suggest that Sinclair management is more interested in advancing its partisan political views than in protecting shareholder value. They say Sinclair's partisan agenda also risks alienating viewers, advertisers, and regulators. Could you explain why they are wrong? By appearing to tie future prospects of the company so closely to the outcome of a national election, are you adding political risk to the normal economic and business risks that face our company? What is the benefit of taking on this additional risk? Please discuss any plans to rebroadcast this film after the initial prime time broadcast. What would be the cost of those additional showings? According to press reports, some organizations "are vowing to find groups in cities with Sinclair stations who will challenge the broadcast licenses of every Sinclair-owned station over the next several years. Such challenges almost never result in lost licenses, but they often result in heavy legal costs for the station having to defend them." What would the impact of such legal actions be on our bottom line? If even one such suit were successful, what would be the cost to our company? Please respond to these questions as soon as possible. If you have questions or would like to discuss these issues, please contact our director of corporate governance Julie Gresham at 212-681-4480. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Alan G. Hevesi Al On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:35:12 GMT, George wrote: due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use George |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
play-on playonATcomcast.net wrote: That's news to me, where did you hear this? I haven't heard any report that they've backed down. However some are trying to put on the pressue: It was a yahoo news item I also posted a cut and paste of it While I doubt Hevasi wrote that letter, I also find it hard to believe someone would use his name without his permission I am on the fence about this one George |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I'd be pretty certain that the letter was authentic, either used by
permission, or leaked on purpose. Al On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:12:30 GMT, George wrote: In article , play-on playonATcomcast.net wrote: That's news to me, where did you hear this? I haven't heard any report that they've backed down. However some are trying to put on the pressue: It was a yahoo news item I also posted a cut and paste of it While I doubt Hevasi wrote that letter, I also find it hard to believe someone would use his name without his permission I am on the fence about this one George |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"play-on" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message ... I'd be pretty certain that the letter was authentic, either used by permission, or leaked on purpose. Imagine the hue and cry of censorship if such a stunt had been launched against Michael Moore's schlockumentary. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Richard Crowley" wrote: "play-on" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message ... I'd be pretty certain that the letter was authentic, either used by permission, or leaked on purpose. Imagine the hue and cry of censorship if such a stunt had been launched against Michael Moore's schlockumentary. looking out for my invested tax dollars hardly qualifys this as a stunt it is responsible government and yes I am in NY and he is our comptroller george |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 22:55:02 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
wrote: "play-on" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message .. . I'd be pretty certain that the letter was authentic, either used by permission, or leaked on purpose. Imagine the hue and cry of censorship if such a stunt had been launched against Michael Moore's schlockumentary. What "stunt"? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The idea that this film is comparable in any shape or form to Michael
Moore's "9/11" is preposterous. It's the difference between advocacy and character assassination. Richard Crowley wrote: "play-on" playonATcomcast.net wrote in message ... I'd be pretty certain that the letter was authentic, either used by permission, or leaked on purpose. Imagine the hue and cry of censorship if such a stunt had been launched against Michael Moore's schlockumentary. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bill Van Dyk wrote:
The idea that this film is comparable in any shape or form to Michael Moore's "9/11" is preposterous. It's the difference between advocacy and character assassination. The big problem for the Bush league set is that Moore's flick puts their man up for all for see in his super smug and incoherent self. It's not a pretty sight and I'm not surprised it makes them uncomfortable, even if their blinders remain in place. The other troublesome thing is that I know of several conservatives who voted Bush last time, who went to see Farenheit 911, and who will not vote for him again. Notice I called those people conservatives, not Republicans. -- ha |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: first you need to get the left into a position of power they can not order a janitor to change a roll of TP right now Funny you should use that analogy, George. A well known SINclair fact is that they advertised on their web site for a janitor / master control operator. No wonder their stations look like **** on the air. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
George wrote: due to letters and posts from the left sinclair will not be showing thier right wing propaganda bit on JFK Thanks guy and thank You Don for posting the advertizer list I put to such good use Thank their employees, who are not all idiots. Keep up the good work. They're being hit where it hurts, in the pocketbook. FOX is next. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote: Imagine the hue and cry of censorship if such a stunt had been launched against Michael Moore's schlockumentary. Which he offered them for free, and they turned down. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: The big problem for the Bush league set is that Moore's flick puts their man up for all for see in his super smug and incoherent self. It's not a pretty sight and I'm not surprised it makes them uncomfortable, even if their blinders remain in place. The other troublesome thing is that I know of several conservatives who voted Bush last time, who went to see Farenheit 911, and who will not vote for him again. Notice I called those people conservatives, not Republicans. Another difference between Michael's film, and the crap they ended up showing, is that his was entertaining. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk | Pro Audio | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio |