Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
William Sommerwerck
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Bill Van Dyk
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
normanstrong
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Bill Van Dyk
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
play-on
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
play-on
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Richard Crowley
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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   Report Post  
George
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
play-on
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Bill Van Dyk
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
hank alrich
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Don Cooper
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
Don Cooper
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
Don Cooper
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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   Report Post  
Don Cooper
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
common mode rejection vs. crosstalk xy Pro Audio 385 December 29th 04 01:00 AM
Topic Police Steve Jorgensen Pro Audio 85 July 9th 04 11:47 PM
Artists cut out the record biz [email protected] Pro Audio 64 July 9th 04 10:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:59 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"