Some groups and politicians are making a big stink about Sinclair Broadcasting’s decision to air a supposedly anti-Kerry documentary with the presidential election quickly approaching. Critics assert that:
(1) Sinclair is just another big media, pro-Bush lackey hell-bent on influencing the outcome of the election by airing this so close to voting day.
(2) It’s unfair for Sinclair to demand that its TV affiliates preempt other programming to air the documentary.
(3) It might be illegal for Sinclair to air the documentary less than 60 days before the presidential election since it could be considered “electioneering communication.” Under our current post-McCain-Feingold campaign finance election laws, “electioneering communication” refers to any form of communication that mentions candidates for federal office and is distributed within 60 days before a general election. Such forms of communication are banned on the theory that they “corrupt” our political system. News coverage is exempted from this ban, but debate over what constitutes “news” leaves the door open to much interpretation, as is the case here.
Let’s take each claim in turn:
(1) Although news reports claim that Sinclair gives predominantly to Republican party officials, there’s no way to verify whether the firm really hopes to influence the outcome of the election. But let’s just say that that’s exactly what they’re hoping to do. So what? Who cares if they want to try to influence the electorate. What’s wrong with that? I know our insane system of communications and federal election law in America say otherwise, but let’s pretend for a moment we’re starting with a blank slate.
In a free society, shouldn’t we allow individuals, corporations and even media outlets freedom to communicate their views to others who might vote? If Sinclair really thinks they are helping to influence the outcome of this election, let ‘em try. Others will certainly counter with alternative viewpoints. Within hours of the program airing, a few web sites will probably be up and running with domain names like “SinclairSucks.com” or “SinclairLies.info.” Hundreds of other web blogs will also be buzzing with criticism of whatever they air. Meanwhile, back over in the old media world, someone will likely be readying their own responses. If the “Rathergate” episode has reminded us of anything, it’s that media is always ready to eat its own to gain advantage. Hell, even CBS.com had reports up on their website blasting Dan Rather and CBS News about that scandal!
And somewhere right now, Michael Moore is licking his chops at the prospect of becoming even more disgustingly rich than he already is by selling even more copies of his “Fahrenheit 9/11″ documentary on DVD when it arrives in stores soon. (By the way, isn’t it great we live in a country where an rampant anti-capitalist like Michael Moore can become a multi-millionaire? He castigates those evil big media pigs when, in fact, he’s become one himself. Way to go Mike! So much for your silly claims that “Big Media” controls everything we see and hear.)
(2) Regarding the claim that it’s somehow unfair for Sinclair to demand that its TV affiliates preempt other programming to air the documentary… I don’t know how the relationship between Sinclair and its affiliates works but (a) presumably it’s a legally binding agreement; and (b) both sides must have entered the agreement because they found it mutually beneficial. In other words, it’s a contract. A lot of anti-capitalist freaks out there don’t give a damn about contracts and pretend they can be voided on a whim, but that’s not the way the real world works (or at least it shouldn’t be).
If some of Sinclair’s affiliates don’t like being forced to air the documentary, they can fight it or perhaps ask to renegotiate their agreement with Sinclair now or sometime in the near future. But let’s not pretend that Sinclair is just shoving a bunch of unwanted programming down the throats of powerless affiliates. The affiliates are getting a lot of popular programming too and probably don’t have a problem with 90% of what Sinclair feeds them. In any event, these are big boys; let them work out their own agreements about what’s carried.
(3) Finally, regarding the claim that it might be illegal for Sinclair to air the documentary less than 60 days before the presidential election since it could be considered “electioneering communication”… well, as I’ve said on this blog before, I am absolutely shocked and sickened at what is happening to free speech in this country under the rubric of “campaign finance reform.” In the name of keeping elections free of “corruption,” we have allowed our politicians to censor what we can say about them 60 days before an election. Luckily, “news” reporting got an exemption from this insanity. But what constitutes “news”? Apparently, someone down at the FEC or, worse yet, in Congress, will need to provide us with more guidance on that because the documentary Sinclair is about to broadcast has some people claiming it represents illegal “electioneering communications” instead of a bona fide news documentary.
Should every controversial PBS Frontline documentary be subject to such scrutiny? What about 60 Minutes? If they have a spot critical of, let’s say, President Bush’s military service record, should that be considered illegal “electioneering communications”?
Where are the defenders of free speech and the First Amendment? This Sinclair episode should be about the easiest First Amendment case study in the world. Sinclair should be free to air whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, regardless of what their intentions may be.
Meanwhile, when Michael Moore gets his next fat paycheck from selling the rights to “Fahrenheit 9/11,” perhaps he can buy Sinclair Broadcasting and just broadcast his anti-capitalist propaganda 24/7. And I’ll be right there to defend his right to say whatever he wants when the conservatives start up with their typical blather about “liberal media” bias and start calling for federal regulation.
Free speech for all. No exceptions.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.