Freedom of speech denied by people who cry for freedom of speech?

7 ABC affiliates ordered not to air 'Nightline'


Can someone tell me how this is a political agenda?
First people want the pics of the coffins shown, now Ted Koppel on Nightline wants to read the names and show the pictures of the fallen, and the Sinclair Broadcast Group ORDERS 7 of it's stations NOT to air it?

www.cnn.com...

From the SBG website

"The ABC Television Network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30 edition of "Nightline" will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show, the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."


www.sbgi.net...


Maybe I am naive, I just don;t see how this could be a politically motivated agenda.

They are going to be seen anyway. I guess I could see where this could motivate people not vote for Bush and vote for Kerry, but I doubt Nightline put this together to drop Bush's ratings even more.


As for this comment from the SBG website

"Mr. Koppel as to why he chose to read the names of 523 troops killed in combat in Iraq, rather than the names of the thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks since and including the events of September 11, 2001."

If my memory serves correctly there was a BIG broadcast by all stations that read, displayed and scrolled the names of all victims

jeanne..._and_trev.tripod.com/america/id41.html

I wish I still had access to some of my other sources, I could tell you who makes up the SBG

"Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. is one of the largest and most diversified television broadcasting companies in the country today. Sinclair owns and operates, programs, or provides sales services to 62 television stations in 39 markets.

Sinclair's television group includes 20 FOX, 19 WB, 6 UPN, 8 ABC, 3 CBS, 4 NBC affiliates and 2 independent stations and reaches approximately 24% of all U.S. television households.

Sinclair's news franchise includes 37 of its stations which air local news in 31 markets.

Sinclair, either directly or through its Ventures subsidiary, makes equity investments in strategic companies.

Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. was founded in 1986, went public in 1995 and is traded on the Nasdaq Exchange under the ticker symbol SBGI"

What do you think?



[Edited on 30-4-2004 by NetStorm]

[Edited on 30-4-2004 by NetStorm]

It is curious that 4 Sinclair executives have given $$ to the Bush-Cheney campaign, and no one gavt to Kerry.

But, I can see how airing the names could inflame anti-war sentiments. In fact, it would not surprise that it was "Nightline's" intent to be anti-war. I don't buy their saying it merely is an "is an expression of respect which simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country."

Obviously from my avator, you know who I support. Put that aside for a moment.

Let's think about the families of the fallen soldiers for a moment. It might (I say it might) be safe to assume that the majority of them are republican. It might also be safe to assume that they grieve for their sons and daughters.

THEY were not asked if it was acceptable or appropriate to have their sons/daughters names plastered on television for an event that might be looked at as politically skewed.

To my knowledge, when these boys and girls signed up they did not sign a waiver saying "BTW, if you are killed in action Ted Koppel may read your name and hometown on the air."

Where are the family's rights in this whole matter?

I think the answer is simple... It's sweep week. If they SBG really wanted to do this properly they would wait until memorial day to do it.. But alas that week is not sweeps week and so the $$$$ would not be flowing in as fast. I really think it all boils down the almighty dollar.

I haven't really been following this whole scandal involving showing the coffins and metnioning the fallen soldiers on names on TV, but it would seem to me that by mentioning their names or showing their coffins, you'd simply be honoring thier service to thier country, whichever side of the politcal fence you sit on. I mean... soldiers have died in Iraq. It would seem to me that that is part of the story too. Why not honor them? Why not let the public know the names of their fallen heros?

Freedom of speech does not mean that TV networks have to air what you want. It just means the government can't stop you from sayign certain things. Private organizations and citizens can refuse your freedom of speech whenever the hell they want.

Originally posted by sosuemetoo
Obviously from my avator, you know who I support. Put that aside for a moment.

Let's think about the families of the fallen soldiers for a moment. It might (I say it might) be safe to assume that the majority of them are republican. It might also be safe to assume that they grieve for their sons and daughters.

THEY were not asked if it was acceptable or appropriate to have their sons/daughters names plastered on television for an event that might be looked at as politically skewed.

To my knowledge, when these boys and girls signed up they did not sign a waiver saying "BTW, if you are killed in action Ted Koppel may read your name and hometown on the air."

Where are the family's rights in this whole matter?

You don't have a right not to be reported as dead. The news and papers all have the right to print or air the names of the dead, whether you're killed by a car walking across the street, shot by a cop, or killed in action in Iraq. There is no political agenda. It's merely stating documented fact. If some people feel it's improper, perhaps they're feeling partially responsible for the deaths of these soldiers? After all, if you support the Iraq war, you are somewhat responsible. Although, even if you didn't support it, I doubt that it would've swayed the Bush junta's decision. We weren't really included in that process, were we?

As far as airing the names and coffins of the dead, I don't see any problem with that. If it weren't for the number of people, it should be seen as nothing but a tribute or show of respect for those people. To twist it into something else is just another example of Republican manipulation. They avoid telling the entire truth or showing facts whenever it might benefit them. Make no mistake, it is a scandal. Keeping potentially disturbing info from the citizens in order to keep them in support of war, can't be described as anything else, IMO.

[Edited on 4-30-2004 by Satyr]

In that I do not agree with you on most issues dealing with this war Satyr, I will agree with you on this matter and topic.
I would also 100% agree with what Mr. McCain said today:

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.

McCain Letter



seekerof

Originally posted by Esoterica
Freedom of speech does not mean that TV networks have to air what you want. It just means the government can't stop you from sayign certain things. Private organizations and citizens can refuse your freedom of speech whenever the hell they want.

I see your point, but I bet you would be jumping up and down hollering if on Monday CBS/ABC/NBC or whoever said "we know the truth about 9-11" and will have a special on it Tuesday night and on Tuesaday morning the head of whoever owns the affiliates said "You can't broadcast that"
There is something called Freedom of the Press also.

1. freedom of the press -- (a right guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution)

www.cogsci.princeton.edu...

Freedom of speech

. freedom of speech -- (a civil right guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution)

www.cogsci.princeton.edu...

sounds the same to me

Originally posted by NetStorm

I see your point, but I bet you would be jumping up and down hollering if on Monday CBS/ABC/NBC or whoever said "we know the truth about 9-11" and will have a special on it Tuesday night and on Tuesaday morning the head of whoever owns the affiliates said "You can't broadcast that"
There is something called Freedom of the Press also.

1. freedom of the press -- (a right guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution)

www.cogsci.princeton.edu...

Freedom of speech

. freedom of speech -- (a civil right guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the US constitution)

www.cogsci.princeton.edu...

sounds the same to me

I'm not saying it's right to refuse to show the aspects of the war. I agree it should be shown. But I'm saying that it's a right to refuse to.

Freedom of speech/press bar the government from infringing on those rights. But if the owners of a news broadcast organization say they don't want their employees to run a story, well, that's their internal issue. It's not an issue of rights, it's an issue of ethics.