Nightline controversy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Apr 30, 2004.

  1. Nightline plans to devote an entire show to broadcasting the names and pictures of soldiers killed in action. Many questions have arisen.

    Some regard it as honoring them, others regard it as a cheap ploy to exploit the dead for political purposes. One broadcasting company, Sinclair, which owns some ABC stations, has decided to preempt the Nightline broadcast. They argued that it appeared to be an attempt to influence the presidnetial race using those killed in action.

    Sen. McCain, who seems eager to defend any Democrat these days, sent a protest letter to Sinclair. I suppose he didn't appreciate the censorship implications of a powerful Senator who authored campaign finance laws that restrict what cna be broadcast before an election trying to bully a broadcaster over an editorial decision.

    I admit to being conflicted over this. I tend to believe that Sinclair has it right. If it is meant as a tribute, why do it now? The timing seems awfully convenient for those trying to bash Bush over Iraq, coming as it does on the heels of the renewed insurgency. And what about those who are killed later? Will they get their own program?
  2. Why not announce the names of the dead daily?

    Why shelter and protect the people from the horros of war?

    We didn't keep the names of the people killed on 9/11 from being aired, the administration paraded them around to generate the fervor, anger, and self righteousness necessary to brainwash people into Iraq.

    McCain is 100% right on this one.

    When we censor the press, we are doomed. The press is the only possible watchdog on government.

  3. Why is it censorship for a broadcasting company to decide independently that a show does not meet their standards or is otherwise unsuitable? I find McCain's conduct much more problematic than Sinclair's. But McCain has never had much of an appreciation for the First Amendment.
  4. Nightline is supposed to be a "news" show.

    If Koppel wants to read the want ads on his show, if that is news, let him.

    The broadcasting company did not decide independently at all. If your really think that you are more than naive.

    McCain is 100% right on this one, and he may be 100% wrong on the next one.

    Rather than judge his position on this issue, you bring his past positions into the issue.

    Don't you see that is your problem? You can't look at just this issue, and McCain's position on this issue.

    You have to bring in your opinions from the past to influence your vision on this issue.

    Think in present time, this issue alone.

  5. Not sure where I stand on this one.....on one hand you have a tribute to hero's that is very appropriate...but I too, question the timing. Why now? Just seems like very odd timing to me.

    And as far as Sinclair, hey, Clear Channel pulled Stern off the air right? So that's their own prerogative....

    The thing that irks me the most, is that the media, and more specifically the NEWS is supposed to be an unbiased fact-reporting medium....(which we all know is not). But the problem is that News shows are spoke of as if they are 100% fact-finding reporting and so people watch them and believe what they hear. Now sure, it would be great if everyone was smart enough to realize that one network's 'facts' may not be the same as another network's 'facts' but unfortunately those people who can understand that are few and far between and probably represent about %5 of the population.

    But like I said, I'm not sure how I feel specifically on this issue with rubs me the wrong way, but I don't know exactly why......
  6. BSAM


    Sounds to me like ABC doesn't have a very strong contract with the Sinclair broadcasting company.
  7. At this point I think they should (daily) announce the names of those remaining alive... on both sides of the conflict.
  8. LOL i have misjudged you. you are quite the clever fellow :p
  9. Yes... I am.
  10. and incidentally, both organizations have one thing in common. give you one guess...
    #10     Apr 30, 2004