Broadcasting Group Bans Koppel's Tribute To Dead Troops

[question]

NEW YORK -- "Nightline" is calling Friday's program a simple tribute. Others call it anti-war propaganda. And Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is known for its conservative views, is pre-empting it.

During the ABC News broadcast (11:35 p.m. EDT), anchorman Ted Koppel will read aloud the name of a U.S. service man or woman killed in the Iraq war, as a corresponding photo appears on the screen along with that person's name, military branch, rank and age.


Expanded by 10 minutes from its usual half-hour, "Nightline" will include more than 500 killed in action in Iraq since March 19, 2003, as well as 200-plus noncombat deaths.

"These people have paid the ultimate price in our name," said "Nightline" executive producer Leroy Sievers, "and it's important to remember them, whether you think the price is worth it or not.


"It may not be great television. But it's the right thing to do, and that's why we're doing it."


Sounds simple enough. But with the war much in dispute during a highly charged election year, nothing, it seems, is accepted at face value. So some observers think there's more here than meets the eye.

Sinclair, a Hunt Valley, Md.-based media company whose holdings include 62 TV stations, announced Thursday it would pre-empt "Nightline" on its eight ABC affiliates, including stations in Columbus, Ohio; St. Louis, Mo., and Tallahassee, Fla. The company said Friday's program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."


The company called the broadcast a political statement "disguised as news content," pointing to the producers' omission of "the names of thousands of private citizens killed in terrorist attacks" since the Sept. 11 attacks.

In its own statement, ABC said its news division had reported "hundreds of stories on 9-11" while noting that, on the first anniversary of that tragedy, it aired the victims' names.

Friday's "Nightline" broadcast "simply seeks to honor those who have laid down their lives for this country," ABC said.

"I think it's intellectually dishonest to deny the partisan nature of this broadcast," said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center. "Of course it's partisan! What's the purpose? There's only one goal in mind: It's to turn public opinion against the war."


"I think it's probably fair to say that 'Nightline' is against this war in Iraq," political pundit Fred Barnes agreed.

"Koppel is drawing from a Vietnam analogy," added Barnes on Fox News Channel. "The country in 1969 was turning against the Vietnam War."

Barnes was referring to a Vietnam War-era issue of Life magazine, which "Nightline" has cited as the broadcast's inspiration. Like many other readers in June 1969, Sievers said he was stirred by an 11-page spread titled "One Week's Dead" consisting of photographs of the more than 200 servicemen killed in the Vietnam War in a seven-day period.


Readers were urged to "pause to look into the faces ... of one week's dead" who, Life wrote, "are suddenly recognized by all in this gallery of young American eyes."

When that Life cover story appeared, anti-war sentiment was strong and growing stronger. For many readers, "One Week's Dead" was more than a tribute -- it was a timely contribution to the anti-war movement.


Thirty-five years later, Bozell is among those claiming bias in "Nightline," which, he complained, will illustrate the tragic outcome of war, but without mention of the accomplishments by its fallen heroes.


"Nightline," he said, should "tell you what they're dying for. If it doesn't do that, it's nothing but anti-war propaganda."


But even to approach the war as a pro-or-con matter is to oversimplify it, argued Bob Steele, director of the ethics program for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies.


"The issue of war is not unlike the issue of abortion, immigration or capital punishment: There are multiple sides to it," he said. "What Life magazine did was give us a very compelling composite portrait of one side of the horrors of war. To some degree, that's what `Nightline' is doing: telling us one element of the horror of war, and that's the loss of life."


For his part, "Nightline" executive producer Sievers said: "I'm somewhat surprised that anybody would object."


He also dismissed charges of any ulterior motives behind scheduling the broadcast during the extra-competitive sweeps rating period when high-profile, audience-drawing fare is key to every network.


Not only did Sievers deny knowing that sweeps -- which started Thursday -- is under way, he added: "We don't think this will be a ratings winner."[taken from:http://www.wftv.com/news/3253783/detail.html]

[kezarmyaj]

was reading about that this morning, what a load of shit. its almost like some people want to pretend whats happening in iraq isnt real.

[question]

i know. how is honoring those that fought, by announcing their names, anti-war propaganda?

it makes no sense to me at all.

Originally posted by kezarmyaj
was reading about that this morning, what a load of shit. its almost like some people want to pretend whats happening in iraq isnt real.

[Hey Bubu]

Bad PR for the government. It's okay if Iraqi people die, to an extent is okay if our guys and girls die, but the minute you start putting names and faces to the casualties, then things become more real and personal.

[kezarmyaj]

check out their front page

http://www.sbgi.net/

[Import]

So I guess that by that logic . . . all the 9/11 media is also anti war propaganda

[MysteryMeat]

And yet, they published Saddam's son's corpses all over the place.


I've been pissed about this blackout for a while; it ties into the whole federal law not allowing the pictures or video of coffins containing American troops.

And wait, holdon - I thought our President admitted that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam? And why is he covering up the bodies coming back while tapdancing on the graves of the 9/11 victims for his campaign?

[Element4040]

Sickening, What happened to the constitution in this country?

[question]

Ashcroft wiped his ass with it.

Originally posted by Element4040
Sickening, What happened to the constitution in this country?

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by Element4040
Sickening, What happened to the constitution in this country?

The Constitution started being perverted and twisted from the time we fully got out from under the wing of England. It's little more than a marketing ploy and a pacifier these days.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Element4040
Sickening, What happened to the constitution in this country?

This story has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the rights of private enterprise. Whether we agree with it or not, the company has a right to pre-empt anything they consider objectionable because they own the stations. It's bad PR for the company to do this, but they obviously feel it's worth taking the hit in this case. Now if the stations were owned by the government, then we could start making analogies to the ban on showing coffins. But as it is, this is their right as owners to decide the content of their TV stations.

Personally, I'm not sure what I think about this. I recognize their right as owners to pre-empt the show, but I wonder about Nightline's motives for doing this. Their ratings have been sagging for some time, and controversy like this does nothing but help boost their ratings. Also, I haven't been watching the show so I don't know what other stories they've been running so it's possible they do have an anti-war bias in which case this show would be very partisan and inflammatory. That may not be their goal though, they could just be reporting on the situation. I haven't seen enough Nightline recently to judge one way or the other.

p.s. Ashcroft didn't wipe his ass with the Constitution. He's not the one creating the laws being enacted, he's the one enforcing them. If you think the Patriot Act or other laws are unconstitutional you should set your crosshairs on the legislative branch of the government, not the judicial.

[Element4040]

All these mega corporations are right in the hip pocket of the Gov. Clear Channel, Sinclair, etc......

FCC, smashing small market stations.

Control over media?.........

Attention Former Iraqi Information Minister, we have a job for you. Mr. Powell needs an assitant.

Everything is fine hear, there is no govermental control, move along. (Obi Wan voice)

[Adam D]

I think that's bullshit. I can understand where it would be bad PR for the government, but that doesn't make it partisan or propaganda.

Is it inherently bad to pay tribute to fallen soldiers? If we are to believe they are heroes, do they not deserve to be treated as such posthumously?

I do think it's going to open some eyes to the real impact of the war. It's a lot easier to be a war hawk when you don't have to see names and faces attached to the costs. Maybe people will change their minds about being armchair warriors. Maybe it will make some armchair anti-war activists mobilize again.

This is ridiculous. If Nightline is sticking to the idea that they are simply reading the names and presenting photographs (sans opinionated slants) then it's just hard news. To boot, the names of the vicitms of 9/11 have been paraded many times as well as photos.

[Element4040]

I agree with you Dionysos it is more of a rights issue than a constitutional issue.

But what I'm getting at is that these corporations seem to stiffle freedom of speech because they are in the FCC's coat pocket.

It's like what is going on with Stern. He all of a sudden got more controversial???? Come on, he was way more controversial 5 years ago, try ten years. It's a sick joke to me right now. The FCC is the Federal Christian Commision.

These massive corporations that own half of broadcasting are putting big money into campaign financing.