Posted on 10/15/2004 10:09:02 AM PDT by areafiftyone
To: National Desk, Political Reporter
Contact: Chad Clanton or Phil Singer, 202-464-2800, both of Kerry-Edwards 2004
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today the Kerry campaign issued a letter to Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., in regards to their plans to air an anti-Kerry documentary.
Text of the letter follows.
---
October 15, 2004
David D. Smith
President and CEO
Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030
Re: "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal"
Dear Mr. Smith:
I am writing on behalf of Senator John Kerry and Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc. Press reports indicate that the stations operated by the Sinclair Broadcast Group plan to air a program entitled "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" later this month. See, e.g., Howard Kurtz & Frank Ahrens, Family's TV Clout in Bush's Corner, THE WASHINGTON POST, Oct. 12, 2004, at A1; Elizabeth Jensen, Conservative TV Group to Air Anti-Kerry Film, LOS ANGELES TIMES, Oct. 9, 2004, at A1. This program constitutes an attack on Senator Kerry by supporters of President Bush. It was not produced by Sinclair, nor by any reputable journalistic organization. It is our understanding that Sinclair plans to air this program during hours when entertainment programming is normally provided on its stations.
The legality of Sinclair's attempt to broadcast this program has already been called into serious legal question. The Democratic National Committee recently filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission pointing out that Sinclair's airing of the program constitutes an illegal corporate-funded "electioneering communication." As the DNC correctly notes, the broadcast does not qualify for the exemption afforded to news stories under federal campaign finance law and thus would constitute an illegal corporate expenditure.
Under the Federal Communications Commission's decision in Nicholas Zapple, 23 F.C.C.2d 707 (1970), a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate's campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate "quasi-equal opportunities." Despite the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC has made clear that stations' Zapple obligations continue in effect. See RTNDA v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872, 884 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (recognizing that the Zapple Doctrine complements Section 315(a) of the Communications Act); The Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards, 48 F.C.C.2d 1, 31 (1974); 36 F.C.C.2d 40, 47-49 (1972).
Sinclair's planned airing of this documentary produced by opponents of Senator Kerry is precisely the kind of use of a broadcasting station to advance one campaign that the Zapple Doctrine was intended to address. The documentary is clearly intended to advance the campaign of President Bush by attacking Senator Kerry's record.
The program does not meet any of the requirements for the exemptions from the equal opportunities requirement. See Request for Declaratory Ruling that Independently Produced Bona Fide News Interview Programs Qualify for the Equal Opportunities Exemption, 7 F.C.C.R. 4,681 (1992). It is not regularly scheduled on Sinclair's stations and will not be shown when news programming is regularly aired. The content of the program will not be controlled by Sinclair or an independent journalistic organization. The program instead is intended to be an attack on Senator Kerry and thus is not the result of decisions made on the basis of newsworthiness rather than to advance or retard a particular candidate. Id. Thus, the program cannot qualify as either a bona fide news program or news interview.
It also cannot be viewed as an exempt documentary. As the FCC has made clear, "that exemption explicitly applies only if the appearance of the candidate is 'incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary.'" Request of A&E Television Networks for Declaratory Ruling, 15 F.C.C.R. 10,796 (2000). The subject of the proposed program is Senator Kerry's activities in connection with the Vietnam War and his appearance is, therefore, central, rather than incidental, to the program.
Section 315(a) of the Communications Act was intended to prevent the licensee of a broadcasting station using the public airwaves to use that facility to promote one candidate for public office over another. The FCC in Zapple recognized that Congress's intent could be frustrated by stations that aired programs featuring supporters of one candidate instead of the candidate himself or herself. See RTNDA, 184 F.3d at 884 n.10. If Sinclair does air this program in which supporters of President Bush attack Senator Kerry, it must provide a similar opportunity for Senator Kerry's supporters. Please consider this a request that each Sinclair station that airs the documentary provide supporters of the Kerry-Edwards campaign with a similar amount of time on that station before the election at a time where an audience of similar size can be expected to be viewing the station. Please contact me or have a representative of each station do so in order to schedule an appearance by supporters of Senator Kerry.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Marc E. Elias
General Counsel,
Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
cc: Bobby Baker
Assistant Division Chief, Policy Division
Media Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
------
Paid for by Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
-0-
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
To quote the Vice President, "Go F@#% yourself."
Kerry's campaign has already lost the FCC battle so they just have to suck it up and deal with it like Bush has with F911
To quote the Vice President, "Go F@#% yourself."
EXACTLY!
WHAAAAAAAAAA. we need that official seal of the democratic party pic.
Sinclair can respond that they've ALREADY invited Kerry to respond, and that he can take it or stick it.
His choice.
And the difference between this and ABC and CBS evening news is?
Hey Chad, shove it!
equal time, blahblahblah
crybaby Kerry campaign alert.
"Under the Federal Communications Commission's decision in Nicholas Zapple, 23 F.C.C.2d 707 (1970), a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate's campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate "quasi-equal opportunities." Despite the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC has made clear that stations' Zapple obligations continue in effect. See RTNDA v. FCC, 184 F.3d 872, 884 n.10 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (recognizing that the Zapple Doctrine complements Section 315(a) of the Communications Act); The Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards, 48 F.C.C.2d 1, 31 (1974); 36 F.C.C.2d 40, 47-49 (1972)."
Problem: Kerry has already been offered "equal time."
Gee willikers. By reputable, I guess they mean something like CBS?
"This is actually a very good thing.
Sinclair can respond that they've ALREADY invited Kerry to respond, and that he can take it or stick it.
His choice."
I think it would be another mistake for Kerry to respond. It will bring considerable attention to the movie.
By the way. Isn't today the LAST day that O ' Reilly had requested to here by, if Kerry was agreeing to come on his show?
nick
While I would consider Michael Moore an entire organization, I would not consider him reputable nor journalistic. That said, where was the hue and cry over F911? Or over the CBS memo for that matter?
We'll get right on that. Will the supporters of Sen. Kerry actually have any free time given their non-stop appearances on outlets such as the Sundance Channel between now and November 2?
Sure. You can have equal time...on 4 November!
Did an intern write this?
can you say Fahrenheit 9/11???? HARRRHAARRRHAAARHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAAAAAAaaaa. Whew!
Great. The money that KE04 is spending on lawyers to write these frivolous letters and the DNC is spending to file a bogus FEC complaint is money not available for advertising, GOTV, or voter fraud. Bring it on!!!
Couldn't this letter, with a few edits be sent to CBS (RatherMemoGate) and ABC (HalprinKoppel-O'Neill) affiliates and their treatment of President Bush?
and the horse they rode in on
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.