Sinclair vs MoveOn.org

So everyone's been talking about the Sprint-Nextel merger, or the $500 million that Time Warner's paying "to settle wide-ranging criminal and civil allegations that its America Online division improperly pumped up revenue" prior to the AOL-Time warner merger in 2001. Fair enough, but what, I ask, about the Sinclair-MoveOn bunfight - that's where the action's really at! (Right?) Yesterday we heard that a liberal-leaning coalition, headed by MoveOn.org, was mounting a campaign against the conservative Sinclair Broadcast Group, and especially its commentary section, "The Point," helmed by Sinclair spokesman and chief lobbyist Mark Hyman. "The Point" has been widely criticized by liberals and moderates for its conservative, pro-Republican bias. And you might remember Sinclair as being at the center of the whole controversy over its anti-Kerry swift boat documentary scandal in the weeks before the election.

Well it seems that Sinclair's Hyman has a response for MoveOn. It's not quite "Piss off!" but it's close. Hyman is quoted in Broadcasting & Cable as saying, "As soon as MoveOn.org allows me to use their e-mail lists and post to their Web site, maybe then we will have a conversation." Fair enough? you ask. Well no. You see, there's this thing where Sinclair's stations are supposed to be licensed trustees of the public airwaves - that's the trusteeship model, and it's supposed to mean something. And in fact, the law recognizes a clear difference between web sites, which can say pretty much what they want, and broadcasters, who are supposed to operate for the public good (after all, they broadcast over a public resource: the spectrum). That's why Hyman's attempt at equating his medium with that of MoveOn is a non-starter. He's not allowed to have access to someone else's web site without their permission. However, we as the public should have some sort of access to the public media outlets that are supposedly run by private interests in our interest! That is also the principle behind the Supreme Court case, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969), which upheld the FCC's Fairness Doctrine (and which has never been overturned). Of course, the Fairness Doctrine was allowed by Congress to die in 1987 - a decision I vehemently disagree with. But even if the Fairness Doctrine is dead (well, dormant) the basic trusteeship principle is still intact (or supposed to be). And we haven't gone so far down the deregulatory path that media owners can propose moral, legal, and functional equivalency between a web site and the public airwaves. No way! Hyman also contends that his commentaries are "just public discourse" and cover a range of issues. More likely he already conceives of his TV stations in the same way as talk radio: hopelessly biased and proud of it! It's no way to run a public service!

Anyway, the anti-Sinclair campaign is being run through a special website, SinclairAction.com.