by TChris

It is hard to imagine that anyone would be offended by Nightline's decision to broadcast the names of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq. Nonetheless, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of the largest owners of television stations in the country with 62 stations reaching nearly a quarter of all U.S. TV viewers, considers this respectful tribute to the fallen a "veiled political effort to undermine the war." Sinclair apparently considers it unpatriotic to show Americans the consequences of their President's decisions.

Sinclair's vice president of corporate relations claims the broadcast represents biased journalism. Was it "biased journalism" when Sinclair stations showed the President landing on an aircraft carrier to declare (prematurely, as it happens) an end to major hostilities in Iraq while standing under a banner reading Mission Accomplished? Are the dead less newsworthy than the President's propoganda?

Sinclair's decision has little to do with journalism and a lot to do with politics. Sinclair's top executives have donated to Bush's (but not to Kerry's) campaign. Sinclair has given more than $65,000 to GOP candidates in 2004 alone. Could that explain why they want to keep their viewers from seeing the soldiers who died under the President's command?

John McCain calls Sinclair's action "deeply offensive" and "unpatriotic." It is, but just as offensive is the administration's continuing support for the consolidation of media ownership. The more stations Sinclair owns, the fewer people see news coverage that might disturb the President. That might be good for the administration, but it's a disaster for a democracy that depends on informed voters.