Sinclair Fires Washington Bureau Chief for Speaking Out

That's okay! He can get retrained in Jr's non-existent job program. And apparently the shareholders of Sinclair are not very happy, their stock was down 8% yesterday and Lehman brothers reduced their 12-month price target to $9 (from $10)

 

Liberal Media? Pfffffffffft!

 

He signed the non-compete and broke the contract. Don't feel sorry for him he knew what he was doing. View him as a hero (liberals) or as a insubordinate (conservatives) but he deserves no pity.

 

Did Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights protestors deserve no pity when they were arrested for sitting down at the counters of 'White Only' diners? They knew it was against the law, and what they were doing.

I think the pity shouldn't come because they broke the rules, but that the rules were so horribly applied in the first place.

 

Don't even compare lieberman to MLK. That is crazy you even compare the two. What next kerry is like Abe Lincoln?

Lieberman was paid well for his job. he decided to break his contract with his employer (who had paid him for doing his job and followign the contract).

it's standard media contracts to have non-competes. You don't want your talent going to a competitor when they can take your audience. That is why you don't have teh sports guy on a NBC affiliate going to the ABC affiliate in the same town.

If Lieberman wants out of his non-compete let him buy his way out. If he is talented someone will take care of him.

 

I wasn't comparing Lieberman to MLK. I was comparing one unjust situation with another unjust situation. I understand non-compete contracts. That is the most minor of the problems here. The worst part is of course forcing stations to run a political attack movie. Then is the fact that they fired him, because he called them on it, and lastly is the non-compete clause they are holding him to. Yes they are entitled to that, but it's not uncommon in business to waive that part of the contract if things are handeled with civility from both sides.

The fact is that Sinclair is pushing a political agenda and forcing others to comply.

 

I think that NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND is the answer !

 

Wow, this is EXACTLY what is wrong with the American media. We live in a world where journalists are constantly being pushed to censor themselves for "business reasons", to the point where contracts and non-disclosure agreements keep them from reporting the news.

I just wish shareholders of Sinclair would make a stink over this. What Sinclair is doing right now, pushing partisan politics weeks before an election, IS NOT in the best interest of their corportation.

 

Is Sinclair cracking under pressure?

------------------

Sinclair Says Will Not Air Kerry Show in Entirety

10 minutes ago Entertainment - Reuters TV

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., under widening scrutiny over plans to air a documentary about Sen. John Kerry's wartime activities 30 years ago, said on Tuesday it would not show the program in its entirety.

"Contrary to numerous inaccurate political and press accounts, the Sinclair stations will not be airing the documentary 'Stolen Honor' in its entirety," the Baltimore-based company said in a statement.

Sinclair said it would air a special news program on Friday called "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media" that would discuss the allegations surrounding Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041019/tv_nm/media_sinclair_dc&cid=597&ncid=2043

 

I think these are 3 distinct issues. (1) The ethics of a news-provider airing propagandistic material; (2) The ethics of firing someone for betraying the company; and (3) Being a jerk about your non-compete clause.

On #1, Sinclair's position is pretty shaky. They seem to be operating more as a political action group than a news organization.

But I see no issue with #2. The article only barely alludes to the fact that Lieberman really did go and blab to another journalist about closed-door meeting stuff. Certainly that's grounds for dismissal. I don't know what the guy is complaining about; he did it on purpose. If he didn't know what was coming to him, he's an idiot. I don't see any problem with Sinclair canning him, even if they happen to be engaging in a shady activity.

And, on issue #3, you might expect them to waive their rights if there was a cordial break-up. That obviously didn't happen. Sinclair is probably a little upset that they got stabbed in the back by one of their own. I'd probably be pissed too if my efforts were submarined by a subordinate.

 

I would think that the more heinous Sinclair behaves in this situation the better it is for their bottomline as well as their longterm ability to build a strong conservative audience base like Faux News has done. They are getting far more publicity about this documentary than they would have otherwise and some people might actually tune into this crap now. This is not unlike the tantrum that Mike Moore through when Disney refused to distribute his documentary. Granted, 'Fahrenheit 9/11 was at least an entertaining piece if anything. But still the controversy he started before it was even released was a greatly effective marketing ploy.