Sinclair Broadcast fires Washington Bureau chief over "Stolen Honor" flap
Sinclair Broadcast Group, which is set to air a documentary detailing John Kerry's Vietnam war activities called Stolen Honor, has fired its Washington bureau chief Jon Lieberman for making these remarks:
"(Stolen Honor is) biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election."
He went on to say:
"I know I stood up for the principles of objectivity. In journalism, all we have is credibility and objectivity."
Do you think this was Mr. Lieberman's response to Fahrenheit 9/11? Do you think this was Mr. Lieberman's response to Rathergate? Do you think this was Mr. Lieberman's response to the Today Show putting Kitty Kelly on 3 days in a row? Do you think this would be Mr. Lieberman's response if Sinclair was airing a documentary on Bush's National Guard service?
If, like me, you answered "no" to each of the above queries then we can dismiss Mr. Lieberman as nothing more than a political hack who's in a snit because some truth is about to be devulged that is harmful to his candidate, Mr. Kerry.
If there is anything untruthful in this documentary, Mr. Lieberman, please point it out. I have not seen it and don't pretend to know its accuracy with regard to the facts. But, short of promulgating untruths, I don't see how such a piece is not newsworthy. And, aren't you and Sinclair in the news business? Is John Kerry not running for President of the United States? Is not one of the central issues of his campaign his service in Vietnam? Therefore, isn't it a reasonable journalistic enterprise to vet (no pun intended) the controversies surrounding this issue and air it for public dissemination? Especially since the media has largely failed to take an investigative look into this time in John Kerry's controversial life?
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of these journalists who pretend to be objective truth seekers. The reality is that if the "truth" hurts (especially hurts their candidate), it takes a back seat to censorship. Yes, conservatives can use that word, too.
"(Stolen Honor is) biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election."
He went on to say:
"I know I stood up for the principles of objectivity. In journalism, all we have is credibility and objectivity."
Do you think this was Mr. Lieberman's response to Fahrenheit 9/11? Do you think this was Mr. Lieberman's response to Rathergate? Do you think this was Mr. Lieberman's response to the Today Show putting Kitty Kelly on 3 days in a row? Do you think this would be Mr. Lieberman's response if Sinclair was airing a documentary on Bush's National Guard service?
If, like me, you answered "no" to each of the above queries then we can dismiss Mr. Lieberman as nothing more than a political hack who's in a snit because some truth is about to be devulged that is harmful to his candidate, Mr. Kerry.
If there is anything untruthful in this documentary, Mr. Lieberman, please point it out. I have not seen it and don't pretend to know its accuracy with regard to the facts. But, short of promulgating untruths, I don't see how such a piece is not newsworthy. And, aren't you and Sinclair in the news business? Is John Kerry not running for President of the United States? Is not one of the central issues of his campaign his service in Vietnam? Therefore, isn't it a reasonable journalistic enterprise to vet (no pun intended) the controversies surrounding this issue and air it for public dissemination? Especially since the media has largely failed to take an investigative look into this time in John Kerry's controversial life?
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of these journalists who pretend to be objective truth seekers. The reality is that if the "truth" hurts (especially hurts their candidate), it takes a back seat to censorship. Yes, conservatives can use that word, too.
posted by Wonderdog | 9:01 AM | Permalink
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home