Sinclair Versus Nightline

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/30/abc.nightline/

What's your reaction to this?

Take care all.

I seriosuly doubt that Nightline was going to read those names solely to 'remind the viewers of the terrible cost of war.' I think they had their own agenda, be it political, or more likely, better ratings. Using our fallen people like that is, in my opinion, deplorable, and I respect Sinclair's decision to not broadcast that selfish event.

I don't see why everyone's making a fuss. Was it a political agenda when U2 showed the names of those who lost their lives in the 9-11 attacks? Is the Vietnam memorial a political jab?

I think it was very respectful and very brave of Nightline to air these names. It was beautiful, not to mention important. America needs to be reminded that each and every one of these soldiers dying for this war is a human being with family and friends, not a statistic. When it's just "Four soldiers died to day in Iraq" it takes away any emotional connection. Showing the names and faces of those people who will never go home, those children who will never again see their parents makes it real and important.

But of course, everything's a political agenda these days. Cynical society, for ya.

"I seriosuly doubt that Nightline was going to read those names solely to 'remind the viewers of the terrible cost of war.' I think they had their own agenda, be it political, or more likely, better ratings. Using our fallen people like that is, in my opinion, deplorable, and I respect Sinclair's decision to not broadcast that selfish event."

I watched the Nightline episode and can honestly say, it was entirely bi-partisan and had next to no agenda that I saw.

Besides, let's take a closer look at Sinclair: For one thing, they donated money to Bush Administration, so I'd say THEY have more of an interest into a politcal angle than Nightline.

Secondly: It has been reported in a wide variety of news sites, that Sinclair told its affiliates that after each report on the war, they had to say that they supported the President or else face a penalty.

Sounds to me that Sinclair's reasons to pull the ads were the more selfish act by a wide margain.

Take care all.

The closest thing to a political agenda was when Ted Koppel said at the end, while trying to stress that it was not meant for an agenda, "A lot of you think I am against the war - I am not."


On the whole, though, it was very tasteful and apolitical.

OK, forget the political part. More likely, it was for the ratings.

That, I cannot argue with as easily, but isn't ALL media about ratings anyway?

Take care all.

There is a very very small percent of things on tv that go on for something other than ratings. Usually it's on at 3 in the morning, and usually on PBS or something.

That being said, I cant say whether Nightline did this solely for ratings, or if there's a good bunch of people in there looking to do what they did simply because they felt it was the right thing. I just dont know enough.

Now, if 'Nightline' had made this some sort of charity fund, to raise money for the families of the fallen, I'd be all for it.

EVERYTHING is for ratings. We show the news because some people want to know what's going on, not because CNN or Fox News feel they have some sacred duty to show news. They show news so they can sell ads.


EDIT: and yes, i think there were, unfortunately, ads during this.