Is an antiwar stance intrinsically, automatically, a political stance? Hardly, whatever the current administration would have us believe: opposition to the Iraq war spans the political spectrum.

Censorship, on the other hand, is rarely nonpolitical. And it is clearly political in this case.

I am old enough to have been present at readings of the names of America's Vietnam war dead. The experience was moving indeed, as was my visit to the Wall many years later. I suspect the likelihood of a similar experience, multiplied many times, explains Sinclair Broadcast Group's reluctance to air similar readings. People will hear the names, and they will understand the true cost of war.

Refusing to allow acknowledgement of our servicemembers killed in a war, a war started by an administration to which Sinclair contributed campaign money, is a manifestly political act. It is also another tear in the fabric of a once independent news media, a media essential to anything America might meaningfully call democracy.

Censorship involves government action, and Sinclair is private.

Good journalism usually upsets the powers that be and that really is a good measure of doing the right thing.

I wonder if other stations will follow. It certainly would reveal that the station owners don't believe in working in the public interest.

The question has to be asked:

Why does Sinclair hate dead American soldiers so much?

does anyone really seriously question the assertion that the reading of the names of the dead by Ted Koppel is intended at least partially as a political attack on the Bush administration? I don't doubt that Koppel and others behind this program concept are sincere in their strong disapproval of the war in Iraq and that they are sincere in seeing the death toll as the deplorable outcome of a misguided policy. that oh-so-sincere view in no way reduces the political freight and intent of the program.

sinclair is entitled to its view that this kind of program is a very bad idea. many people would share that view. all hail the market, which thrives on a wild variety of points of view, and the freedom to say or do whatever foolish thing one wants to.

sinclair is entitled to its view that this kind of program is a very bad idea. many people would share that view. all hail the market, which thrives on a wild variety of points of view, and the freedom to say or do whatever foolish thing one wants to.

Yes, they are entitled to their views. No question.

My problem with it is this: Sinclair buys ABC affiliates. To me, that brings an implied duty to carry all national ABC network programming (with the exception of planned local events and breaking local news). If you don't like what ABC is doing, then divest yourselves from it and sell the ABC stations to another group.

Keep in mind that most viewers have *no* say in who runs their local ABC affiliate. Those in affected areas who want to see it don't have a choice, and the vast majority can't just tune to another ABC station to see it. The viewership is being held hostage by Sinclair. The airwaves were granted to this station in exchange for (presumably) some amount of responsibility to the viewing public, and I believe Sinclair is shirking that.

Frankly, under *one* condition I can accept this kind of decision. Right now, the Satellite Home Viewing Act (SHVA), the one that covers DirecTV, Dish Network and the likes of them, can legally beam distant network feeds to viewers outside the areas where an over the air antenna can pick up a decent signal from the closest network affiliate.

I would submit that if a local station opts to not show what the network wants to show nationwide, then the SHVA should be amended to allow ANY viewer in that affiliate's local viewing area to receive the national feed, regardless of ability to receive the signal. That way, if I don't like Sinclair's unilateral decision as to which ABC programming I receive, I can get a feed from the New York or Los Angeles affiliate and see it. If they want the protection of their local markets, then they should be obligated (in the general case) to show what the network wants to broadcast.

In response to Jaye's comment:

Censorship doesn't *have* to involve government action. The involvement of the government merely means the First Amendment comes into play, so the allegation of censorship can be challenged in court.

Private corporations such as Sinclair have every legal right to engage in censorship (at least if you accept that corporations should have First Amendment rights). But, to repeat an old saw, just because Sinclair has the right to censor Nightline doesn't mean it's right for them to do so. And it doesn't mean it's not censorship.

Tim's comment is well taken, but I think ABC has granted its affiliates general discretion to pre-empt network programming on occasion. Otherwise, I'd think ABC would have threatened to sue Sinclair over this.