State Rep. Frank LaGrotta – 10/12/04

This page was last updated on October 16, 2004.

LaGrotta calls on FCC to stop illegal airing of anti-Kerry propaganda film; State Rep. Frank LaGrotta (D-10); October 12, 2004.

A more accurate title for the faux press release would have been, “LaGrotta calls on federal government to censor news program.”

Falling back on a now familiar tactic, the Democrat party simply wants to have the government censor anything critical of John Kerry.

When the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth produced a book and anti-Kerry political ads, the Kerry reaction was to send threatening letters to television stations. The Kerry campaign even tried to get the Unfit for Command publisher to stop publication and recall copies.

Now Mr. LaGrotta and his Democrat friends want to spike a documentary unflattering of John Kerry. In all of Mr. LaGrotta’s ranting, he does not discredit anything in the documentary that he allegedly “personally viewed.”

One Kerry spokesman even went so far as to threaten Sinclair. During an interview, Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton said, “I think they’re [Sinclair’s] going to regret doing this. They better hope we don’t win.” When asked if it was a threat, Clanton said no. That said, it was clearly a threat.

When Democrats can’t rebut criticism, they strive to suppress it. Suppression by government is censorship and is prohibited by the First Amendment.

It’s also useful to note Mr. LaGrotta doesn’t appear to have a problem with the Sundance Channel’s plans for a Bush bashing festival. From Monday, October 11^th, through Election Day, roughly 16% of Sundance’s programming will be devoted to anti-Bush and anti-GOP programming. I’m sure Mr. LaGrotta will claim broadcast and cable work under different rules, but that would be a cop out.

In summary, Mr. LaGrotta is grandstanding. Sadly, Mr. LaGrotta probably doesn’t know we see his agenda.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject faux press release and letter to the FCC.

Regarding the FCC letter, the FCC ruled it has no legal authority to prevent a show from airing. On October 14^th, FCC Chairman Michael Powell said, “Don’t look to us to block the airing of a program. I don't know of any precedent in which the commission could do that.” According to a CBS report, FCC rules require a program to air before a complaint can be considered. If this is correct, Mr. LaGrotta should know it since he claims to be “a member of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee of the FCC.”

“HARRISBURG, Oct. 12 – State Rep. Frank LaGrotta, D-Lawrence/Beaver/Butler, says the Federal Communications Commission must stop Sinclair Broadcasting Group’s illegal plans to force its affiliate stations to air a political film just days before the Nov. 2 presidential election.”

[RWC] As mentioned above, Sinclair doesn’t intend to air the full documentary. As covered in several interviews, the movie Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal

“LaGrotta, who serves on the FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, pointed out that Sinclair’s broadcasting of the film, which attacks the war record of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, would be illegal.

“This is partisan propaganda and airing it would be a clear and distinct violation of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, which is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the ‘Golden Rule,’ LaGrotta wrote in a letter addressed to the five FCC commissioners.

“‘The Sinclair Group’s use of public airwaves to promote the Bush campaign not only makes a mockery of media standards of fair reporting and objectivity – it is an illegal abuse of power that the FCC is obligated under the law to stop,’ said LaGrotta, who was appointed to the national communications advisory committee by commission Chairman Michael K. Powell.”

[RWC] “Media standards of fair reporting and objectivity?” Is Mr. LaGrotta kidding? I’ll bet Mr. LaGrotta still believes the moon is made of cheese and Dan Rather’s documents weren’t forged. I can tell Mr. LaGrotta longs for the days of the inaccurately named Fairness Doctrine, which fostered everything but fairness.

“‘I am confident the FCC will take immediate action to enforce the 70-year-old law that prohibits this type of abuse of the public trust!’

“LaGrotta said his argument is based on a provision in the Communications Act that requires radio and television stations, as well as cable systems that originate their own programming, to grant political candidates equal opportunity when selling or giving away air time.

“‘Essentially, this provision mandates that if Candidate A is given 20 minutes of air time on a station, candidate B must be offered that as well,’ said LaGrotta. ‘Is Sinclair willing to air ‘Fahrenheit 911’ to satisfy its equal time obligation? I doubt it!’

[RWC] I’m sure it was an honest oversight, but Mr. LaGrotta failed to note Sinclair already invited John Kerry – or someone who could represent Kerry and who could speak authoritatively on the subject – to participate and address the allegations. Kerry refused. Therefore, Sinclair did exactly what LaGrotta claims they should have done.

“In his well-documented letter, LaGrotta reminded the commissioners that in April 2004 Sinclair forbade its ABC affiliates from showing Ted Koppel’s tribute to the fallen troops in Iraq on ‘Nightline’ because they considered it to be ‘motivated by a political agenda’.”

[RWC] I wouldn’t use the term “well-documented” to describe Mr. LaGrotta’s letter. It’s true Mr. LaGrotta’s letter cites self-described “significant facts,” but the veracity of these facts is not up to snuff as you will see below.

“LaGrotta said he does not question the right of Sinclair’s owners to openly support President Bush.”

[RWC] Yes he does. Does anyone believe Mr. LaGrotta would have written a similar letter if Sinclair had chosen to air Fahrenheit 9/11?

“‘However, when a broadcasting company misuses the public airwaves to broadcast partisan propaganda, that’s not politics - that is clearly illegal,’ the nine-term legislator added.”

[RWC] Did Mr. LaGrotta write similar letters when CBS – under the guise of news – gave multiple Bush bashing authors free time on 60 Minutes? What about CBS and Dan Rather’s clumsy effort to smear President Bush with what appear to have been forged documents? What about NBC giving Bush-bashing author Kitty Kelley airtime three days in a row on the Today Show? The answers are “no,” of course.

“The Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns 60 network affiliates and two independent TV stations. In the Pittsburgh market, Sinclair owns and operates WPGH-53 (Fox) and WCWB-22 (WB).”

Commissioners:

“I am Pennsylvania State Representative Frank LaGrotta, a member of the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee of the FCC. I am asking you, individually as well as collectively, to prohibit the Sinclair Broadcasting Group - the same group that previously forbid its ABC affiliates from showing Ted Koppel’s 40-minute tribute to fallen troops in Iraq because the programming appeared to be ‘motivated by a political agenda (http://www.newscentral.tv/station/statement.shtml)’ - to order its stations to preempt regular programming (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-na-sinclair9oct09,1,4817545.story?coll=la-home-headlines) just days before the November 2 Presidential election to air a film that attacks Democratic Candidate Sen. John F. Kerry’s activism against the Vietnam War.”

[RWC] Incredible! An elected state representative advocates censorship. That says a lot for the party that falsely claims it supports diversity and inclusion.

The ABC “tribute” was nothing more than a political stunt, and most people knew that.

“As you know, Sinclair, the country’s largest owner of television stations, has told its stations to air ‘Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,’ produced by Carlton Sherwood, a former Washington Times (http://mediamatters.org/items/200410100001) reporter, a former Bush administration official (http://www.insiderpa.com/archive/insider6-2003.htm), and close friend (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9893622.htm?1c) of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.”

[RWC] While Sinclair is “the country’s largest owner of television stations,” Mr. LaGrotta failed to mention Sinclair stations tend to be in so-called small markets and so, despite having the most stations, Sinclair stations reach only 20-25% of American viewers. In terms of revenue, Sinclair ranked number eight for 2002, behind CBS, NBC, and ABC.

“Sinclair is claiming exemption from a law prohibiting corporations from spending money to influence a federal election http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041012/NEWS09/410120361/1001/NEWS) because, it falsely claims the documentary - which I personally have viewed - qualifies as ‘newsworthy.’”

[RWC] So a career politician knows what is newsworthy and not? That’s up to the media outlet to determine, not a government official. I didn’t know Mr. LaGrotta had news reporting experience.

“That is a lie, honorable commissioners. This is nothing more than partisan propaganda and it is a clear and distinct violation of Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, which is the closest thing in broadcast content regulation to the ‘golden rule.’ The equal time, or more accurately, the equal opportunity provision of the Communications Act requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time. Simply put, a station which sells or gives one minute to Candidate A must sell or give the same amount of time with the same audience potential to all other candidates for the particular office.”

[RWC] Mr. LaGrotta claims the documentary “is nothing more than partisan propaganda.” I’m not a lawyer, but isn’t the burden on Mr. LaGrotta to prove his statement? Mr. LaGrotta makes a claim but offers no proof.

“The genesis of this requirement dates back to the first major broadcasting law in the United States, the Radio Act of 1927, and it was created to protect the American public from the very chicanery that Sinclair is attempting to foist upon the publicly owned airwaves. Legislators then were concerned that without mandated equal opportunity for candidates, some broadcasters might try to manipulate elections. As one congressman put it, ‘American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations.’ Here are some significant facts about this company, which are relevant to this issue:

1) SINCLAIR HAS A LONG, DEMONSTRATED HISTORY OF PARTISANSHIP:

“Even before refusing to run ABC’s Nightline in April, Sinclair had amassed a long record of trying to pass off “partisan bias” as hard news. In September 2001, the group required its affiliates to air messages ‘conveying full support (http://www.kacvtv.org/local/media/media10.shtml)’ for the Bush administration, including requiring news, sports and even weather anchors to read messages saying they stood ‘100% behind our President.’ In July 2003, Sinclair banned a Democratic National Committee advertisement that featured a clip of President Bush making the now-proven false claim ‘that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html),’ in his 2003 State of the Union Address. ‘Earlier this year, Sinclair sent a vice president who has called John F. Kerry a liar to Iraq to find good news stories (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25406-2004Oct11.html), which it falsely claimed were being overlooked by the biased liberal press.’”

[RWC] Let me get this straight. Less than one week after 9/11, requiring your staff display support for our leader against terrorism was wrong? Mr. LaGrotta forgot to mention the statements were identified as being from station management.

Mr. LaGrotta conveniently omitted the beginning of the State of the Union Address sentence he quoted. The full quote is, “The British government [my emphasis] has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” President Bush certainly concurred with the British findings, but he did not make the claim. I didn’t see the DNC clip, but I suspect it misrepresented what President Bush said just as Mr. LaGrotta did.

Mr. LaGrotta wrote the British claim that Iraq tried purchase yellowcake from Niger was proven false. Not quite. None of the recent “post mortem” intelligence reports make that conclusion and British intelligence sticks by its claim.

Regarding the comment that good news in Iraq is not “being overlooked by the biased liberal press,” at least Mr. LaGrotta admits there is a bias. Mr. La Grotta, however, is wrong to claim the old media is not ignoring good news. Naturally there are bad things going on in Iraq, but failing to report the good things is bias.

In what’s appears to be a trend, Mr. LaGrotta misquotes the Washington Post article he cites. Where Mr. LaGrotta quotes the article as saying, “which it falsely claimed,” the article really said, “that it said.” Why did Mr. LaGrotta feel he needed to embellish the quote?

2) CARLTON SHERWOOD HAS A DEMONSTRATED PARTISAN HISTORY:

“Sherwood claims not to be a political activist (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9893622.htm?1c), however he has strong ties to the Bush administration. He directed Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge’s TV and radio operations when Ridge was governor of my state, Pennsylvania, and he has ‘recently been tapped (http://www.insiderpa.com/archive/insider6-2003.htm) to create and manage a new Federal website -- www.firstresponder.gov (http://www.firstresponder.gov/) -- a key Bush Administration public outreach program.’”

[RWC] How is this relevant? Does Mr. LaGrotta claim MSNBC must dump Chris Matthews (Hardball) because he served on President Carter’s staff? Using his “logic,” unless Mr. LaGrotta can prove he himself is nonpartisan, he should have no standing in this matter.

3) BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, SHERWOOD’S PHONY DOCUMENTARY IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED:

“Asked about the motivations behind his film on Monday, Sherwood responded, ‘I don’t want a damn apology (from Kerry) (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9893622.htm?1c). I want [Kerry’s] feet held to the fire.’”

[RWC] How does this quote prove the documentary is politically motivated? Assuming the quote is accurate – a leap of faith when presented by Mr. LaGrotta – it’s clear Mr. Sherwood is unhappy with John Kerry. So what? Dan Rather speaks at Democrat fundraisers and other supposed newscasters can barely contain their on-air contempt for President Bush.

You’ll note when he mentioned Michael Moore’s film in the faux press release, Mr. LaGrotta did not describe it as a “phony documentary.” Does Mr. LaGrotta believe Fahrenheit 9/11 is a real documentary?

4) SINCLAIR’S OWNERS ARE SELF-PROCLAIMED REPUBLICAN BOOSTERS:

“Sinclair is owned by Baltimore businessman David D. Smith and his three brothers. The Smith brothers and their executives have made 97 percent of their political donations during the 2004 election cycle to Bush and the Republican Party. The brothers alone have given $121,000 to the Republican Party since 1999 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25406-2004Oct11.html), and each of them has contributed the maximum $2,000 (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?NumOfThou=0&txtName=Smith,+David&txtState=(all+states)&txtZip=&txtEmploy=Sinclair+Broadcast&txtCand=Bush&txt2004=Y&Order=N) to the 2004 Bush campaign. Honorable commissioners, these folks are partisan – and they have a right to be. What they do NOT have a right to do is violate the laws of our great nation to advance their partisan agenda!”

[RWC] Duh! Did anyone expect Kerry supporters to air the documentary? Did anyone notice Mr. LaGrotta didn’t bring up the political contributions of ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC executives? In any case, all that should matter is the accuracy of the show presented by Sinclair. As noted above, Mr. LaGrotta doesn’t provide any proof the documentary presents a false representation. I haven’t seen the documentary so I don’t know. However, if Mr. LaGrotta could have provided a point-by-point refutation of the documentary, I’m sure he would have.

-more-

-4-

5) THEIR AGENDA IS PARTISAN AS EVIDENCED BY THE POINT

“In a highly unusual news practice, Sinclair requires many of its affiliates to feature nightly commentary by corporate Vice President Mark Hyman (http://www.newscentral.tv/station/bios/mhyman.shtml), entitled ‘The Point.’ In recent months, Hyman has used his time on air to gear viewers up for Sherwood’s film: On 9/20/04, Hyman accused Kerry of violating his oath to the U.S. Constitution because he led a group of Vietnam veterans who had fought and been wounded for their country to ‘defy U.S. Park regulations (http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040920.shtml)’ and camp on the National Mall during 1971 protests. Two days later, Hyman falsely accused Kerry of, ‘supporting Communist forces (http://www.newscentral.tv/uploads/franchise/point/point-20040922.shtml) opposed to the U.S. in Vietnam [and] in Nicaragua.’ Hyman used ‘The Point’ as a platform to denigrate Kerry’s Vietnam service nine times in September 2004 alone.”

[RWC] Does Mr. LaGrotta want us to believe ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC don’t have a partisan agenda? In a recent (10/8/04) e-mail note to his news staff, ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin wrote, “We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides ‘equally’ accountable when the facts don’t warrant that.” The remainder of the note made it clear the idea was to go easier on Kerry because, “Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.”

I don’t know what’s unusual about concluding a newscast with opinion. When I was growing up, most local newscasts ended with an “editorial” from station management.

I was unable to find evidence supporting Mr. LaGrotta’s claim that “Sinclair requires many of its affiliates to feature nightly commentary by corporate Vice President Mark Hyman.” Sinclair offers its stations a 17-minute national/international news program entitled News Central. The Point makes up 90 seconds of the broadcast and is labeled as commentary. The stations are not required to run News Central. As of earlier this year, only 14 of Sinclair’s 62 stations ran News Central.

Doggone, Mr. LaGrotta sure has a problem with accurate quotes. The full Mark Hyman quote from 9/20/04 was, “Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War announced they would defy U.S. Park regulations and camp on the National Mall during their 1971 protests. A U.S. District Court order, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, made it crystal clear that camping on the mall was illegal.” By defying the Supreme Court, John Kerry did violate his other to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Again, let’s look at the full Hyman quote of 9/22/04. Hyman concluded his editorial by saying, “Kerry has a lifetime of experience in foreign policy. Unfortunately, it is a lifetime of supporting Communist forces opposed to the U.S. in Vietnam, in Nicaragua, in pushing for unilateral U.S. disarmament while the Soviets continued their military build-up or by doing their bidding by voting against nearly every major defense program in 20 years of Senate service. John Kerry may make a good president. Just not for the U.S.”

During 1970 and 1971 as a private citizen and not on behalf of the United States, John Kerry met twice with our enemy, North Vietnam. At the time, Kerry supported giving North Vietnam everything it wanted at the negotiating table. There’s a picture of John Kerry with the former General Secretary of the Vietnam Communist Party in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon). The picture is part of an exhibit honoring “heroes” who helped the North Vietnamese Communists win the war.

During 1985, Kerry – together with fellow Democrat Sen. Tom Harkin – met with Nicaraguan communists when the United States was fighting Central American communism. Neither Harkin nor Kerry was authorized to speak with the enemy.

Did Kerry support communists opposing the United States? I don’t know. In any case, his contact with both enemies during time of war was clearly improper.

“Honorable Commissioners, as a member of the IAC, and a law-abiding American citizen, I implore you to enforce Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 and prohibit the showing of this ‘political advertisement.’

“The oath you took to when sworn in as a commissioner requires you to do so. “

Respectfully,

FRANK LaGROTTA, MEMBER

State House of Representatives

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Member – IAC