By now you have probably read about the decision of the Sinclair Broadcasting group to order all its affiliates (62 TV stations) to air an anti-Kerry "documentary" without commercial interruption. This is the same station that refused to air a reading of U.S. deaths in Iraq that was done by Nightline they didn't believe in "political statements" disguised as "news content."

USA Today reports:

[M]any believe Sinclair's provocative decision shows how much the company has riding on the election. With its heavy concentration of Fox and WB affiliates, ranking in the middle of the pack in mostly midsize markets, Sinclair is barely profitable and laden with debt. It had a net profit of $14 million on revenue of $739 million in 2003.

Sinclair hopes to change that by solidifying its hold on local markets by controlling, for example, two stations in more cities and sharing operating and news-gathering costs. But it needs the federal government to relax several media ownership restrictions.

Sinclair wants officials to permit a company to own two or more stations in more communities than allowed now. It also wants the FCC to ease a restriction that bars a company from owning TV stations reaching more than 35% of all homes, and to lift the rule that keeps companies from owning newspapers and TV stations in most markets.

That's where the parties part ways. FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican, has made media deregulation a priority, although many of the FCC's rule changes are tangled in court. Kerry says he'll clamp down on changes that promote consolidation.

Since Sinclair opposes airing political content when it might hurt Bush but not when it might help Bush, the above motive sounds very plausible. How does Sinclair defend themselves? Mark Hyman, vice president of corporate relations and on-air conservative commentator for the company appeared on CNN the other day to answer the critics and Josh Marshall quotes him:

However, the accusations coming from Terry McAuliffe and others, is it because they are some elements of this that may reflect poorly on John Kerry? That it's somehow an in-kind contribution of George Bush?

If you use that logic and reasoning, that means every car bomb in Iraq would be an in-kind contribution to John Kerry. Weak job performance ratings that came out last month would have been an in- kind contribution to John Kerry. And that's just nonsense.

This is news. I can't change the fact that these people decided to come forward today. The networks had this opportunity over a month ago to speak with these people. They chose to suppress them. They chose to ignore them. They are acting like Holocaust deniers, pretending these men don't exist.

So, according to Sinclair, reporting on news from Iraq or unemployment statistics at home is basically the same as running a political advertisement from a partisan hack — one who has, by the way, been involved with whitewashing the past of Unification Church founder Rev. Moon.

The Anti-Defamation League has responded to the "Holocaust Deniers" comparison:

Regardless of Mr. Hyman's opinion of the quality of news coverage relating to Presidential campaign issues, his analogy to those who deny the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews and millions of others is insensitive and painful. Usage of Holocaust imagery to score a political point is unacceptable.

The real issue here is, I think, the massive media consolidation that has occurred over the past couple of decades. This wouldn't be such a big deal if the old rules still existed and Sinclair only owned a few stations. Greater consolidation is what Sinclair wants and it's the reason their actions are causing a problem now. Democracy suffers when the flow of information is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands — regardless of the political orientation of those hands.

Read More:

• 2004 Elections
• Election Polls
• George W. Bush
• John Kerry