Conservative on-air commentator comes under fire for his views.

When we welcomed Mark Hyman of Sinclair Broadcasting to NCEW meetings two years ago, we had to tell him that he was our first new broadcast member in years. Sadly, we confessed, editorials and commentary had virtually disappeared from most television markets since the 1980s. There weren't many of us still around to make waves. Hyman fixed that.

Now, as far as I know, Hyman is our only member to have inspired the creation of a website condemning his television commentaries, while attempting to enlist viewers in boycotting companies advertising on Sinclair's sixty-seven stations.

Not only did Sinclair's nationally produced news coverage make the company controversial during the 2004 election campaign, but Hyman became the lightning rod for much of the criticism because of his conservative views, and his public statements as Sinclair's corporate spokesperson.

You can get some of the flavor of this from a Molly Ivins column bashing Sinclair and Hyman:

"Liberals and libertarians unite. The Sinclair Broadcast Group has moved this election into the realm of creeping fascism, state propaganda, Big Brother, and brainwashing. What, me hyperbole?"

A month after the election, a group of liberal organizations banded together to form SinclairAction.com, a website devoted to condemning Hyman's commentary segment, "The Point," calling it an abuse of the airwaves. The group's leader, Media Matters for America, said Hyman's commentaries contain "a steady stream of one-sided, anti-progressive, and pro-Bush rhetoric that is broadcast without a progressive counterpoint."

Hyman's commentaries are relatively short, most running about two minutes. They pack punch, not only because of his polemical style, but because they are broadcast on so many Sinclair stations. Hyman prepares his commentaries at Sinclair's headquarters near Baltimore. Then they are taped and fed out to the company's stations. Occasionally, he covers a local topic of importance to one of those markets, but usually the subjects are national in scope, frequently critical of Democrats, liberal policies, and liberal news media. Hyman regularly broadcasts short comments from viewers critical of his opinions, but does not set aside time for editorial replies, often used by many broadcast editorial writers (not necessarily commentators) to provide on-air opportunities for opponents. In his segments, Hyman rarely, if ever, deals with controversies about his commentaries, or his company.

The advocacy groups behind the website say their mission is to force Sinclair to provide on-air opportunities for those disagreeing with Hyman's commentaries. The website project grew out of earlier efforts by the same groups to prevent Sinclair stations from airing what they called a "one-sided" documentary on the eve of the election about Senator John Kerry's Vietnam service. Their website also contains a feature enabling viewers to forward critical comments about Hyman and Sinclair directly to advertisers who use the stations. They announced one success, saying Staples had agreed to stop advertising on Sinclair stations. Staples later denied doing so (this after conservative groups promised to lead a boycott against Staples).

When interviewed by television critic David Zurawik of The Sun in Baltimore, Hyman said he was astounded about the campaign, saying his commentaries were all clearly marked as such, to distinguish them from news content. He has since told Broadcasting & Cable magazine that he would be open to discussing the subject of providing time to opponents on his commentaries on Sinclair stations, but only after his adversaries let him use their mailing lists, and agreed to post "The Point" on their websites. (SinclairAction does display clips of streaming video, excerpted from Hyman's commentaries.)

Why should any of this matter to editorial writers?

* In these days of media attack blogs, and boycott-recruiting websites, editorial writers and commentators should be prepared to face the intimidating tactics that have been used by Media Matters, MoveOn.com, et al., against Sinclair. These attacks aren't likely to come from just one end of the political spectrum. Back in the 1980s, right-wing preachers mounted a very effective campaign to boycott advertisers buying time in network programs that they viewed as indecent. Encouraging advertising boycotts is constitutionally protected speech. Thanks to the Web, organizing boycotts is now pretty easy.

* Editorials or commentaries that are perceived as one-sided are bound to bring requests for equal time or space from opponents. Many years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated a Florida law requiring equal space in newspapers to rebut editorials. But until it was abolished some years ago, the FCC's Fairness Doctrine required television and radio stations to provide time for contrasting views, or face sanctions from federal regulators. Now, some want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, especially media reform groups that want to limit ownership of television and newspaper properties, particularly when located in the same markets.

Making waves? Maybe Mark Hyman is making a tsunami.

NCEW board member Peter Kohler is vice president of editorial services for Cablevision in New York. E-mail PKOHLER@ cablevision.com