Staples, Activists in Battle of Words

An announcement by a liberal activist organization about a decision to pull some advertising at Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. has set off denials, countercharges and even legal threats by Staples Inc., the activists and Sinclair.

Media Matters for America, an organization that represents a coalition that includes MoveOn.org and producer Robert Greenwald (“Outfoxed”), last week claimed victory in its e-mail campaign to persuade Staples to drop its ads from Sinclair’s local television news programs.

But Paul Capelli, Staples’ vice president of public relations, said in an interview Monday that even before the Media Matters’ campaign, the company had decided to drop advertising on local news programming broadcast through Sinclair.

Contrary to Media Matters’ assertions last week, Capelli said, the decision was based on a routine and seasonal media-buying process.

At issue is a news commentary on Sinclair, “The Point,” that promotes a conservative view. Contacted by reporters, another Staples spokesman was widely quoted Jan. 4 as saying the decision to pull some advertising from Sinclair was based partly on e-mails from people who identified themselves as customers and complained that Sinclair’s political commentary was one-sided.

Subsequent news articles nationwide and on the Web triggered a flurry of responses and counter-responses. Framingham, Mass.-based Staples said its media-buying process had been “misrepresented” and denied that it had a policy against advertising on Sinclair news programs.

Capelli confirmed that Staples executives reviewed the news release prepared by Media Matters before it was made public. But, he said, “we didn’t approve it.”

“We said, ‘No, we don’t want you to issue the press release,’ and they issued it anyway,” Capelli said.

Media Matters is sticking by its story, saying that “Staples Inc. officials reviewed, edited and approved” its Jan. 3 release about the office supply chain’s decision to remove advertising from news programming.

Sinclair, meanwhile, claims that it is being harassed by organizations with “far-left-leaning political agendas” that have conducted “an ongoing Internet-based campaign of harassment.”

Citing its 1st Amendment rights to control programming, Hunt Valley, Md.-based Sinclair said, “continued misrepresentation of the facts surrounding any company’s advertising practices regarding Sinclair stations constitutes ‘trade defamation,’ which would entitle Sinclair to seek damages in a court of law.”

Capelli said that overall, Staples probably would spend more this year than in 2004 advertising with Sinclair.

The earlier spokesman “may not have stated our position as emphatically and clearly as he should have,” Capelli said.

Although activists are attempting to pressure Sinclair by pointing to its use of the public airwaves, broadcasters aren’t legally required to provide balance in presenting political views, Sinclair spokesman and lawyer Barry Faber said.

“To us, it’s not so much if [viewers] like the opinion, but are they tuning in?” Faber said. “If you don’t agree certain programming should be on the air, don’t watch it.”