FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
1–10 of 86 posts
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#2“Sinclair proudly supports the Cancer Foundation and its educational mission. Any absence of sponsorship identification in these public service segments was unintended and a result of simple human error."
I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist.
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#3"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#4"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
"The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest."
(National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).)
It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#5I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pro-slavery". But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b...
Sinclair also used their size and connections to the conservative movement to get FCC commissioners who would repeal rules on concentrated ownership of local TV stations.
Ownership of media outlets used to be a big topic of concern in the US. Who owns media outlets is going to be one of the defining issues of our future.
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#6See also another article published today:
Building A Case: Sinclair Broadcasting’s Project Baltimore offers right-wing news coverage of city schools by Jaisal Noor
http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-b...
// “[Project Baltimore] are building a case to privatize schools,” Diamonte Brown, a Baltimore school teacher and an advocate for reforming the school system told The Real News. //
Wonder who's paying for that...
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#7"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
Generally, free speech is NOT absolute,. Reasonable restrictions on "time, place, and manner" are generally upheld by the Supreme Court. They are not fined because they aired an ad for the Cancer Center, they are fined because they aired an ad for the Cancer Center that pretended to be a news segment. This is a manner restriction, and generally fine.
The specific statutes allowing the FCC to govern broadcasters and fine them in this manner is the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#8I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pr…
> But all educated Americans know
Thank you for the comment. It's good to see someone correcting the record for once.
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#9See also another article published today: Building A Case: Sinclair Broadcasting’s Project Baltimore offers right-wing news coverage of city schools by Jaisal Noor http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-b... // “[Project Baltimore] are building a case to privatize schools,” Diamonte Brown, a Baltimore school teacher and an advocate for reforming the school system told The Real News. // Wonder who'…
And this one
"Fox’s Unfamiliar but Powerful Television Rival: Sinclair" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclai...
And "How a Conservative TV Giant [Sinclair] Is Ridding Itself of Regulation" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conserv...
Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News
#10"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
"The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest." (National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).) It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.
The "shouting fire in a theater" example is a poor comparison, because it likely is allowed under the first amendment[0][1]. It may not be in the public interest, but as far as I know, the FCC does not regulate theaters.
[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
[1]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...