FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

Post by nl » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 10:57 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #35

nl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some racists (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties, but in general the Republicans were never as racist as the Democrats historically were. They didn't have to be. Popular support for racism has been on the decline for more than a hundred years, and the remaining racists no longer trusted the Dems so the Republicans never had to give them anything or even really promise to give them anything to get their votes. This…

> This is kinda sorta true, but it neglects to mention that the "Southern Strategy"[1] was a real thing Sure it was a thing. The Democrats gave their base a swift kick in the teeth and the Republicans saw a bunch of easy votes. Realpolitik in action. The whole dog whistle thing gives it away. If your base is actually full of racists then you just go out and say overtly racist things and never take it back, because yo…

Post by flavor8 » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 12:38 PM UTC

bob_theslob646 wrote: post #42

mratzloff wrote: post #36

This is like 5% of their net income, so a slap on the wrist. They control more than 40% of the local news market. The FTC needs to break them up, not keep approving their continued growth.

Isn't that still alot? How much should the fine be?

Post by bob_theslob646 » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 1:29 PM UTC

flavor8 wrote: post #43

bob_theslob646 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that still alot? How much should the fine be?

Just fyi: http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quan...

Post by travmatt » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 1:57 PM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #12

mhneu wrote: post #5

I 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…

While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard. Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this: House: Democrats: 63% yea. House: Republicans: 80% yea. Senate: Democrats: 69% yea. Senate: Republicans: 82% yea. In…

Post by nkozyra » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 2:00 PM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #31

mhneu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre incites behavior that is knowingly contrary to the well-being of the patrons. (Also, some defenders of the first amendment argue that this is protected speech, but let's ignore that for now.) Imagine I pay a news station to run a story about a hospital (for example) which I believe to have saved many lives and I expect will continue to do so. Arguably my advertisement is…