Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 86 posts

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

#51

Post by tclancy »

loeg wrote: post #34
tw04 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up. People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not ref…

Just to clarify, the author of that post is a practicing lawyer specializing in first amendment law. Guessing from your comments, you seem to work in software. Do you profess any particular legal expertise? As the other commenter notes, I can't find any example of 2102 being applied like this.

Popehat has an additional followup about Holmes' recanting his famous example: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

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

#52

Post by kbutler »

PretzelFisch wrote: post #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.

I don't think the size of Sinclair is the relevant benchmark. The profitability and prevalence of the practice is the important part.

How much did that sponsorship earn them? How many other sponsored stories are they running? What's the probability of a new sponsored story generating a new fine?

Make it so that they lost significantly more than they got doing this, and so that they expect to lose money if they do it again.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by [deleted] »

travmatt wrote: post #47
mythrwy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think conservative ideology has distinct pr…

[deleted]

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

#56

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

loeg wrote: post #11
freeone3000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Very, very few restrictions are actually upheld. See in particular "Trope 3: 'Not all speech is protected.'"[0] [0]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

That post is almost entirely about a debate over viewpoint-based regulation. Regulations that are viewpoint-neutral, especially when it comes to commercial speech and broadcast radio/TV stations (and especially the combination of the two), are generally on much stronger 1A footing.

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

#57

Post by craftyguy »

mhneu wrote: post #4
totalZero wrote: post #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.

"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.

> Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.

That's pretty damn rich given that the FCC did this just a few days ago.

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

#58

Post by mythrwy »

travmatt wrote: post #47
mythrwy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think conservative ideology has distinct pr…

You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness.

Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it.

I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise.

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive.

The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.

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

#59

Post by ceejayoz »

PretzelFisch wrote: post #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.

> 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.

Hell, the cut in corporate tax rates they helped get should save them at least that much - every quarter.

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

#60

Post by ceejayoz »

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?

> How much should the fine be?

More than the benefits of the act.

They helped get the corporate tax rate cut from 35 to 21 percent, permanently. A $13M one-off fine isn't going to eat much of that up.

Post reply on HN