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

FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#101

Post by gregdunn »

rhino369 wrote: post #45
kolpa wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sinclair has a government-granted monopoly on the frequencies on which they broadcast. Google and Facebook offer service accessible over the (almost entirely) capacity-unconstrained Internet medium.

And a movie theatre has a government granted monopoly on a piece of land on which they show movies. Doesn't mean you can't just build another one next door. Facebook has an actual monolopy on an entire market.

TV broadcast frequencies are a far scarcer resource than land.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#102

Post by pnw_hazor »

mrguyorama wrote: post #35
jsgo wrote: post #32

Torn here. On the one hand, I hate the "must run" items, yet on the other hand, I see this as being a slippery slope if they were to punish as that'd be dictating to a company what is allowed on their stations. Having said that, two things: 1) I'm glad it was exposed and wish it were highlighted more than it was. This gives viewers the ability to discern how valuable they find the content to know that scripts were di…

The problem here that I see is one of "false advertising" If you present yourself as "News", that has certain connotations. Publishing this forced run content without disclaiming that it is not independently sourced journalism IMO violates those connotations

All news is subject to editors/publishers making decisions about what is included, excluded, omitted, broadcast-ed, etc., for political or commercial reasons.

It has always been this way.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#104

Post by KZeillmann »

arca_vorago wrote: post #94

FCC doesnt seem like it's protecting consumers. I think if I were POTUS I'd be using this section of its mandate. "Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable." The honest thing is that t…

Were you under the impression that an Ajit Pai-led FCC would be intent on protecting consumers?

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#105

Post by nugi »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #46
rc_bhg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Must not intentionally report false information as truth." Thus, lawsuites would be allowed if your org was found to be intentionally lying. But unless someone can prove you did it intentionally, they have no case. Obviously you can lie all you want if you take the word "News" out of your name.

There are rules, regs & best practices (and licenses) for a slew of trades that are not the fourth leg (i.e., Fourth Estate) of a proper democracy. Electricians, plumbers, hair stylists and such come to mind. And while it does not have to be gov based, why not journalism? Can't these (pardon me) meat-heads police themselves? Aside from news, journalism is another word that needs a proper and widely held definition. A…

I struggle to name a single source that is not Signifigantly biased. But worse than ever, fewer orgs seem to speak with a single editorial voice. One NYT article will be well sourced and informative, and the next will be raving identity-politics hate-fuel without a single citation or fact. Even distinguishing by outfit is outdated. Perhaps I just need to follow more writers, but I worry of creating my own bubble. Its a tall order.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#106

Post by pnw_hazor »

nugi wrote: post #100
pnw_hazor wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are different kinds of speech. Commercial speech, such as, advertising has less protection than most other forms of speech. Political speech (AKA news) is the most protected speech.

But News is very much commercial speech as well, if not moreso than political.

A news organization maybe a commercial venture, but news is not commercial speech.

Advertising, product labels, or advertisement signs are examples of commercial speech.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#107

Post by InitialLastName »

floatrock wrote: post #38
mulmen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon does not own WaPo. This distinction is important.

Of course not. The point is billionaires get into pissing contests by attacking whatever flank or asset is the easiest target.

I don't think you can generalize this to "billionaires". More like "one specific 'billionaire'".

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#108

Post by thaumasiotes »

jakebasile wrote: post #93
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own. With the regularity I see it parroted I very much hope the former is more common than the latter. As to the proposal of labeling content, who d…

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

I don't follow this entire line of thought. As with your parent comment:

>> Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

"THEREFORE, any idea supported by this argument is a bad idea"?

How can the provenance of the argument be relevant?

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#109

Post by nugi »

jcwayne wrote: post #55

This assault on the journalistic integrity of local news must stop! Before you know it they'll have so many must-runs that I'll never find out if my toaster really is going to kill me.

I have on good authority that everyone who owns or uses a toaster, will in fact die.

Re: FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts

#110

Post by sjg007 »

arca_vorago wrote: post #94

FCC doesnt seem like it's protecting consumers. I think if I were POTUS I'd be using this section of its mandate. "Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable." The honest thing is that t…

I think Trump is probably supportive of Sinclair. The promote a pro Trump message and have a conservative bias.
Post reply on HN