FCC declines to punish Sinclair for its ‘must-run’ segments and scripts • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by krastanov » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:54 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #14

Right wing media has pointed out the same 'creepy talking point synchronicity' happening in the larger mainstream media for many years. Just like with Cambridge Analytica, certain behavior is only raised by the media as a scandal when amateurs try to the same thing the big boys have been doing for years/decades.

All media companies say "we are the best media source", there is nothing weird with that.

It is questionable when a monopoly of unheard of before size is saying "most other media sources are dangerous for our democracy", especially when it involves gaslighting.

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

#22

Post by chiefalchemist » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:56 PM UTC

Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled.

Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparent.

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

#23

Post by Covzire » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:58 PM UTC

mabbo wrote: post #20

Covzire wrote: post #14

Right wing media has pointed out the same 'creepy talking point synchronicity' happening in the larger mainstream media for many years. Just like with Cambridge Analytica, certain behavior is only raised by the media as a scandal when amateurs try to the same thing the big boys have been doing for years/decades.

Really? Which news outlets had dozens of news anchors read, word for word, the same script that was given to them by their owners and played as if it was a local independent news story? It's unprecedented. It's not about which politics the story supports, it's about the media and public being manipulated. Ajit Pai's response shows he either doesn't understand that or wants everyone else to think it's about something…

Remember Journolist[0]? The views of the major news stations and papers have been heavily aligned in one direction for several decades now. Journolist was hard evidence that they colluded in delivering talking points not just among one brand but multiple brands at the same time. Like I said, Sinclair are amatuers to what has, and we have to assume is, going on with most other outlets.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList

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

#24

Post by s73v3r_ » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 5:59 PM UTC

dabbledash wrote: post #11

move-on-by wrote: post #3

I can see why the FCC might be hesitant to get involved with these segments and scripts. However, the Sinclair merger should unequivocally be rejected. This business pattern only becomes an issue once you get monopolies and oligopolies. We need competition and variety in our news sources. Oligopolies are extremely dangerous to our democracy.

It would be very hard to view them as a monopoly in any case if you consider all the other media sources they compete with. I can’t think of the last time I saw broadcast local news.

Just because you don't use something doesn't mean a lot of other people don't. TV is still the most popular medium for getting news.

http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

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

#25

Post by s73v3r_ » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:01 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #23

mabbo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Which news outlets had dozens of news anchors read, word for word, the same script that was given to them by their owners and played as if it was a local independent news story? It's unprecedented. It's not about which politics the story supports, it's about the media and public being manipulated. Ajit Pai's response shows he either doesn't understand that or wants everyone else to think it's about something…

Remember Journolist[0]? The views of the major news stations and papers have been heavily aligned in one direction for several decades now. Journolist was hard evidence that they colluded in delivering talking points not just among one brand but multiple brands at the same time. Like I said, Sinclair are amatuers to what has, and we have to assume is, going on with most other outlets. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

You're confusing the issue. The issue here isn't a bunch of stations being aligned; the issue is the parent company mandating a word-for-word reading of a script that furthers the parent company's interest.

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

#26

Post by spydum » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:02 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #22

Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled. Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparen…

I can't help but observe that substantial movement of pressure and criticism in the US around biased journalism, and fake news is shifting the narrative (or preparing it) for state-controlled media. We thought it was bad before, and social media and independent journalism was supposed to be the underdog here to help usurp those big-corp biases.. but it turned out to be the exact opposite. So whats left? big government to step in and defend us helpless civilians, and make sure we only recieve official state truth. I hope I am wrong.

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

#27

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

Covzire wrote: post #23

mabbo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Which news outlets had dozens of news anchors read, word for word, the same script that was given to them by their owners and played as if it was a local independent news story? It's unprecedented. It's not about which politics the story supports, it's about the media and public being manipulated. Ajit Pai's response shows he either doesn't understand that or wants everyone else to think it's about something…

Remember Journolist[0]? The views of the major news stations and papers have been heavily aligned in one direction for several decades now. Journolist was hard evidence that they colluded in delivering talking points not just among one brand but multiple brands at the same time. Like I said, Sinclair are amatuers to what has, and we have to assume is, going on with most other outlets. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…

> Remember Journolist?

Journolist had 400 journalists on it.

Sinclair owns 233 entire stations.

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

#28

Post by kolpa » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #22

Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled. Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparen…

What is your proposed definition and how would you apply the test in practice?

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

#29

Post by kolpa » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:06 PM UTC

nasredin wrote: post #18

beckler wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if a foreign company bought Sinclair.

IIRC China recently bought a major Hollywood studio. Also notice the increase in token Chinese actors in recent blockbusters. Transformers even had some CCP pandering in the script. The self-censorship this brings is a real problem.

That's more for making the movies popular in China than for manipulating American attitudes.

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

#30

Post by rhino369 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

beckler wrote: post #4

The FCC does have the authority to revoke licenses based on content, but it's rare for them to do so. However, this entire situation is ultimately a consequence of revoking the FCC fairness doctrine. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine ) For example, a news station did have their license revoked by taking a strong stance against civil rights, and violated the fairness doctrine. ( https://en.wikipedi…

The fairness doctrine was hardly ever envoked. Attempting to apply it to a situation like this would not be constitutional. The fairness doctrine was found constitutional when it required a rebuttal to a direct personal attack during an era when there were only 3 stations. But this situation is different.

It was never applied to a sitation where a network required "must run" content. At best, the fairness doctrine would require at least some dissenting opinion on the issue. The Supreme Court, in upholding the fairness doctrine, said it should never be used to limit speech. That's what critics want to do here, punish Sinclair for running content.

Arguably, the fairness doctrine is no longer constitutional at all. The court's reasoning relied on there being limited channels. That is no longer true. Even on broadcast, there are 20 channels available. If democrats don't like Sinclair, they can go start their own network. When you consider all the other sorts of media available, its just not credible to argue that there is a legitmate concern that people cannot be both sides of an issue.