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

#51

Post by openasocket » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

spydum wrote: post #26

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 governmen…

Universities in the US (and most other countries) need accreditation to be considered universities and to qualify to education grants and the like. That doesn't mean that all universities are state-run, only providing a government-approved curriculum. There's lots of controls you can put in place to limit government control. In the case of university accreditation, the government generally gives the responsibility to a handful of NGOs, along with regional bodies.

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

#52

Post by IAmEveryone » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:33 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #43

I don’t get what the issue is here. I have seen this message on my local television stations. What is missing from the YouTube video is an invitation at the end of that message for viewers to contact the station with any concerns about bias in its own reporting. In fact that is the entire point of the script, and it has been cutoff of the YouTube video, presumably because it appears to be more controversial that way.…

Do you really believe Sinclair doesn't have the manpower to watch their own programming to check for any 'biases'?

And if you believe they are somehow incapable of noticing biases: how would they adjudicate any complaints they get?

That request for comments is either a McGuffin needed to have a reason for the preceding rant slamming all other media outlets.

Or it's a ploy to get local stations in line with Sinclair's corporate agenda, by asking their viewers to rat them out to headquarters.

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

#53

Post by bradleyankrom » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:37 PM UTC

jsgo wrote: post #49

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…

While I agree, I think I'd be saddened by what it would suss out: that people don't really want news. The sad part would be that even after this, people would still look to the Hannitys, the Maddows, the Carlsons, the Lemons of the world for their news. I understand the reasoning behind it (zero effort way of processing news). Where it does become dangerous is if someone turns a non-news/fake news item into a talking…

I think putting the Hannitys and Carlsons on the same level as the Maddows and the Lemons implies a false equivalency. Everyone has an agenda, yeah, but one of those groups is deliberately misleading its viewers.

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

#54

Post by saas_co_de » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:37 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…

A large amount of TV news is pure fabrication. The use of green screens, fake sound tracks, fake live shots, etc is just part of the biz. TV news is an entertainment product pretending to be a news product.

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

#55

Post by jcwayne » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:37 PM UTC

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.

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

#56

Post by downandout » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

IAmEveryone wrote: post #52

downandout wrote: post #43

I don’t get what the issue is here. I have seen this message on my local television stations. What is missing from the YouTube video is an invitation at the end of that message for viewers to contact the station with any concerns about bias in its own reporting. In fact that is the entire point of the script, and it has been cutoff of the YouTube video, presumably because it appears to be more controversial that way.…

Do you really believe Sinclair doesn't have the manpower to watch their own programming to check for any 'biases'? And if you believe they are somehow incapable of noticing biases: how would they adjudicate any complaints they get? That request for comments is either a McGuffin needed to have a reason for the preceding rant slamming all other media outlets. Or it's a ploy to get local stations in line with Sinclair's…

Umm...wut? Would you not agree that bias is in the media is a major issue today, and that it may cause a significant percentage of viewers to abandon a given station or website if they see too much of it? Before the 2016 election, I regularly watched CNN and visited its website. Now it’s such a den of partiality and clickbait headlines that I have relegated it to HuffPo status and cannot trust anything I read there, so I simply don’t go there. I’d imagine there are others that feel this way too.

So if I’m a media company and I see complaints about my stations or a decline in news viewership, I’m going to take steps to stop it from happening. Companies often don’t know that they have problems until customers express their opinions about them, and so Sinclair is trying to keep an open dialogue with their viewers. Since when is asking customers how they feel about your service a bad thing?

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

#57

Post by dclowd9901 » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:46 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 think a broadcaster should be held liable for dispersing any information that is knowingly _or_ unknowingly not 100% true. You might say, "But chilling effects!", but it's high time news chilled the hell out.

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

#58

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:47 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #43

I don’t get what the issue is here. I have seen this message on my local television stations. What is missing from the YouTube video is an invitation at the end of that message for viewers to contact the station with any concerns about bias in its own reporting. In fact that is the entire point of the script, and it has been cutoff of the YouTube video, presumably because it appears to be more controversial that way.…

A lot of people, uh, fail to take what Sinclair says at face value.

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

#59

Post by chiefalchemist » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

bradleyankrom wrote: post #53

jsgo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, I think I'd be saddened by what it would suss out: that people don't really want news. The sad part would be that even after this, people would still look to the Hannitys, the Maddows, the Carlsons, the Lemons of the world for their news. I understand the reasoning behind it (zero effort way of processing news). Where it does become dangerous is if someone turns a non-news/fake news item into a talking…

I think putting the Hannitys and Carlsons on the same level as the Maddows and the Lemons implies a false equivalency. Everyone has an agenda, yeah, but one of those groups is deliberately misleading its viewers.

Um. They're all pretty deliberate. They're all gainfully employed based on one key KPI: ad revenue. They have a target market. They have a narrative. And they work that to the tune of ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching.

Death by cancer is still death whether it's Red State death or Blue State death. That's about as equal as it gets.

None of the four you listed quality as news or journalism. One another day we can discuss what they really are, but news and journalists they are not.

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

#60

Post by achileas » Fri, Apr 13, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

openasocket wrote: post #40

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've thought about that idea as well, have some sort of official standard for something to be called news. Requirements about the separation between editorial and objective content, requirements for certain standards of fact checking and confirmation before reporting, etc. If you don't abide by those standards, you don't get official accreditation as a reliable news source. Give it some sort of official seal or recog…

A lot of times, I really fail to see the (negative) distinction between an unelected government bureaucracy controlling something like this and unelected corporate entity controlling something like this. Wars were started at the behest of large publishers thanks to yellow journalism starting from fairly early in US history.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.