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

71–80 of 146 posts

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

#71

Post by chiefalchemist »

zaroth wrote: post #44
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…

Ok, you’re crazy. A “legal definition of news” is exactly what the first amendment is setup to prevent. What I think it’s time for is to demand personal responsibility for critically thinking about what you read or listen to. The state cannot ever be trusted to control what you watch, read, or listen to, full stop. This has only ever ended in disaster, and we’ve known this for centuries. When people who don’t like wh…

Nah. The 1st Amendment does not protect shouting "fire" in a movie theater. As coveted as it might be, the 1st A doesn't give license to a free for all of junk food. There are licensing for plumbers, electricians and hair stylists. __None__ of those are essentials to a healthy democracy.

There is also the legal concept of false advertising. If you're saying (objective) "news" and it's (subjective) editorial, then that's clearly false advertising.

This wasn't the most exciting things I ever read, but it was helpful.

"Freedom for the Thought That We Hate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_W...

re: "News, editorials, and political commentary are nothing at all like the ingredient list on the back of your soda can."

One, this is editorial pure.

Two, it's also false. We know that you are what you consume. Whether that's what goes in your mouth, your lungs, up your nose, or into your brain.

Is you can't label Aspartame as sugar, then why should editorial being called news be allowed? Context matters.

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

#72

Post by chiefalchemist »

chrisseaton wrote: post #41
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 most news is pretty much useless without any kind of analysis, and that analysis is effectively editorial. If I tell you a vote in congress passed, that doesn't really tell me much without saying whether the vote was expected to pass or not, or why, or what the vote passing means, etc. And that's all opinion. Even if you try to present it factually it's all judgement.

True. But it can still be presented as what it is, an opinion. "It is the opinion of this reporter..." or "Based on what we know and the current facts..." Etc.

Better still, "What we don't know is..." The gaps in the analysis are never pointed out. Yes, that makes it opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but then it's not analysis, and certainly not transparent in the journalism sense of the word.

The problem is, stuff with obvious _glaring_ holes gets presented as full-investigated and complete.

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

#73

Post by jsgo »

bradleyankrom wrote: post #61
chiefalchemist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

What qualifies as news or journalism?

From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, David Muir seems to deliver in a way that doesn't seem heavy in bias. Admittedly, I don't watch ABC a lot so I don't see a ton of him, but his content seems pretty impartial.

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

#74

Post by chiefalchemist »

bradleyankrom wrote: post #61
chiefalchemist wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

What qualifies as news or journalism?

Funny enough, my term papers in grade school come to mind. We were required to take a subject, investigate it, present both / all arguments, and then draw a conclusion as based on the investigation.

Journalists ask questions. Tough question. The hard questions. Taking the narrative of a rumour and/or a "press release" is not journalism. When there's an over-use of "power words" and heavy handed adjectives that manipulate the interpretation, that's not journalism either.

That's the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe it's kinda like porn? I'll know it when I see it?

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

#75

Post by downandout »

maxerickson wrote: post #69
downandout wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why would that be? That message is basically a feedback request. They are attempting to address a legitimate issue that may cause them a decline in viewership and resulting revenues.

It probably stems from an awareness of the broader context within which they issued that must run script.

If, like the Democratic senators who signed the letter, I enjoyed mostly glowing media coverage, I suppose that I would be upset when a company dismisses that glowing coverage as being the result of bias - even if I knew they were correct. But that’s a hardly a reason to abuse your power as a senator to attempt to damage the company that is doing that, especially when they are trying to solve a legitimate problem for the public at their own stations. That’s pretty evil if you ask me.

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

#76

Post by jadedhacker »

Very weird that a consolidated media company would force its viewpoint to be propagated. This is very unlike the rest of the media and a genuinely new phenomenon. /s

(2012) http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-...

If you think that these companies aren't pushing a viewpoint you got another thing coming. Hint: It's pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist, anti-worker, and anti-political dissenters.

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

#77

Post by chiefalchemist »

dragonwriter wrote: post #62
dclowd9901 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is the safe thing to do with that regulations that to try to find truth of substantive claims, but instead tomjudt uncritically relay sourced rumor: it's very easily to be completely factual if everything you report is “So and so says that...” regurgitating official statements from interested parties without attempting to validate the claims the originator is making.

How about we start with the over-use of "leaked"?

For example the new James Comey book was not "leaked." What happened was, the publicist kicked off the marketing campaign and MSM feeding frenzy and hyping begins. The part about the book's author being sacked by the guy he's critiquing is never mentioned.

A real journalist would not use the worded "leaked" as that's not only entirely misleading, it's a lie. Stating the obvious or not, a real journalist / legit news outlet would not make assumption, they would make sure the context is 100% clear.

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

#78

Post by chrisseaton »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #72
chrisseaton wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most news is pretty much useless without any kind of analysis, and that analysis is effectively editorial. If I tell you a vote in congress passed, that doesn't really tell me much without saying whether the vote was expected to pass or not, or why, or what the vote passing means, etc. And that's all opinion. Even if you try to present it factually it's all judgement.

True. But it can still be presented as what it is, an opinion. "It is the opinion of this reporter..." or "Based on what we know and the current facts..." Etc. Better still, "What we don't know is..." The gaps in the analysis are never pointed out. Yes, that makes it opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but then it's not analysis, and certainly not transparent in the journalism sense of the word. The problem is, stuff w…

I don't know if perhaps we are better off declaring bankruptcy and taking a worse-is-better approach here and not even having the pretence of unbiased media, because maybe it's not possible.

In the UK newspapers basically publicly declare their bias and everyone knows so you make sure you read a left-biased paper as well as a right-biased one.

I don't know if the wire services manage to be completely unbiased?

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

#79

Post by metamet »

lainga wrote: post #63
bradleyankrom wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maddow spins the news just as hard, whether you can/want to see it or not.

Maddow definitely creates a narrative out of the current events. Hannity is on another level, though, making dishonest use of every logical fallacy in order to push the state directed agenda.

He is one of the "allies" Trump pushes his propaganda through: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382993-white-hous...

> Trump also urged supporters to watch Fox News host Sean Hannity's show on Wednesday, during which Hannity called for Rosenstein to be fired.

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

#80

Post by chiefalchemist »

jsgo wrote: post #73
bradleyankrom wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What qualifies as news or journalism?

From what I've seen, and I could be wrong, David Muir seems to deliver in a way that doesn't seem heavy in bias. Admittedly, I don't watch ABC a lot so I don't see a ton of him, but his content seems pretty impartial.

Perfect example. He's nothing more than a talking head. He's reading a script off a teleprompter. He's there - and Katie Couric isn't - because he tests well and the rating are strong.

That doesn't make him a journalist. Nor does it make what falls from his lips news.

Post reply on HN