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

91–100 of 146 posts

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

#91

Post by jsgo »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #80
jsgo wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will have to agree to disagree on that one. And I think he's there and Couric isn't is due to Couric at a certain point trying the Barbara Walters track pivoting into the talk show side of things.

But I think him being fairly interchangeable with another journalist is an indicator that his role isn't personality driven like the previously mentioned: he's there to deliver the news and that's essentially it. I think his Gaza Strip/Haiti/etc. work qualifies him as a journalist and from what I've seen of him, has delivered factual news (with varying levels of importance, but realistically, it is unlikely to have hard hitting items daily).

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

#92

Post by philwelch »

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…

This isn't new. Pulitzer and Hearst practiced "yellow journalism" that wouldn't look a day out of date compared to Fox News. Most news sources in the world and throughout history have had clear editorial biases at the very least.

Even they heyday of "unbiased", "impartial" news was anything but--there just weren't many outlets for people to express dissenting views, and the lack of transparency was shocking at times. For example, Lyndon Johnson once got annoyed at reporters asking him why the US intervened in Vietnam, exposed his genitalia to them, and shouted, "this is why!"

The notion of a kindly old Walter Crokite-esque gentleman telling us the news every night in a fair and impartial way was always an illusion, and it's one that shouldn't be mourned.

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

#93

Post by jakebasile »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #90
chiefalchemist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

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 decides what is news and what isn't? The government? What agency and how will that agency be staffed and regulated? What redress does an outlet have if they feel they are unjustly labeled because their opinion differs from that censor board?

What if it's not a government body but an industry body? Many of the same issues apply since the majority will have power over the minority. This particular mode of self-censorship has precedent, as the movie, video game, and music industries created their own censor boards in lieu of government regulation (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA).

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

#94

Post by arca_vorago »

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 the FCC has already shown itself to be a problem by allowing the media mergers and aquisitions in the first place, and the people who made those decisions should be held to account as far as the statue of limitations allows, but also should the institution (preferably by congress).

I'm starting to get really tired of "independent" government agencies being at the heart of root problems.

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

#95

Post by kaendfinger »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #71
zaroth wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

The "fire" in a movie theater argument is a horse than has been beaten to death for so long, and I seriously doubt anyone who says this phrase knows it's history, or even cares to think for themselves about how much of a cliche it is.

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

#97

Post by pnw_hazor »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #71
zaroth wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

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.

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

#98

Post by pnw_hazor »

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…

Hmmm, like China?

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

#99

Post by pnw_hazor »

rhino369 wrote: post #16
dabbledash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Any justification for censoring Sinclair would apply 100 fold to Google or Facebook. Its just not constitutional to ban Sinclair for running pro GOP content.

As well as networks, in general, like ABC, etc.

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

#100

Post by nugi »

pnw_hazor wrote: post #97
chiefalchemist wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

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.
Post reply on HN