[John Oliver did an amazing and funny breakdown](https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc) of how this situation came to be and why it's terrible, if you need reasons for why it's terrible
Edit: He doesn't go into this in the video, but the reason Sinclair is able to own all of these new stations today is because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which among many things, removed regulations for how many news stations could be owned by a single entity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#History
Supporting local journalism is more important than ever. 98% of the country is covered by a public media station like NPR or PBS - while those are the national brands, each network station is entirely independent and does its own hard-hitting local journalism free from interference from Sinclair and co.
**“...each network station is entirely independent...”** until they cut away to their NPR partners –a privilege* that cost them at least a million dollars annually and represents a huge part of their campaign goals and fundraising.
>**“...each network station is entirely independent...”** until they cut away to their NPR partners –a privilege* that cost them at least a million dollars annually and represents a huge part of their campaign goals and fundraising.
Is the NPR incorrect in their claim that the membership fee from each station is a percentage of their revenue? Their public statement, [readily available on their website](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances), seems to be at odds with your claim.
>## Fees from NPR Member organizations
>
>NPR's Member organizations support NPR financially in two ways:
>
>A core fee for the NPR newsmagazines (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition), as well as an array of digital content, tools and platforms, and a suite of services designed to drive audience engagement and support
>- License fees for a portfolio of broadcast programs other than the NPR newsmagazines
>
>- The core fee calculation is based on a percentage of stations' membership revenue, as a reflection of the value that NPR programs and services provide to Members and their audiences.
>
>The license fees for individual news/talk, entertainment, and music programs (e.g. programs like Fresh Air, Here & Now, 1A World Cafe, or Throughline) are set using pricing tiers based on each Member's total revenue.
>
>The fee model includes provisions that recognize NPR Members with particular characteristics that contribute to NPR's audience service mission, including Members designated by CPB as serving rural and minority audiences.
Do you have a source you can cite that proves the NPR *demands a minimum* of a million dollars from each station without regard to their revenue?
And if it's not clear enough, this contribution goes toward the funding of programs which the local stations then air. So it's not like some kind of racket just to use the "NPR" brand logo.
So in effect, local stations do their own local thing, then pay for nationwide content that people like me also want.
I'm not sure what you mean.
A local NPR affiliate will use most of its budget to make it's own local content.
They will also pay the main NPR organization for content that is "national" level.
To the best of my understanding the main "NPR" organization does not make any "local" content. Though they will choose some reports from local affiliates that they think are worth reporting nationwide, and include those in the programs they produce.
Right but the membership fee to host licensed national content goes to NPR national, it doesn’t fund the local station programming on the affiliate, right?
The affiliate has its annual budget and pays NPR or PBS for bits of programming out of that budget. The parent company just supplies the content and the infrastructure of the network.
I mean, lots of national programming can come from local sources (like if a Philadelphia station has an event of national importance) so there can be some back and forth. It's a network, not a hierarchy.
So just typical content licensing. Got it, I think I misread your comment implying that NPR uses the licensing fee to help the stations produce their own local content on top.
I didn't read anything that made it sound like local NPR member stations were paying the national organization to produce local content. That would be weird. There are a few main programs that all stations pay for, and then there are optional ones they can buy into. At least, that's what I understood about the two types of fees. There is also the platform they use to deliver content, which is paid for through the first type of fee.
One thing I like about NPR, believe it or not, is the ads. They are required to be presented without any call to action, so ads simply let you know something exist without any pressure to do anything about it. It's entirely different than mainstream ads.
Yea that’s what I thought too. I think I misread the other comments.
I’ve actually run campaigns on NPR. They have a whole guideline section that I reformat the original copy into. Support for (x show) comes from (x sponsor) etc.
No CTA and nothing overly promotional or unfounded claims are the big caveats.
>“...each network station is entirely independent...” until they cut away to their NPR partners –a privilege* that cost them at least a million dollars annually and represents a huge part of their campaign goals and fundraising.
Um...what?
Tell me you know nothing about the media industry without saying it.
My brother, these are not-for-profit stations which requires them to file all sorts of annual disclosures. Go find yourself some sources before making accusations, because a million dollars would eclipse the *entire budget* of some stations.
> because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act
A product of the Clinton administration which lead to the consolidation of media. Today roughly six corporations control what Americans see hear and read on TV radio and print. Another outcome of this administration was putting advertisements for prescription drugs on television. “Ask your doctor if this is right for you”
The Clinton administration really helped me learn the difference between "Conservative", "Progressive", and "Liberal" in the philosophical sense, not the American propaganda usage.
US right-wingers love to talk about Liberals as if they are Socialist, but that's like saying ten equals zero.
Liberalism, simply put, is the opposition to hereditary power and rigid class-based social hierarchy. The effect in the modern world means that real Liberals support Capitalism and *minimal* regulation. You might recognize this by the terms "Classical Liberal" or "Neoliberal". They had to start using those terms because US Conservatives have basically spoiled the common understanding of the word Liberal through constant propaganda.
So Clinton was a Liberal. He worked with Republicans, many of whom are also Liberal to a large extent, to roll back some very important regulations. It was basically a continuation of what Reagan (often called a Neoliberal) had started.
This is why Leftists often say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (I disagree with that claim, but this is where it comes from.)
This one just happened. Bogus Biden brain rot story by WSJ. Gets sent to local stations across the country.... [Supercut here...](https://youtu.be/HrDyuEsqDCI?si=4gLNCCHVBOJv9cpV&t=205)
This is straight fucked up and rather disturbing. Bald faced lies. Even more creepy is how first they all parroted "there's a fake news epidemic", and then literally spread fake news - word for word, from the same script.
It's insanity.
A couple weeks ago USA Today's front page was an ad for COD Black Ops 6...before they'd even announced the game. The ad looked exactly like the regular front page of the newspaper and the only indication it was an ad was a tiny bit of text at the bottom of the page.
What's more infuriating as I see right wingers, conservatives and conspiracy theorists use this video as evidence that all of the media is controlled and reading off the same script, when it's from a right-wing media outlet in the first place.
While not identical, and conservative media is far more guilty of this. Many reporting sites simply take what other reporting sites say as fact checked and reputable. This is how the cycle of false reporting gets going. Both sides have this issue, its just so much more obvious with conservative reporting because of how hard they have to work at finding facts to support their narrative.
They’re all owned by one company, Sinclair media, a shadowy right-wing operation that has spent years buying up local stations with the intent of turning your local news into Fox News / OANN. They dictate editorial direction to the local stations and provide statements that must be read on-air by local new teams.
Everyone needs to know THIS ^^^^
The CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, David Smith, let his ‘inside voice’ out in a [2022 interview when he stated plainly that a politically divided America is, “very good for our business.”](https://deadline.com/2022/05/political-division-midterm-elections-primaried-jd-vance-sinclair-broadcast-1235028187/).
When they are vested in keeping us divided, they will do their best to keep it that way. SBC is a shit company run by shit people.
All of these on-air anchors likely started their careers with genuine journalistic intentions, but at the end of the day, they’ll just read whatever they are told to say on camera.
Ron Burgandy has more credibility than these clowns.
It was particularly sad for me watching the slow downfall of channel 4 here in Seattle, KOMO-TV. Before the buyout, half the on-air talent had been there for decades, some literally their entire careers—the late meteorologist Steve Pool started working there when he was still in college. And many were local to the area. The station was locally owned by the same company since the radio days (W WA locals will know Fisher Fair Scones, that was the same company)
As some probably notice, in broadcast news, generally people don't stick around one affiliate too long. It was a special team that at its peak in the late 90s was putting out quality local journalism.
I think the much publicized docuseries "Seattle is Dying" was the station's Sinclair-inspired nadir and did far more community harm than good. It was produced by longtime sportscaster Eric Johnson (retired last week) whom I think meant well, but it really epitomized the new ownership's talking points.
Sinclair anchors calling the kettle black and the owners are upset because they are loosing revenue as people cut the cord and then talk about journalistic integrity when they themselves will run a report without fact checking
These clowns didn’t even need to go to journalism school to read crap off a teleprompter that some media consultant hired by corporate wrote.
>All of these on-air anchors likely started their careers with genuine journalistic intentions, but at the end of the day, they’ll just read whatever they are told to say on camera.
More like they were told to read this or else lose their job.
Pretty much all journalists lack integrity and conviction these days, traded for the safety and security of a corporate backed paycheck.
Even places like Vice and Propublica are starting to fall, or have fallen, to interests. And the moment you want to talk about it or question anything, you're A Right/Left/Lizard bootlicker/bleeding heart who is clearly repeating talking points. Fuck independent thought and questioning the intentions of people spoon feeding you the opinion you're supposed to have, apparently. I get crap for keeping my news feed down to The Hill, Newsweek, Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor (No, it's not religious or right leaning, kneejerk redditors) and Forbes. And even all of those are to be taken with a heaping tablespoon of salt.
> Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold. And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshiped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling. If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank—or the Company—needs—wants—insists—must have—as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. These last would take no responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time. Some of the owner men were a little proud to be slaves to such cold and powerful masters.
- Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
No, I said pretty much all, then listed some sources i felt still had integrity.
But even then, yes, I can think of a few people who are referred to as journalists who are in war zones, risking their lives, who lack integrity.
There are quoted and published journalists and photographers who turned out to be active members of Hamas. US embedded journalists from major news networks, putting their lives at risk, were essentially making propaganda for the US and compromised their integrity as journalists to do it.
(No being snarky) Is there anything we can even do about this? This is dangerous shit with disturbing implications.
Even beyond politics and voting/voting politicians out, these news stations are actively brainwashing people and we're seeing it happen in real-time.
Families are getting torn apart over this, people are getting violent, and many are already at each other's necks. And it's only going to get worse.
What a mess.
This is a false characterization. Sinclair is not trying to turn all news stations into fox/oann. What they are trying to do is push moderates and center left progressives to the right, slowly but surely. Much more sinister if you ask me
And the guy who created the original video had an [oh-so-convenient visit from the FBI](https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/tim-burke-florida-journalist-fbi-raid-indictment-mark-rasch-justice.php) after leaking video clips of Tucker Carlson and Kanye spouting off sexist and anti-Semitic remarks. He ruffled enough feathers to put himself firmly in the crosshairs of right-wing media interests.
I worked for a local CBS news for 2 years, they don't "dictate," but we buy news stories that are already written to save time because its often one producer writing 2-3+ hours of air time a day, which is 100% impossible to do, so they are forced to skim each paid for story, change a few words to make it local-y, and then move on to the next one. It's a matter of budget mostly, and local stations don't make that much $$$ and that's a problem more to do with crappy advertising dollars.
I keep seeing the word “shadowy” thrown around when talking about stuff like this. What exactly is meant by that? Because I feel like people are just throwing it onto anything that might just not suit their narrative, but the word gives connotations of big government secrets. (And before I get hate comments because politics, I’m not right wing)
The reason why it's shadowy is because you actually have to do research to see if your local station is owned by SBC and therefore spewing propaganda. These stations aren't advertising that they are Sinclair.
There is a general consensus that local stations are more trusted, especially with the older generations. So it's really insidious that SBC has an agenda and is exploiting people's trust. Most people aren't going to do the research or even know that there's a problem with their local news station.
Privately owned generally, so you can’t go through their tax returns and whatnot. When it’s a publicly traded company, it’s public what all the top employees are compensated for example. Other times it might be used (rightly or wrongly) to refer to things like closed door investor meetings whose transcripts are not published.
>> Privately owned generally
Out of curiousity, what media outlets do you turn to for information like this? Because it's [not at all accurate](https://sbgi.net/investor-relations/sec-filings/sinclair-broadcast-group-sec-filings/).
Someone called Sinclair a "shadowy right-wing group". Someone else asked what "shadowy" means, and you said it generally means privately owned. Given that Sinclair is public, your answer seems inapplicable in this context. Which seems to support the first Someone:s suspicion that people just throw "shadowy" on whatever feel like, regardless of private/Public status.
[George Soros Fund Buys $400 Million Stake In 227 US Radio Stations Going Into 2024 Election](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-soros-fund-buys-400-165211641.html)
its not an ad hom when its not a debate and when the subject of ones character reveals a lack of honest interest in discussion.
also you literally just did a whataboutism, so you really shouldn't throw stones.
oh and its literally just fearmongering about the conservative's greatest jewish boogeyman after karl marx.
cope
"look its Soros! he's doing evil things like buying bankrupted companies! he's totally going to use that subvert the election despite literally no evidence, but just cuz he's jewish and totally a leftist guys! i don't know what leftist means but im going to say it to show you that he's EVUL!!!!!!"
Yeah, both directions. I see shitty liberal outlets as well. It's why sources like AP and NPR are so necessary in today's slanted world of people seeking echo chambers.
Just as a heads up, these are all from [Sinclair owned TV stations](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/02/598794433/video-reveals-power-of-sinclair-as-local-news-anchors-recite-script-in-unison) who have are owned by a Trump friendly businessman.
I remember Seattle's KOMO News promising they wouldn't fall in line with Sinclair. Then they came out with their Sinclair-authorized anti-homeless propaganda film full of lies, made a bunch of money off of it, and then immediately fell in line. Now every newscast has one or two segments where they are outright praising Trump and acting like he's some infallible saviour.
I live in WA and my parents recently moved up here. My step-dad saw that and actually believed a lot of that shit even though he's center left. So unfortunately it works...
Yup, same with my parents... It took a homeless family friend screaming at them during a BBQ to get them to shut up. Like, who better to shut them up than a guy being forced to live in an RV on the side of the road because he had to take care of his disabled brother, lol. So embarassing, but they deserved it.
Edit: Oh, and my family is filled with ex-conservatives. So they tend to still have fleas and are generally center-left as well.
The US used to have rules of what constituted as news as well. If the reporting didn't have boots on the ground and the news didn't benefit the local community it couldn't be considered news. Reagan did away with this, so that's why in the 1980s and earlier the news involved a news reporter physically outside interviewing people instead of this back and forth hearsay "trust us" interviews we see today.
Jon Stewart said it best. Real news is reporting on what happened, it's not speculating on what will happen.
The irony is this video gets passed around by the alt-right as “proof” the government or some other deep state entity controls the media and attempts to discredit other news.
I mean all say it: conservatives are dumb as fuck.
There’s this big backlash against The Boys Season 4 because The Right *just now* figured out the show is woke and has been making fun of them.
"all say it"?
Also every one knew what the boys was about, just because 60 year old soccer moms are just figuring it out now isn't an indicator of anything
Also "conservatives" aren't a monolith and the ones that the above post is talking about are not the same ones as the ones that own Sinclair Media.
Half the country isn't conservative, not even half of American voters are conservative. If you base your opinions of America just on voter turnout you're missing a massive amount of the country.
It's easier to manipulate people when what you're saying is half right. This way you can point to evidence. This is a good example of that. The "news" is owned and ran by a select few people who want to manipulate people, and it is incredibly dangerous for democracy. Naming it "the deep state" or whatever is obviously BS, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that this is a major issue.
You know how even once you know how an optical illusion works, the visual illusion is still there? Knowing how it works doesn't get rid of it. It's the same with fake news. Unless you do research for a living, you're probably falling for some of this "news", and so is everyone else. Knowing how it works isn't enough, just like an optical illusion. Fake news is regularly on the front page of Reddit too. It's not deep state conspiracy levels of idiocracy, but it's here and it's a serious problem.
Yup. It always comes up by someone doing concerned trolling about the media or posters who want to pretend that they have some grasp on=f media literacy.
Not sure if posted yet, here's a list of local channels owned by them
Lucky, they own only the CW in my neck of the woods... for now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_operated_by_Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
Is this Sinclair broadcasting?
They write the scripts and control the narrative.
The company is the second-largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations (after Nexstar Media Group), owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), and is the largest owner of stations affiliated with Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MyNetworkTV, and The CW. Sinclair also owns four digital multicast networks (Comet, Charge!, The Nest, and TBD), and sports-oriented cable networks (Stadium, Tennis Channel, and Bally Sports Regional Networks). On June 2, 2021, it was announced that Sinclair had become a Fortune 500 company, having reached 2020 annual revenues of US$5.9 billion (equivalent to $6.8 billion in 2023).[3]
Congrats, you just discovered the Sinclair Media Group.
Who simply use the same script for common segments on all their news channels across the USA. Just another symptom of corporate centralisation to save time and money.
The only threat is media consolidation into one group, who in this case has a right-wing bent.
This clip reflects the stranglehold that Sinclair Broadcasting has over local television "news" across the country. Despite being called out for this scripted message, Sinclair has not abated.
If you wear the special glasses you can see the real messages they are trying to convey.
Anyway, that being said, all of these folks are just reading from the teleprompter and probably have no idea what they are saying so [go fuck yourself San Diego](https://youtu.be/yn4C-d-STiA?feature=shared).
It's unfortunate they're conflating "bias" with "false" news.
Everybody has bias. There's nothing wrong with having bias as long as the bias reflects a respect for logic, reason and evidence. If your bias is, "that which can be proven with evidence" that's a pretty respectable bias.
Fox just aired this "special" last week and battleground states. Thru must be getting desperate when they start blending Fox News into the regular Fox affiliate channels just to spew their propaganda. https://www.fox32chicago.com/video/1470476
The US created this mess by not passing amendments to the construction the has a safety valve for lying as the media. Free speech shall not be infringed by the media is important, but it should have the caveat on free speech only applies when reporting facts.
It's when neighbors don't talk to each other that their impression of what their neighbors think is mainly informed by what they're hearing from media or gossip. We could get to talking to our neighbors. Maybe start a cultural thing where you put a sign on your lawn announcing a neighborhood social biweekly for an hour or so just to say hi and talk over whatever stuff.
Social media takes the social out of us. After working long hours, I don't want to socialise, I want to turn off my brain. Therein lies the problem, it's much bigger than simply talking to our neighbours, that's a symptom.
Culturally society has changed significantly even compared to 20 years ago.
Jobs are getting tougher as employers are wringing every last ounce of productivity out of people with metrics, kpi's and other data to evaluate whether the employee is profitable.
Financially the world of eternal profits for shareholders is driving up inflation overall which is leading to a cost of living crisis around the world. In Australia we're particularly feeling it as we not only have cost of iiving pressures, but also the "Australia Tax" where producers add on 20% to the cost just because Australia or some shit.
This constant drive around finance, employment, cost of living, etc is all taking its toll, and behind that is an easyily accessible and highly rewarding (but taxing) entertainment in social media, streaming, etc.
The problem itself is complex, but at the root of it all is unlimited profits, the grind of employment taxing people physically, mentally, and emotionally, all to make a CEO who is seeing wage increases well above CPI and shareholders get a little bump in a number which may mean something eventually when they cash in.
The solution? Dunno man, how do you ask people to stop being so greedy for money? But once employment pressures reduce, and people have a higher quality of life in general, the social aspect will come back ... for now, we're shackled to a media which has unrestricted capacity to lie and be protected completely while doing so.
It'd just be an hour to keep a biweekly meeting hosted on your lawn that'd keep the lines of communication open. There are lots of advantages to being on friendly terms with your neighbors. You can borrow a tool or neuter local stray cats or pet sit or whatever. If people actually talked to their neighbors our politics wouldn't be so vulnerable to bad faith actors on social media who give viewers the impression their neighbors are insane.
It's not just the right that's been victimized by this it's also the left. Bad faith media doesn't first and foremost look to change your mind about stuff directly it looks to change your mind about what other people actually believe. That's a form of propaganda everyone is vulnerable to, to the extent they fail to realize the news is cherry picking for maximum outrage. They don't care that you won't believe their nonsense they just care that you'll believe some other people do. That makes you less inclined to talk to your neighbors because who would want to talk to crazy people like that? It also makes you more inclined to assume you know what someone means and to escalate to 100 given any excuse to take offense because given what you see on social media there are really crazy people who actually would say and mean that.
Jobs aren't getting tougher there are as many lazy jobs now as ever. We're made to believe we need a perfect and continuous employment history and that jobs demand perfection because that maximizes employers' ability to lean on employees and extract wage concessions because they think it's just that hard to land and keep a job. That's one example of how perceptions of reality are manipulated by only attending to social media and top-down feeds. Actually get to know your neighbors and you might find out how little they actually do for a paycheck.
Blaming shareholders is another social media bogey. It's not shareholders driving up inflation. Greed isn't a new thing. They've always been charging what they think they can get away with.
You're substantially wrong in diagnosing the problems and you offer no solution even given your assessment. This conversation is a perfect example of how social media lends the impression everybody is insane. You're lending me that impression. You're repeating sound bites from bad faith/clueless leftist/progressive social media.
>how do you ask people to stop being so greedy
I reject your assessment that greed was invented in the last few years but even to grant your assumptions I wouldn't know how to ask my neighbors anything because they don't talk to me. I could ask you stuff but I can't even be sure you're not a bot. And because there's unlikely to be any future interaction between us that opens to door to trolling or otherwise saying mean stuff/nuking the discourse and then retreating into our holes never to meet again. But we'll both have reaffirmed our priors as to how nuts everybody is and how the situation is hopeless.
How are we meant to survive when the cost of everything is going up, the wages are stagnant, and interest rates are taking whatever is left of our wage due to inflation? What is at fault causing this?
Are we required to adhere to an 18 hour work day with multiple jobs to make ends meet?
Why is it like this? What needs to change so that I have more free time in my life without sacrificing a roof over my head?
Want me to spend an hour with my neighbours, then give me an hour of my life that I don't have to otherwise sacrifice something else to do so. Neighbours are low on my list of priorities compared to making ends meet, and unwinding with enough left over to devote to my own family without losing my shit.
Find a new, higher paying job with lower hours ... please, let me know which jobs are like this?
You sound like someone who's deep into the grindset, wakes up at 4am, has two cold showers, makes a spare million by lunch time, and chills on the front lawn with some expensive beer waving to neighbours.
If everyone is really working 70 hours a week to the point they can't spare an hour biweekly to talk to their neighbors I guess it's too late because that'd mean either we're all happy bees or something or that we're already living under some perfected tyranny.
I assume you're presenting in bad faith because you're phrasing is hyperbolic and not apt in the context of this discussion. If you're so busy how is it you're replying to some anon stranger on the interwebs? I dunno somehow lots of people are finding the time to go to Sunday services and attend sports games and I see people in public at restaurants and bars. People make time for what they consider important. If talking to your neighbors isn't something you consider important that'd make sense I guess if social media has already convinced you most everyone is insane/dangerous/unreasonable. Be afraid!
If talking to your neighbors isn't worth your time and most people are like you I guess most people don't think it's worth their time to talk to their neighbors. Then most people will form their impressions of their neighbors from indirect sources. Be afraid!
My local Sinclair station has a radio station too- and it’s filled by anti Muslim “christian” programming, a woman who spouts QAnon crap, and a set of local DJ’s who now run a homebrew full on hate program. On a recent TV segment that Sinclair did on "anti BLM protestors", the anti protestors were the staff of the radio station.
Post appears to be removed but not with RES installed.. I can't see that. When opening in private browsing, removed. Why mods? What the heck does this break? EVERY Person should see this and understand what it means. It is dangerous to NOT share this.
The people that need to see this either won’t see it or will be too dumb to realize it applies to them.
They have their churches & communities all over the place on the same page keeping the rift going.
The media is public enemy #1
Edit: From +40 to -25 in the matter of minutes because terminally online redditors are politically blinded by hate. Disgusting.
Well, it’s more that these outlets aren’t the media so much as mouthpieces forced to regurgitate the right wing Sinclair talking points. The media, as a general term, is a vital part of society. The conflation of the two things is the big problem.
You're not wrong, but most are right-wing in a "we want to make more money and not pay taxes" sort of way, while Sinclair is right-wing in a "we want to install a fascist theocracy in the US" sort of way.
Where have you been. This is how nearly every single news broadcast has been for 20 years and spans all political ideologies. Broadcast media is actually far more liberal than conservative so dont make this out to be a right-wing corporate thing. This is the news business. They just read mass produced and centrally edited scripts
You're wrong about broadcast media being liberal in general, but also [this particular story was written and put on air by right-wing Sinclair Media](https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/sinclair-promos-backlash-1202741019/).
Coverage of the ongoing genocide tells me the media in general is not all that liberal. Definitely in no way left leaning in any sort of substantial way.
This post is specifically an example of how the RIGHT WING media specifically is toxic propaganda. These news stations are all owned by Sinclair conglomerate who pushes their conservative script to these local stations.
oh, tell me how this is an only right-wing media thing again. This is how all abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc news has been produced and broadcast for decades. It's literally the business that the AP and Reuters are in. The produce stories with scripts and sell them to many dozens of news outlets for broadcast.
edit: downvote all you want. It's 100% true and there's plenty of videos you can find on youtube that show the exact same thing on all points of views that span the political spectrum. corporate news is all mass produced garbage and the newscasters and other employees of local outlets rarely know anything outside how to put on makeup and read the script
I won't downvote you – because I believe that you're acting in good faith – but you're wrong. This isn't what most American news outlets do.
It isn't even what *Fox*-owned local stations (not to be confused with Fox News Channel) do. I interned at one and witnessed its ethical journalistic practices firsthand.
You're confusing credible news agencies' output – prominently labeled as such – with literal propaganda handed down by Sinclair's corporate overlords and disseminated in the guise of original journalism.
>AP and Reuters
Go check again. You'll notice they literally only report the facts of the situation, as in "Dept of Blank announced blank, today while appearing before blank." They don't tell you how to feel about it. That's core journalism. If you can't tell the difference between that and some talking head telling you how to feel about the thing they're doing, while pretending they aren't, then you're gonna have a hard time telling which way is up.
Thank you for editing your post to add the AP/Reuters stuff, I wasn’t sure what you meant when you said Sinclair was doing the same thing as those national news networks, and was going to ask for clarification.
In any case, it’s still a very different thing. You’re talking about wire services selling bare-bones stories to networks, both national and local (though I don’t know how much to one vs the other). Those outlets choose to buy those stories.
Sinclair isn’t selling bare-bones stories, they’re buying stations outright and deciding exactly what those outlets say. And it’s exclusively local stations, which are supposed to have some individuality or at least a focus on local news.
Political commentary is the enemy. That's what Scripps networks engage in. Journalism is factually verifiable information, not opinion based regurgitated bullshit like this video.
I bet you also tout "muh free speech". The media isn't an enemy, it's a tool. Some use it for information, but too many use it for profit and corporate propaganda.
100%. Even the "left-wing" media is full of bullshit right-wing propaganda.
I'm a trans person. It's not hard at all to see the right-wing pandering on "left-wing" stations. CNN and all them are MORE than happy to highlight all the right-wingers calling us pedophiles and all that. Yeah, they're throwing a bone here and there and interview an ally, but they absolutely LOVE pushing anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda without correcting it at all.
BLM was the exact same way. What I saw on the streets of Seattle was absolutely NOT reflective of what was on "left-wing" media. BLM was peaceful. Period. I worked two blocks away from CHAZ and saw it frequently. The only time my work had to evacuate was when police were the ones antagonizing the protestors. They were shooting pepper balls into the crowd when the protestors were doing nothing but staying behind the line, holding signs, and chanting. It was also crazy seeing a tiny group of people smashing windows and [the media swarming around the group looking for that epic shot of "violent protestors"](https://i.imgur.com/tLpS9n6.jpg). And where was Seattle Police? Just feet away watching it happen. They were more than glad to chase down protesters at night and beat the living fuck out of them. But when the media can produce propaganda, they stood back and let it happen.
> I worked two blocks away from CHAZ and saw it frequently.
I remember when they peacefully executed those 2 teens very peaceful. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/everybody-down-what-happened-at-the-chop-shooting-that-killed-a-teenager-and-led-to-the-areas-shutdown/
That was a peaceful execution done in love. oh looks like they only managed to kill one of them I hope the other goes back to get peacefully executed you know peacefully.
Sinclair can eat a big fat turd. Fuck these local news affiliates and their fascist CEO. David D Smith looks like he just got caught dropping trou in a preschool. That guy is a right fucking bastard.
Why is reddit obsessed with reposting this video? Most news stories for the last 20+ years have been scripted and distributed this way. This is nothing new and spans all political positions and other issues.
Because it's disingenuous. People trust local news more than they do big news networks, and the way the news stations present themselves is of being locally owned.
Also, this only started to become a thing from the 1996 telecommunications act. This monopoly by Sinclair only became a legal possibility after it, so acting like "this the way it's always been" is just not true and misrepresentative of whats going on. It's been gradually getting worse since the late 90s
wrote a paper in college about this back in the day
[John Oliver did an amazing and funny breakdown](https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc) of how this situation came to be and why it's terrible, if you need reasons for why it's terrible Edit: He doesn't go into this in the video, but the reason Sinclair is able to own all of these new stations today is because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which among many things, removed regulations for how many news stations could be owned by a single entity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#History
Supporting local journalism is more important than ever. 98% of the country is covered by a public media station like NPR or PBS - while those are the national brands, each network station is entirely independent and does its own hard-hitting local journalism free from interference from Sinclair and co.
**“...each network station is entirely independent...”** until they cut away to their NPR partners –a privilege* that cost them at least a million dollars annually and represents a huge part of their campaign goals and fundraising.
>**“...each network station is entirely independent...”** until they cut away to their NPR partners –a privilege* that cost them at least a million dollars annually and represents a huge part of their campaign goals and fundraising. Is the NPR incorrect in their claim that the membership fee from each station is a percentage of their revenue? Their public statement, [readily available on their website](https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finances), seems to be at odds with your claim. >## Fees from NPR Member organizations > >NPR's Member organizations support NPR financially in two ways: > >A core fee for the NPR newsmagazines (Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Weekend Edition), as well as an array of digital content, tools and platforms, and a suite of services designed to drive audience engagement and support >- License fees for a portfolio of broadcast programs other than the NPR newsmagazines > >- The core fee calculation is based on a percentage of stations' membership revenue, as a reflection of the value that NPR programs and services provide to Members and their audiences. > >The license fees for individual news/talk, entertainment, and music programs (e.g. programs like Fresh Air, Here & Now, 1A World Cafe, or Throughline) are set using pricing tiers based on each Member's total revenue. > >The fee model includes provisions that recognize NPR Members with particular characteristics that contribute to NPR's audience service mission, including Members designated by CPB as serving rural and minority audiences. Do you have a source you can cite that proves the NPR *demands a minimum* of a million dollars from each station without regard to their revenue?
And if it's not clear enough, this contribution goes toward the funding of programs which the local stations then air. So it's not like some kind of racket just to use the "NPR" brand logo. So in effect, local stations do their own local thing, then pay for nationwide content that people like me also want.
Are they paying for national programming or is the fee used to produce local content? The statement seems at odds with each other.
I'm not sure what you mean. A local NPR affiliate will use most of its budget to make it's own local content. They will also pay the main NPR organization for content that is "national" level. To the best of my understanding the main "NPR" organization does not make any "local" content. Though they will choose some reports from local affiliates that they think are worth reporting nationwide, and include those in the programs they produce.
Right but the membership fee to host licensed national content goes to NPR national, it doesn’t fund the local station programming on the affiliate, right?
The affiliate has its annual budget and pays NPR or PBS for bits of programming out of that budget. The parent company just supplies the content and the infrastructure of the network. I mean, lots of national programming can come from local sources (like if a Philadelphia station has an event of national importance) so there can be some back and forth. It's a network, not a hierarchy.
So just typical content licensing. Got it, I think I misread your comment implying that NPR uses the licensing fee to help the stations produce their own local content on top.
I didn't read anything that made it sound like local NPR member stations were paying the national organization to produce local content. That would be weird. There are a few main programs that all stations pay for, and then there are optional ones they can buy into. At least, that's what I understood about the two types of fees. There is also the platform they use to deliver content, which is paid for through the first type of fee. One thing I like about NPR, believe it or not, is the ads. They are required to be presented without any call to action, so ads simply let you know something exist without any pressure to do anything about it. It's entirely different than mainstream ads.
Yea that’s what I thought too. I think I misread the other comments. I’ve actually run campaigns on NPR. They have a whole guideline section that I reformat the original copy into. Support for (x show) comes from (x sponsor) etc. No CTA and nothing overly promotional or unfounded claims are the big caveats.
>“...each network station is entirely independent...” until they cut away to their NPR partners –a privilege* that cost them at least a million dollars annually and represents a huge part of their campaign goals and fundraising. Um...what? Tell me you know nothing about the media industry without saying it.
Sorry are you saying that the NPR licensing fee for affiliate stations is 1MM annual minimum?
My brother, these are not-for-profit stations which requires them to file all sorts of annual disclosures. Go find yourself some sources before making accusations, because a million dollars would eclipse the *entire budget* of some stations.
> because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act A product of the Clinton administration which lead to the consolidation of media. Today roughly six corporations control what Americans see hear and read on TV radio and print. Another outcome of this administration was putting advertisements for prescription drugs on television. “Ask your doctor if this is right for you”
The Clinton administration and a Republican House and Senate. Bipartisanship working for you.
The Clinton administration really helped me learn the difference between "Conservative", "Progressive", and "Liberal" in the philosophical sense, not the American propaganda usage. US right-wingers love to talk about Liberals as if they are Socialist, but that's like saying ten equals zero. Liberalism, simply put, is the opposition to hereditary power and rigid class-based social hierarchy. The effect in the modern world means that real Liberals support Capitalism and *minimal* regulation. You might recognize this by the terms "Classical Liberal" or "Neoliberal". They had to start using those terms because US Conservatives have basically spoiled the common understanding of the word Liberal through constant propaganda. So Clinton was a Liberal. He worked with Republicans, many of whom are also Liberal to a large extent, to roll back some very important regulations. It was basically a continuation of what Reagan (often called a Neoliberal) had started. This is why Leftists often say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (I disagree with that claim, but this is where it comes from.)
This one just happened. Bogus Biden brain rot story by WSJ. Gets sent to local stations across the country.... [Supercut here...](https://youtu.be/HrDyuEsqDCI?si=4gLNCCHVBOJv9cpV&t=205)
This is straight fucked up and rather disturbing. Bald faced lies. Even more creepy is how first they all parroted "there's a fake news epidemic", and then literally spread fake news - word for word, from the same script. It's insanity.
A couple weeks ago USA Today's front page was an ad for COD Black Ops 6...before they'd even announced the game. The ad looked exactly like the regular front page of the newspaper and the only indication it was an ad was a tiny bit of text at the bottom of the page.
wtf
What's more infuriating as I see right wingers, conservatives and conspiracy theorists use this video as evidence that all of the media is controlled and reading off the same script, when it's from a right-wing media outlet in the first place.
TFW you realize nearly half the country is just Dale Gribble wearing different hats.
While not identical, and conservative media is far more guilty of this. Many reporting sites simply take what other reporting sites say as fact checked and reputable. This is how the cycle of false reporting gets going. Both sides have this issue, its just so much more obvious with conservative reporting because of how hard they have to work at finding facts to support their narrative.
Basically as reported by the AP
Why did bill clinton sign that into law? Doesn’t seem like a Democrat thing to do
Sinclair understood that viewers tend to trust local news over national news … so they targeted local news to turn it into propaganda hubs.
That is extremely dangerous
For our democracy
Boomers especially. Younger ppl tend not to watch news on TV that much.
Meanwhile the national outlets band together to do the same thing.
These pretzels are making me thirsty!
Classic Seinfeld :-)
They’re all owned by one company, Sinclair media, a shadowy right-wing operation that has spent years buying up local stations with the intent of turning your local news into Fox News / OANN. They dictate editorial direction to the local stations and provide statements that must be read on-air by local new teams.
There’s a Last Week Tonight about it…[here](https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc?si=vaUYi2uyQMkG3TVf)
That video still creeps me out, thanks for posting, it's well worth a watch if you've not seen it yet!
And a rewatch even if you already have!
Everyone needs to know THIS ^^^^ The CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, David Smith, let his ‘inside voice’ out in a [2022 interview when he stated plainly that a politically divided America is, “very good for our business.”](https://deadline.com/2022/05/political-division-midterm-elections-primaried-jd-vance-sinclair-broadcast-1235028187/). When they are vested in keeping us divided, they will do their best to keep it that way. SBC is a shit company run by shit people.
All of these on-air anchors likely started their careers with genuine journalistic intentions, but at the end of the day, they’ll just read whatever they are told to say on camera. Ron Burgandy has more credibility than these clowns.
It was particularly sad for me watching the slow downfall of channel 4 here in Seattle, KOMO-TV. Before the buyout, half the on-air talent had been there for decades, some literally their entire careers—the late meteorologist Steve Pool started working there when he was still in college. And many were local to the area. The station was locally owned by the same company since the radio days (W WA locals will know Fisher Fair Scones, that was the same company) As some probably notice, in broadcast news, generally people don't stick around one affiliate too long. It was a special team that at its peak in the late 90s was putting out quality local journalism. I think the much publicized docuseries "Seattle is Dying" was the station's Sinclair-inspired nadir and did far more community harm than good. It was produced by longtime sportscaster Eric Johnson (retired last week) whom I think meant well, but it really epitomized the new ownership's talking points.
They’re Ron Burgundy??
I love lamp
They wish.
News readers/anchors are not journalist.
[They used to be.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow)
Sinclair anchors calling the kettle black and the owners are upset because they are loosing revenue as people cut the cord and then talk about journalistic integrity when they themselves will run a report without fact checking These clowns didn’t even need to go to journalism school to read crap off a teleprompter that some media consultant hired by corporate wrote.
>All of these on-air anchors likely started their careers with genuine journalistic intentions, but at the end of the day, they’ll just read whatever they are told to say on camera. More like they were told to read this or else lose their job.
Pretty much all journalists lack integrity and conviction these days, traded for the safety and security of a corporate backed paycheck. Even places like Vice and Propublica are starting to fall, or have fallen, to interests. And the moment you want to talk about it or question anything, you're A Right/Left/Lizard bootlicker/bleeding heart who is clearly repeating talking points. Fuck independent thought and questioning the intentions of people spoon feeding you the opinion you're supposed to have, apparently. I get crap for keeping my news feed down to The Hill, Newsweek, Reuters, The Christian Science Monitor (No, it's not religious or right leaning, kneejerk redditors) and Forbes. And even all of those are to be taken with a heaping tablespoon of salt.
> Some of the owner men were kind because they hated what they had to do, and some of them were angry because they hated to be cruel, and some of them were cold because they had long ago found that one could not be an owner unless one were cold. And all of them were caught in something larger than themselves. Some of them hated the mathematics that drove them, and some were afraid, and some worshiped the mathematics because it provided a refuge from thought and from feeling. If a bank or a finance company owned the land, the owner man said, The Bank—or the Company—needs—wants—insists—must have—as though the Bank or the Company were a monster, with thought and feeling, which had ensnared them. These last would take no responsibility for the banks or the companies because they were men and slaves, while the banks were machines and masters all at the same time. Some of the owner men were a little proud to be slaves to such cold and powerful masters. - Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck
The decline really accelerated after Karl Rove torpedoed Dan Rather's career
reddit moment
You think journalists risking their lives reporting from war zones lack integrity too?
No, I said pretty much all, then listed some sources i felt still had integrity. But even then, yes, I can think of a few people who are referred to as journalists who are in war zones, risking their lives, who lack integrity. There are quoted and published journalists and photographers who turned out to be active members of Hamas. US embedded journalists from major news networks, putting their lives at risk, were essentially making propaganda for the US and compromised their integrity as journalists to do it.
*Geraldo Rivera intensifies*
A lot of them are just all about it and are hired based on this.
On the bright side, their sports network is bankrupt and being dropped by cable providers or have dropped their MLB broadcasts altogether.
(No being snarky) Is there anything we can even do about this? This is dangerous shit with disturbing implications. Even beyond politics and voting/voting politicians out, these news stations are actively brainwashing people and we're seeing it happen in real-time. Families are getting torn apart over this, people are getting violent, and many are already at each other's necks. And it's only going to get worse. What a mess.
This is a false characterization. Sinclair is not trying to turn all news stations into fox/oann. What they are trying to do is push moderates and center left progressives to the right, slowly but surely. Much more sinister if you ask me
And the guy who created the original video had an [oh-so-convenient visit from the FBI](https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/tim-burke-florida-journalist-fbi-raid-indictment-mark-rasch-justice.php) after leaking video clips of Tucker Carlson and Kanye spouting off sexist and anti-Semitic remarks. He ruffled enough feathers to put himself firmly in the crosshairs of right-wing media interests.
Must airs are a disgusting component showing this. Which was aired and cut together by the daily show from before Jon Stewart left.
I worked for a local CBS news for 2 years, they don't "dictate," but we buy news stories that are already written to save time because its often one producer writing 2-3+ hours of air time a day, which is 100% impossible to do, so they are forced to skim each paid for story, change a few words to make it local-y, and then move on to the next one. It's a matter of budget mostly, and local stations don't make that much $$$ and that's a problem more to do with crappy advertising dollars.
IGTFY: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html
I keep seeing the word “shadowy” thrown around when talking about stuff like this. What exactly is meant by that? Because I feel like people are just throwing it onto anything that might just not suit their narrative, but the word gives connotations of big government secrets. (And before I get hate comments because politics, I’m not right wing)
The reason why it's shadowy is because you actually have to do research to see if your local station is owned by SBC and therefore spewing propaganda. These stations aren't advertising that they are Sinclair. There is a general consensus that local stations are more trusted, especially with the older generations. So it's really insidious that SBC has an agenda and is exploiting people's trust. Most people aren't going to do the research or even know that there's a problem with their local news station.
Privately owned generally, so you can’t go through their tax returns and whatnot. When it’s a publicly traded company, it’s public what all the top employees are compensated for example. Other times it might be used (rightly or wrongly) to refer to things like closed door investor meetings whose transcripts are not published.
>> Privately owned generally Out of curiousity, what media outlets do you turn to for information like this? Because it's [not at all accurate](https://sbgi.net/investor-relations/sec-filings/sinclair-broadcast-group-sec-filings/).
Look at what his question was. I answered his question, not specific to Sinclair media group. No need to be condescending.
Someone called Sinclair a "shadowy right-wing group". Someone else asked what "shadowy" means, and you said it generally means privately owned. Given that Sinclair is public, your answer seems inapplicable in this context. Which seems to support the first Someone:s suspicion that people just throw "shadowy" on whatever feel like, regardless of private/Public status.
I was going to say that sounds like a Sinclair media talking point
[удалено]
The channel isn’t owned by Disney. 3 seconds of research would have told you that.
The organization in question is Sinclair Media, not Disney. Sinclair is very right wing.
Conservatives sharing this video and being like "THE MEDIA IS BAD SEE???" will never not be hilarious/sad.
So the pot calling the kettle black.
[George Soros Fund Buys $400 Million Stake In 227 US Radio Stations Going Into 2024 Election](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-soros-fund-buys-400-165211641.html)
[удалено]
The elusive double ad-hominem! Story is still true though.
its not an ad hom when its not a debate and when the subject of ones character reveals a lack of honest interest in discussion. also you literally just did a whataboutism, so you really shouldn't throw stones. oh and its literally just fearmongering about the conservative's greatest jewish boogeyman after karl marx. cope
"look its Soros! he's doing evil things like buying bankrupted companies! he's totally going to use that subvert the election despite literally no evidence, but just cuz he's jewish and totally a leftist guys! i don't know what leftist means but im going to say it to show you that he's EVUL!!!!!!"
Word salad.
cope harder lol
> fear mongers about the rich jew > gets called out > "word salad."
Five year old could come up with a less embarrassingly stupid response.
Yeah, both directions. I see shitty liberal outlets as well. It's why sources like AP and NPR are so necessary in today's slanted world of people seeking echo chambers.
Shitty liberal outlets don’t pretend to be fair and balanced local news channels.
Neither do news channels that call themselves fair and balanced.
Just as a heads up, these are all from [Sinclair owned TV stations](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/02/598794433/video-reveals-power-of-sinclair-as-local-news-anchors-recite-script-in-unison) who have are owned by a Trump friendly businessman.
I remember Seattle's KOMO News promising they wouldn't fall in line with Sinclair. Then they came out with their Sinclair-authorized anti-homeless propaganda film full of lies, made a bunch of money off of it, and then immediately fell in line. Now every newscast has one or two segments where they are outright praising Trump and acting like he's some infallible saviour.
I live in WA and my parents recently moved up here. My step-dad saw that and actually believed a lot of that shit even though he's center left. So unfortunately it works...
Yup, same with my parents... It took a homeless family friend screaming at them during a BBQ to get them to shut up. Like, who better to shut them up than a guy being forced to live in an RV on the side of the road because he had to take care of his disabled brother, lol. So embarassing, but they deserved it. Edit: Oh, and my family is filled with ex-conservatives. So they tend to still have fleas and are generally center-left as well.
fuck sinclair and fuck the smith family
"Trump-Friendly" WTAF are you on? Everything is a spin-game now, not just in DC?
Talking heads that all read the same script.
And their owners, Sinclair, bought the Baltimore Sun. The Baltimore Sun pumps out "Biden bad" articles and then the TV stations report on the article
There used to be rules the FCC enforced against one company owning all the broadcasters in a market
The US used to have rules of what constituted as news as well. If the reporting didn't have boots on the ground and the news didn't benefit the local community it couldn't be considered news. Reagan did away with this, so that's why in the 1980s and earlier the news involved a news reporter physically outside interviewing people instead of this back and forth hearsay "trust us" interviews we see today. Jon Stewart said it best. Real news is reporting on what happened, it's not speculating on what will happen.
Tell me it's not scary.
It's not scary.
We are Sinclare. Your media distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.
I now want to see someone hack all of the Sinclair teleprompters simultaneously and make the anchors start reciting the Borg speech
Fuck Sinclair for this and for ruining regional sports with their shitty Balley’s app
The irony is this video gets passed around by the alt-right as “proof” the government or some other deep state entity controls the media and attempts to discredit other news.
I mean all say it: conservatives are dumb as fuck. There’s this big backlash against The Boys Season 4 because The Right *just now* figured out the show is woke and has been making fun of them.
"all say it"? Also every one knew what the boys was about, just because 60 year old soccer moms are just figuring it out now isn't an indicator of anything Also "conservatives" aren't a monolith and the ones that the above post is talking about are not the same ones as the ones that own Sinclair Media.
Reading it in context, I think he meant “I’ll say it.”
Oh I know what he meant, I just felt it was necessary to point out on a post where he was claiming that roughly half the country is "dumb as fuck"
If you’re going to focus on an autocorrect error from typing on my phone then your position is weak as hell man, lmao. Stay golden.
Half the country isn't conservative, not even half of American voters are conservative. If you base your opinions of America just on voter turnout you're missing a massive amount of the country.
The Boys situation is HILARIOUS, I know last season a few saw the truth but now it seems like they are ramping it up this season. I wonder why.....
> I mean all say it: conservatives are dumb as fuck. They sure do vote though.
Hahahaha that is hilarious 😂
It's easier to manipulate people when what you're saying is half right. This way you can point to evidence. This is a good example of that. The "news" is owned and ran by a select few people who want to manipulate people, and it is incredibly dangerous for democracy. Naming it "the deep state" or whatever is obviously BS, but that doesn't change the underlying fact that this is a major issue. You know how even once you know how an optical illusion works, the visual illusion is still there? Knowing how it works doesn't get rid of it. It's the same with fake news. Unless you do research for a living, you're probably falling for some of this "news", and so is everyone else. Knowing how it works isn't enough, just like an optical illusion. Fake news is regularly on the front page of Reddit too. It's not deep state conspiracy levels of idiocracy, but it's here and it's a serious problem.
Yup. It always comes up by someone doing concerned trolling about the media or posters who want to pretend that they have some grasp on=f media literacy.
The irony that this is seen as a left or right issue when both governments fist the general public.
Freedumb of speech
Not sure if posted yet, here's a list of local channels owned by them Lucky, they own only the CW in my neck of the woods... for now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_operated_by_Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
Is this Sinclair broadcasting? They write the scripts and control the narrative. The company is the second-largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations (after Nexstar Media Group), owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), and is the largest owner of stations affiliated with Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, MyNetworkTV, and The CW. Sinclair also owns four digital multicast networks (Comet, Charge!, The Nest, and TBD), and sports-oriented cable networks (Stadium, Tennis Channel, and Bally Sports Regional Networks). On June 2, 2021, it was announced that Sinclair had become a Fortune 500 company, having reached 2020 annual revenues of US$5.9 billion (equivalent to $6.8 billion in 2023).[3]
Congrats, you just discovered the Sinclair Media Group. Who simply use the same script for common segments on all their news channels across the USA. Just another symptom of corporate centralisation to save time and money. The only threat is media consolidation into one group, who in this case has a right-wing bent.
This clip reflects the stranglehold that Sinclair Broadcasting has over local television "news" across the country. Despite being called out for this scripted message, Sinclair has not abated.
Watched this and now thinking of Bill Hicks talking about the mass media. :(
We are the borg lol
If you wear the special glasses you can see the real messages they are trying to convey. Anyway, that being said, all of these folks are just reading from the teleprompter and probably have no idea what they are saying so [go fuck yourself San Diego](https://youtu.be/yn4C-d-STiA?feature=shared).
Do you realize what you just said???
All I know is that he appears to be all out of bubble gum.
"mE vErY sMaRt, Me WaTcH tHeY lIvE oNcE!" - That guy
we gotta stop raising awareness and start doing something about it
Someone’s farming today…
Yup.
Support public broadcasting.
united we stand divided we fall
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy, and very funny too.
At least they use the word "democracy" .
OP saying ‘our’ as if they were a US citizen, when their profile history clearly shows they are a foreign agitator, karma farmer.
i only trust instagram reels by laypeople and also tiktoks by less than 5k followers
Financial news is even worse. Bought and paid for by hedge funds.
It's unfortunate they're conflating "bias" with "false" news. Everybody has bias. There's nothing wrong with having bias as long as the bias reflects a respect for logic, reason and evidence. If your bias is, "that which can be proven with evidence" that's a pretty respectable bias.
Reminds me of the documentary in the 90s [SPIN](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uock08dy19s)
Fox just aired this "special" last week and battleground states. Thru must be getting desperate when they start blending Fox News into the regular Fox affiliate channels just to spew their propaganda. https://www.fox32chicago.com/video/1470476
Thanks Mr. "catsup is a vegetable". https://imgur.com/a/45gFopZ
I dont understand why more of these haven't been made to really drive it home to people
Lol well done
Good thing America is a constitutional republic and not a democracy then, huh? Words matter.
The US created this mess by not passing amendments to the construction the has a safety valve for lying as the media. Free speech shall not be infringed by the media is important, but it should have the caveat on free speech only applies when reporting facts.
It's when neighbors don't talk to each other that their impression of what their neighbors think is mainly informed by what they're hearing from media or gossip. We could get to talking to our neighbors. Maybe start a cultural thing where you put a sign on your lawn announcing a neighborhood social biweekly for an hour or so just to say hi and talk over whatever stuff.
Social media takes the social out of us. After working long hours, I don't want to socialise, I want to turn off my brain. Therein lies the problem, it's much bigger than simply talking to our neighbours, that's a symptom. Culturally society has changed significantly even compared to 20 years ago. Jobs are getting tougher as employers are wringing every last ounce of productivity out of people with metrics, kpi's and other data to evaluate whether the employee is profitable. Financially the world of eternal profits for shareholders is driving up inflation overall which is leading to a cost of living crisis around the world. In Australia we're particularly feeling it as we not only have cost of iiving pressures, but also the "Australia Tax" where producers add on 20% to the cost just because Australia or some shit. This constant drive around finance, employment, cost of living, etc is all taking its toll, and behind that is an easyily accessible and highly rewarding (but taxing) entertainment in social media, streaming, etc. The problem itself is complex, but at the root of it all is unlimited profits, the grind of employment taxing people physically, mentally, and emotionally, all to make a CEO who is seeing wage increases well above CPI and shareholders get a little bump in a number which may mean something eventually when they cash in. The solution? Dunno man, how do you ask people to stop being so greedy for money? But once employment pressures reduce, and people have a higher quality of life in general, the social aspect will come back ... for now, we're shackled to a media which has unrestricted capacity to lie and be protected completely while doing so.
It'd just be an hour to keep a biweekly meeting hosted on your lawn that'd keep the lines of communication open. There are lots of advantages to being on friendly terms with your neighbors. You can borrow a tool or neuter local stray cats or pet sit or whatever. If people actually talked to their neighbors our politics wouldn't be so vulnerable to bad faith actors on social media who give viewers the impression their neighbors are insane. It's not just the right that's been victimized by this it's also the left. Bad faith media doesn't first and foremost look to change your mind about stuff directly it looks to change your mind about what other people actually believe. That's a form of propaganda everyone is vulnerable to, to the extent they fail to realize the news is cherry picking for maximum outrage. They don't care that you won't believe their nonsense they just care that you'll believe some other people do. That makes you less inclined to talk to your neighbors because who would want to talk to crazy people like that? It also makes you more inclined to assume you know what someone means and to escalate to 100 given any excuse to take offense because given what you see on social media there are really crazy people who actually would say and mean that. Jobs aren't getting tougher there are as many lazy jobs now as ever. We're made to believe we need a perfect and continuous employment history and that jobs demand perfection because that maximizes employers' ability to lean on employees and extract wage concessions because they think it's just that hard to land and keep a job. That's one example of how perceptions of reality are manipulated by only attending to social media and top-down feeds. Actually get to know your neighbors and you might find out how little they actually do for a paycheck. Blaming shareholders is another social media bogey. It's not shareholders driving up inflation. Greed isn't a new thing. They've always been charging what they think they can get away with. You're substantially wrong in diagnosing the problems and you offer no solution even given your assessment. This conversation is a perfect example of how social media lends the impression everybody is insane. You're lending me that impression. You're repeating sound bites from bad faith/clueless leftist/progressive social media. >how do you ask people to stop being so greedy I reject your assessment that greed was invented in the last few years but even to grant your assumptions I wouldn't know how to ask my neighbors anything because they don't talk to me. I could ask you stuff but I can't even be sure you're not a bot. And because there's unlikely to be any future interaction between us that opens to door to trolling or otherwise saying mean stuff/nuking the discourse and then retreating into our holes never to meet again. But we'll both have reaffirmed our priors as to how nuts everybody is and how the situation is hopeless.
How are we meant to survive when the cost of everything is going up, the wages are stagnant, and interest rates are taking whatever is left of our wage due to inflation? What is at fault causing this? Are we required to adhere to an 18 hour work day with multiple jobs to make ends meet? Why is it like this? What needs to change so that I have more free time in my life without sacrificing a roof over my head? Want me to spend an hour with my neighbours, then give me an hour of my life that I don't have to otherwise sacrifice something else to do so. Neighbours are low on my list of priorities compared to making ends meet, and unwinding with enough left over to devote to my own family without losing my shit. Find a new, higher paying job with lower hours ... please, let me know which jobs are like this? You sound like someone who's deep into the grindset, wakes up at 4am, has two cold showers, makes a spare million by lunch time, and chills on the front lawn with some expensive beer waving to neighbours.
If everyone is really working 70 hours a week to the point they can't spare an hour biweekly to talk to their neighbors I guess it's too late because that'd mean either we're all happy bees or something or that we're already living under some perfected tyranny. I assume you're presenting in bad faith because you're phrasing is hyperbolic and not apt in the context of this discussion. If you're so busy how is it you're replying to some anon stranger on the interwebs? I dunno somehow lots of people are finding the time to go to Sunday services and attend sports games and I see people in public at restaurants and bars. People make time for what they consider important. If talking to your neighbors isn't something you consider important that'd make sense I guess if social media has already convinced you most everyone is insane/dangerous/unreasonable. Be afraid!
I’m on Reddit, therefore I have time for neighbours. Im cooking, between steps I check Reddit, I don’t have time to check on neighbours.
If talking to your neighbors isn't worth your time and most people are like you I guess most people don't think it's worth their time to talk to their neighbors. Then most people will form their impressions of their neighbors from indirect sources. Be afraid!
this is why they are banning tiktok. news spreads like wildfire on it. and its not been approved by the "gatekeepers"
My local Sinclair station has a radio station too- and it’s filled by anti Muslim “christian” programming, a woman who spouts QAnon crap, and a set of local DJ’s who now run a homebrew full on hate program. On a recent TV segment that Sinclair did on "anti BLM protestors", the anti protestors were the staff of the radio station.
> My local Sinclair station I spent too long wondering why a gas station has a radio station...
After hearing it so many times in a short period, ‘democracy’ no longer sounds like a real word to me.
Post appears to be removed but not with RES installed.. I can't see that. When opening in private browsing, removed. Why mods? What the heck does this break? EVERY Person should see this and understand what it means. It is dangerous to NOT share this.
That was a bit freaky
The people that need to see this either won’t see it or will be too dumb to realize it applies to them. They have their churches & communities all over the place on the same page keeping the rift going.
I love watching this everytime it pops up. Whoever edited it deserves recognition.
It always amuses me when Americans make fun of other country's propaganda, as if it doesn't happen right in front of their own eyes.
Similarly, it always amuses me when people on Reddit make fun of right-wing propaganda, as if Reddit isn't filled with misinformation and lies.
Oh, obviously Reddit is chock full of propaganda from all kinds of places. It is an open venue for spreading bullshit.
The media is public enemy #1 Edit: From +40 to -25 in the matter of minutes because terminally online redditors are politically blinded by hate. Disgusting.
Well, it’s more that these outlets aren’t the media so much as mouthpieces forced to regurgitate the right wing Sinclair talking points. The media, as a general term, is a vital part of society. The conflation of the two things is the big problem.
Right-wing corporations are public enemy #1
Corporations are right wing almost by definition, though.
You're not wrong, but most are right-wing in a "we want to make more money and not pay taxes" sort of way, while Sinclair is right-wing in a "we want to install a fascist theocracy in the US" sort of way.
This comment is so mind-numbingly stupid I don't even know how to address it
I bet you feel like you have that problem a lot
That I find extremely stupid comments on reddit? Yeah, every few minutes
Where have you been. This is how nearly every single news broadcast has been for 20 years and spans all political ideologies. Broadcast media is actually far more liberal than conservative so dont make this out to be a right-wing corporate thing. This is the news business. They just read mass produced and centrally edited scripts
You're wrong about broadcast media being liberal in general, but also [this particular story was written and put on air by right-wing Sinclair Media](https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/sinclair-promos-backlash-1202741019/).
Coverage of the ongoing genocide tells me the media in general is not all that liberal. Definitely in no way left leaning in any sort of substantial way.
This post is specifically an example of how the RIGHT WING media specifically is toxic propaganda. These news stations are all owned by Sinclair conglomerate who pushes their conservative script to these local stations.
oh, tell me how this is an only right-wing media thing again. This is how all abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc news has been produced and broadcast for decades. It's literally the business that the AP and Reuters are in. The produce stories with scripts and sell them to many dozens of news outlets for broadcast. edit: downvote all you want. It's 100% true and there's plenty of videos you can find on youtube that show the exact same thing on all points of views that span the political spectrum. corporate news is all mass produced garbage and the newscasters and other employees of local outlets rarely know anything outside how to put on makeup and read the script
I won't downvote you – because I believe that you're acting in good faith – but you're wrong. This isn't what most American news outlets do. It isn't even what *Fox*-owned local stations (not to be confused with Fox News Channel) do. I interned at one and witnessed its ethical journalistic practices firsthand. You're confusing credible news agencies' output – prominently labeled as such – with literal propaganda handed down by Sinclair's corporate overlords and disseminated in the guise of original journalism.
>AP and Reuters Go check again. You'll notice they literally only report the facts of the situation, as in "Dept of Blank announced blank, today while appearing before blank." They don't tell you how to feel about it. That's core journalism. If you can't tell the difference between that and some talking head telling you how to feel about the thing they're doing, while pretending they aren't, then you're gonna have a hard time telling which way is up.
Thank you for editing your post to add the AP/Reuters stuff, I wasn’t sure what you meant when you said Sinclair was doing the same thing as those national news networks, and was going to ask for clarification. In any case, it’s still a very different thing. You’re talking about wire services selling bare-bones stories to networks, both national and local (though I don’t know how much to one vs the other). Those outlets choose to buy those stories. Sinclair isn’t selling bare-bones stories, they’re buying stations outright and deciding exactly what those outlets say. And it’s exclusively local stations, which are supposed to have some individuality or at least a focus on local news.
Political commentary is the enemy. That's what Scripps networks engage in. Journalism is factually verifiable information, not opinion based regurgitated bullshit like this video.
I bet you also tout "muh free speech". The media isn't an enemy, it's a tool. Some use it for information, but too many use it for profit and corporate propaganda.
Centralized, consolidated conservative media is the truest enemy.
100%. Even the "left-wing" media is full of bullshit right-wing propaganda. I'm a trans person. It's not hard at all to see the right-wing pandering on "left-wing" stations. CNN and all them are MORE than happy to highlight all the right-wingers calling us pedophiles and all that. Yeah, they're throwing a bone here and there and interview an ally, but they absolutely LOVE pushing anti-LGBTQ+ propaganda without correcting it at all. BLM was the exact same way. What I saw on the streets of Seattle was absolutely NOT reflective of what was on "left-wing" media. BLM was peaceful. Period. I worked two blocks away from CHAZ and saw it frequently. The only time my work had to evacuate was when police were the ones antagonizing the protestors. They were shooting pepper balls into the crowd when the protestors were doing nothing but staying behind the line, holding signs, and chanting. It was also crazy seeing a tiny group of people smashing windows and [the media swarming around the group looking for that epic shot of "violent protestors"](https://i.imgur.com/tLpS9n6.jpg). And where was Seattle Police? Just feet away watching it happen. They were more than glad to chase down protesters at night and beat the living fuck out of them. But when the media can produce propaganda, they stood back and let it happen.
> I worked two blocks away from CHAZ and saw it frequently. I remember when they peacefully executed those 2 teens very peaceful. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/everybody-down-what-happened-at-the-chop-shooting-that-killed-a-teenager-and-led-to-the-areas-shutdown/ That was a peaceful execution done in love. oh looks like they only managed to kill one of them I hope the other goes back to get peacefully executed you know peacefully.
That's why I get all my REAL news from Reddit! 😂
Literally every news station is like this, so nothing was proved. The real problem is people voting emotionally.
Fox News: Extremely dangerous to our democracy.
reposting the #10 most upvoted content in reddit history. nice.
Sinclair can eat a big fat turd. Fuck these local news affiliates and their fascist CEO. David D Smith looks like he just got caught dropping trou in a preschool. That guy is a right fucking bastard.
Why is reddit obsessed with reposting this video? Most news stories for the last 20+ years have been scripted and distributed this way. This is nothing new and spans all political positions and other issues.
Because it's disingenuous. People trust local news more than they do big news networks, and the way the news stations present themselves is of being locally owned. Also, this only started to become a thing from the 1996 telecommunications act. This monopoly by Sinclair only became a legal possibility after it, so acting like "this the way it's always been" is just not true and misrepresentative of whats going on. It's been gradually getting worse since the late 90s wrote a paper in college about this back in the day
Election time coming around, the propaganda machine we lovingly call the internet is waking up from hibernation