Sinclair news outlets are propaganda!

[Lencho01]

The anchors who go along with this are ****ing shameful.

They probably have no choice, one way or another.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I was reading how some can't quit. If they do or refuse to do what they want, they will have to pay their salary plus 40% over a certain amount of time as a penalty.

 

[samsnee]

Yes as a matter of principle they should quit. But if you’ve got kids, a mortgage and other expenses I can understand where you have a tough choice to make.

 

[Teelie]

It's easy to tell them they should have quit but would you do the same if your job suddenly required you to do something reprehensible and your only recourse was to quit it and face the possibility of being blackballed from your industry and unable to get gainful employment anywhere else?

 

[chaseter]

All media is corporate owned from the left to the right. They don’t care about news, they care about money. Corporate owned news is the threat to Democracy.

 

[Lighthouse]

All media is corporate owned from the left to the right. They don’t care about news, they care about money. Corporate owned news is the threat to Democracy.

I mean, I would agree its a problem but what exactly is the better alternative? The government running the news? I'm not sure what the solution is here. Feels like we'd have major problems either way.

 

[Teelie]

Rather the news be independent than government (should never be) or corporate (the necessity of current times). Corporate sucks but government mandated would be worse.

 

[chaseter]

I mean, I would agree its a problem but what exactly is the better alternative? The government running the news? I'm not sure what the solution is here. Feels like we'd have major problems either way.

Government owned is defo worse. Monopoly and antitrust laws should be way more stringent for news outlets. It should be a fineable or possibly jailable offense to report lies as news. Fox News should be required to have a News Channel and a separate Opinion Channel. Same for MSNBC. The propagandazation of the news is the downfall of intellectualism. It is partially the people’s fault for buying into this crap and choosing for this to be a Left vs Right thing. It’s like News has become coaching in the locker room.

 

[chamber-music]

Here in the UK broadcast networks get licences that are overseen by a regulatory and competition body called Ofcom.

Under Ofcom's broadcasting code they ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

The BBC is supposed to be impartial due to it being a public broadcast channel funded primarily through tax payers.

Fox News broke British news broadcasting impartiality rules but

In finding that the show broke several impartiality rules, Ofcom said: “There was no reflection of the views of the U.K. Government or any of the authorities or people criticized, which we would have expected given the nature and amount of criticism of them in the program. The presenter did not challenge the views of his contributors; instead, he reinforced their views.”

In the case of “Hannity,” Ofcom investigated the outspoken presenter’s monologue in January regarding President Trump’s proposed travel ban. An opening segment of the show had video clips of public figures opposed to the order, which saw those individuals “repeatedly dismissed or ridiculed” by Hannity, Ofcom said.

“During the rest of the program, the presenter interviewed various guests who were all prominent supporters of the Trump administration and highly critical of those opposed to the order,” Ofcom said. “The presenter consistently voiced his enthusiastic support for the order and the Trump administration.”

“The program didn’t include a sufficiently wide range of views, and any alternative opinions put forward during the discussion were dismissed by the presenter,” an Ofcom spokesman said.

 

[Aximili86]

As decent a news source as the BBC is, saying they're "impartial" is hilarious. C'mon now.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

As decent a news source as the BBC is, saying they're "impartial" is hilarious. C'mon now.

I mean, they have no skin in the American political game. Why wouldnt they be?

 

[Aximili86]

The main criticism of the BBC for, oh, half a century or more has been that they lean left.

Which is fine, most non-profit public-funded media does, PBS in the U.S., ABC in Australia, the works. Nothing wrong with that. But the BBC answering to a regulatory board, most of whom probably lean their way ideologically anyway, hardly makes them "impartial".

It's fine to have a stance on things, they should just embrace it rather than denying it.
​

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

The main criticism of the BBC for, oh, half a century or more has been that they lean left.

Which is fine, most non-profit public-funded media does, PBS in the U.S., ABC in Australia, the works. Nothing wrong with that. But the BBC answering to a regulatory board, most of whom probably lean their way ideologically anyway, hardly makes them "impartial".

It's fine to have a stance on things, they should just embrace it rather than denying it.
​

Sometimes there's just a right and wrong though. Objectively fact-checking certain statements can reveal that.

If Fox News says the oceans are made up of the tears of God, but a news agency comes out and says this is patently false and that ocean water is a chemical compound composed of hydrogen, oxygen, and salt that's not a "stance" its a statement of actual fact.

In the scenario above, its pretty easy to determine whether both sides of a debate are presented and if a journalist (which Hannity is NOT BTW) is taking one side.

This isnt like a "Is abortion ethical?" type thing here.

 

[Donner]

Sometimes there's just a right and wrong though. Objectively fact-checking certain statements can reveal that.

If Fox News says the oceans are made up of the tears of God, but a news agency comes out and says this is patently false and that ocean water is a chemical compound composed of hydrogen, oxygen, and salt that's not a "stance" its a statement of actual fact.

In the scenario above, its pretty easy to determine whether both sides of a debate are presented and if a journalist (which Hannity is NOT BTW) is taking one side.

This isnt like a "Is abortion ethical?" type thing here.

This is what has been bugging me about the whole fake news schtick. Things happen or they don't. News stations (good ones) spend more time reporting on things that are indeed happening and less on opinions of the things that have happened. Fox News is BS because they have an opinion on everything and it's always right leaning. Not to mention that they report complete inaccuracies as though they're fact.

When I watch the news, I want to know what happened that day. I don't give a crap about anyone's opinions, I can do that on my own.

But even in my hometown, the local news station will report on new climate change protocols that the government is addressing or the opening of a safe injection site and people in the comments will scream fake news. How is that fake? People are dumb.

 

[The Incredible Hulk]

It's also part of this ******** narrative that "I'm allowed to have an opinion on something and my opinion on it, right or wrong, is just as relevant as the facts of what actually happened."

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The kicker though is we've already had protections in place to try and combat biased political reporting and protections from the same 3 or 4 mega-corps owning all of the news outlets.

Those protections have been removed. Now these things are happening. Crazy right?

 

[Donner]

https://www.snopes.com/news/2018/04/05/fake-teen-challenges/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

I guess the adults are the stupid ones. Panicky creatures.

I posted the link in this thread because it speaks to a larger problem with the media.

 

[Sithborg]

Ahh, I remember the sex bracelet craze.

 

[2kt09]

Hi, I'm(A) ____________, and I'm (B) _________________...

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Northwest communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that KOMO News produces.

(A) But we're concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

(B) More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories... stories that just aren't true, without checking facts first.

(A) Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control 'exactly what people think'...This is extremely dangerous to a democracy.

(B) At KOMO it's our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand Truth is neither politically 'left nor right.' Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.

(A) But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us by going to KOMOnews.com and clicking on CONTENT CONCERNS. We value your comments. We will respond back to you.

(B) We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced and factual... We consider it our honor, our privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day.

(A) Thank you for watching and we appreciate your feedback

(Source)

 

[chamber-music]

The main criticism of the BBC for, oh, half a century or more has been that they lean left.

Which is fine, most non-profit public-funded media does, PBS in the U.S., ABC in Australia, the works. Nothing wrong with that. But the BBC answering to a regulatory board, most of whom probably lean their way ideologically anyway, hardly makes them "impartial".

It's fine to have a stance on things, they should just embrace it rather than denying it.
​

The BBC charter doesn't allow them to take sides politically. The BBC was seen as very much on the side of the establishment until the last couple decades. Networks like Channel 4 were seen as far more left wing than the BBC.

I've heard mostly conservative people complain about the media and entertainment industries being filled with left wing people for years.

I don't believe there is some grand conspiracy to shut out conservatives. I just think left leaning people just tend to be more likely to choose careers in those industries for whatever reason.

 

[Aximili86]

It's not a conspiracy at all. They don't huddle together in a room and conspire to turn the public broadcaster against a certain voting block.

The people who go into journalism have traditionally just leaned left as a personality type, and organizations like the BBC get the cream of the crop as employees. Ergo, you get a certain culture brewing after a while.

 

[Travesty]

I don't know why everyone is just now making a big stink about this? This is something that has been satirized since the 90s. You can all thank Bill Clinton for passing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. And if you look at Title 3, it's the entire reason why this has happened.

But I keep seeing people push this conspiratorial narrative that this is some "grand scheme" by Trump to push his propaganda, when really, this has been going on since the 90s.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is astounding how this always becomes a Clintons' fault.

 

[Travesty]

 

[Sithborg]

I thought there was some sort of regulatory rule that one of Trump's cronies repealed that has allowed Sinclair to really go aggressive?