Sinclair group propoganda video

[LetterRip]

Wow, this is creepy.  Sinclair Group instructed all of the 'news' stations they own to make the same statement, and they were put together into a single video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cabD_0h5mcA

It is the ultimate in irony.

[D.W.]

WOW!  That was some crazy stuff.  It's one thing to know they share ownership or even agendas, but to see that many in lock step reading a script is something else. 

I'd say "nice find" but it was a bit too disturbing to be "nice". 

[LetterRip]

To clairfy - Sinclair ordered their newscasters to all read the same script, and those videos were broadcast to their local markets.  Someone else put them together showing that it was all the same script.

[D.W.]

I get that.  I just mean that many local outlets reading the script word for word, to one presumes, give it an authentic feel from YOUR local station...

Well it was just creepy. 

Are the puppet strings present because of how connected our world is?  Or are we just better able to see the strings because of how connected we are? 

[LetterRip]

Yeah I figured you understood that - I was just regretting that my subject line was poorly written so was trying to clarify it.

[Seriati]

Just in idle curiosity, why do you think that's fundamentally different than your local paper printing an AP story, the same as every other paper in the country?  Or picking up a syndicated columnist?  Or printing an editorial that's written by their national parent?

Given that they are "competing" with national organizations, like CNN, Fox, MSNBC, that literally broadcast a single message to every location in the US, why do you find this more creepy?

Is it creepy when a national organization, like say Planned Parenthood, distributes a local press package to all their local affiliates with unified talking points?

[NobleHunter]

With Sinclair, it's one actor making a decision on what to broadcast. With the other examples, it's multiple actors making decisions. I trust you can see why the former is more alarming than the latter. Sinclair also gives the impression of something like astro-turfing, whereas the big stations are obviously centralized. "Local" news stations are supposed to be diverse in a way that national organizations aren't.

[D.W.]

I'd actually not mind it at all if they "ran a piece".  The creepy part was having them all read from the script.  It came off as actors reading a part rather than a reporter, reporting or editorializing about current events.

[Seriati]

With Sinclair, it's one actor making a decision on what to broadcast. With the other examples, it's multiple actors making decisions. I trust you can see why the former is more alarming than the latter.

So I should see one media company that owns 150 outlets on a local basis having a message as more alarming, than one media company that has a national penetration having a message?

I literally think this is a case where you find the message alarming, and would have no problem with this if it were a group pushing a liberal message.

Why do you think a media company with many outlets shouldn't have the ability to have a consistent editorial position across those outlets?

Sinclair also gives the impression of something like astro-turfing, whereas the big stations are obviously centralized. "Local" news stations are supposed to be diverse in a way that national organizations aren't.

Why do you think that?  This relates to national not local issues, why shouldn't the owners be able to dictate the "corporate" message?

Do you have a problem with NBC news or ABC news having guidelines about editorial standards for their local affiliates?

[DJQuag]

Just to nail it down here, Seriati.

Do you see anything wrong with a company who owns a hell of a lot of news stations, giving them a script that they are commanded to read?

I understand the whataboutism regarding the bigger media, but NBC or CNN or whatever boogeyman you want to pull up has never come close to this.

This comes across as state media. Thst video...they literally sound like the Borg. If the shoe was on the other foot, if it were unions related to Democrats instead of oligarchs related to Republicans, would you really be cool with this type of thing?

[NobleHunter]

I haven't really checked what the message was.

There's a difference between a consistent editorial position and a script.

Do you think people give the same credibility to national organizations that they do to their local stations?

I think this is a case where you've identified what the opposing partisan position is and undertaken to oppose it.

[Seriati]

DJQuag, I literally find that to be what we face today.  Prior to Fox there really was only one view point presented by the media.  You can still see it today.  We even know from the old Journolist scandal that they were literally coordinating their messages.

In any event, I don't have problem with a group having a consistent editorial position.  Why would anyone?  If the message is stupid discount it.

Is there more to it than this?

“The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.”

“Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias.”

“This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”

And then asked people to report if they felt that the stations reporting was biased?  Just want to be sure we are actually talking about the same thing, cause that really really doesn't sound like a dangerous message.

[Seriati]

I haven't really checked what the message was.

There's a difference between a consistent editorial position and a script.

Would it make a difference if they'd prepackaged it with a "national" anchor?  Rather than distributing it to their affiliates?

Do you think people give the same credibility to national organizations that they do to their local stations?

I think they give more credibility to the national stations.  Never once saw someone make a convincing argument that cited to their local news to overrule something they saw on CNN or Fox.

I think this is a case where you've identified what the opposing partisan position is and undertaken to oppose it.

Not really, just think it's silly in a world where NBC, CBS and ABC local news affiliates have had editorial guidelines for years.

[Seriati]

So this is apparently the transcript:

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our [local] communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [station] 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 [station] 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.

Maybe you can identify what you find troubling?  Both sides have complained about fake news.  Everyone already knows that FB and other social media have been manipulated and facilitated the spread of fake news.  This literally isn't a controversial message.

[DJQuag]

Sinclair are pro oligarch. As is Trump. They own a lot of local stations and will increase the number they own as time goes by.

I'll ask again, if local news stations (and I'll back Noblehunter here, I always looked more towards the local when I wasn't looking for bias), were putting out scripts parroting Obama talking points instead of Trump ones, would you be okay with it? You often talk of one side taking liberties without thinking of how it would be if the other side did the same.

[D.W.]

IDK about you Seriati, but I'd rather there be 100 partisan people all screaming a similar message than 100 "local outlets" acting as sock puppets for 1 ridiculously wealthy individual/family.

If the message had a liberal slant, would you still not find it at all odd or distressing?  I'll admit, it's been ages since I got my news from my local TV station(s).  That's part of the problem.  Part of why they are gobbled up and consolidated by owners.  But seeing this in action, seeing the ownership flexing like this weirds me out.  Plutocracy frightens me a lot more than any Republican or conservative policies.

Between this kinda stuff and Facebook all I can think of is historical power struggles between medieval European monarchies and the church.  Us peasants are kinda hosed.

This literally isn't a controversial message.

My criticism has nothing to do with the message.

[DJQuag]

So this is apparently the transcript:

(B) Our greatest responsibility is to serve our [local] communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [station] 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 [station] 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.

Maybe you can identify what you find troubling?  Both sides have complained about fake news.  Everyone already knows that FB and other social media have been manipulated and facilitated the spread of fake news.  This literally isn't a controversial message.

Sure. Here's my issue. Sinclair owns a whole lot of local newsstations, and the local news is a last bastion of hopeful impartiality.

My issue is that Sinclair forced these people to read this script. If it were a script you *didn't* agree with, would you be so blase?

[D.W.]

It's not like we're here defending fake news... 

Though having a bunch of people attempting to play the part of a local reporting passionately addressing their neighbors, using this script, MAY not be the most sincere way to go about combating it.

Then again, it does come off as a reasonable statement.  And who would expect any of the viewers to ever see 2, let alone heaps of these script readings all synced up?

(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.

Good point faceless rich person... good point...

[Seriati]

Sinclair are pro oligarch. As is Trump.

Isn't it a known fallacy to attack the speaker rather than the message?  I honestly don't find any media to be anti-oligarch, the Dems are just as much a part of the entitled class as the Republicans, that's literally the appeal of the drain the swamp message.  The media is worse than the classic fourth estate the church when it comes to playing in the halls of power.

They own a lot of local stations and will increase the number they own as time goes by.

I agree with that, I'm all in favor of dusting off our old anti-Trust laws and breaking up their media empire, and many many others while were at it.

I'll ask again, if local news stations (and I'll back Noblehunter here, I always looked more towards the local when I wasn't looking for bias), were putting out scripts parroting Obama talking points instead of Trump ones, would you be okay with it? You often talk of one side taking liberties without thinking of how it would be if the other side did the same.

Would I be okay with it?  Not sure how anyone could have missed my criticisms of the media.   We literally have a national media - with a much bigger voice than these local guys - that's 90% in favor of the Democrats (at least!).  I've pointed it out any number of times. 

Given that the national media injects their politics into their stories literally every day, why should I get worked up about this particular message that actually points that out?

Maybe a better question, is why is this upsetting you?  Do you think you're being accused of reading fake stories that agree with your ideology?   

[D.W.]

It's a grotesque display of power.  That's what bothers me.  Not the message.  Trusting our rulers in media land remain benevolent or pay lip service to our hopes and dreams and values is not something I'm good at. 

[Fenring]

This is just them tipping their hand in a lazy way. At any time any number of both local and national stations could be commanded to issue identical statements so long as the parent company insists on all subsidiaries complying. They don't because this looks really bad and removes the illusion of multiple 'sources' of information. It's not altogether different in effect from when one government 'source' feeds a message that every network reports on, making it sound like the story is being corroborated from multiple sources. Different phenomenon, same effect; the illusion of diversity of viewpoint.

There are only a handful of true owners of the vast majority of news networks, both local and national. If you managed to boil down each parent company down to its most important controllers you might end up with a room full of people, but you'd never be able to track the ownership past the board to the shareholders to the ones who hold shares in the companies holding the shares, etc etc. Figuring out who "really" owns the networks would be a fruitless exploration unless you have way more resources and time than I do. Bottom line, there's no way to even tell if this collection of 'real owners' meet together sometimes and coordinate plans, or else are in direct competition with each other, or a little of both. Even the hint of a cartel like this would anger people enough that it's in their interest not to advertise this fact, and yet I suspect that laziness sometimes wins over and they'll pull a stunt like the one LR posted. Or maybe it's not laziness, but a show of force as a message to certain parties that are listening. Who knows what the reason is.

Seriati, I agree with you that it's not alarming in itself for various networks to carry a story, since they need to get their material from somewhere. However the issue isn't the mere fact that they read the same thing off the same cue-cards; it's that this is a nudge in the ribs that ought to remind you that intentional narratives can easily be coordinated and unified across many networks, from both sides of the isle, and that it doesn't take a whacko conspiracy theory to suppose that all sorts of coordinated media efforts occur. In fact, you frequently claim that this is exactly what happens in liberal media. But I think you could take a step back from that and note that it's not really about liberal vs conservative, but about the fact that someone - of some sort, with some private affiliation - can be in the position of massively issuing coordinated narratives to the public and calling it "news". Who knows what positions that person really holds? We may, for instance, wonder what's behind FOX News, and stop at the easy answer of saying "Republicans." Well, maybe. But what if (and I'm not positing this, but just using it as a hypothetical) the real, real owner is part of a Satanic cult, and believes that creating a deep partisan wedge in the country will remove intelligent discourse and create chaos? I'm not trying to say anything negative about FOX, but let's just suppose this was stone cold fact for argument's sake. Would you really be able to see anything on FOX News without feeling intense distrust ever again, knowing the motive behind the programming? In reality we can't parse the 'real agenda', which may be no single and simplistic thing, but without knowing it, and yet knowing that *there is* some covert agenda, I don't see how it's reasonable to trust the entire industry at this point. We can watch individual segments and try to filter for BS and pick out the important bits, since after all we actually do need updates on current events, but it might be better for all concerned to realize they're being played and that no matter which 'side' they pick the joke is on them.

/polemic

[Crunch]

I watched it, read the transcript too. It doesn’t mention Trump; it doesn’t single out any “fake news” purveyors; it doesn’t mention left or right; the only action it calls for is for viewers to complain to the station if its own coverage strays too far from neutral.

Why the hissy fit? Seems tame enough, reasonable in fact, after the standard of “fake but accurate” set by CBS and the rest of the national media.

Sinclair Group has a statement read asking viewers to keep them honest, how is that bad?

[Crunch]

It's a grotesque display of power.  That's what bothers me.  Not the message.  Trusting our rulers in media land remain benevolent or pay lip service to our hopes and dreams and values is not something I'm good at.

JournoList was a vastly bigger offender of media abuse as it existed specifically to do what bothers you about this benign message from Sinclair. Sinclair is asking to be kept honest, the rest of national media is simply saying, “trust us” as they routinely peddle tge “fake news” Sinclair is calling out

Which one is the grotesque abuse?

[D.W.]

Which one is the grotesque abuse?

  This one is. 

Fenring outlined it well.  It doesn't bother me that huge swaths of news outlets are using the same play book.  I like to believe I'm above average in sifting out opinion vs factual reporting.  I prefer it when large groups of people see the same facts and come to similar conclusions and explain how they used similar reasoning to arrive at those conclusions.

This drives home the point that even if it's a conclusion I don't agree with, that doesn't render it invalid.  After all, all these people came to it individually.  It adds weight to an argument.

What we saw here was a wealthy owner handing out a script that all their properties were required to read, as if it were in their own words.  (Unless there was a "and now a message from our parent company" disclaimer?)

This not only abuses the mechanism of multiple sources to add weight, but openly mocks it.  This "benign message" about the perils of fake news is likely no accident. 

The "hey, we all do it", tipping of their hand could just be laziness.  Or maybe it's a calculated move.

[Seriati]

This drives home the point that even if it's a conclusion I don't agree with, that doesn't render it invalid.  After all, all these people came to it individually.  It adds weight to an argument.

That's literally the opposite of what Crunch referred to, and actually highlights his point.  You seem to prefer to have the illusion of separate confirmations where they are actually rigidly controlled out of your sight, to the reality of seeing that so many stations have the same owner, even if the message is literally - WATCH OUT SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FOOL YOU

[NobleHunter]

That's literally the opposite of what Crunch referred to, and actually highlights his point.  You seem to prefer to have the illusion of separate confirmations where they are actually rigidly controlled out of your sight, to the reality of seeing that so many stations have the same owner, even if the message is literally - WATCH OUT SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO FOOL YOU

If you think that's the only message, you aren't paying enough attention.

[Seriati]

His message was literally that seeing the process was the real concern.  He started the message by declaring it was the "grotesque" abuse when given a choice.

This was literally an editorial.  I've never  heard of the claim that the owners of a news organization are not allowed to control editorial content.

I don't see the fact that someone has a local stations, is any worse than a major network with hundreds of local stations that does the same thing from behind the scenes, or a national station that is on every tv in the nation having a single message.  If we are talking about the danger of propaganda, then penetration is the real danger, and completely ignoring that because you don't approve of the "ownership structure" is a bizarre message to me.  Disapproving of the form without regard to the substance is even worse.

If Sinclair had directed their stations to read a pro control message after Parkland, would you be on here claiming it's creepy?  No.  I'd be on hear arguing they are substantively wrong, but not claiming they didn't have a right to express their opinion in that manner.

Maybe I'm taking this the wrong way, but this ties - to me - into the left's view that only the left is entitled to have an opinion.  There is no reciprocity.  The exact same conduct from the left is justifiable, worse conduct even.

[yossarian22c]

If Sinclair had directed their stations to read a pro control message after Parkland, would you be on here claiming it's creepy?  No.  I'd be on hear arguing they are substantively wrong, but not claiming they didn't have a right to express their opinion in that manner.

If Sinclair had identified the content as a message from the Sinclair company and not presented it as the local stations view then there isn't an issue. It's not disclosing the source of the material that is manipulative. I don't really care how benign the content was this time.

[Wayward Son]

Seriati, Crunch:  If your bosses gave you a script, and told you to read it, word for word, to all your friends, about how Obama was the best President America ever had, and everything he did was right and just, would you have any problem doing it?  There's nothing in the script that says it came from your bosses.  And they tell you to sell it, too.  No monotone reading like a robot.  Say it like you mean it.  Would you have any compunctions about doing so?

What would your friends think afterward?  You think they might believe you'd gone crazy?  You think they might believe you sold out?  After all, here you are telling them how wonderful President Obama was, something you never did before.  Hey, some might believe you finally saw the light, and realize how wrong you'd been all this time.  Wouldn't that be great?

One thing we know, though, is that none of your friends would be upset to find out that your bosses made you read that statement, would they?  It's just news reporting, right?

The problem with this statement is that it made it sound like it came from the local stations.  That this editorial is exactly what each individual station managers believe, in exactly those words.  No shades of agreement.  No emphasizing one part or de-emphasizing another.  Exactly the same message.

It's one thing to say, "AP reports..."  It's another thing to say, "I, nationally recognized person, believe that..."  But it's an entirely different thing to say, "I say exactly the same thing as these other people say, and I stake my reputation on it, even though I had no input with the wording."

These news people are local people.  You sometimes see them in the mall, in the grocery store, at McDonalds.  They're your neighbors.  That carries a different weight than someone who lives in New York and reports on nationwide stories.  There is a different kind of trust involved.

Sinclair callously used that trust to send out their message.  They were trying to fool their audience into believing that this was the opinion of their local station.  They usurped the reputation of the local newscasters to give greater weight to their message.  That's what it looks like to me.  That is what is outrageous about it.

What do you think your kids will think after you read your bosses' message?  Would they think their dad now loves Obama?  Or would they think he's a sell-out? 

Which would you prefer?

[D.W.]

You ARE taking this the wrong way Seriati.  You assume my being creeped out is a partisan reaction.  It’s not.  You think I don’t worry about billionaire tech giants on “the left” spending money to have their words come out of other people’s mouths (or pop up on their social media feeds)?  I do.

My gripe here is seeing this much power being wielded directly by a single shot caller.  It was reinforced by seeing so many speakers parrot the EXACT script.  That video was objectively “creepy”.  (As an aside, THAT video was in part propaganda.  It was intended to look creepy by the editor…)  Reading that X stations all read this script.. would likely not have provoked the same visceral response in me.

My gripe is that the ridiculously wealthy aren’t (always) content to purchase a large megaphone, but some are willing to purchase other people to parrot them.  They are attempting to BUY credibility. 

All systems can be abused.  The more people in the chain the more likely those abuses can be prevented, or that the “conspiracy” falls apart.  The fewer moving pieces from Agenda to Execution, the more danger we are in.

[Fenring]

I actually have an inherent problem with anyone having to parrot a company's position on an issue. People who work in newscasting should be obliged to read the news as it comes to them and to report on the things they have to report. These aren't a matter of opinion providing they're true stories. You can factually report on a thing without needing to state any person opinion on the matter; you're just acting in a professional capacity. But when it turns into "We here believe in X" or even "I believe in Y" where Y is actually the company's position, I believe the integrity of the caster has been corrupted. No person should be parroting anyone else's views as their own, and a system where people regularly speak opinions in their voice that are not their own is sick. At worst it should come in the form of "our parent company's view is X", which would be honest 'reporting' of what some company thinks. Disseminating it as some kind of personal endorsement by the casters is part of that illusion of multiple sources, and also turns the faces on screen into sock puppets. 30-40 years ago the integrity of renowned casters came as a result of their perceived personal integrity; they brought that integrity to their network, not the other way around. But now apparently it's normal for your human person to merely be a conduit for someone else to speak. I don't think that's ok, and that's an issue that goes even beyond few sources owning many stations.

[NobleHunter]

It's not that business-as-usual for the media isn't awful regarding diversity of ownership and centralized control. It's that this Sinclair business is a particularly bad example of it. Pushing back against obvious manifestations of a command economy among the news media could lay groundwork for pushing back against the more subtle kinds.

[Fenring]

Pushing back against obvious manifestations of a command economy among the news media could lay groundwork for pushing back against the more subtle kinds.

Centralized monopolization of resources is just as much a capitalism thing as it is a controlled economy thing. Why do you think there are laws precisely forbidding monopolistic practice? It's because otherwise conglomeration and acquisition is inevitable.

[Seriati]

Seriati, Crunch:  If your bosses gave you a script, and told you to read it, word for word, to all your friends, about how Obama was the best President America ever had, and everything he did was right and just, would you have any problem doing it?

So in your view, a message that fake news is out there and that we need to be cautious, a point that both the left and the right agree on they just disagree about which news is fake, is exactly equivalent to being required to endorse a political candidate and pretend you like it?

If they were required to read a message against forest fires - like they meant it - would it some how translate into a political statement in your mind as well?

If you took a job at a marketing company, and your boss decides to take on a political campaign as a client, is it not part of your job to support their message - whether or not you agree with it?  I often have clients that I disagree with politically, or who have goals that aren't the same as mine, and it would be unethical to undermine them publically.

There's nothing in the script that says it came from your bosses.  And they tell you to sell it, too.  No monotone reading like a robot.  Say it like you mean it.  Would you have any compunctions about doing so?

Do you have any evidence that anyone was uncomfortable with this message?  Honestly, if anyone in media objects to the message that was in that communication they should be fired.  What's the alternative?  A belief in unexamined and unverified news regardless of how unlikely?  Pro-propaganda?

What would your friends think afterward?  You think they might believe you'd gone crazy?  You think they might believe you sold out?  After all, here you are telling them how wonderful President Obama was, something you never did before.  Hey, some might believe you finally saw the light, and realize how wrong you'd been all this time.  Wouldn't that be great?

And the inverse?  Just read an article today that a nurse was fired for expressing the idea that Stephon Clark deserved it.  How exactly is that any different?  We had the google engineer who was fired because people couldn't understand the difference between a claim that women are unsuited to do something, and one that says they are uninterested in it.  Pretty clear - to me - that failure to parrot the company line - or remain permanently silent - when it's a line from the left is already grounds for termination. 

Am I supposed to see at as a new outrage that news presenters who read other's people's words on tv all day long, may not always like the words they read?  What if they are flat earthers have have to read about a new scientific development on planetary mechanics?  Won't their flat earth friends think they've changed?

Maybe people who see people on tv already understand that they aren't always using their own words.

One thing we know, though, is that none of your friends would be upset to find out that your bosses made you read that statement, would they?  It's just news reporting, right?

They'd probably think it was hilarious.  And use youtube videos of it to extend the joke.

Sinclair callously used that trust to send out their message.  They were trying to fool their audience into believing that this was the opinion of their local station.  They usurped the reputation of the local newscasters to give greater weight to their message.  That's what it looks like to me.  That is what is outrageous about it.

I see.  So what they should have done, ala Google, and Disney and other liberal bastions is just fired everyone who disagreed with their message and made an announcement of their top level message and left it to their anchors to "independently" decide whether they wanted to make their own editorials for consumption.

Totally better!  You convinced me.  sarcasm off.

Which would you prefer?

I'd prefer a media that took its ethical obligations seriously, then this message wouldn't have been necessary at all.  Failing that, I'd prefer that people not pretend that this message was somehow a political endorsement to fit their own preconceived notions.

[DJQuag]

DJQuag, I literally find that to be what we face today.  Prior to Fox there really was only one view point presented by the media.  You can still see it today.  We even know from the old Journolist scandal that they were literally coordinating their messages.

In any event, I don't have problem with a group having a consistent editorial position.  Why would anyone?  If the message is stupid discount it.

Is there more to it than this?

“The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.”

“Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias.”

“This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.”

And then asked people to report if they felt that the stations reporting was biased?  Just want to be sure we are actually talking about the same thing, cause that really really doesn't sound like a dangerous message.

So when you bring up "today," and Fox News, we're all aware that Fox News launched in 1996, right?

[DJQuag]

Seriati -

"Maybe a better question, is why is this upsetting you?  Do you think you're being accused of reading fake stories that agree with your ideology?"

No. I'm upset because a national monopoly is being instructed to encourage their viewers to regard factual information as fake news.

[Seriati]

Maybe you can cite - where in that message - they are being "instructed to encourage their viewers to regard factual information as fake news."

Are you denying that FB had fake news on it during the last election?  Are you endorsing that the personalities on Fox and CNN and MSNBC are all providing real factual information?  Nothing fake?

[TheDrake]

This is the actual script. I can't say I actually disagree with the content. It could be talking about CNN or Breitbart. Hannity just as much as anyone else. Any encouragement that people get to think critically about their media consumption is fine by me.

Hi, I’m [name] with [station]. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our communities. I am extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [station] produces, but I’m 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. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first. 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 our democracy.

At [station], it is our responsibility to report and pursue the truth. We understand the truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility now more than ever. But we are human, and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair, please reach out through our [station] website by clicking on “Content Concerns.” We value your comments and we will respond back to you.

We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced, and factual. We consider it our honor and privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day. Thank you for watching, and we appreciate your feedback.

[TheDrake]

BTW, what's up with this reverence for local news? Doesn't anyone watch John Oliver's show, Last Week Tonight? And yes, I haven't watched it but I heard he went full anti-Sinclair on this one.

Local news takes on st patrick's day

Local news examines ballpark food

Not to mention their obsolete meteorologists - like I can't ask google or alexa what the weather is going to be like and live updates.

Breaking in-depth journalism covering "a car that crashed and looks all messed up" or "a house that  caught on fire" or "a new retail store opened"

I think their professional reputation will remain largely where it was before this script.

[LetterRip]

BTW, what's up with this reverence for local news?

It's basically a thing among the elderly.

[D.W.]

It's basically a thing among the elderly.

I must be ALMOST old then. 

I feel like it SHOULD be some more honest version of national news outlets... but I still don't tune in.

Or maybe I'm already old and just ended up in the NPR alarm clock radio / commute pool. 

[TheDrake]

I'd rather read a city weekly paper for local news. They tend to say a lot more about local entertainment, politics, and community. Of course, I've also given up on any television news because it is almost all garbage. Selective video editing, interview strawmen, its all too easy to introduce some sort of bias even if you are trying hard not to. On the rare occasion when I feel the need to see live local updates (severe weather, election, etc) I tune in to the local TV news.

[TheDeamon]

This is the actual script. I can't say I actually disagree with the content. It could be talking about CNN or Breitbart. Hannity just as much as anyone else. Any encouragement that people get to think critically about their media consumption is fine by me.

Hi, I’m [name] with [station]. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our communities. I am extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that [station] produces, but I’m 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. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first. 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 our democracy.

At [station], it is our responsibility to report and pursue the truth. We understand the truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility now more than ever. But we are human, and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair, please reach out through our [station] website by clicking on “Content Concerns.” We value your comments and we will respond back to you.

We work very hard to seek the truth and strive to be fair, balanced, and factual. We consider it our honor and privilege to responsibly deliver the news every day. Thank you for watching, and we appreciate your feedback.

While I may uneasy about the specifics of how the statement was issued. I also have to say I would be more concerned about people who wouldn't freely consent to reading that statement without "needing a gun to their head."

Molehill, meet mountain.

[velcro]

I have no problem with the statement, taken in isolation.

I disagree with this:

fake news is out there and that we need to be cautious, a point that both the left and the right agree on they just disagree about which news is fake

The President, and many of his supporters, are claiming that any news that makes him look bad is fake news. That includes news that is incontrovertibly, provably true in every sense of the word.  The purpose of the claims is to 1) protect the President and 2) weaken the media so the President can continue to lie without being called on it.

Others, including "the left" are calling out some outlets and social media posts as fake news.  That consists mainly of items that are incontrovertibly, provably false in every sense of the word.

Please don't lump them together.  Yes, there may be some incidents of those on the "left" creating false news, but it is no comparison as far as scale. ("good people on both sides")

There are two problems with the statement, in context.
One, as mentioned, is the hijacking of local news anchors' reputations for a statement that they may or may not agree with.  They were not instructed to read a statement from corporate.  They were instructed to read a script as if it were their own words. 
The second problem is that the statement is a toned down version of the President's attacks on the press. By being so general, and not naming specific bad actors, it tars the entire industry with the same brush.  This is the industry that most of the anchors have devoted their careers to.  Again, in the context of the current administration, this is pretty much a dog-whistle statement, and the people who are being subtly condemned are the ones forced to read it.

[TheDrake]

I disagree that there aren't horrible problems with providers that are not conservative leaning. CNNs fact checking is nearly non-existent and their constant editorializing is far more skewed than any of the must run segments Sinclair puts out.

Journalism has taken a hit because they've had a steady erosion of standards in response to pressure to be "first" to report something, fill the 24 hour news cycle with opinion pieces, and taking a "stand" against a politician and expecting it not to leak into the news room. Back when they had 24 hours to pull together 45-50 minutes of news, it was possible to have much higher standards. Back when the NYT had 24 hours to put out print, rather than posting articles online, it was possible to have higher standards.

Crap, about 1/3 of the articles I read haven't even been checked properly for spelling and grammar, so why would I think that their standards for fact checking would be any higher?

As far a social media goes, do you know how many times I've gotten a trump repost of some kind and found it false?

[LetterRip]

TheDaemon,

the statement is pushing a narrative that 'fake news' is a serious problem among mainstream media.  It isn't, most mainstream media do an excellent job of fact checking, and are not 'pushing a narrative'.

It is problematic because it is suggesting there is truth to the false narrative of 'fake news' being spread by conservatives and Trump in particular.  It is especially problematic because it is using the reputation of integrity that local broadcasters have to spread this narrative, and further it is doing so in a way that implies that it is the news broadcasters opinion.

So the ultimate goal to undermine the media as a whole.

This is further problematic in that the Sinclair Group has a history of themselves doing propoganda pieces designed to look like news reports to deceive the public.

http://variety.com/2017/politics/news/sinclair-fcc-fine-sponsor-violation-1202647175/

They also are now requiring propaganda pieces to be run during their news broadcasts, and have even hired a propagandist from Russia Today to produce the content.

http://www.newsweek.com/sinclair-broadcast-group-must-run-deep-state-rt-russia-today-867029

[velcro]

CNNs fact checking is nearly non-existent

Do you have any quantitative data to support this, particularly in comparison with Fox?

As far a social media goes, do you know how many times I've gotten a trump repost of some kind and found it false?

  Just to clarify, do you mean something Trump actually retweeted, which turned out to be false, or something that claimed to be a Trump post but was not?

[TheDrake]

Do you have any quantitative data to support this, particularly in comparison with Fox?

A lot of personal observation, I don't know if there's been anyone to "study" it formally. They are more likely to run stories with single anonymous sources, unconfirmed information, and what amount to network news "retweets". CNN reports that <some random website> is reporting X.

Most of the articles devoted to the subject are, as you might imagine, muddled by complaints about opinion pieces.

The network’s general silence left a number of unanswered questions. CNN has never said why the story did not meet its “editorial standards,” who at CNN reviewed it or how extensively the article had been vetted before publication.

   Washington Post

I don't play "the comparison game". If Fox were a baker, would its bread be more moldy than CNN? I don't know, but I demand fresh bread.

As far as social media goes, I mean what members of the general public retweet, forward, and like. The part of the statement says:

The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

Yes, Trump contributes to that, but so does everyone else. This statement should be taken as a warning "don't believe stuff you see in your feed". This includes both anti-Trump and pro-Trump items - which I have often found to be false or poorly characterized or out of context.


I will also add that when I do read CNN (because I'm curious how far they'll let themselves slide), I find significant amounts of material that aren't corroborated by other major news outlets. Now, that might mean that they are far more skilled and have the most inside sources - but I tend to think it is more likely that they have looser standards.

[Fenring]

I will also add that when I do read CNN (because I'm curious how far they'll let themselves slide), I find significant amounts of material that aren't corroborated by other major news outlets. Now, that might mean that they are far more skilled and have the most inside sources - but I tend to think it is more likely that they have looser standards.

It's not just that. Their actual tone is completely off to me. Have any of you seen Babylon 5? Remember in S2 when (SPOILERS) the news network is taken over by government forces and the next day the news anchor has a completely different demeanor, and all subsequent interviews and commentary have this weird tone that was designed to look like mind-controllish propaganda? That's what CNN actually feels like to me. I don't tune in often but it's sometimes on in places I frequent, and I must admit I find the manner in which the talking heads discuss issues chilling.

[TheDrake]

Another fresh example:

Graphic footage shot by rescuers and activists show victims -- including children -- dead and injured, some ghostly white and foaming at the mouth in makeshift clinics. Others were found suffocated in their homes, according to first responders.

CNN could not independently verify the authenticity of the images.

BBC:

Volunteer rescue force the White Helmets tweeted graphic images showing several bodies in basements. It said the deaths were likely to rise.

There has been no independent verification of the reports.

CNN is embedding lurid images of questionable reports, with a little disclaimer at the end. BBC references the images - which is appropriate, because they exist - identifies the source accurately and specifically, while also making clear that not only can they not independently verify, but that no one else has either.

It is this sort of lurid Enquirer style of reporting that led me to drop CNN to the bottom of the barrel.

From their front page today, the articles are according to their own labels:

Analysis (opinion)
News
3rd party Video statement (not interview)
News
Opinion
Analysis

BBC is news, news, news, news.

It's like if the NY Times put their editorial on the front page. NYTimes website puts all their opinion pieces in an opinion box setting them clearly aside.

What about fox, you say? Same tactics as CNN. A complete muddling of opinion versus news.

That same topic of suspected gas attacks?

Well, they include a screen capture of the White Helmet video showing toddlers lying on a blanket in hospital, so they did go even more lurid than CNN. Interestingly, Fox calls it "authenticated" which may be a lapse in time between the articles or a difference in verification technique and ability.

When the sinclair statement says "be wary" I think it has a point. People should avoid blind trust in the media, just like blind trust in the government. The media helps us keep our government accountable, but it is up to us to keep our media accountable.