5 ms·

This rule was repealed for one and one purpose only. Allow Sinclair Media, a pro-Trump media organization, to buy up local TV stations and blast propaganda news

• meri_dian 9y ago
  If a media outlet wants to buy stations and supply more conservative friendly news, how is that any different from Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post and supplying liberal friendly news? For those who would want to counter that buying many local stations outweighs buying a single outlet in the Washington Post, I would bet WaPo reaches as many or more people as all local stations put together in the US through their massive social media and generally online presence. Not only that, while local stations only air news at a set time each day, WaPo articles are persistent and ubiquitous. The scale of outreach and influence for a site like WaPo is really tremendous when you think about it.
  • eropple 9y ago
    One: you have a long row to hoe before asserting that the Washington Post supplies "liberal-friendly news." They may (I would say do) have a moderately liberal-friendly editorial board. Much as the WSJ may (and again, I would say does) have an extremely conservative-friendly editorial board. To conflate the editorial board and reporting is, frankly, either disingenuous or bordering on it. Two: you have an even longer row to hoe to tie together buying one paper and buying as many TV stations as one can to blanket an area. We all know about what Sinclair's up to--given the levels of handwringing put out by the folks on Pai's side of the aisle about the (non-existent, but whatever) suppression of right-wing speech, maybe the notion of choking off differing voices under the Sinclair umbrella rings just a little bit hollow?
    • meri_dian 9y ago
      See my edit. When you dismiss suppression of conservative positions, I say that I would be shocked if I ever saw a liberal outlet advocate or even try to reason about the case against Sanctuary Cities. It's an example of suppression because if I even tried to bring up the debate I would be ridiculed and accused of being a racist. We can't debate the issue, and so anyone who would want to advocate for such a position is suppressed.
      • Spooky23 9y ago
        My local paper, a Hearst rag, did that. There’s a balance between state and local rights and laws and federal law. My city has an obligation to enforce local law and isn’t responsible for the shitshow of Federal immigration policy. By meddling in federal matters, local police poison their relationship with the populace and become less effective. The conservative position on this topic is strange, as they generally resist federal meddling.
        • JBlue42 9y ago
          The conservative position on this topic is strange, as they generally resist federal meddling...unless it benefits their agenda
          • Jgrubb 9y ago
            You could swap “conservative” for “liberal” and it would also be true.
          • masklinn 9y ago
            It's not exactly new, and hangs in blinking neon signs over the runup to the civil war.
      • crankylinuxuser 9y ago
        Because it's not "Conservative" in any way, shape or meaning. It's not holding back to an older time. It's not being fiscally responsible. It's selling out monopoly status to the lowest bidder. And look, we have a corporate pro-Trump mouthpiece that was waiting for this law change. If we're talking "Conservative" back to the good old days, I believe Adam Smith has some choice things to talk about appropriate regulation and prevention of monopolies. But that just gets inconvenient. And as for your jab at sanctuary cities; do you know WHY they were made? Because immigrants were easy pickings. An "illegal" or someone who isn't sure is ripe pickings for all sorts of bad stuff. The conservative answer here is pretty simple: let them get hurt or assaulted or murdered - they shouldn't have been here! But to funding, if the Federal govt wants to shove a thumb up their collective butts to decide again and again to not touch immigration, well, they can enforce it as well. The states certainly aren't funded for that sort of work. The feds are asking for free enforcement of their jobs. I'd imagine that I understand conservative theory better, having been one a long ago, and worked for a local state congressman. And a lot of it is wrong, being predicated that you're some embarrassed millionaire. They've fooled enough people that way. Got'em riled up, angry. It always easy to go after "Other"... Like those Mexicans. Or right now, North Koreans.
  • bo1024 9y ago
    It is incredibly different. * One person/company buying one newspaper, vs * One company buying every news channel that serves a given area. The first is just an entrant in the market. The second is anti-competitive and propagandizing.
  • nrb 9y ago
    The difference is that broadcast spectrum is limited in a geographic area and licensed for the benefit of the local community, not as a propaganda mouthpiece of a single politically-motivated organization who doesn’t even have a presence in that community.
  • dguaraglia 9y ago
    Weird that you would focus on Bezos and not Rupert Murdoch, who is already what you fear Jeff Bezos could become. In fact, it'd take decades for Bezos to acquire the amount of media influence Rupert Murdoch has on several continents.
  • thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > liberal friendly news Could you define "liberal" in this context? I honestly am unsure what its meaning is here.