8 ms·

FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

230 points by Deinos 9y ago

PretzelFisch 9y ago
“Sinclair proudly supports the Cancer Foundation and its educational mission. Any absence of sponsorship identification in these public service segments was unintended and a result of simple human error." I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist.
- kbutler 9y ago
  I don't think the size of Sinclair is the relevant benchmark. The profitability and prevalence of the practice is the important part. How much did that sponsorship earn them? How many other sponsored stories are they running? What's the probability of a new sponsored story generating a new fine? Make it so that they lost significantly more than they got doing this, and so that they expect to lose money if they do it again.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist. Hell, the cut in corporate tax rates they helped get should save them at least that much - every quarter.
totalZero 9y ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
- mhneu 9y ago
  "The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest." (National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).) It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.
  - loeg 9y ago
    The "shouting fire in a theater" example is a poor comparison, because it likely is allowed under the first amendment[0][1]. It may not be in the public interest, but as far as I know, the FCC does not regulate theaters. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
    - tw04 9y ago
      That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up. People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not referencing the case in question, and common sense would tell you that shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
      - totalZero 9y ago
        > There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up. Would you mind showing me one of those examples? I just did a bit of google searching, and was unable to find one. Even the original case (Schenck v. United States) had nothing to do with fires or theaters. > shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons. The "imminent lawless action" test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio requires more than just a damaging end-result. Intent, imminence, and likelihood must all be demonstrated in order for speech to be considered illegal. Maybe that test also applies to false fire alarms in theaters, but it certainly takes more than simply causing a bad end-result to happen.
mhneu 9y ago
I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pro-slavery". But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b... Sinclair also used their size and connections to the conservative movement to get FCC commissioners who would repeal rules on concentrated ownership of local TV stations. Ownership of media outlets used to be a big topic of concern in the US. Who owns media outlets is going to be one of the defining issues of our future.
- jedmeyers 9y ago
  > But all educated Americans know Thank you for the comment. It's good to see someone correcting the record for once.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard. Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this: House: Democrats: 63% yea. House: Republicans: 80% yea. Senate: Democrats: 69% yea. Senate: Republicans: 82% yea. In short, a much larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill than Democrats. Educated Americans can look this up.
  - adzm 9y ago
    I believe the post is not referring to a sudden exchange of political identities, but rather to the Southern Strategy. This definitely had its roots in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but was a long, deliberate process by the Republican Party to exploit racial divisions for political gain. The RNC chairman formally apologized to the NAACP for this specifically in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
jrochkind1 9y ago
See also another article published today: Building A Case: Sinclair Broadcasting’s Project Baltimore offers right-wing news coverage of city schools by Jaisal Noor http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-broadcastings-project-baltimore-offers-right-wing-news-coverage-city-schools/ http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-b... // “[Project Baltimore] are building a case to privatize schools,” Diamonte Brown, a Baltimore school teacher and an advocate for reforming the school system told The Real News. // Wonder who's paying for that...
- mhneu 9y ago
  And this one "Fox’s Unfamiliar but Powerful Television Rival: Sinclair" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclair-media-expansion-fox-conservative-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclai... And "How a Conservative TV Giant [Sinclair] Is Ridding Itself of Regulation" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conservative-tv-giant-is-ridding-itself-of-regulation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conserv...
ll931110 9y ago
John Oliver's segment does cover Sinclair in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
mratzloff 9y ago
This is like 5% of their net income, so a slap on the wrist. They control more than 40% of the local news market. The FTC needs to break them up, not keep approving their continued growth.
- bob_theslob646 9y ago
  Isn't that still alot? How much should the fine be?
  - flavor8 9y ago
    Just fyi: http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quandaries/grammar/is-alot-a-word http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quan...
    - bob_theslob646 9y ago
      Thanks for that. FYI http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/language_bullies_pedants_and_grammar_nerds_who_correct_people_all_the_time.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/lan...
      - flavor8 9y ago
        I rarely point out grammar (or spelling) mistakes. "Alot" is one of those run-together phrases that people need to be told isn't a word in order to stop using; clearly nobody has with you, so I thought I'd do you a favor. :)
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    > How much should the fine be? More than the benefits of the act. They helped get the corporate tax rate cut from 35 to 21 percent, permanently. A $13M one-off fine isn't going to eat much of that up.
jacquesm 9y ago
Someone ought to fine the US congress for running sponsored content as laws.
jlwarren1 9y ago
"[They] deliberately runs shows that will earn them huge fines they can then funnel through the FCC straight to the Republican Party. Everybody in the media knows it but no one has the guts to say it." Simpsons Season 18 Episode 22
otakucode 9y ago
How much was Sinclair paid to air the content? I mean... how could you possibly write an article without including this sort of information? It is impossible to know whether the fine levied was at all reasonable without knowing how much Sinclair profited from breaking the law. If they were paid $13.4 million + $1 or more, then the FCC has guaranteed that airing such content will become standard business practice. Only if they were paid less than $13.4 million is there even the slightest hope that their actions will be modified in the future.

230 points by Deinos 9y ago

“Sinclair proudly supports the Cancer Foundation and its educational mission. Any absence of sponsorship identification in these public service segments was unintended and a result of simple human error." I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist.

kbutler 9y ago
I don't think the size of Sinclair is the relevant benchmark. The profitability and prevalence of the practice is the important part. How much did that sponsorship earn them? How many other sponsored stories are they running? What's the probability of a new sponsored story generating a new fine? Make it so that they lost significantly more than they got doing this, and so that they expect to lose money if they do it again.
ceejayoz 9y ago
> I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist. Hell, the cut in corporate tax rates they helped get should save them at least that much - every quarter.

totalZero 9y ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.

mhneu 9y ago
"The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest." (National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).) It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.
- loeg 9y ago
  The "shouting fire in a theater" example is a poor comparison, because it likely is allowed under the first amendment[0][1]. It may not be in the public interest, but as far as I know, the FCC does not regulate theaters. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
  - tw04 9y ago
    That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up. People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not referencing the case in question, and common sense would tell you that shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
    - totalZero 9y ago
      > There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up. Would you mind showing me one of those examples? I just did a bit of google searching, and was unable to find one. Even the original case (Schenck v. United States) had nothing to do with fires or theaters. > shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons. The "imminent lawless action" test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio requires more than just a damaging end-result. Intent, imminence, and likelihood must all be demonstrated in order for speech to be considered illegal. Maybe that test also applies to false fire alarms in theaters, but it certainly takes more than simply causing a bad end-result to happen.

mhneu 9y ago

I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pro-slavery". But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b... Sinclair also used their size and connections to the conservative movement to get FCC commissioners who would repeal rules on concentrated ownership of local TV stations. Ownership of media outlets used to be a big topic of concern in the US. Who owns media outlets is going to be one of the defining issues of our future.

jedmeyers 9y ago
> But all educated Americans know Thank you for the comment. It's good to see someone correcting the record for once.
mythrwy 9y ago
While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard. Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this: House: Democrats: 63% yea. House: Republicans: 80% yea. Senate: Democrats: 69% yea. Senate: Republicans: 82% yea. In short, a much larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill than Democrats. Educated Americans can look this up.
- adzm 9y ago
  I believe the post is not referring to a sudden exchange of political identities, but rather to the Southern Strategy. This definitely had its roots in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but was a long, deliberate process by the Republican Party to exploit racial divisions for political gain. The RNC chairman formally apologized to the NAACP for this specifically in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

jrochkind1 9y ago

See also another article published today: Building A Case: Sinclair Broadcasting’s Project Baltimore offers right-wing news coverage of city schools by Jaisal Noor http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-broadcastings-project-baltimore-offers-right-wing-news-coverage-city-schools/ http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-b... // “[Project Baltimore] are building a case to privatize schools,” Diamonte Brown, a Baltimore school teacher and an advocate for reforming the school system told The Real News. // Wonder who's paying for that...

mhneu 9y ago
And this one "Fox’s Unfamiliar but Powerful Television Rival: Sinclair" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclair-media-expansion-fox-conservative-media.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclai... And "How a Conservative TV Giant [Sinclair] Is Ridding Itself of Regulation" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conservative-tv-giant-is-ridding-itself-of-regulation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conserv...

ll931110 9y ago

John Oliver's segment does cover Sinclair in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

mratzloff 9y ago

This is like 5% of their net income, so a slap on the wrist. They control more than 40% of the local news market. The FTC needs to break them up, not keep approving their continued growth.

bob_theslob646 9y ago
Isn't that still alot? How much should the fine be?
- flavor8 9y ago
  Just fyi: http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quandaries/grammar/is-alot-a-word http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-quan...
  - bob_theslob646 9y ago
    Thanks for that. FYI http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/language_bullies_pedants_and_grammar_nerds_who_correct_people_all_the_time.html http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/lan...
    - flavor8 9y ago
      I rarely point out grammar (or spelling) mistakes. "Alot" is one of those run-together phrases that people need to be told isn't a word in order to stop using; clearly nobody has with you, so I thought I'd do you a favor. :)
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  > How much should the fine be? More than the benefits of the act. They helped get the corporate tax rate cut from 35 to 21 percent, permanently. A $13M one-off fine isn't going to eat much of that up.

jacquesm 9y ago

Someone ought to fine the US congress for running sponsored content as laws.

jlwarren1 9y ago

"[They] deliberately runs shows that will earn them huge fines they can then funnel through the FCC straight to the Republican Party. Everybody in the media knows it but no one has the guts to say it." Simpsons Season 18 Episode 22

otakucode 9y ago

How much was Sinclair paid to air the content? I mean... how could you possibly write an article without including this sort of information? It is impossible to know whether the fine levied was at all reasonable without knowing how much Sinclair profited from breaking the law. If they were paid $13.4 million + $1 or more, then the FCC has guaranteed that airing such content will become standard business practice. Only if they were paid less than $13.4 million is there even the slightest hope that their actions will be modified in the future.