8 ms·

I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local aff

by 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
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    That 2005 apology is ringing pretty hollow in 2017.
    - freen 9y ago
      Especially given that the Supreme Court has sanctioned the GOP on several occasions for racially motivated disenfranchisement.
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  My guess is the parent is referring specifically to the Republican Southern Strategy—whether the top-down or bottom-up variant is mostly immaterial—that notably did not display too much public opposition to racial integration on the national stage, but instead supported de facto racial segregation while appealing to entrenched racism and conservatism in the South as the Democratic Party realigned its platform and positions. The somewhat snide-sounding remark was rather unnecessary. I’m sure the same educated Americans who can look this stuff up also find it improbable to believe 80 years of Jim Crow suddenly vanished with the signing of the Civil Rights Act. (Edit: appears the parent edited out the remark about educated Americans looking this up)
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    You can infer (or retrofit), but then there is the smug, pro-political non-factual content of the post. I don't consider echoing smugness necessarily snide. Don't insinuate to me all that all educated Americans share your political views and then proceed to back it up with half (or non) facts.
    - tacomonstrous 9y ago
      Are you seriously arguing that bringing up the Democratic party's pro-slavery attitude during the Civil War has some relevance to current day political dynamics?
      - mythrwy 9y ago
        No, not at all. But I have to know, why in the world would you bother posting such a blatant straw-man on a site frequented by smart people? Cmmon man, you are better than that. I just don't approve of smug ideological loyalty when it leads to promulgating mythology as fact. That's all.
        grzm 9y ago
        I understand the frustration. In the interest of constructively combating such, I'd encourage you to raise the level of discourse. One option is to steelman, as opposed to tear down a straw man, and discuss in good faith. What do you think they were referring to? What were they trying to convey? I find Rapoport's rules particularly useful, at least as a starting point. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... Help make HN better rather than further contribute to the sniping that all too often passes for discourse on contentious issues.
- lurr 9y ago
  Uh huh. What were the parties looking like post Nixon?
- nl 9y ago
  This is absolutely true, and the Republicans rightly deserves to be applauded for this. But the OP was referring to the Southern Strategy[1] which had its roots in (Republican) Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign where he campaigned against the civil right act and picked up Democrat voters in the South: Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination. Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina).[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_of_the_Southern_strategy_(1963%E2%80%931972) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_of_the...
- travmatt 9y ago
  1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think conservative ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights? 4) Do you think liberals voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think liberal ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights? I find a lot of people are able to get away with a lot of political sophistry because they can skillfully abuse peoples lack of historical and political knowledge. I find this problem is especially pernicious regarding the civil rights act, because this was right around the time that the political parties were undergoing major changes in their makeup, so people concern trolling are often able to ambiguate ideology, political affiliation and the structures of political parties in such a way as to push the deceptive and deceitful lie that liberals are or were pro-slavery. I find a lot of those tactics being used in your arguments, so as an exercise I like to help people disambiguate facts from cleverly positioned lies and see if their claims still hold up. I suspect your argument is weak and based on conflating political ideology with political affiliation.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness. Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it. I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive. The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> 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. That is an oversimplification. What happened is that overtly racist policies fell out of favor. People talk about structural racism today, but nobody can say with a straight face that it's the same now as it was in the days of Jim Crow laws. By the 1960s the Democrats saw the writing on the wall. The political winds were changing and they adjusted their sail. But supporting Jim Crow had been how Democrats got elected in the south. By voting with the Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act, they alienated all the old racists who voted for them specifically to prevent that from happening. The south was ready to skin them and eat them at that point. The Republicans weren't too stupid to realize that. All they had to do to take the south was to show up and be Not The Democrats. Some racists (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties, but in general the Republicans were never as racist as the Democrats historically were. They didn't have to be. Popular support for racism has been on the decline for more than a hundred years, and the remaining racists no longer trusted the Dems so the Republicans never had to give them anything or even really promise to give them anything to get their votes. It's not so much that the Republicans flipped as that the racists lost and that redrew the electoral map.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Well said. I’m amazed by how blind history is to LBJ’s racist roots. LBJ was a life-long cold blooded political operative. His “courage” was strategic. And it worked.
  - travmatt 9y ago
    Your critique of the civil rights bill is that the person who passed it was a politician?
    - creaghpatr 9y ago
      No his critique is that it's laughable to call LBJ anything other than a blatent racist, despite the fact that he facilitated the civil rights act. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racis...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SpikeDad 9y ago
The Sinclair outlet in my area is a cesspool of right-wing conservative blowhards and biased news. Very sad.. I'm sure they're glad to pay $13 million in return for the appearance that the FCC cares about broadcast standards. They're making billions - they can afford it. I wonder where the fine money actually goes?

by mhneu 9y ago

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
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  That 2005 apology is ringing pretty hollow in 2017.
  - freen 9y ago
    Especially given that the Supreme Court has sanctioned the GOP on several occasions for racially motivated disenfranchisement.
bobwaycott 9y ago
My guess is the parent is referring specifically to the Republican Southern Strategy—whether the top-down or bottom-up variant is mostly immaterial—that notably did not display too much public opposition to racial integration on the national stage, but instead supported de facto racial segregation while appealing to entrenched racism and conservatism in the South as the Democratic Party realigned its platform and positions. The somewhat snide-sounding remark was rather unnecessary. I’m sure the same educated Americans who can look this stuff up also find it improbable to believe 80 years of Jim Crow suddenly vanished with the signing of the Civil Rights Act. (Edit: appears the parent edited out the remark about educated Americans looking this up)
- mythrwy 9y ago
  You can infer (or retrofit), but then there is the smug, pro-political non-factual content of the post. I don't consider echoing smugness necessarily snide. Don't insinuate to me all that all educated Americans share your political views and then proceed to back it up with half (or non) facts.
  - tacomonstrous 9y ago
    Are you seriously arguing that bringing up the Democratic party's pro-slavery attitude during the Civil War has some relevance to current day political dynamics?
    - mythrwy 9y ago
      No, not at all. But I have to know, why in the world would you bother posting such a blatant straw-man on a site frequented by smart people? Cmmon man, you are better than that. I just don't approve of smug ideological loyalty when it leads to promulgating mythology as fact. That's all.
      - grzm 9y ago
        I understand the frustration. In the interest of constructively combating such, I'd encourage you to raise the level of discourse. One option is to steelman, as opposed to tear down a straw man, and discuss in good faith. What do you think they were referring to? What were they trying to convey? I find Rapoport's rules particularly useful, at least as a starting point. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... Help make HN better rather than further contribute to the sniping that all too often passes for discourse on contentious issues.
lurr 9y ago
Uh huh. What were the parties looking like post Nixon?
nl 9y ago
This is absolutely true, and the Republicans rightly deserves to be applauded for this. But the OP was referring to the Southern Strategy[1] which had its roots in (Republican) Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign where he campaigned against the civil right act and picked up Democrat voters in the South: Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination. Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina).[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_of_the_Southern_strategy_(1963%E2%80%931972) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_of_the...
travmatt 9y ago
1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals? 3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think conservative ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights? 4) Do you think liberals voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think liberal ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights? I find a lot of people are able to get away with a lot of political sophistry because they can skillfully abuse peoples lack of historical and political knowledge. I find this problem is especially pernicious regarding the civil rights act, because this was right around the time that the political parties were undergoing major changes in their makeup, so people concern trolling are often able to ambiguate ideology, political affiliation and the structures of political parties in such a way as to push the deceptive and deceitful lie that liberals are or were pro-slavery. I find a lot of those tactics being used in your arguments, so as an exercise I like to help people disambiguate facts from cleverly positioned lies and see if their claims still hold up. I suspect your argument is weak and based on conflating political ideology with political affiliation.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mythrwy 9y ago
  You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness. Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it. I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise. Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive. The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> 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. That is an oversimplification. What happened is that overtly racist policies fell out of favor. People talk about structural racism today, but nobody can say with a straight face that it's the same now as it was in the days of Jim Crow laws. By the 1960s the Democrats saw the writing on the wall. The political winds were changing and they adjusted their sail. But supporting Jim Crow had been how Democrats got elected in the south. By voting with the Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act, they alienated all the old racists who voted for them specifically to prevent that from happening. The south was ready to skin them and eat them at that point. The Republicans weren't too stupid to realize that. All they had to do to take the south was to show up and be Not The Democrats. Some racists (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties, but in general the Republicans were never as racist as the Democrats historically were. They didn't have to be. Popular support for racism has been on the decline for more than a hundred years, and the remaining racists no longer trusted the Dems so the Republicans never had to give them anything or even really promise to give them anything to get their votes. It's not so much that the Republicans flipped as that the racists lost and that redrew the electoral map.

dogruck 9y ago
Well said. I’m amazed by how blind history is to LBJ’s racist roots. LBJ was a life-long cold blooded political operative. His “courage” was strategic. And it worked.
- travmatt 9y ago
  Your critique of the civil rights bill is that the person who passed it was a politician?
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    No his critique is that it's laughable to call LBJ anything other than a blatent racist, despite the fact that he facilitated the civil rights act. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racis...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SpikeDad 9y ago

The Sinclair outlet in my area is a cesspool of right-wing conservative blowhards and biased news. Very sad.. I'm sure they're glad to pay $13 million in return for the appearance that the FCC cares about broadcast standards. They're making billions - they can afford it. I wonder where the fine money actually goes?