5 ms·

Isn't this pretty much the case for all corporate media? The narrative is set from the top down, and if anyone strays too far outside the Overton Window, they'r

Isn't this pretty much the case for all corporate media? The narrative is set from the top down, and if anyone strays too far outside the Overton Window, they're punished. Example: Phil Donahue getting fired from MSNBC for speaking against the war in Iraq. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
SanFranManDan 9y ago
I think the point was that it was true for the national corporate media, but the local stations were somewhat protected until ajit pai allowed Sinclair to start sucking all of them up. Now the problems with MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc will pour into the local news stations as well. All local news and national news will be controlled by highly concentrated oligopolies. These past years we are seeing much more concentration of something that was already concentrated.
SonicSoul 9y ago
Phil Donahue was not a news anchor. What makes this case different is that this is scripted material posing as real local news as part of basic cable package. Most people will not treat this as crafted message from a corporation, but actual news.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Isn't most corporate cable news a scripted message read from a teleprompter?
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    National anchors clearly have a boss that they listen to, but they also pretty clearly have a pretty large amount of editorial control over their shows.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >they also pretty clearly have a pretty large amount of editorial control over their shows. The case of Phil Donahue indicates otherwise.
      - macintux 9y ago
        Which, again: Phil Donahue was not a news anchor.
        wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Did he discuss news and current events on a television show? If so he can be called a news anchor, or a news presenter. Why are you stressing the semantics if not only to euphemize? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_presenter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_presenter
        ModernMech 9y ago
        It might be due to Fox News getting out of a lawsuit by claiming what they broadcast isn't news but entertainment (at least in the prime time slots)
        wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Do you have a source for this? After googling "fox news entertainment lawsuit" it appears this may be a myth https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        I think the Phil Donahue case fits just fine with what I said. They didn't have any way to control what he was gonna say other than canceling his show.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
A lot of people believe that, but it's far from proven in the general case. There are some proven examples of the US government influencing news (at home and abroad), there are clearly advertiser influences, there are political influencers (e.g. Fox News) on partisan channels. But I haven't seen evidence for it as the norm. Obviously this piece was published by the New York Times, for example.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >I haven't seen evidence for it as the norm. You might like Spin, a 1995 documentary composed of unauthorized behind the scenes footage of the political maneuverings of newscasters and politicians. https://youtu.be/PlJkgQZb0VU https://youtu.be/PlJkgQZb0VU
fncypants 9y ago
This message was tailored to push the "fake news" narrative of the current administration under the guise of journalistic integrity. It is designed to engender absolute distrust in non-Sinclair media, which given Sinclair's enormous market share[0] is unwarranted and harmful to the democracy. Why would this be classified by Sinclair a MUST run segment for likely one reason? Easy: to curry favor with the White House to clear the path for further consolidation. Trump speaks glowingly of Sinclair,[1] despite what others consider to be anti-competitive acquisitions and mergers and detrimental to a healthy free press.[2] Yet, Trump has taken action to prevent CNN from merging with Time Warner which is currently being tried in a courtroom.[3] The difference is that CNN's news reporting is very unfavorable to this White House. This is not how a democracy remains healthy, or, really, how one continues to exist. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/05/07/sinclair-broadcasting-buy-tribune-media-4-billion-deal-reports-say/101409222/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/05/07/sin... [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-defends-sinclair-broadcasting-494422 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-defends-sinc... [2] https://www.vox.com/2017/5/15/15598270/sinclair-broadcast-imminent-conservative-takeover-of-local-tv-news-explained https://www.vox.com/2017/5/15/15598270/sinclair-broadcast-im... [3] http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/21/media/trump-comments-att-time-warner/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/21/media/trump-comments-att-tim...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

SanFranManDan 9y ago

I think the point was that it was true for the national corporate media, but the local stations were somewhat protected until ajit pai allowed Sinclair to start sucking all of them up. Now the problems with MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc will pour into the local news stations as well. All local news and national news will be controlled by highly concentrated oligopolies. These past years we are seeing much more concentration of something that was already concentrated.

SonicSoul 9y ago

Phil Donahue was not a news anchor. What makes this case different is that this is scripted material posing as real local news as part of basic cable package. Most people will not treat this as crafted message from a corporation, but actual news.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Isn't most corporate cable news a scripted message read from a teleprompter?
- maxerickson 9y ago
  National anchors clearly have a boss that they listen to, but they also pretty clearly have a pretty large amount of editorial control over their shows.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >they also pretty clearly have a pretty large amount of editorial control over their shows. The case of Phil Donahue indicates otherwise.
    - macintux 9y ago
      Which, again: Phil Donahue was not a news anchor.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Did he discuss news and current events on a television show? If so he can be called a news anchor, or a news presenter. Why are you stressing the semantics if not only to euphemize? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_presenter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_presenter
        ModernMech 9y ago
        It might be due to Fox News getting out of a lawsuit by claiming what they broadcast isn't news but entertainment (at least in the prime time slots)
        wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        Do you have a source for this? After googling "fox news entertainment lawsuit" it appears this may be a myth https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      I think the Phil Donahue case fits just fine with what I said. They didn't have any way to control what he was gonna say other than canceling his show.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

A lot of people believe that, but it's far from proven in the general case. There are some proven examples of the US government influencing news (at home and abroad), there are clearly advertiser influences, there are political influencers (e.g. Fox News) on partisan channels. But I haven't seen evidence for it as the norm. Obviously this piece was published by the New York Times, for example.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>I haven't seen evidence for it as the norm. You might like Spin, a 1995 documentary composed of unauthorized behind the scenes footage of the political maneuverings of newscasters and politicians. https://youtu.be/PlJkgQZb0VU https://youtu.be/PlJkgQZb0VU

fncypants 9y ago

This message was tailored to push the "fake news" narrative of the current administration under the guise of journalistic integrity. It is designed to engender absolute distrust in non-Sinclair media, which given Sinclair's enormous market share[0] is unwarranted and harmful to the democracy. Why would this be classified by Sinclair a MUST run segment for likely one reason? Easy: to curry favor with the White House to clear the path for further consolidation. Trump speaks glowingly of Sinclair,[1] despite what others consider to be anti-competitive acquisitions and mergers and detrimental to a healthy free press.[2] Yet, Trump has taken action to prevent CNN from merging with Time Warner which is currently being tried in a courtroom.[3] The difference is that CNN's news reporting is very unfavorable to this White House. This is not how a democracy remains healthy, or, really, how one continues to exist. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/05/07/sinclair-broadcasting-buy-tribune-media-4-billion-deal-reports-say/101409222/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/05/07/sin... [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-defends-sinclair-broadcasting-494422 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/02/trump-defends-sinc... [2] https://www.vox.com/2017/5/15/15598270/sinclair-broadcast-imminent-conservative-takeover-of-local-tv-news-explained https://www.vox.com/2017/5/15/15598270/sinclair-broadcast-im... [3] http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/21/media/trump-comments-att-time-warner/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/21/media/trump-comments-att-tim...