4 ms·

I do see this as a bad thing, but I also know that everyone under 40 gets their news from the web. The target audience for these channels are older people who d

I do see this as a bad thing, but I also know that everyone under 40 gets their news from the web. The target audience for these channels are older people who don't read news online or on mobile phones. In a way, Sinclair is becoming a TV streaming service. I sense the badness, but I also think they run the risk of spending a lot of money on a wasted effort. You can only influence people if they're dumb _and_ watching your news programs. Seems like a dwindling market if you ask me. People already have FOX News and they've reached their ceiling (35% of the population). Sinclair is going to run into the same demographic problem.

x220 9y ago
>You can only influence people if they're dumb _and_ watching your news programs. Seems like a dwindling market if you ask me. The amount of people watching TV is going down, but the proportion of people who think uncritically is skyrocketing.
sitkack 9y ago
Isn't the rate of voting much higher for 40+? As a method for controlling a large block of voters, this probably pretty effective. How many of these people are also going to see other sources of news? They probably have the TV on for comfort (fear), everything else is a side effect.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I have gotten my news from web for 25 years but I still watch local news 2 night s a week - to see coverage of some local issue, to check on the weather or see a bit of a baseball game, or just by default. And while people over 40 are generally in the second half of their lives and heading for the demographic exits, that doesn't mean they're politically irrelevant. They're far more likely to vote, more likely to be homeowners/property tax payers (with the political heft that that gives), and have greater financial and political heft than their younger counterparts. You're naive if you think they're just bumbling along without thinking of much of anything. Just because you find that demographic boring and personally irrelevant doesn't mean they can't exert political power over you int eh aggregate. Many such people are willing to have their opinions shaped or validated by broadcast media and act accordingly. Take Fox News; it's easy to make fun of their audience, because who int heir right mind would take people like Sean Hannity seriously? And yet millions do, and their existence and hostility cannot be wished away. Incidentally, just "getting your news from the web" is no guarantee of objectivity either. Come on, we live in a society where people in high places tweet links to Infowars or Qanon conspiracy theories non-ironically.
- ChicagoDave 9y ago
  I agree with your assessment, but my "gut" feeling is that Sinclair is over-reaching and the expectation won't match the spend. ESPN just announced their streaming service ESPN+. This is just another nail in cable TV's coffin. In a few years, broadcast television may be on its last legs. We're on the verge of a Spotify for TV where you can pick your own channels, including which "local" channel you want. Some people may still pick the Sinclair run station and be influenced, but my point is that we're reading this Sinclair deal in the context of the past. And people have an interesting habit of recognizing when they're being manipulated and they call B.S. First West Virginia, now Oklahoma where school teachers are fed up with tax cuts that only benefit corporations and the wealthy and end up taking away from teachers and students. We have a tragic and unexpectedly organized and mature set of Florida teenagers that are giving the NRA a run for their money. They may have knocked a Fox News mainstay off the air by forcing most of her advertisers to bolt. My sense, and it's just intuition based on the news of the day, is that people are just starting to push back. Sinclair probably needed the FCC changes 10 years ago. I think it's probably just too late.
Tactic 9y ago
Lest you are in too much of a bubble realize there are many people that live in areas with poor or absent internet. I suspect there are, in fact, people under 40 that get their news from local television. You may also want to reconsider that only dumb people can be influenced by this or other means of manipulation. And... if you can influence 35% of the population, it is fairly easy to get a voting majority from that point given participation rates. Especially, as others have said, if you are influencing the rather large and active over 40 population.

x220 9y ago

>You can only influence people if they're dumb _and_ watching your news programs. Seems like a dwindling market if you ask me. The amount of people watching TV is going down, but the proportion of people who think uncritically is skyrocketing.

sitkack 9y ago

Isn't the rate of voting much higher for 40+? As a method for controlling a large block of voters, this probably pretty effective. How many of these people are also going to see other sources of news? They probably have the TV on for comfort (fear), everything else is a side effect.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I have gotten my news from web for 25 years but I still watch local news 2 night s a week - to see coverage of some local issue, to check on the weather or see a bit of a baseball game, or just by default. And while people over 40 are generally in the second half of their lives and heading for the demographic exits, that doesn't mean they're politically irrelevant. They're far more likely to vote, more likely to be homeowners/property tax payers (with the political heft that that gives), and have greater financial and political heft than their younger counterparts. You're naive if you think they're just bumbling along without thinking of much of anything. Just because you find that demographic boring and personally irrelevant doesn't mean they can't exert political power over you int eh aggregate. Many such people are willing to have their opinions shaped or validated by broadcast media and act accordingly. Take Fox News; it's easy to make fun of their audience, because who int heir right mind would take people like Sean Hannity seriously? And yet millions do, and their existence and hostility cannot be wished away. Incidentally, just "getting your news from the web" is no guarantee of objectivity either. Come on, we live in a society where people in high places tweet links to Infowars or Qanon conspiracy theories non-ironically.

ChicagoDave 9y ago
I agree with your assessment, but my "gut" feeling is that Sinclair is over-reaching and the expectation won't match the spend. ESPN just announced their streaming service ESPN+. This is just another nail in cable TV's coffin. In a few years, broadcast television may be on its last legs. We're on the verge of a Spotify for TV where you can pick your own channels, including which "local" channel you want. Some people may still pick the Sinclair run station and be influenced, but my point is that we're reading this Sinclair deal in the context of the past. And people have an interesting habit of recognizing when they're being manipulated and they call B.S. First West Virginia, now Oklahoma where school teachers are fed up with tax cuts that only benefit corporations and the wealthy and end up taking away from teachers and students. We have a tragic and unexpectedly organized and mature set of Florida teenagers that are giving the NRA a run for their money. They may have knocked a Fox News mainstay off the air by forcing most of her advertisers to bolt. My sense, and it's just intuition based on the news of the day, is that people are just starting to push back. Sinclair probably needed the FCC changes 10 years ago. I think it's probably just too late.

Tactic 9y ago

Lest you are in too much of a bubble realize there are many people that live in areas with poor or absent internet. I suspect there are, in fact, people under 40 that get their news from local television. You may also want to reconsider that only dumb people can be influenced by this or other means of manipulation. And... if you can influence 35% of the population, it is fairly easy to get a voting majority from that point given participation rates. Especially, as others have said, if you are influencing the rather large and active over 40 population.