4 ms·

It's one (sinclair) pretending to be many (local news stations). Standard advice is check multiple sources. This pretends to be "multiple sources" when really

It's one (sinclair) pretending to be many (local news stations). Standard advice is check multiple sources. This pretends to be "multiple sources" when really it's just one. Sinclair is effectively and echo chamber on TV. Web standards, don't like it, navigate else where. TV Standards, change the channel, get the same stuff. See how that is much more dangerous?

Consultant32452 9y ago
But this is the way it's been as far back as I can remember. You might think reading your local news is an independent source, but it's often mostly a copy/pasta from Reuters or simply reporting that another news company said something. I never believed that my local "Action 9 News" caster was actually doing any journalism. Maybe for local stories, but for anything national they were just regurgitating the company line.
- chc 9y ago
  Newspapers pay Reuters for access to their stories because Reuters has pretty good writing on offer for less than it would cost the paper to do the work itself. They can choose what stories they want to put their name on, and they are even free to modify a story from Reuters if they want to. Reuters doesn't tell the newspapers want to print. It's not even a little bit similar to what people are talking about here.
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    Then I think the discussion should reflect that. So what has changed is that now there's apparently an explicit rule that news stations must continue to follow the behavior they've been exhibiting for decades. Also, there's a little more structure to it now.
    - chc 9y ago
      No? A corporation forcing news outlets to issue editorial statements (and without disclosure) isn't remotely the same thing as a newspaper voluntarily paying Reuters for access to its reporting. It's like the difference between buying an apple at the farmer's market and having somebody pour bleach in your eyes. There's a level of abstraction where you could describe those two things in similar terms ("oh, you're just having a substance enter your body"), but they are not at all the same in any meaningful way.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        I understand what you're saying, I'm just more cynical about old media than you are. Technically old media in the 80s could have theoretically expressed unique opinions that didn't toe the company line of the wealthy establishment, they just coincidentally never did. Now many of them are owned by the same company and use the same language.

Consultant32452 9y ago

But this is the way it's been as far back as I can remember. You might think reading your local news is an independent source, but it's often mostly a copy/pasta from Reuters or simply reporting that another news company said something. I never believed that my local "Action 9 News" caster was actually doing any journalism. Maybe for local stories, but for anything national they were just regurgitating the company line.

chc 9y ago
Newspapers pay Reuters for access to their stories because Reuters has pretty good writing on offer for less than it would cost the paper to do the work itself. They can choose what stories they want to put their name on, and they are even free to modify a story from Reuters if they want to. Reuters doesn't tell the newspapers want to print. It's not even a little bit similar to what people are talking about here.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  Then I think the discussion should reflect that. So what has changed is that now there's apparently an explicit rule that news stations must continue to follow the behavior they've been exhibiting for decades. Also, there's a little more structure to it now.
  - chc 9y ago
    No? A corporation forcing news outlets to issue editorial statements (and without disclosure) isn't remotely the same thing as a newspaper voluntarily paying Reuters for access to its reporting. It's like the difference between buying an apple at the farmer's market and having somebody pour bleach in your eyes. There's a level of abstraction where you could describe those two things in similar terms ("oh, you're just having a substance enter your body"), but they are not at all the same in any meaningful way.
    - Consultant32452 9y ago
      I understand what you're saying, I'm just more cynical about old media than you are. Technically old media in the 80s could have theoretically expressed unique opinions that didn't toe the company line of the wealthy establishment, they just coincidentally never did. Now many of them are owned by the same company and use the same language.