5 ms·

I can see why the FCC might be hesitant to get involved with these segments and scripts. However, the Sinclair merger should unequivocally be rejected. This bus

I can see why the FCC might be hesitant to get involved with these segments and scripts. However, the Sinclair merger should unequivocally be rejected. This business pattern only becomes an issue once you get monopolies and oligopolies. We need competition and variety in our news sources. Oligopolies are extremely dangerous to our democracy.

godzillabrennus 9y ago
Coupled with Citizens United verdict I agree. Also makes it easier for foreign money to influence our elections. Behind the scenes a foreign government can invest in American companies that buy advertising to change the outcome of an election.
- beckler 9y ago
  Imagine if a foreign company bought Sinclair.
  - floatrock 9y ago
    It would be blocked. Just last month for example the administration blocked Singapore-based Broadcom from a takeover bid of Qualcomm on national security grounds. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/technology/trump-broadcom-qualcomm-merger.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/technology/trump-broadcom... Not a fan of any of these folks, but if Trump is willing to do a USPS audit pony show just because he's in a kerfuffle with Amazon's WaPo, an international takeover of a large media conglomerate is highly unlikely.
    - mulmen 9y ago
      Amazon does not own WaPo. This distinction is important.
      - mieseratte 9y ago
        How about this, the guy who owns the Washington Post is the founder and a major stakeholder of Amazon.
      - floatrock 9y ago
        Of course not. The point is billionaires get into pissing contests by attacking whatever flank or asset is the easiest target.
        InitialLastName 9y ago
        I don't think you can generalize this to "billionaires". More like "one specific 'billionaire'".
    - solarkraft 9y ago
      While blocking large foreign buyouts is probably a win for the US I still wouldn't trust the admin to do so reliably. Just throw a few hundred bucks their way.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    What makes you think they're not already somehow manipulated by foreign interests? How would you know?
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      Foreign interests? Domestic interests? I struggle to see the difference when it's all said and done. In either case the spirit of the republic is spat on. In either case, We The People get some perverted version of a gov said to be: of the people, by the people, for the people. Death is still death whether by foreign cancer of domestic cancer. If you trust (e.g.) Wall Street more than you trust (e.g.) The Russians then I have a bridge you might be interested in. Given their presumed loyalty - but ultimately the lack there of - the former's violations are relatively worse. Let's not be naive.
      - r00fus 9y ago
        I stand corrected. Foreign or domestic, their interests don't align with the US public at large.
  - nasredin 9y ago
    IIRC China recently bought a major Hollywood studio. Also notice the increase in token Chinese actors in recent blockbusters. Transformers even had some CCP pandering in the script. The self-censorship this brings is a real problem.
    - kolpa 9y ago
      That's more for making the movies popular in China than for manipulating American attitudes.
dabbledash 9y ago
It would be very hard to view them as a monopoly in any case if you consider all the other media sources they compete with. I can’t think of the last time I saw broadcast local news.
- rhino369 9y ago
  Any justification for censoring Sinclair would apply 100 fold to Google or Facebook. Its just not constitutional to ban Sinclair for running pro GOP content.
  - kolpa 9y ago
    Sinclair has a government-granted monopoly on the frequencies on which they broadcast. Google and Facebook offer service accessible over the (almost entirely) capacity-unconstrained Internet medium.
    - rhino369 9y ago
      And a movie theatre has a government granted monopoly on a piece of land on which they show movies. Doesn't mean you can't just build another one next door. Facebook has an actual monolopy on an entire market.
      - lovich 9y ago
        I agree that Facebook is a bigger issue, but you can't just build on more frequency. There's only a small, already claimed amount, that is suitable and allowed for broadcasting tv
      - gregdunn 9y ago
        TV broadcast frequencies are a far scarcer resource than land.
        will4274 9y ago
        And yet, there are more TV stations than movie theatres in many towns.

godzillabrennus 9y ago

Coupled with Citizens United verdict I agree. Also makes it easier for foreign money to influence our elections. Behind the scenes a foreign government can invest in American companies that buy advertising to change the outcome of an election.

beckler 9y ago
Imagine if a foreign company bought Sinclair.
- floatrock 9y ago
  It would be blocked. Just last month for example the administration blocked Singapore-based Broadcom from a takeover bid of Qualcomm on national security grounds. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/technology/trump-broadcom-qualcomm-merger.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/technology/trump-broadcom... Not a fan of any of these folks, but if Trump is willing to do a USPS audit pony show just because he's in a kerfuffle with Amazon's WaPo, an international takeover of a large media conglomerate is highly unlikely.
  - mulmen 9y ago
    Amazon does not own WaPo. This distinction is important.
    - mieseratte 9y ago
      How about this, the guy who owns the Washington Post is the founder and a major stakeholder of Amazon.
    - floatrock 9y ago
      Of course not. The point is billionaires get into pissing contests by attacking whatever flank or asset is the easiest target.
      - InitialLastName 9y ago
        I don't think you can generalize this to "billionaires". More like "one specific 'billionaire'".
  - solarkraft 9y ago
    While blocking large foreign buyouts is probably a win for the US I still wouldn't trust the admin to do so reliably. Just throw a few hundred bucks their way.
- r00fus 9y ago
  What makes you think they're not already somehow manipulated by foreign interests? How would you know?
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Foreign interests? Domestic interests? I struggle to see the difference when it's all said and done. In either case the spirit of the republic is spat on. In either case, We The People get some perverted version of a gov said to be: of the people, by the people, for the people. Death is still death whether by foreign cancer of domestic cancer. If you trust (e.g.) Wall Street more than you trust (e.g.) The Russians then I have a bridge you might be interested in. Given their presumed loyalty - but ultimately the lack there of - the former's violations are relatively worse. Let's not be naive.
    - r00fus 9y ago
      I stand corrected. Foreign or domestic, their interests don't align with the US public at large.
- nasredin 9y ago
  IIRC China recently bought a major Hollywood studio. Also notice the increase in token Chinese actors in recent blockbusters. Transformers even had some CCP pandering in the script. The self-censorship this brings is a real problem.
  - kolpa 9y ago
    That's more for making the movies popular in China than for manipulating American attitudes.

dabbledash 9y ago

It would be very hard to view them as a monopoly in any case if you consider all the other media sources they compete with. I can’t think of the last time I saw broadcast local news.

rhino369 9y ago
Any justification for censoring Sinclair would apply 100 fold to Google or Facebook. Its just not constitutional to ban Sinclair for running pro GOP content.
- kolpa 9y ago
  Sinclair has a government-granted monopoly on the frequencies on which they broadcast. Google and Facebook offer service accessible over the (almost entirely) capacity-unconstrained Internet medium.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    And a movie theatre has a government granted monopoly on a piece of land on which they show movies. Doesn't mean you can't just build another one next door. Facebook has an actual monolopy on an entire market.
    - lovich 9y ago
      I agree that Facebook is a bigger issue, but you can't just build on more frequency. There's only a small, already claimed amount, that is suitable and allowed for broadcasting tv
    - gregdunn 9y ago
      TV broadcast frequencies are a far scarcer resource than land.
      - will4274 9y ago
        And yet, there are more TV stations than movie theatres in many towns.