4 ms·
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 sa
by 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 agoAny 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 agoSinclair 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 agoAnd 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 agoI 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 agoTV broadcast frequencies are a far scarcer resource than land.
- will4274 9y agoAnd yet, there are more TV stations than movie theatres in many towns.
- pnw_hazor 9y agoAs well as networks, in general, like ABC, etc.
- chiefalchemist 9y agoTrue. But out of curiosity, how many people live within the "traditional" broadcast influence of Sinclair media properties.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoJust because you don't use something doesn't mean a lot of other people don't. TV is still the most popular medium for getting news. http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/ http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/
- dabbledash 9y agoAbsolutely it’s popular, especially with older people, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly. I’m very hesitant to have the government interfering with media, even against right wing clowns like Sinclair.