5 ms·

Public frustration with the "visible homeless" found its voice in a recent hourlong special called "Seattle is Dying," by ABC affiliate KOMO-TV. This fails to

Public frustration with the "visible homeless" found its voice in a recent hourlong special called "Seattle is Dying," by ABC affiliate KOMO-TV. This fails to mention that KOMO is owned by Sinclair Broadcasting, which has been building a sort of 'Fox News of broadcast TV' across the United States. Here's one fun story about them from April 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16734739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16734739

Sebguer 7y ago
They are far worse than Fox news, because at least you know what you're getting with Fox. Sinclair uses local branding and trusted voices to sell propaganda.
- booboolayla 7y ago
  What news sources would you recommend that are not propaganda in your view?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  If anyone wants more info, there's a John Oliver segment on how Sinclair does this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc They require local stations to play pre-recorded, "must run" commentary, as well as requiring their anchors to recite a script accusing other news outlets of running "fake news". https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490 https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local...
  - leereeves 7y ago
    John Oliver isn't any better. In his segment on Libya, for example, he didn't mention that Obama and Hillary (or even the US) were responsible for the mess there. In his special on mandatory minimums, he ignored the Clinton Crime Bill, while showing footage of the first Bush. News sources slanting their coverage for political reasons isn't limited to Fox and Sinclair.
    - colpabar 7y ago
      But drumpf!
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      I can't find any indication Oliver did a Libya special? Do you have a link? There's a short discussion of John Bolton's Libya model, where it relates to North Korea, but that's all I can find.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        I can't find the full episode either now, but here's an excerpt that suddenly cuts out after 90 seconds. I hazily remember it being longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2VKMQmAOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2VKMQmAOY > It's been three years since Qadaffi fell. > The nation of Libya seems to be descending into chaos at the hands of Islamist militias. Plenty of opportunity there to say "since Obama overthrew Qadaffi and left the nation in chaos". It seems I shouldn't have called it a special, it was just a segment, but I'm still wondering why it isn't in the list of episodes on Wikipedia (which includes each segment).
    - pteredactyl 7y ago
      100% agreed. How he is not questioned for foreign influence on our election is beyond me. I'm somewhat saying this tongue-and-cheek but for the amount of 'Russian Collusion' that warranted the last 3 years of hysteria, he should've been questioned.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  Forget Sinclair. This is NPR and they put a line like that in their piece which makes it sound as if the public is speaking with a majority or unanimous voice on this. And this line is classic crime reporter editorializing. > The county attorney is no longer charging people for possession of small amounts of drugs — even heroin and meth Which totally 'begs the question' that somehow carrying these drugs is uniquely bad. Why NPR? Why is heroin uniquely worth calling out in your reporting. Your Victorian values letting the gin drinkers get to you? Too bad they can't afford champagne.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    If there are laws against possession and they are deciding not to prosecute, then that is definitely noteworthy, whether you agree with their decision or not.
    - DubiousPusher 7y ago
      Absolutely. But they are choosing not to prosecute many drug possession charges. Singling out those two without any statistical explanation of why those drugs are more problematic than any others is shock journalism trash.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        I’m not sure why you would expect NPR to editorialize here, they can just state the fact and move on with their story, this is perfectly respectable.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    > Which totally 'begs the question' that somehow carrying these drugs is uniquely bad. Not really, those are drugs that are highly addictive and which have caused many people to be unemployable and unable to support themselves. If we're going to keep an eye out for 'propaganda' as another poster said, maybe someone who chose the name DubiousPusher has their own motives that are worth considering in this discussion?
creato 7y ago
To be honest, that segment made me question the "Sinclair = propaganda" meme. It's the only Sinclair production I've ever watched (don't watch OTA TV), I watched the whole thing. I thought it was very reasonable. Maybe Sinclair is a nefarious operation, but in my opinion that was a well done segment with reasonable suggestions for a way forward; their highlighting of how a Rhode Island(? it's been a while since I watched it) municipality is handling the issue. If the choices are the "propaganda camp" or the "totally hands-off approach to homelessness taken across the west coast camp" (and the associated blind eye to blatant criminal behavior and near total abandonment of responsibility towards public property in some places), I guess I'm in the propaganda camp.
- Aloha 7y ago
  I'd agree, it was extremely balanced and touched on the nuances of the problem, and the fact that there are no easy answers either - it made the case that just throwing people in jail wont do any good either.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  Propaganda is meant to look reasonable. Part of the problem with it is that they successfully presented you with a totally false choice - there are tons of options between "throw them on a prison island" and "do nothing", but the successful ones all involve an unacceptable amount of assistance and dignity given to these homeless people, and so Sinclair and friends just dismiss it as a handout or "moral hazard".
Aloha 7y ago
No matter your feelings on the political alignment of Sinclair, Seattle is Dying accurately captures the severity and magnitude of the problem, the program was balanced, and didnt advocate for one solution or another to the problem. I feel a whole lot of the people who have criticized this program have not watched it, or live in the parts of the Seattle area not effected by the homelessness crisis.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  No, it really doesn't.
  - Aloha 7y ago
    Okay, care to back that up?
    - lazyasciiart 7y ago
      Ha, like you backed up your statement? OK, here's criticism from someone who is pretty damn familiar with street homelessness in Seattle - https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-seattle-dying-misery-porn https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-seatt... And your claim that it "doesn't advocate" - where on earth do you think everyone got the idea of putting them on McNeil Island?
      - Aloha 7y ago
        While, I admit, I did listen to the program some months ago when it came out, I don't recall them advocating a single solution to the problem, their own anchor made it clear that while we should probably be putting more people in jail, mass incarceration wasn't a fix for the issue - I'm struggling to find a transcript for the broadcast, but my memories are pretty clear on it.
        lazyasciiart 7y ago
        It was a video. If you just listened to it you missed a lot.

Sebguer 7y ago

They are far worse than Fox news, because at least you know what you're getting with Fox. Sinclair uses local branding and trusted voices to sell propaganda.

booboolayla 7y ago
What news sources would you recommend that are not propaganda in your view?
ceejayoz 7y ago
If anyone wants more info, there's a John Oliver segment on how Sinclair does this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc They require local stations to play pre-recorded, "must run" commentary, as well as requiring their anchors to recite a script accusing other news outlets of running "fake news". https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490 https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local...
- leereeves 7y ago
  John Oliver isn't any better. In his segment on Libya, for example, he didn't mention that Obama and Hillary (or even the US) were responsible for the mess there. In his special on mandatory minimums, he ignored the Clinton Crime Bill, while showing footage of the first Bush. News sources slanting their coverage for political reasons isn't limited to Fox and Sinclair.
  - colpabar 7y ago
    But drumpf!
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    I can't find any indication Oliver did a Libya special? Do you have a link? There's a short discussion of John Bolton's Libya model, where it relates to North Korea, but that's all I can find.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      I can't find the full episode either now, but here's an excerpt that suddenly cuts out after 90 seconds. I hazily remember it being longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2VKMQmAOY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd2VKMQmAOY > It's been three years since Qadaffi fell. > The nation of Libya seems to be descending into chaos at the hands of Islamist militias. Plenty of opportunity there to say "since Obama overthrew Qadaffi and left the nation in chaos". It seems I shouldn't have called it a special, it was just a segment, but I'm still wondering why it isn't in the list of episodes on Wikipedia (which includes each segment).
  - pteredactyl 7y ago
    100% agreed. How he is not questioned for foreign influence on our election is beyond me. I'm somewhat saying this tongue-and-cheek but for the amount of 'Russian Collusion' that warranted the last 3 years of hysteria, he should've been questioned.
DubiousPusher 7y ago
Forget Sinclair. This is NPR and they put a line like that in their piece which makes it sound as if the public is speaking with a majority or unanimous voice on this. And this line is classic crime reporter editorializing. > The county attorney is no longer charging people for possession of small amounts of drugs — even heroin and meth Which totally 'begs the question' that somehow carrying these drugs is uniquely bad. Why NPR? Why is heroin uniquely worth calling out in your reporting. Your Victorian values letting the gin drinkers get to you? Too bad they can't afford champagne.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  If there are laws against possession and they are deciding not to prosecute, then that is definitely noteworthy, whether you agree with their decision or not.
  - DubiousPusher 7y ago
    Absolutely. But they are choosing not to prosecute many drug possession charges. Singling out those two without any statistical explanation of why those drugs are more problematic than any others is shock journalism trash.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I’m not sure why you would expect NPR to editorialize here, they can just state the fact and move on with their story, this is perfectly respectable.
- Natsu 7y ago
  > Which totally 'begs the question' that somehow carrying these drugs is uniquely bad. Not really, those are drugs that are highly addictive and which have caused many people to be unemployable and unable to support themselves. If we're going to keep an eye out for 'propaganda' as another poster said, maybe someone who chose the name DubiousPusher has their own motives that are worth considering in this discussion?

creato 7y ago

To be honest, that segment made me question the "Sinclair = propaganda" meme. It's the only Sinclair production I've ever watched (don't watch OTA TV), I watched the whole thing. I thought it was very reasonable. Maybe Sinclair is a nefarious operation, but in my opinion that was a well done segment with reasonable suggestions for a way forward; their highlighting of how a Rhode Island(? it's been a while since I watched it) municipality is handling the issue. If the choices are the "propaganda camp" or the "totally hands-off approach to homelessness taken across the west coast camp" (and the associated blind eye to blatant criminal behavior and near total abandonment of responsibility towards public property in some places), I guess I'm in the propaganda camp.

Aloha 7y ago
I'd agree, it was extremely balanced and touched on the nuances of the problem, and the fact that there are no easy answers either - it made the case that just throwing people in jail wont do any good either.
lazyasciiart 7y ago
Propaganda is meant to look reasonable. Part of the problem with it is that they successfully presented you with a totally false choice - there are tons of options between "throw them on a prison island" and "do nothing", but the successful ones all involve an unacceptable amount of assistance and dignity given to these homeless people, and so Sinclair and friends just dismiss it as a handout or "moral hazard".

Aloha 7y ago

No matter your feelings on the political alignment of Sinclair, Seattle is Dying accurately captures the severity and magnitude of the problem, the program was balanced, and didnt advocate for one solution or another to the problem. I feel a whole lot of the people who have criticized this program have not watched it, or live in the parts of the Seattle area not effected by the homelessness crisis.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
No, it really doesn't.
- Aloha 7y ago
  Okay, care to back that up?
  - lazyasciiart 7y ago
    Ha, like you backed up your statement? OK, here's criticism from someone who is pretty damn familiar with street homelessness in Seattle - https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-seattle-dying-misery-porn https://www.realchangenews.org/2019/03/20/komo-asserts-seatt... And your claim that it "doesn't advocate" - where on earth do you think everyone got the idea of putting them on McNeil Island?
    - Aloha 7y ago
      While, I admit, I did listen to the program some months ago when it came out, I don't recall them advocating a single solution to the problem, their own anchor made it clear that while we should probably be putting more people in jail, mass incarceration wasn't a fix for the issue - I'm struggling to find a transcript for the broadcast, but my memories are pretty clear on it.
      - lazyasciiart 7y ago
        It was a video. If you just listened to it you missed a lot.