4 ms·

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?

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?