![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Until about a week ago, not a lot of people knew who Sinclair Broadcast Media was. Well, they know now, I guess.
As someone who majored in Mass Comms and used to work in broadcasting (albeit radio, not TV, but I know quite a few people who do, though none work at a Sinclair joint), I feel like I have a little skin in this particular game. So:
1. The story is much, much bigger than that creepy script. This explainer from Vox gives a pretty good rundown of Sinclair’s activities and why it should be a big deal.
2. A few aspects of this story aren’t new. For example, concentrated station ownership has been an industry issue for several decades now, and critics have long warned of the negative implications of putting content in the control of fewer and fewer companies. Well, now we know what happens when one of those companies decides to feed its political opinions into local TV news.
3. Another aspect that isn’t new is local TV news stations running external content as if it were locally produced. Remember those “video news releases” – PR video segments produced by the government (or by corporations or other groups) to look like a TV news story – that local stations were running as legit news stories without telling their viewers where they came from?
That said, for the most part that was more from laziness, sloppiness, expedience and aesthetics than any specific pro-Bush/GOP/conservative agenda. The Sinclair “must-runs” are decidedly more agenda-driven.
4. You do wonder why Sinclair thought no one would notice the scripts in this age of social media and Daily News type shows that actually keep track of this stuff. Then again, this is the age where the default conservative defense is Fake News. Which is ironic, given the topic of the script.
5. Speaking of which, Sinclair’s Scott Livingston has defended the script – or at least the message – saying that its sole purpose is to address the very real problem of fake news cluttering up social media (that does sometimes get reported by some media outlets as fact), and to assure local viewers that the station they’re watching will never run fake or false news stories (with the disclaimer that hey, we make mistakes like anyone else) and be fair and “in the middle” in their news broadcasts.
Which is fine, as far as it goes. But there are a few problems here, such as what counts as “in the middle” – even Breitbart and Addicting Info think they’re being truthful and objective in their reporting.
There’s also the question of what counts as “fake news”. Livingston says it’s stuff like Pizzagate. Which, again, is fine as far as it goes. But in the context of Sinclair’s inclination for “must-run” commentaries that skew primarily to the right and in support of Trump – and Trump’s own personal definition of “fake news” (i.e. any news that criticizes him or even mentions the Russia investigation) – one can be forgiven for wondering just what Sinclair meant by “fake news” and “false reporting”, or whether they classify a Russia investigation story in the same category as Pizzagate. (Livingston seems to hint that he would consider a lot of reports about the Sinclair script in that category. Funny, that.)
So really, the spiel is dressed up like a pledge to fair and balanced news, but it’s also telling viewers: “You can trust anything we report – unlike those other guys …”
6. While we’re at it, Livingston’s defense of the must-run commentaries is a bit weak too. He basically says, “We clearly label it commentary and we clearly say Boris Epshteyn used to be a Trump advisor, so what’s the problem?” Well, the problem is that (as far as I know) Sinclair produces no commentaries representing other views, and it requires its stations to run them. And again, this has to be taken in the context of Sinclair being run by vocally conservative people who have been forcing commentaries, political ads, special reports, “terrorism news alerts” and other content with an exclusively conservative slant. It may not take up very much of the news broadcast, but opinion pieces that take only one side shape the context in which the other local stories are presented.
7. Now that this is a big news story, will it make a difference?
Probably not. And this piece from Slate saves me a lot of typing in explaining why. The short version: Sinclair thinks it has nothing to apologize for, it has Trump on their side, and most viewers won’t care, won’t understand, or will just assume it’s more Liberal Fake News making hay out of nothing, or whatever.
And ultimately, we know there’s a big and monetizable audience for conservative-slanted TV news. Sinclair execs know that too. Trust me on this – whatever their political ideologies, they wouldn't be doing this if they thought it would hurt their bottom line.
Which is why I do wonder about all those other media conglomerates – how many of them also do this sort of thing? And if they don’t, will they rethink their business model? Maybe they’ll see a business model in NOT doing what Sinclair does, and promote editorial independence as a selling point. Or (more likely) they may do an MSNBC and create a liberal anti-Sinclair alternative to cash in on that other echo-chamber dollar.
8. Anyway, I’ve felt for awhile that TV news in general has been in decline for decades as the emphasis has shifted from straight news and information to entertainment – often, it seems, at the expense of substance and objectivity. But Sinclair is making it worse by using its stations to locally promote uniform and specific political views that happen to be favorable to one political party in general and this specific POTUS in particular. It’s not quite “state media” in the traditional sense (I live next door to China, so my idea of state media is based on that model). But it’s not fair, balanced and independent, either.
The best possible spin I can put on it is that it’s going to make the current hyperpartisan echo-chamber problem even worse than it already is. And it’s already pretty bad.
News you can use,
This is dF
As someone who majored in Mass Comms and used to work in broadcasting (albeit radio, not TV, but I know quite a few people who do, though none work at a Sinclair joint), I feel like I have a little skin in this particular game. So:
1. The story is much, much bigger than that creepy script. This explainer from Vox gives a pretty good rundown of Sinclair’s activities and why it should be a big deal.
2. A few aspects of this story aren’t new. For example, concentrated station ownership has been an industry issue for several decades now, and critics have long warned of the negative implications of putting content in the control of fewer and fewer companies. Well, now we know what happens when one of those companies decides to feed its political opinions into local TV news.
3. Another aspect that isn’t new is local TV news stations running external content as if it were locally produced. Remember those “video news releases” – PR video segments produced by the government (or by corporations or other groups) to look like a TV news story – that local stations were running as legit news stories without telling their viewers where they came from?
That said, for the most part that was more from laziness, sloppiness, expedience and aesthetics than any specific pro-Bush/GOP/conservative agenda. The Sinclair “must-runs” are decidedly more agenda-driven.
4. You do wonder why Sinclair thought no one would notice the scripts in this age of social media and Daily News type shows that actually keep track of this stuff. Then again, this is the age where the default conservative defense is Fake News. Which is ironic, given the topic of the script.
5. Speaking of which, Sinclair’s Scott Livingston has defended the script – or at least the message – saying that its sole purpose is to address the very real problem of fake news cluttering up social media (that does sometimes get reported by some media outlets as fact), and to assure local viewers that the station they’re watching will never run fake or false news stories (with the disclaimer that hey, we make mistakes like anyone else) and be fair and “in the middle” in their news broadcasts.
Which is fine, as far as it goes. But there are a few problems here, such as what counts as “in the middle” – even Breitbart and Addicting Info think they’re being truthful and objective in their reporting.
There’s also the question of what counts as “fake news”. Livingston says it’s stuff like Pizzagate. Which, again, is fine as far as it goes. But in the context of Sinclair’s inclination for “must-run” commentaries that skew primarily to the right and in support of Trump – and Trump’s own personal definition of “fake news” (i.e. any news that criticizes him or even mentions the Russia investigation) – one can be forgiven for wondering just what Sinclair meant by “fake news” and “false reporting”, or whether they classify a Russia investigation story in the same category as Pizzagate. (Livingston seems to hint that he would consider a lot of reports about the Sinclair script in that category. Funny, that.)
So really, the spiel is dressed up like a pledge to fair and balanced news, but it’s also telling viewers: “You can trust anything we report – unlike those other guys …”
6. While we’re at it, Livingston’s defense of the must-run commentaries is a bit weak too. He basically says, “We clearly label it commentary and we clearly say Boris Epshteyn used to be a Trump advisor, so what’s the problem?” Well, the problem is that (as far as I know) Sinclair produces no commentaries representing other views, and it requires its stations to run them. And again, this has to be taken in the context of Sinclair being run by vocally conservative people who have been forcing commentaries, political ads, special reports, “terrorism news alerts” and other content with an exclusively conservative slant. It may not take up very much of the news broadcast, but opinion pieces that take only one side shape the context in which the other local stories are presented.
7. Now that this is a big news story, will it make a difference?
Probably not. And this piece from Slate saves me a lot of typing in explaining why. The short version: Sinclair thinks it has nothing to apologize for, it has Trump on their side, and most viewers won’t care, won’t understand, or will just assume it’s more Liberal Fake News making hay out of nothing, or whatever.
And ultimately, we know there’s a big and monetizable audience for conservative-slanted TV news. Sinclair execs know that too. Trust me on this – whatever their political ideologies, they wouldn't be doing this if they thought it would hurt their bottom line.
Which is why I do wonder about all those other media conglomerates – how many of them also do this sort of thing? And if they don’t, will they rethink their business model? Maybe they’ll see a business model in NOT doing what Sinclair does, and promote editorial independence as a selling point. Or (more likely) they may do an MSNBC and create a liberal anti-Sinclair alternative to cash in on that other echo-chamber dollar.
8. Anyway, I’ve felt for awhile that TV news in general has been in decline for decades as the emphasis has shifted from straight news and information to entertainment – often, it seems, at the expense of substance and objectivity. But Sinclair is making it worse by using its stations to locally promote uniform and specific political views that happen to be favorable to one political party in general and this specific POTUS in particular. It’s not quite “state media” in the traditional sense (I live next door to China, so my idea of state media is based on that model). But it’s not fair, balanced and independent, either.
The best possible spin I can put on it is that it’s going to make the current hyperpartisan echo-chamber problem even worse than it already is. And it’s already pretty bad.
News you can use,
This is dF
