
FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News - Deinos
http://variety.com/2017/politics/news/sinclair-fcc-fine-sponsor-violation-1202647175/
======
mhneu
I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public
debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their
local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case
last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they _required_
their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote
for Hillary because Ds were historically pro-slavery". But all educated
Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems
under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and
the racists moved to the Republicans.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-
broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html)

Sinclair also used their size and connections to the conservative movement to
get FCC commissioners who would repeal rules on concentrated ownership of
local TV stations.

Ownership of media outlets used to be a big topic of concern in the US. Who
owns media outlets is going to be one of the defining issues of our future.

~~~
mythrwy
While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are
also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery
party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard.

Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this:

House: Democrats: 63% yea.

House: Republicans: 80% yea.

Senate: Democrats: 69% yea.

Senate: Republicans: 82% yea.

In short, a much larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the 1964
Civil Rights Bill than Democrats. Educated Americans can look this up.

~~~
travmatt
1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives
then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals?

2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives
then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals?

3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do
you think conservative ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights?

4) Do you think liberals voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you
think liberal ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights?

I find a lot of people are able to get away with a lot of political sophistry
because they can skillfully abuse peoples lack of historical and political
knowledge. I find this problem is especially pernicious regarding the civil
rights act, because this was right around the time that the political parties
were undergoing major changes in their makeup, so people concern trolling are
often able to ambiguate ideology, political affiliation and the structures of
political parties in such a way as to push the deceptive and deceitful lie
that liberals are or were pro-slavery.

I find a lot of those tactics being used in your arguments, so as an exercise
I like to help people disambiguate facts from cleverly positioned lies and see
if their claims still hold up. I suspect your argument is weak and based on
conflating political ideology with political affiliation.

~~~
mythrwy
You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect
as a result of ideological blindness.

Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple
"liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and
so is my take on it.

I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt
to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't
matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't
believe, nor do I suggest otherwise.

Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100%
with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil
down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's
offensive.

The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political
ideologies tend to discourage.

~~~
travmatt
I’m sorry but I can’t discuss politics with people that refuse to answer basic
questions about the past and what they believe regarding it without ducking
and obfuscation. To me it’s always a sign of concern trolling, especially when
the argument then devolves into arguments that really just center around
calling others ideologically blinded and calls for perspective and nuance -
which you are curiously advocating for by dumping out of context figures and
refusing to give context about.

For others that are interested, the liberal and conservative blocs were the
predominant factions of both parties that played pivotal roles in civil rights
era legislation. Specifically, the ‘64 bill was passed by factions of mainly
northern democratic liberals and liberal republicans - many republicans
actually played crucial roles in captaining the legislation through congress
and surviving quorum calls organized by the opposing conservative southern and
midwestern factions. Looking at the civil rights issue through the
perspectives of liberal v conservative is also interesting for other reasons
as well. LBJ in many ways was a pseudo-conservative, who by dint of his firmly
conservative credentials was able to position himself to be mentored by and
ultimately betray his mentor, the leader of the conservative faction and the
strongest force for segregation in America - the senator Richard Russell. In
the larger tapestry of American history, Russell was also a new dealer, which
in many ways was a deal in which conservatives accepted the progressive safety
net in exchange for entrenching the socioeconomic subjugation of minorities
through carve-outs to their eligibility to receive aforementioned benefits.
This is the thesis behind Ira Katznelson’s ‘Fear Itself’.

Additionally, America has been undergoing a political realignment in which
party and ideology are increasingly correlated - there are fewer liberal
Republicans and fewer conservative Democrats, which in turn has led to greater
political polarization and the greater political paralysis we see today.
Understanding the drivers of the realignment between conservatives and
liberals is crucial to understanding American politics today.

------
PretzelFisch
_“Sinclair proudly supports the Cancer Foundation and its educational mission.
Any absence of sponsorship identification in these public service segments was
unintended and a result of simple human error. "_

I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of
human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the
wrist.

~~~
kbutler
I don't think the size of Sinclair is the relevant benchmark. The
profitability and prevalence of the practice is the important part.

How much did that sponsorship earn them? How many other sponsored stories are
they running? What's the probability of a new sponsored story generating a new
fine?

Make it so that they lost significantly more than they got doing this, and so
that they expect to lose money if they do it again.

------
ll931110
John Oliver's segment does cover Sinclair in detail:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc)

------
jrochkind1
See also another article published today:

Building A Case: Sinclair Broadcasting’s Project Baltimore offers right-wing
news coverage of city schools by Jaisal Noor

[http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-
sinclair-b...](http://baltimorebeat.com/2017/12/21/building-case-sinclair-
broadcastings-project-baltimore-offers-right-wing-news-coverage-city-schools/)

// “[Project Baltimore] are building a case to privatize schools,” Diamonte
Brown, a Baltimore school teacher and an advocate for reforming the school
system told The Real News. //

Wonder who's paying for that...

~~~
mhneu
And this one

"Fox’s Unfamiliar but Powerful Television Rival: Sinclair"
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclai...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/business/dealbook/sinclair-
media-expansion-fox-conservative-media.html)

And "How a Conservative TV Giant [Sinclair] Is Ridding Itself of Regulation"
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-
conserv...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conservative-
tv-giant-is-ridding-itself-of-regulation.html)

------
jacquesm
Someone ought to fine the US congress for running sponsored content as laws.

------
mratzloff
This is like 5% of their net income, so a slap on the wrist. They control more
than 40% of the local news market. The FTC needs to break them up, not keep
approving their continued growth.

~~~
bob_theslob646
Isn't that still alot? How much should the fine be?

~~~
flavor8
Just fyi: [http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-
quan...](http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/questions-and-
quandaries/grammar/is-alot-a-word)

~~~
bob_theslob646
Thanks for that.

FYI
[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/lan...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_good_word/2013/09/language_bullies_pedants_and_grammar_nerds_who_correct_people_all_the_time.html)

~~~
flavor8
I rarely point out grammar (or spelling) mistakes. "Alot" is one of those run-
together phrases that people need to be told isn't a word in order to stop
using; clearly nobody has with you, so I thought I'd do you a favor. :)

------
jlwarren1
"[They] deliberately runs shows that will earn them huge fines they can then
funnel through the FCC straight to the Republican Party. Everybody in the
media knows it but no one has the guts to say it." Simpsons Season 18 Episode
22

------
otakucode
How much was Sinclair paid to air the content? I mean... how could you
possibly write an article without including this sort of information? It is
impossible to know whether the fine levied was at all reasonable without
knowing how much Sinclair profited from breaking the law. If they were paid
$13.4 million + $1 or more, then the FCC has guaranteed that airing such
content will become standard business practice. Only if they were paid less
than $13.4 million is there even the slightest hope that their actions will be
modified in the future.

------
totalZero
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere
question.

~~~
mhneu
"The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure
broadcasters operate in the public interest." (National Broadcasting Co. v.
U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).)

It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in
the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.

~~~
totalZero
Falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre incites behavior that is
knowingly contrary to the well-being of the patrons. (Also, some defenders of
the first amendment argue that this is protected speech, but let's ignore that
for now.)

Imagine I pay a news station to run a story about a hospital (for example)
which I believe to have saved many lives and I expect will continue to do so.
Arguably my advertisement is in the public interest, because it brings
attention to a potential health benefit.

What then, hypothetically? Is "public interest" still a justification for the
fine?

~~~
sitkack
Imagine if you will an absurdly constructed hypothetical argument.

