Compartmentalization

YouTube

There is nothing like a uniform front by the main stream media to ensure we're all getting the best, most pure form of "the news."

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[youtube]hWLjYJ4BzvI[/youtube]

There is nothing like a uniform front by the main stream media to ensure we're all getting the best, most pure form of "the news."

😴

Originally posted by @mchill
😴

I don't know that it is odd that you find the narrowing of public scrutiny boring, or if it's alarmingly sad.
Either way, you are responsible for the state of things just as much as anyone else.
Do you really want your contribution to be an emoticon?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[youtube]hWLjYJ4BzvI[/youtube]

There is nothing like a uniform front by the main stream media to ensure we're all getting the best, most pure form of "the news."

Uniformity in Media: FOX News and Sinclair started speaking truth to the masses?

Well, someone’s been watching his John Oliver!

Kuddos!

Originally posted by @wolfe63
Uniformity in Media: FOX News and Sinclair started speaking truth to the masses?

Good job spotting the FOX logo in the midst of CBS, NBC and ABC affiliates.
And that's exactly what constitutes the mix of all of their stations owned outright, which represents a solid 40% of all broadcast coverage--- not including their third-party action, which broadens their seepage.
All with the same message, both generally and, as seen here, specifically.
It doesn't matter which of the political views the corporation wishes to espouse: "out of many, one" isn't intended to reference a solitary new source, but a unified culture.

Vibrant culture requires vigorous debate.
Debate requires dialogue.
Dialogue requires emphatic listening.
Listening requires mutual respect.

Because we are so deficient in mutual respect for one another, we're willing to let the boat sink completely.
Just like the Great Sphinx, the US has cut off its nose to spite its face.

Originally posted by @shavixmir
Well, someone’s been watching his John Oliver!

Kuddos!

Not sure what John Oliver has to do with it, other than, well, nothing at all.
He's just as much of shill as there is in the stable.
Here's NYT's take on it.
Either the person responsible for the online title didn't read the content of the "article" since the scant information from Sinclair officials doesn't speak to the click bait otherwise:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair-news-anchors-script.html?smid=re-share

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Good job spotting the FOX logo in the midst of CBS, NBC and ABC affiliates.
And that's exactly what constitutes the mix of all of their stations owned outright, which represents a solid 40% of all broadcast coverage--- not including their third-party action, which broadens their seepage.
All with the same message, both generally and, as seen here, speci ...[text shortened]... oat sink completely.
Just like the Great Sphinx, the US has cut off its nose to spite its face.

You conveniently failed to mention that the conservative, activist corporation: Sinclair Broadcast Group owns all of those stations.

They actually mandated that this "scripted newspeak" should be shoveled onto the local airwaves by all of their vassal news programs.

Nice try at a "redirection spin" though.😏

Originally posted by @wolfe63
You conveniently failed to mention that the conservative, activist corporation: Sinclair Broadcast Group owns all of those stations.

They actually mandated that this "scripted newspeak" should be shoveled onto the local airwaves by all of their vassal news programs.

Nice try at a "redirection spin" though.😏

Perhaps the salient point has nothing to do with the political spin attempted, and everything to do with the underlying (and deeply disturbing) point: one governing body determining the message across no less than 40% of all coverage is decidedly not the way to maintain balance in a society.
MSM is now 96% owned by six corporations.
This is not good.
Not good at all.
That cannot be redirected, nor spun in any manner other than what it is.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[youtube]hWLjYJ4BzvI[/youtube]

There is nothing like a uniform front by the main stream media to ensure we're all getting the best, most pure form of "the news."

It seems that when most speak of "main stream media" in that fashion they are speaking of the "liberal media" and their "fake news". However the Sinclair Group is "a Conservative TV Giant". If you had framed it as "a uniform front by the right wing conservative media" the OP would have been on point.

How a Conservative TV Giant Is Ridding Itself of Regulation


WASHINGTON — The day before President Trump’s inauguration, the top executive of the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation’s largest owner of television stations, invited an important guest to the headquarters of the company’s Washington-area ABC affiliate.
The trip was, in the parlance of the business world, a deal closer.
The invitation from David D. Smith, the chairman of Sinclair, went to Ajit V. Pai, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission who was about to be named the broadcast industry’s chief regulator. Mr. Smith wanted Mr. Pai to ease up on efforts under President Barack Obama to crack down on media consolidation, which were threatening Sinclair’s ambitions to grow even bigger.
Mr. Smith did not have to wait long.
Within days of their meeting, Mr. Pai was named chairman of the F.C.C. And during his first 10 days on the job, he relaxed a restriction on television stations’ sharing of advertising revenue and other resources — the exact topic that Mr. Pai discussed with Mr. Smith and one of his business partners, according to records examined by The New York Times.
“These are invaluable and effective tools, which were taken away by the commission,” according to a summary of their meeting filed with the F.C.C.
It was only the beginning. Since becoming chairman in January, Mr. Pai has undertaken a deregulatory blitz, enacting or proposing a wish list of fundamental policy changes advocated by Mr. Smith and his company. Hundreds of pages of emails and other documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal a rush of regulatory actions has been carefully aligned with Sinclair’s business objectives.
The moves, which include easing a cap on how many stations a broadcaster can own, have opened up lucrative opportunities for Mr. Smith, among them a $3.9 billion bid to buy Tribune Media, another large owner of stations.
Mr. Pai’s deregulatory drive has also helped win him a following as a champion of pro-business, conservative causes — even leading some Republicans to approach him since he was first named to the F.C.C. in 2012 about running for elected office.
An examination of the F.C.C. records shows that the Smith-Pai alliance does not follow the familiar script of a lobbyist with deep pockets influencing policy. Instead, it is a case of a powerful regulator and an industry giant sharing a political ideology, and suddenly, with the election of Mr. Trump, having free rein to pursue it — with both Mr. Smith, 66, and Mr. Pai, 44, reaping rewards.
.
.
But critics say the rollback undermines the heart of the F.C.C. mission to protect diversity, competition and local control in broadcast media. It also gives an increasingly prominent conservative voice in broadcast television — Sinclair has become known for its right-leaning commentary — an unparalleled national platform, as television remains the preferred sourcefor most Americans of news, according to Pew.
A merger with Tribune would transform Sinclair into a media juggernaut, with reach into seven out of 10 homes through more than 200 stations in cities as diverse as Eureka, Calif., and Huntsville, Ala. The company would have a significant presence in important markets in several electoral swing states, including Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina, and would gain entry into the biggest urban markets: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The result would illustrate the real-world stakes of the Trump administration’s pursuit of dismantling regulations across government. The rollback at the F.C.C., a microcosm of the broader effort, pleases business interests and many Republicans who complain that regulators are heavy-handed and hostile in their approach. It raises alarms among free-speech advocates and many Democrats who say consumers suffer without aggressive oversight.


Pasted from <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/politics/how-a-conservative-tv-giant-is-ridding-itself-of-regulation.html>

Originally posted by @thinkofone
It seems that when most speak of "main stream media" in that fashion they are speaking of the "liberal media" and their "fake news". However the Sinclair Group is "a Conservative TV Giant". If you had framed it as "a uniform front by the right wing conservative media" the OP would have been on point.

How a Conservative TV Giant Is Ridding Its ...[text shortened]... /08/14/us/politics/how-a-conservative-tv-giant-is-ridding-itself-of-regulation.html>

The video montage is completely on point.
Not sure where your claim of "when most speak of "main stream media" in that fashion they are speaking of the "liberal media" and their "fake news"" comes from--- is there a survey you can site, or is that just your general feeling--- since, in my view, ALL of MSM is corporate-driven propaganda.
Despite the blatant fake news of CNN and its cartoonish content, they're just as guilty as any of the remaining purveyors of obfuscation and misdirection for the stage they all set for the consuming public.
We deserve it if we don't do something about it, right?

Originally posted by @freakykbh
The video montage is completely on point.
Not sure where your claim of "when most speak of "main stream media" in that fashion they are speaking of the "liberal media" and their "fake news"" comes from--- is there a survey you can site, or is that just your general feeling--- since, in my view, ALL of MSM is corporate-driven propaganda.
Despite the blat ...[text shortened]... they all set for the consuming public.
We deserve it if we don't do something about it, right?

The point is that you should have written the following in your OP instead of what you did:
"There is nothing like a uniform front by the right wing conservative media to ensure we're all getting the best, most pure form of "the news."

A point that seems to be lost on many is that the reason for governmental regulation in general is that it is necessary for the greater good. This is especially true in the US since it embraces capitalism which has greed as its driving force. The underlying issue is right wing conservative politics and its deleterious effects vis a vis deregulation. If your aim was to call that out, you could have framed it much better.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The point is that you should have written the following in your OP instead of what you did:
"There is nothing like a uniform front by the right wing conservative media to ensure we're all getting the best, most pure form of "the news."

A point that seems to be lost on many is that the reason for governmental regulation in general is that it is necess ...[text shortened]... s deregulation, you could have framed it much better. That's what's at the bottom of this issue.

Your suggested title would take the onus off of us and put it back on them.
That's a cop-out.
The current state of the government sanctioned near monopoly in media broadcasting and other outlets is not troubling on account of which political so-called flavor is most in control, but that the current measure of control--- four hundred basis points shy of full throttle--- eliminates the variety necessary for a robust conversation among the citizenry.

Short story: diversity = good.
Uniformity = bad.

It doesn't matter who is in control; if the dissemination of activities isn't compartmentalized over a broad spectrum of voices, we're all screwed.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Your suggested title would take the onus off of us and put it back on them.
That's a cop-out.
The current state of the government sanctioned near monopoly in media broadcasting and other outlets is not troubling on account of which political so-called flavor is most in control, but that the current measure of control--- four hundred basis points ...[text shortened]... nation of activities isn't compartmentalized over a broad spectrum of voices, we're all screwed.

Yes. Diversity is good. From the article I cited:

But critics say the rollback undermines the heart of the F.C.C. mission to protect diversity, competition and local control in broadcast media. It also gives an increasingly prominent conservative voice in broadcast television — Sinclair has become known for its right-leaning commentary — an unparalleled national platform, as television remains the preferred source for most Americans of news, according to Pew.

The result would illustrate the real-world stakes of the Trump administration’s pursuit of dismantling regulations across government. The rollback at the F.C.C., a microcosm of the broader effort, pleases business interests and many Republicans who complain that regulators are heavy-handed and hostile in their approach. It raises alarms among free-speech advocates and many Democrats who say consumers suffer without aggressive oversight.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group is a prime example of deleterious effects vis a vis deregulation. The video in your OP demonstrates this. This is right wing conservative politics.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
Yes. Diversity is good. From the article I cited:
[quote]But critics say[b] the rollback undermines the heart of the F.C.C. mission to protect diversity, competition and local control in broadcast media. It also gives an increasingly prominent conservative voice in broadcast television — Sinclair has become known for its right-leaning commentary — a ...[text shortened]... deregulation. The video in your OP demonstrates this. This is right wing conservative politics.[/b]

Well, 'right' but not accurate--- as in, nowhere near the broader picture which is necessary for a more balanced understanding of what is in play.

The article is not balanced, if it must resort to incendiary phrases such as "Trump administrations pursuit of dismantling regulations," especially in light of the fact that the current landscape of diminished ownership had literally nothing to do with Trump whatsoever.
When this bill was passed into law, Congress was held by Republicans:
Senate: 53 to 47 [53% to 47%]
HoR: 234 to 197 [54% to 43%]
The bill was one of 28 primarily sponsored by Larry Pressler, serving as a senator from South Dakota at the time, after several years as a representative--- the first Vietnam veteran to serve as an elected member of the Senate.
He wasn't grandstanding for any telecommunications influence from his state so that can be eliminated from the consideration.
While serving on the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation during the 104th Congress, he put forth a bill the panel worked on which concerned itself with the the six decade old Communications Act of 1934.
They figured it needed an update to address both new technology as well as whatever settling had occurred in that ensuing time.
Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Pressler was/is not a died-in-the-wool Republican, supporting both Obama and then Hilary in her run for president, for whatever reasons.
Eliminating the bipartisan aspect, we can see their intention with the bill/law and it is very obvious the results are diametrically contradicting the same.

What was supposed to foster competition made monopoly easier.

And that's how we have monstrosities such as Clear Channel.
This leviathan is responsible for having played Mrs. Robinson from Simon & Garfunkel no less than six million times, to date.
If a three-year old heard nothing but Clear Channel's 'diversity' non-stop, they would go 32 years without a break.
Coo-coo-ka-chew...

Having the media controlled by a few--- regardless of their current political leanings--- is not a good thing.
But it wasn't Trump that brought it on: it is us who allow it.