+10

It is hard to argue that there are groups attempting to indoctrinate the US population by manipulating and scripting the evening news. Find out which stations in your area are owned by Sinclair and avoid them like the plague.

Sinclair Broadcast Group is an American telecommunications company that is owned by the family of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Headquartered in Hunt Valley, Maryland, the company is the largest television station operator in the United States by number of stations, and largest by total coverage; owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country (233 after all currently proposed sales are approved) in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are located in the South and Midwest. Sinclair also owns four digital multicast networks (Comet, Charge!, Stadium, and TBD) and one cable network (Tennis Channel), and owns or operates four radio stations (all based in the Pacific Northwest region). Among other non-broadcast properties, Sinclair also owns the professional wrestling promotion Ring of Honor and its streaming service Honor Club.

Sinclair's script for stationshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI
71%Agree29%Disagree
VicZincs avatar
Share
6 80
This user has deactivated their account.
@2741172

Image in content

Little evidence of concerted effort to control the news by the "liberal media" Sinclair has been fined for running paid messages as "news" without disclosing that it is an advertisement.

Kushner admitted to providing pro-conservative "news" stories to Sinclair.

I would appreciate evidence of others doing the same. I would like to avoid state run media outlets no matter if they are "left" or "right".

Don't forget the Murdoch owns Fox and the Kochs own Time. Which way do they lean?

This user has deactivated their account.
@2741216

I don't claim any such thing. I understand that outlets have biases.

I am looking for evidence that there is a concerted effort on the part of other media conglomerates to orchestrate the dissemination of specifically scripted stories. I am sure such evidence exists.

I want sources for those evidence to help me make informed choices about what I watch.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2741221

I agree. Multiple sites is the way to go. Personally I subscribe to FOX, Al Jezera, NPR, RT, Reuters nd and BBC.

This video was interesting to me because it included stations from FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN all owned by Sinclair - that makes it hard to multi-source news if all the 'sources' are controlled by one family.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2741258

I've seem them advertising - I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

"I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

-Thomas Jefferson, 1807

@VicZinc I say it often: believe nothing. There is no truth, only reasonable guesses.

Just because the media lies and manipulates (and says what it's told to) doesn't mean truth isn't real. It means you're unlikely to hear the real, honest truth articulated by the media, so you should always be skeptical of what the media tells you and realize that it's true goal is to manipulate you.

Also, as a fan of Trump I find it amusing that 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson was complaining about fake news.

Truth is simply honesty: speaking out of the intention to accurately represent what you know about reality from your perspective. To say there is no truth because the complete objective truth of reality cannot be completely understood with an instrument as crude as the human mind is to miss the point. You know when you're being truthful and when you're not... or at least you should.

@Maze Just because the media lies and manipulates (and says what it's told to) doesn't mean truth isn't real. It means...

Sort of. You know when you are being honest. You should know that being truthful is not possible. We can speak without any attempt to deceive and still not speak the truth.

@VicZinc Sort of. You know when you are being honest. You should know that being truthful is not possible. We can speak...

Not true. You can always, only, ever, speak the truth from your own perspective. You cannot be expected to know everything, telling the truth means accurately relating what you know without making any attempt to extrapolate, obfuscate or deceive.

If I say "911 was an inside job", I believe it's the truth, I am not attempting to deceive you by saying it, but I'm not in a position to know with 100% certainty whether it was an inside job or not, so it's not an objective statement of truth from my perspective.

If I say "There are details I've seen reported about 911 that lead me to believe it was an inside job," that is an objective statement of truth from my perspective.

@Maze Not true. You can always, only, ever, speak the truth from your own perspective. You cannot be expected to know...

Semantics. I agree to accept your definition of truth when you are conmenting. My definition is different. For me if it is not 100% it is not truth. It is an honest guess.

Please note that when I am commenting my definition of truth is different from your understanding of the truth.

@VicZinc Semantics. I agree to accept your definition of truth when you are conmenting. My definition is different. For...

Conmenting, good one. It goes deeper than semantics Vic. There are things that you know, and then there are things that you guess, or assume, or believe. There is only one of those things you can articulate and have it be a completely true statement from your perspective. Your guess may be right, or your assumption, or your belief, but they're just opinions, stating them isn't the same as telling the objective truth, because truth is something you know.

@Maze Conmenting, good one. It goes deeper than semantics Vic. There are things that you know, and then there are things...

I don't know anything. It is all just my best guess as to what is real and what is nonsense

@VicZinc I don't know anything. It is all just my best guess as to what is real and what is nonsense

Did you wake up this morning? Are you wearing clothes? Don't you know that?

@Maze Did you wake up this morning? Are you wearing clothes? Don't you know that?

I am guessing these are clothes. It seems like I am alive. But I don't know for sure.

@VicZinc I am guessing these are clothes. It seems like I am alive. But I don't know for sure.

I don't think there's any need for speculation about that, you were there, you know.

@VicZinc Glad you are so confident. Hope you don't mind if I am not.

If you don't accept that you know even the simplest things, how can you discern truth from a lie at all?

@VicZinc Found this, that it was apropo

Know: he says he likes that
Guess: he likes that

@Maze Know: he says he likes that Guess: he likes that

Ear witness? less reliable than eyewitness.

@VicZinc Ear witness? less reliable than eyewitness.

It's written in a cartoon, that's visual. If you doubt what was said, go back and re-read it. You can KNOW what was said.

@Maze It's written in a cartoon, that's visual. If you doubt what was said, go back and re-read it. You can KNOW what was...

Maybe you can. I have learned to never trust my eyes beyond a reasonable assumption of what might be there. That happens when you live with dyslexia.

@VicZinc Maybe you can. I have learned to never trust my eyes beyond a reasonable assumption of what might be there. That...

No wonder you're dyslexic Vic, you refuse to do justice unto truth, ie mentally arrange things in their proper order.

@Maze No wonder you're dyslexic Vic, you refuse to do justice unto truth, ie mentally arrange things in their proper order.

So many people insist on arranging things into a order that is not justified by the evidence.

@VicZinc So many people insist on arranging things into a order that is not justified by the evidence.

You don't trust the evidence that's right in front of your face, what makes you think you know more about arranging things in an order that's justified by the evidence than other people?

@VicZinc Found this, that it was apropo

P(Vic wants to pull your leg│Vic says something) =
P(Vic says something│Vic wants to pull your leg)           x P(Vic wants to pull your leg) / P(Vic says something)

Since the probability of Vic saying something, given that he wants to pull your leg is very close to 1, and since the probability of Vic wanting to pull your leg is also very close to 1, and that the probability that Vic will say something is also very close to 1,

The probability that Vic wants to pull your leg, given that he says something ≈ 1x1/1 = 1; i.e., a near certainty.

Elementary application of Bayes' theorem. biggrin smilie

@VicZinc Nailed it. Good work. P(thinkerbell want to pull my chain) also equals 1.

Not quite, Vic. It's

P(TB wants to pull V's chain│V is talking nonsense) ≈ 1

@VicZinc Which is 100% of the time because it is all nonsense.

I was giving you the (undeserved) benefit of the doubt, especially since you have said time and again that there are no absolutes, so I am willing to estimate that you talk nonsense only 99.99% of the time.

@Maze If you don't accept that you know even the simplest things, how can you discern truth from a lie at all?

Best guess.

Fact is I can't, (and I submit that no one can) but most people are pretty damn good guessers and we as a species have come a good long way by trusting or guesses.

But - you never know for sure.

@VicZinc Best guess. Fact is I can't, (and I submit that no one can) but most people are pretty damn good guessers and we...

You don't have to guess whether you're wearing pants Vic, you can check. I might guess that you're wearing pants as you read this, but I'm not in a position to know. You KNOW whether you're wearing pants or not, there's no guesswork involved on your part.

@Maze

I sit here in my underwear. Have I put 'clothes' on? My wife asks if I plan on putting my pants on. What are these? These are pants - they are called under pants.

@Maze "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that...

My dad once told me to believe half of what you see (on the TV news), and nothing of what you read (in the newspaper).

This comment was deleted by its author.
@2741188

Sure is.
Let's hope the FCC let's you.
Stop mergers, support Net Neutrality, promote public broadcasting.

@VicZinc

He should know, he's been doing it for years.

YouTube video thumbnail

@Maze He should know, he's been doing it for years.

Yes he should. It takes one to know one.

This user has deactivated their account.
@2741974

But in Rather's case, there was no doubt that he reveled in the lefty spin. CBS just wanted to get rid of him when he got too old and his ratings were falling... memogate was the excuse they needed to fire him.
Image in content

At least they are more direct that the subtle indoctrination of every other major media outlet.

Whaddaya mean, avoid Sinclair?!

I wrestle on Women of Honor.  Are you now trying to mess with my livelihood, Vic?
Image in content

@VicZinc

National Socialism most often refers to Nazism, the ideology of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...disambiguation)

Media Promote a Socialist America
https://www.aim.org/press-relea...alist-america/

2017: The Year the News Media Went to War Against a President
https://www.newsbusters.org/blo...inst-president

The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62 percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20 percent negative.

coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.
https://www.washingtonexaminer....rticle/2644448

Ninety-one percent of the coverage during the evening news offered by ABC, CBS and NBC was negative over September, October and November, according to a study by the Media Research Center.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/...hs-joseph-curl

@Maze National Socialism most often refers to Nazism, the ideology of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers'...

And yet he still won. Propaganda works better than "coverage". I learned that when I was studying mass perssusion at university.

@VicZinc And yet he still won. Propaganda works better than "coverage". I learned that when I was studying mass perssusion...

The leftward spin of the media is plainly obvious to everyone, I don't know who you're trying to fool here.

What made them fail was the overwhelming level of bias they showed, they dropped all pretense of impartiality, and the public saw it.

Add to that the fact the public didn't have to rely on the media to report the candidates' comments and positions on issues but can go directly to them, and the divide between reality and propaganda became glaringly obvious.

@VicZinc Uh huh.

Yes indeed, Vic. Uh huh. biggrin smilie

@Thinkerbell Yes indeed, Vic. Uh huh.

Trump must be getting really tired of being accused of all the things he's done.

@Thinkerbell That has little to do with it, Vic; see directly below.

Maybe there's a reason?

I'll just leave this here

Image in content

@VicZinc Maybe there's a reason? I'll just leave this here

There's no honest reason for slanted news, where CNN and NBC, for example, had headlines saying there were no smoke alarms in the Trump Tower apartment that burned. As you should know by now, that wasn't the whole truth.

And your list seems to be less than the whole truth too. Zero executive branch convictions under Obama? I seem to recall David Petraeus, Obama's CIA Director, pleaded guilty to mishandling secret documents and lying to the FBI, and paid a $100,000 fine plus two years probation.

Can you think of someone else who mishandled secret documents and lied about it, but got off scot-free?
Hmmm... think hard, Vic. biggrin smilie

@VicZinc Never indicted. Anyway it's not bias if it is accurate.

Of course, never indicted. Tell me WHY she was never indicted. It certainly wasn't for lack of evidence. biggrin smilie

And I must say, Vic, your bias standards are awfully low. Of COURSE it's bias if you emphasize negative aspects and de-emphasize positive ones, burying the latter deep in the story, or perhaps not mentioning them at all.

One of my all-time favorites is the way in which the NY Times reported Netanyahu's re-election in Israel several years ago. Here's the opening paragraph of their story:

"TEL AVIV — After a bruising campaign focused on his failings, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel won a clear victory in Tuesday’s elections and seemed all but certain to form a new government and serve a fourth term, though he offended many voters and alienated allies in the process."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03...hu-herzog.html

In other words, that failure of a louse who offends or alienates many got re-elected. biggrin smilie biggrin smilie biggrin smilie

@VicZinc Bias exists. I am not convinced that it is a left leaning as you think it is.

Among major American news outlets, newspapers, broadcast TV and cable TV, I would estimate that what purports to be straight news reporting is about 80% left-leaning, 10% right-leaning and maybe 10% more-or-less honest.

Go back and re-read your conversation with Bozette up above; you seem to have forgotten already.

@Maze The leftward spin of the media is plainly obvious to everyone, I don't know who you're trying to fool here. What...

An interesting thing happened since Trump's election regarding public perception of media left-wing bias.

Toward the end of 2016, according to Gallup, even among Democrats, only a bare majority (51%) had a fair amount or a great deal of confidence in mass-media news reporting. The numbers were far lower among Independents (30%) and Republicans (14%).

In 2017, however, the Democrats' confidence in media news soared to 72%, Independents rose to 37% and Republicans stayed at 14%.
Image in content
This clearly explains why the MSM is constantly bashing Trump with slanted news stories. Not only are newspeople predominantly liberal, but their liberal base eats this kind of reporting up. It's a win-win-win echo chamber that tells the liberal base what it wants to hear, that reports what the liberal reporters want to write, and increases the liberal media profits to boot.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/219...0From%25202016

@Budwick How did you do in that class?

Straight "A"s in all my classes. But that doesn't mean I can convince you of anything.

@Budwick Exactly what I would expect from 'university'.

That's common at online or mail-order diploma mills, Bud. hehe smilie

Update. The Senate has called on the FCC chair to open an investigation into Sinclair's "deliberately distorting the news."

@VicZinc Update. The Senate has called on the FCC chair to open an investigation into Sinclair's "deliberately distorting...

Update to the "update":
It wasn't "the Senate" that called for an investigation, it was 12 senators, including 11 Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the usual suspects.
https://www.reuters.com/article...-idUSKBN1HJ2VC

You have a real talent for fake news, Vic. You should include that on your application resume to MSNBC or CNN. biggrin smilie hehe smilie biggrin smilie

This user has deactivated their account.
@2742193

Actually the point of this site is not to 'debate' it is to agree or disagree with the opinion. Thanks in advance for you anticipated vote.

This user has deactivated their account.
Anonymous