I have no idea what you are talking about. Crime leads almost every TV news program. It is the front page of almost every newspaper. It has been since day one and will be until they find a way to make “good and happy” news sell.
I am in no way saying Sinclair owning all the stations is a good thing or that they don’t have the capability of distorting things, but accusing them of creating the impression that crime exists is pretty moronic.
How old is that now? A generation or so. Way before Sinclair became the evil wizard of local news.
Except you basically called me paranoid for expressing concerns and questioning whether or not they’ve been directing more than one message over these years, but yeah total paranoia to say hey they did this, and it was obvious, have they been doing anything else like it. Especially since so many people are acting against facts because some talking head told them how to feel.
As for Sinclair, it’s a market. If Walmart does something, and it works for them, Target might copy. The fact that Target isn’t owned by Walmart doesn’t mean that Walmart isn’t responsible. Sinclair is basically competing in several markets across the country which means they have an affect on all those markets, aka influence.
And local news being owned by a giant corporation isn’t just a TV problem, newspapers consolidated a long time ago, some to stay alive, so now you don’t get frontpage stories of tree climbing dogs but whatever hot issue there is nationally… most the time. They don’t even do the plates locally.
I called you paranoid for “expressing concerns and questioning” Sinclair’s directing messages. The directive you referred to is (1) fairly recent and (2) Sinclair has only owned a huge share of TV stations in the last decade or so. They bought out Cerberus Group (now there is an evil group) in 2011 or so to start there big expansion.
Tell me, what messages has Sinclair been directing that differs from other TV stations.
Everyone is responsible for what they do in the world of free enterprise. If Sinclair is doing so well that other TV stations need to copy them then what does that say about the state of the TV news industry?
NO, NO, NO. The only logical possible conclusion to make if someone questions Sinclair’s presence and their influence and their potential to influence several local markets at once is to tell them they’re paranoid. It can’t possibly be that there are reasons to ask those questions and wonder just how much direction they’re giving those stations.
Well it has been 3.5 minutes since you’ve told me when someone is being an ass to me I should change. I’ll write that down as your monthly quota. But yeah on a forum where arguments and spats can go on for days even months… my four hours is not letting it go.
This is basically the response I kept referring to. To blame Sinclair for what has been going on for 30 years makes no sense. Every local news show and every newspaper leads with it. And always has.
Do I believe Sinclair owning stations in every market is a good thing? No, but as someone who watches a Sinclair owned channel (and other local news) I really don’t see much difference. Maybe my local version isn’t as bad as others, I don’t know.
But Sinclair sending out a directive in the last year hasn’t somehow changed the world over night. The world had been this way for 30+ years.
I just want out that I never said Sinclair was responsible for everything. I didn’t say it changed over night. I didn’t even mention the word Trump. These are all things you’ve said.
I mentioned Sinclair being in the local market is probably not a good thing, based on what we do know about what they are willing to push, and that this weird status we have right now where people in this country literally believe crime is at an all time high and all the brown people are responsible for it might be a narrative being pushed not at random by local news stations but a concentrated effort. There is no mention of time or Trump in there… anywhere. Also you tried to assign me homework in order to prove I’m not paranoid, and no, I didn’t take the bait.
I never brought Trump into the discussion. But your inclusion of Sinclair’s directive, which is very recent, sure made it seem like you were talking about recent effects.
You seemed to be talking short term while I (and others at the start) were talking long term. I think, as often happens in typed discussions which take place over a certain length of time we were not always talking apples and apples.
You never did what now? This statement was even made before I talked about the irrational behavior towards the idea of crimes committed by minorities, everywhere, all the time.
All I mentioned at that point was we know there was at least one directive and that they had a national agenda of some kind since they pushed a message out… nationally. Then you started talking about Trump and paranoia and things happening overnight… none of which I ever mentioned. I never mentioned time. Then you grilled me about watching Sinclair stations and wanted me to present their directive as if I have some direct connection to Sinclair and can produce some sort of Memo.
Except what did I really say…
Oh yeah we have a national body that controls more of the local markets than was really realized, and they made one very public national message and now I am wondering how much influence they have. As per John Oliver, it looks like they have done this a few times, and I am questioning what agendas they might have that are not so obvious. … And yeah I am also putting an asterisk next to the word local when there is a giant corporation behind some of this content.
Well I can see why you did, but it’s really Sinclairs reach and size that causes my concern. Today they might push Trump’s message but ten years from now it could be someone else. It’s concerning that our local news could just turn into another national news reach except everyone thinks it’s something else.
