How Sinclair Broadcasting puts a partisan spin using "trusted" local news stations

[tinselwolverine]

There was one I used to post, but it's old now. I'd love to see it updated.

Is that the University of Michigan one that I originally posted?

That graph showed the perception of bias, based on respondent opinions.

It was pretty consistent with the graph in this thread.

It was actually not as much as much of a graph as it was a linear chart, with the perception of bias from left to right.

This graph has the value of the reporting, represented on the vertical axis.

It seems to me to be what I would have thought; I first viewed it on my iPhone; I'll double check it later.

Right now I'm re-watching the Pilot of Friends.

 

[sggatecl]

Right now I'm re-watching the Pilot of Friends.

:hmm:

 

[tinselwolverine]

:hmm:

What?

It's one of my favorite pilots ever, and tonight I still need a little good home cookin' after that Michigan loss yesterday.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Anyways yes, it looks like a pretty classic parabolic graph with the X and y centers interconnecting, and also the aberrations doing so as well.

There could be hope for this country.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Anyways yes, it looks like a pretty classic parabolic graph with the X and y centers interconnecting, and also the aberrations doing so as well.

There could be hope for this country.

 

[sggatecl]

What?

It's one of my favorite pilots ever, and tonight I still need a little good home cookin' after that Michigan loss yesterday.

I'll have to give it a look. I was a teenager when that show was big and I thought it sucked shit. Maybe I was just not adult enough to get the humor.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'll have to give it a look. I was a teenager when that show was big and I thought it sucked shit. Maybe I was just not adult enough to get the humor.

It gets better and better over time.

Just like Will and Grace and Roseanne.

 

[sggatecl]

Roseanne.

Including or not including the final dream/fake season?

 

[tinselwolverine]

Including or not including the final dream/fake season?

Including, but nobody did the dream season like Dallas when Victoria Principal as Pam Ewing dreamed her husband Bobby had been dead for an entire season when the actor who played him, Patrick Duffy, left the show and came back after one year.

That's another show they brought back after many years.

 

[Michchamp]

When thinking about media bias, a better distinction than "liberal" or "conservative" is looking at who owns them, how they're funded, and the accuracy of their reporting over time. what sort of view points do they push?

The NY Times is "liberal," yet it openly pushed pro-war stories and reporting to help sell the Iraq War, it employs almost no viewpoint diversity in it's editorial section (ranging from the center to the center right), and when requested by the Bush administration, buried reporting of their domestic spying scandal until AFTER the 2004 election. All that shit was eye opening to me when it happened. and it really hasn't changed since then.

I was initially surprised how many other Americans either didn't recognize this, don't remember it, or just outright ignored it because it doesn't fit in a neat and orderly "left/right bias" chart, and the implications are scarier than they care to acknowledge.

"The Right has Fox and the Left has MSNBC and BOTH sides have fringe elements we should ignore, and the truth lies right in the middle. probably."

conveniently, there are two parties that agree on everything but abortion and gay marriage and the "everything" else they agree on (free trade, anti-union, pro-war, pro-intervention, tax cuts for the rich, privatising public services, and so forth) is reinforced equally by Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, The NYT, WaPo, etc.

*steps off soapbox, then picks it up and hurls it at all of you. it hits tigermud and knocks him out because he was brainwashed by InfoWars that the soapbox wasn't really there*

 

[Michchamp]

There are a handful of politicians not openly on the take. Bernie Sanders - for one - no matter what bullshit line you want to follow to attack him as the same as the rest "he has a second home" "he wore a $700 sport coat" "he raised a lot of money too" ignores the only meaningful distinction between him and the slime that ran for president from both parties: he wasn't on the take. he didn't have SuperPACs behind him, he didn't have banks, bomb-makers, etc. writing him checks.

And the same thing is true for media; is it a big for-profit corporation? or is it a small independant, largerly user-funded outlet (like Democracy Now)?

the latter are allowed to exist because the government realizes the vast majority of the people ignore them. we'd only get meaningful change if that stops.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Is that the University of Michigan one that I originally posted?

That graph showed the perception of bias, based on respondent opinions.

It was pretty consistent with the graph in this thread.

It was actually not as much as much of a graph as it was a linear chart, with the perception of bias from left to right.

This graph has the value of the reporting, represented on the vertical axis.

It seems to me to be what I would have thought; I first viewed it on my iPhone; I'll double check it later.

Right now I'm re-watching the Pilot of Friends.

This was my old go-to paper: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/GrosecloseMilyo.pdf

But a lot has changed in 15 years.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Nice. I do love a smooth parabola.

 

[Gulo Blue]

When thinking about media bias, a better distinction than "liberal" or "conservative" is looking at who owns them, how they're funded, and the accuracy of their reporting over time. what sort of view points do they push?

The NY Times is "liberal," yet it openly pushed pro-war stories and reporting to help sell the Iraq War, it employs almost no viewpoint diversity in it's editorial section (ranging from the center to the center right), and when requested by the Bush administration, buried reporting of their domestic spying scandal until AFTER the 2004 election. All that shit was eye opening to me when it happened. and it really hasn't changed since then.

I was initially surprised how many other Americans either didn't recognize this, don't remember it, or just outright ignored it because it doesn't fit in a neat and orderly "left/right bias" chart, and the implications are scarier than they care to acknowledge.

"The Right has Fox and the Left has MSNBC and BOTH sides have fringe elements we should ignore, and the truth lies right in the middle. probably."

conveniently, there are two parties that agree on everything but abortion and gay marriage and the "everything" else they agree on (free trade, anti-union, pro-war, pro-intervention, tax cuts for the rich, privatising public services, and so forth) is reinforced equally by Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, The NYT, WaPo, etc.

*steps off soapbox, then picks it up and hurls it at all of you. it hits tigermud and knocks him out because he was brainwashed by InfoWars that the soapbox wasn't really there*

I think a lot of people know this, but politics are a sport. We'd much rather argue our team vs. their team than address millionaire assistant coaches and gobs of expensive support staff, "amateur" players, programs that bury criminal activity, CTE, and those sorts of things...unless we can talk about how our rivals do it all wrong/defend how we handle such things.

 

[Spartanmack]

I know who tsmith was, and really don't care what you think of me or my posts, you're just a redundant mod who asked for the designation, but doesn't act very much like one. A real mod wouldn't resort to personal attacks upon other senior members, but obviously thats no obstacle or barrier for you to cross.

odd, I've never seen you say anything of the sort when the mod you agree with actually attack other members. I have yet to read a post where Tinsel has attacked anyone - we've agreed and disagreed on many things but I can't recall a single personal attack on me or anyone else.

 

[turok]

odd, I've never seen you say anything of the sort when the mod you agree with actually attack other members. I have yet to read a post where Tinsel has attacked anyone - we've agreed and disagreed on many things but I can't recall a single personal attack on me or anyone else.

On the contrary, I haven't read a post where "the mod I agree with" wasn't attacked previously to doing so himself, and have posted before that DSF has more moderators than is necessary, and all but one asked to become a mod. When DSF first began in '11, there were enough regularly posting members where having 5 plus a manager was more justified. But that is no longer the case, since those members who post even weekly have shrunk dramatically over the past few years, to the point where two plus the manager and an alternate would suffice.

This political forum with a few irregular exceptions is overwhelmingly comprised of UM alums posting, so obviously they may disagree with each other, but won't make it personal. I expect no support, b/c I am not a UM or MSU or OSU or any major college grad, which is just fine by me.

 

[tigermud]

LOL oh for the love of the lord, what was that you'll have to complain to the forum owner if you really think that'll do anything, whining will get you nowhere, who cares if that crazy guy in CA attacked you or not. I get no support here hardly at all either everybody thinks I'm a nutjob and gosh darn it I like it that way! Not no UM, MSU, OSU or any major college grad either, and you know what? I'm glad I'm not! in fact, I'm not a college grad at all! Indoctrination programs aren't for me and I didn't have to pay off any college debt for years on end. Being bull-headed and not taking No for an answer was just as good of an education I needed.

Did you know potatoes comes from potatoes! I kinda knew that but kinda overlooked it also. interesting!

 

[Spartanmack]

On the contrary, I haven't read a post where "the mod I agree with" wasn't attacked previously to doing so himself, and have posted before that DSF has more moderators than is necessary, and all but one asked to become a mod. When DSF first began in '11, there were enough regularly posting members where having 5 plus a manager was more justified. But that is no longer the case, since those members who post even weekly have shrunk dramatically over the past few years, to the point where two plus the manager and an alternate would suffice.

This political forum with a few irregular exceptions is overwhelmingly comprised of UM alums posting, so obviously they may disagree with each other, but won't make it personal. I expect no support, b/c I am not a UM or MSU or OSU or any major college grad, which is just fine by me.

this is demonstrably false as is your belief that people on the politics board support one another or don't get personal with each other because of the schools they went to.

 

[turok]

Getting back to the topic, Amanda Lotz--Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of Michigan, authored an article on the subject of Sinclair's efforts to dominate the local network markets nationally, by being the only game in town when it comes to over the air TV news broadcasts. Since the cost of subscribing to cable or satellite TV has become prohibitively expensive for many of average income, more and more are opting for streaming services via internet, such as Hulu, Netflix, Roku, Vudu...ect for entertainment, but if the DTV antenna ABC, CBS, NBC, and/or Fox are under Sinclair control then there are no unbiased channels left to peruse. In many cases living in rural areas may not provide all or most of the major national networks within reception range.


"You might think that your local television stations – with names like WXYZ-TV, KXAN or KMOV – are owned by national networks like ABC or Fox. But that’s often not the case; they are merely affiliated with the national network. Most are owned by companies called “station groups” that have purchased a portfolio of stations in different cities with different network affiliations"

https://theconversation.com/why-are-sinclairs-scripted-news-segments-such-a-big-deal-94365

 

[Spartanmack]

Getting back to the topic, Amanda Lotz--Fellow, Peabody Media Center; Professor of Media Studies, University of Michigan, authored an article on the subject of Sinclair's efforts to dominate the local network markets nationally, by being the only game in town when it comes to over the air TV news broadcasts. Since the cost of subscribing to cable or satellite TV has become prohibitively expensive for many of average income, more and more are opting for streaming services via internet, such as Hulu, Netflix, Roku, Vudu...ect for entertainment, but if the DTV antenna ABC, CBS, NBC, and/or Fox are under Sinclair control then there are no unbiased channels left to peruse. In many cases living in rural areas may not provide all or most of the major national networks within reception range.


"You might think that your local television stations ? with names like WXYZ-TV, KXAN or KMOV ? are owned by national networks like ABC or Fox. But that?s often not the case; they are merely affiliated with the national network. Most are owned by companies called ?station groups? that have purchased a portfolio of stations in different cities with different network affiliations"

https://theconversation.com/why-are-sinclairs-scripted-news-segments-such-a-big-deal-94365

but there are no unbiased channels left to peruse to begin with. your problem is they will have less access to left leaning networks but it's not Sinclair broadcasting's fault that people are cutting the cord nor is it their responsibility to ensure people can still see leftist programming like CNN and MSNBC. I doubt this will be the big problem it's being made out to be - won't the local affiliates will still carry left leaning national news from the major networks and they'll still get their George Stephanopolous and other leftist talking heads on Sunday mornings.