The FCC does have the authority to revoke licenses based on content, but it's rare for them to do so.<p>However, this entire situation is ultimately a consequence of revoking the FCC fairness doctrine. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine</a>)<p>For example, a news station did have their license revoked by taking a strong stance against civil rights, and violated the fairness doctrine. (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLBT#Opposition_to_civil_rights" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLBT#Opposition_to_civil_right...</a>)
I can see why the FCC might be hesitant to get involved with these segments and scripts. However, the Sinclair merger should unequivocally be rejected. This business pattern only becomes an issue once you get monopolies and oligopolies. We need competition and variety in our news sources. Oligopolies are extremely dangerous to our democracy.
Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced. If false advertising is a faux pas then news that's not attempting to be objective and forthright should be labeled.<p>Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar. If you can't call Aspartame sugar then consuming content should be forced to be as transparent.
FCC doesnt seem like it's protecting consumers. I think if I were POTUS I'd be using this section of its mandate.<p>"Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable."<p>The honest thing is that the FCC has already shown itself to be a problem by allowing the media mergers and aquisitions in the first place, and the people who made those decisions should be held to account as far as the statue of limitations allows, but also should the institution (preferably by congress).<p>I'm starting to get really tired of "independent" government agencies being at the heart of root problems.
Torn here. On the one hand, I hate the "must run" items, yet on the other hand, I see this as being a slippery slope if they were to punish as that'd be dictating to a company what is allowed on their stations.<p>Having said that, two things:<p>1) I'm glad it was exposed and wish it were highlighted more than it was. This gives viewers the ability to discern how valuable they find the content to know that scripts were dictated to their newspeople.<p>2) I'm hoping, though doubtful, that this prevents Sinclair from buying up other small market stations as they've shown their hand as to what they'd do with a monopoly.
I don’t get what the issue is here. I have seen this message on my local television stations. What is missing from the YouTube video is an invitation at the end of that message for viewers to contact the station with any concerns about bias in its own reporting. In fact that is the entire point of the script, and it has been cutoff of the YouTube video, presumably because it appears to be more controversial that way. Oh, the irony!<p>So a large media company recognized the problem of bias in the media, which could become a business problem if it affects confidence in their news reporting, and invited people to contact them if they noticed this problem creeping into the individual news stations’ reports. Where is the controversy here?
This assault on the journalistic integrity of local news must stop! Before you know it they'll have so many must-runs that I'll never find out if my toaster really is going to kill me.
"This is extremely dangerous to our democracy."[1]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDkMTO0mSI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDkMTO0mSI</a>
Very weird that a consolidated media company would force its viewpoint to be propagated. This is very unlike the rest of the media and a genuinely new phenomenon. /s<p>(2012) <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-...</a><p>If you think that these companies aren't pushing a viewpoint you got another thing coming. Hint: It's pro-capitalist, pro-imperialist, anti-worker, and anti-political dissenters.
I support the decision, Pai even did something similar when Trump went on one his tirades about taking licenses from the large news companies. He even quoted the Democratic Senator Markey is this reply.<p>Sinclair can easily lose its trust with its viewers let alone its own talent and that can effect change. There is already scripted news out there that presents facts in a similar manner. It all comes down to, who is upset by it?<p>if Washington politicians are the ones upset then I am not concerned. They already exert such control over the media by simply coercing news to play nice or lose access that we should always be worried when they want to stifle any speech.
Right wing media has pointed out the same 'creepy talking point synchronicity' happening in the larger mainstream media for many years. Just like with Cambridge Analytica, certain behavior is only raised by the media as a scandal when amateurs try to the same thing the big boys have been doing for years/decades.