Media brainwashing video - Sinclair scrpit 2018

[Jarnhamar]

Stumbled across this, it's 2 years old but I don't remember seeing it.

I'm putting it in the politics section because of the relevance the media has with politics. It's a mash up video showing a bunch of different news stations from across the US all reading the same script. Kind of freaky, I always figured each station came up with their own script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

 

[FJAG]

Stumbled across this, it's 2 years old but I don't remember seeing it.

I'm putting it in the politics section because of the relevance the media has with politics. It's a mash up video showing a bunch of different news stations from across the US all reading the same script. Kind of freaky, I always figured each station came up with their own script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Not if you are a Sinclair Broadcast Group station:

Must-run segments
Sinclair often mandates its stations to air specific reports, segments, and editorials, referred to as "must-runs".[133] The practice has been criticized by some of Sinclair's stations' news staff due to the viewpoints they propagate; in 1996, after CEO David Smith was arrested in a prostitution sting, he ordered Sinclair's Baltimore station WBFF to produce reports on a local drug counseling program as part of his community service sentence. The order was criticized by WBFF reporter LuAnne Canipe.[134] Following the September 11 attacks, Sinclair ordered its stations to read editorials in support of President George W. Bush's response to the attack. The Baltimore Sun reported that WBFF staff internally objected to the editorial, as they felt that the endorsement would "undermine public faith in their political objectivity". The station, however, complied with the mandate.[5][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

Here's a little John Oliver piece on them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc

Mega news groups are a problem particularly when they look not only to consolidating income through shared resources, but when they are out to feed a particular political message to the masses. While many social conservatives complain about the "fake news" being pushed by the "socialist main stream media" they tend to ignore the fact that Sinclair already owns 294 stations in 94 markets and is growing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stations_owned_or_operated_by_Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

:cheers:

:cheers:

 

[shawn5o]

Stumbled across this, it's 2 years old but I don't remember seeing it.

I'm putting it in the politics section because of the relevance the media has with politics. It's a mash up video showing a bunch of different news stations from across the US all reading the same script. Kind of freaky, I always figured each station came up with their own script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

Hi  Jarnhammer

I'm pretty sure we can say the same with print media. For example, Ottawa Citizen, owned by Postmedia, routinely print articles from the U.S. print media.

 

[brihard]

Hi  Jarnhammer

I'm pretty sure we can say the same with print media. For example, Ottawa Citizen, owned by Postmedia, routinely print articles from the U.S. print media.

I'm genuinely curious. Do you have some examples of word-for-word or close to it between Postmedia and US outlets?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Hi  Jarnhammer

I'm pretty sure we can say the same with print media. For example, Ottawa Citizen, owned by Postmedia, routinely print articles from the U.S. print media.

I don't know crap about this stuff but as an instructor it's interesting to see how easily students can be influenced.

For example when an instructor uses a catch phrase or word over and over, even something as simple as super important or terrible, students seem to emulate it and it quickly pops up in their classes and conversations. And that's from people grade 11 educations to masters degrees.

I'm guessing the same thing can easily happen with the media and repeating the same things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Media routinely misrepresent issues.

A headline from yesterday on cbc.ca (article from AP) "California judge sides with drivers in landmark case against Uber and Lyft".

The article was about a (failed) challenge to AB5, the CA legislation designed to force employers to treat more contractors as employees.  The inference of the headline is that by forcing Uber and Lyft to treat drivers as employees, the judge was "siding with drivers".

But as a lot of contractors have found out, AB5 also encourages employers to stop using contractors - it disemploys people, which in this case will likely be at least some drivers, if the companies don't stop operations in CA entirely.

 

[QV]

I don't know crap about this stuff but as an instructor it's interesting to see how easily students can be influenced.

For example when an instructor uses a catch phrase or word over and over, even something as simple as super important or terrible, students seem to emulate it and it quickly pops up in their classes and conversations. And that's from people grade 11 educations to masters degrees.

I'm guessing the same thing can easily happen with the media and repeating the same things.

“But you know, I actually gave them some real advice. I said that if you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it,” Liberal Minister Catherine Mckenna.

 

[Donald H]

To the credit of the Sinclair Group, they allow Chris Matthews, Shepherd Smith, and perhaps some others to express anti-Trump sentiments in the news.

Apparently keeping that rationality separate from the pap that Hannity, Ingraham, and their ilk are spewing. Maybe MSNBC is less tolerant? Opinions?

 

[shawn5o]

I'm genuinely curious. Do you have some examples of word-for-word or close to it between Postmedia and US outlets?

Hi Brihard

Where I live, we cannot get the Ottawa Citizen so I now depend on the internet. Unfortunetly, I can't find anything to support my claim, however, it usually is about the U.S. I have seen and read Washington Post articles in the OC and I thought Reuters was a foreign news org but it turns out it is owned by Thompson Reuters Corporation (a Cdn company)

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking with it 

 

[Blackadder1916]

I don't know crap about this stuff but as an instructor it's interesting to see how easily students can be influenced.

For example when an instructor uses a catch phrase or word over and over, even something as simple as super important or terrible, students seem to emulate it and it quickly pops up in their classes and conversations. And that's from people grade 11 educations to masters degrees.

I'm guessing the same thing can easily happen with the media and repeating the same things.

The easiest way to influence people is to start with people who want to be influenced.  An instructor (hopefully a competent one) in a military setting has an advantage because they usually have a captive audience with a vested interest in paying attention to the presenter.  The "monkey see, monkey do" instructional process common in the military (i.e. see one, do one, teach one) has an underlying premise that the student of today will be the instructor of tomorrow.  It is thus almost a given that emulating the style, language and technique of a seemingly successful instructor is an easy path for someone to adopt either deliberately or subconsciously.

And, in a similar vein, many media outlets use a path of least resistance to present a message to its audience.  Many outlets (regardless of where they are philosophically) seem to prefer providing reinforcement of the already existing viewpoint of the listener instead of trying to inform listeners so that they can make reasoned judgement about a particular issue.

 

[shawn5o]

I'm genuinely curious. Do you have some examples of word-for-word or close to it between Postmedia and US outlets?

Hi Brihard

I found this article in the Ottawa Citizen - Why Kamala Harris may prove an elusive target for Trump

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/why-kamala-harris-may-prove-an-elusive-target-for-trump/wcm/2df7d8e0-879d-4b18-910e-dece8d17ba21/

From Reuters with James Oliphant. James Oliphant is a White House correspondent at National Journal. Based in Washington, DC, National Journal provides solutions and tools to help government affairs professionals navigate policy, politics, and people.

Now we have Reuters who buy articles from American based journalist and I suppose Postmedia does too.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Hi Brihard

I found this article in the Ottawa Citizen - Why Kamala Harris may prove an elusive target for Trump

https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/why-kamala-harris-may-prove-an-elusive-target-for-trump/wcm/2df7d8e0-879d-4b18-910e-dece8d17ba21/

From Reuters with James Oliphant. James Oliphant is a White House correspondent at National Journal. Based in Washington, DC, National Journal provides solutions and tools to help government affairs professionals navigate policy, politics, and people.

Now we have Reuters who buy articles from American based journalist and I suppose Postmedia does too.

Is this supposed to be an example of some sort of conspiracy/collusion/cock-up?  It all seems to be the normal way of journalism for the last hundred or more years.

Reuters is a news agency.  One of the big three in the world (Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse)  Nowadays, Reuters is part of Thomson-Reuters; in years past, ownership of Reuters changed numerous times.  It is only coincidental that the parent company is "nominally" Canadian.  While the Thomson family media empire may have originated in North Bay, it's ultimate growth and Roy Thomson's personal grasp of fame was British (he had to move to the UK and operate there to get the peerage).  Though they had worldwide elements, the (re)patriation of the corporate structure to Canada had more to do about legal restrictions and tax advantages than about the preference of family members to living in Canada rather than the UK.  Reuters (the news agency part of the operation) still has roots in London, though there are offices worldwide. Their news product is not a Canadian product.

As for the author of this particular article, James Oliphant - he is currently (according to his Linked in page) the White House Correspondent for Reuters (and has been since May 2017 - he left the National Journal in March 2015).

As for this article being in a Postmedia paper - they, like every major paper in the world, subscribe to news agencies and take advantage of products produced by those agencies when using that expertise makes sense.  The same story is available on the Reuters site.  Mr Oliphant's analysis is very good and thanks for using it as an example.  I probably wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

 

[shawn5o]

Is this supposed to be an example of some sort of conspiracy/collusion/****-up?  It all seems to be the normal way of journalism for the last hundred or more years.

Hi Blackaddeer

How did you come up with that line of reasoning? Read the previous posts/replies to understand the context, 'kay

 

[Pelorus]

Hi Blackaddeer

How did you come up with that line of reasoning? Read the previous posts/replies to understand the context, 'kay

While I am a regular (almost daily) lurker, I don't normally participate on this site for a variety of reasons. However, this comment seemed too egregious to let lie unaddressed.

You entered a thread which was exclusively started to discuss a single phenomenon: a large media conglomerate (Sinclair) forcing its local stations to recite a canned statement about "media bias".

As succinctly explained in the first reply to this topic by both FJAG and his link to comedian John Oliver's segment, Sinclair uses local newscasters as well as explicit references to the local station and community's name in the segment to make viewers believe that this is a grassroots PSA by the local affiliate -a familiar source which many people across North America trust for their information- rather than a mandated initiative by their corporate ownership to force a specific message.

Given what's known of Sinclair from both comments in this thread as well as basic research, it is clear that this widely syndicated warning of bias is an attempt to lead the viewer to believe that the media by and large is untrustworthy, but your local, "independent" affiliate with its local anchors are here to guide one to the truth; they are definitely not just being forced to parrot US Conservative talking points (Sinclair has a well known Right Bias).

You then entered this thread with a complete non-sequitur; you state that newspapers and written media organizations regularly reprint stories from other media outlets, and thus imply a conspiracy and that this is equivalent to Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Must-Run Segments" (again, see FJAG's initial post).

When Blackadder1916 provided a well-reasoned explanation refuting your accusation, stating that this is a completely mundane phenomenon that's been happening since the dawn of (modern?) journalism, you decided to reply with a patronizing one-liner response implying that he hadn't read the thread (thank you for bolding this, the rest of us wouldn't have understood otherwise), and concluded your reply with a passive-aggressive " 'kay " to infantilize his argument. If your overall argument was stronger, one could reasonably accuse you of a Whataboutism/Tu quoque fallacy, yet here we are.

You specifically called me out on a thread not too long ago for penalizing you with negative MilPoints for "trolling". I will note that this had nothing to do with the thread in which you called me out, but rather your decision to refer to Canada's Prime Minister as "PM Blackie". While I do not consider myself to be either a proponent nor opponent of the current Canadian government, I deducted you MilPoints for choosing to introduce a schoolyard insult into the courteous, informed discussion that this website typically enjoys.

While I have not deducted you MilPoints for posts in this thread to date (namely because MilPoints are meaningless), and I have not searched your post history (I have only seen your posts in specific threads from the front page that I have chosen to read), I am concerned that you are bringing the all-too-common gutter-tier "Angry Veteran Facebook Group" drivel to this website. While I often disagree with the political and/or social positions taken by many of this site's regulars, I routinely read and appreciate their point of view, which in turn informs my own. In this vein, I typically only award or deduct MilPoints for posts which are especially well-reasoned or, alternatively, especially poorly reasoned.


*edited to make certain text items (Em-Dashes) conform to BBCode requirements

 

[shawn5o]

While I am a regular (almost daily) lurker, I don't normally participate on this site for a variety of reasons. However, this comment seemed too egregious to let lie unaddressed.

Fine. You admit to trolling and are you saying you are too good for this forum? Cause it sure sounds like it.

You entered a thread which was exclusively started to discuss a single phenomenon: a large media conglomerate (Sinclair) forcing its local stations to recite a canned statement about "media bias".

So what if I entered a thread. And no, I didn't see it as "exclusive". I inferred it to mean all media.

Here is the original start:

Stumbled across this, it's 2 years old but I don't remember seeing it.

I'm putting it in the politics section because of the relevance the media has with politics. It's a mash up video showing a bunch of different news stations from across the US all reading the same script. Kind of freaky, I always figured each station came up with their own script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo

---

As succinctly explained in the first reply to this topic by both FJAG and his link to comedian John Oliver's segment, Sinclair uses local newscasters as well as explicit references to the local station and community's name in the segment to make viewers believe that this is a grassroots PSA by the local affiliate -a familiar source which many people across North America trust for their information- rather than a mandated initiative by their corporate ownership to force a specific message.

I was not wrong in my post and I skimmed FJAG's comment. It was not "succinctly explained" by blackadder. It was patronizing. And Blackadders first line was an attack on me.  Check it out

Is this supposed to be an example of some sort of conspiracy/collusion/****-up?  It all seems to be the normal way of journalism for the last hundred or more years.

No heck sherlock

Meanwhile, blackadder drones on

Reuters is a news agency.  One of the big three in the world (Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse)  Nowadays, Reuters is part of Thomson-Reuters; in years past, ownership of Reuters changed numerous times.  It is only coincidental that the parent company is "nominally" Canadian.  While the Thomson family media empire may have originated in North Bay, it's ultimate growth and Roy Thomson's personal grasp of fame was British (he had to move to the UK and operate there to get the peerage).  Though they had worldwide elements, the (re)patriation of the corporate structure to Canada had more to do about legal restrictions and tax advantages than about the preference of family members to living in Canada rather than the UK.  Reuters (the news agency part of the operation) still has roots in London, though there are offices worldwide. Their news product is not a Canadian product.

Thanks for the bio on Thomson-Reuters. Guess what -- the news media want to SELL their content to readers, watchers, and advertising agencies.

As for the author of this particular article, James Oliphant - he is currently (according to his Linked in page) the White House Correspondent for Reuters (and has been since May 2017 - he left the National Journal in March 2015).

1 - I used Oliphant as an example.
2 - His article I mentioned was in the Ottawa Citizen.
3 - Obviously, OC bought his news.

As for this article being in a Postmedia paper - they, like every major paper in the world, subscribe to news agencies and take advantage of products produced by those agencies when using that expertise makes sense.  The same story is available on the Reuters site.  Mr Oliphant's analysis is very good and thanks for using it as an example.  I probably wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

Yes, the media suscribe. To put it in plain English, the media buys the product. Which was my point. Oh and you're welcome.

---

Given what's known of Sinclair from both comments in this thread as well as basic research, it is clear that this widely syndicated warning of bias is an attempt to lead the viewer to believe that the media by and large is untrustworthy, but your local, "independent" affiliate with its local anchors are here to guide one to the truth; they are definitely not just being forced to parrot US Conservative talking points (Sinclair has a well known Right Bias).

WTF are you babbling about? Enlighten me.

You then entered this thread with a complete non-sequitur; you state that newspapers and written media organizations regularly reprint stories from other media outlets, and thus imply a conspiracy and that this is equivalent to Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Must-Run Segments" (again, see FJAG's initial post).

Now you're jumping from blackadder to my entering this thread. You're all over the place. I did not say "regularly reprint." That is what you inferred. And you are reading into this comment as a "conspiracy". I don't think you are an Amazing Kreskin yet you accuse me of conspiracy thinking?

When Blackadder1916 provided a well-reasoned explanation refuting your accusation, stating that this is a completely mundane phenomenon that's been happening since the dawn of (modern?) journalism, you decided to reply with a patronizing one-liner response implying that he hadn't read the thread (thank you for bolding this, the rest of us wouldn't have understood otherwise), and concluded your reply with a passive-aggressive " 'kay " to infantilize his argument. If your overall argument was stronger, one could reasonably accuse you of a Whataboutism/Tu quoque fallacy, yet here we are.

1 - what accusation?
2 - It wasn't an explanation. And did you read this topic from the beginning? Cause it sure seems you are cherry picking my comments and taking them out of context like blackadder did.
3 - I admit to "infantilize" by stating "'kay" because he (and you) were/are being pompous.

You specifically called me out on a thread not too long ago for penalizing you with negative MilPoints for "trolling". I will note that this had nothing to do with the thread in which you called me out, but rather your decision to refer to Canada's Prime Minister as "PM Blackie". While I do not consider myself to be either a proponent nor opponent of the current Canadian government, I deducted you MilPoints for choosing to introduce a schoolyard insult into the courteous, informed discussion that this website typically enjoys.

It seems to me that you are guilty as I am for combining different threads.

As for the "called you out" let's look at that.
1 - I believe that particular thread was merged into another thread with the same topic as I started a post from CBC about the name change for a navy rank.
2 - During that time frame, I received an email from this site that stated you thought I was trolling. I have to admit it may have been for another thread, however, I felt I had to reply. So I placed it in the CBC article thread and explained I wasn't trolling.
3 - As for the negative comment about our PM, I was roundly and deservedly trashed by the DS. I apologized and did try to improve my writing and comments. I believe I have been largely successful.
4 - I didn't know you deducted mlpoints and frankly, I don't care. That decision was and is your prerogative.

My conclusion is:

1 - Obviously, you posses higher education and critical thinking. But you are wrong on your criticisms. You are the guy who loves to jump up and yell "look at me! look at me!", n'est-ce pas?

2 - You are also the one who followed my posts. So who is trolling who?

3 - If you want to be civil, I am open

 

[shawn5o]

Is this supposed to be an example of some sort of conspiracy/collusion/****-up?  It all seems to be the normal way of journalism for the last hundred or more years.

Reuters is a news agency.  One of the big three in the world (Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse)  Nowadays, Reuters is part of Thomson-Reuters; in years past, ownership of Reuters changed numerous times.  It is only coincidental that the parent company is "nominally" Canadian.  While the Thomson family media empire may have originated in North Bay, it's ultimate growth and Roy Thomson's personal grasp of fame was British (he had to move to the UK and operate there to get the peerage).  Though they had worldwide elements, the (re)patriation of the corporate structure to Canada had more to do about legal restrictions and tax advantages than about the preference of family members to living in Canada rather than the UK.  Reuters (the news agency part of the operation) still has roots in London, though there are offices worldwide. Their news product is not a Canadian product.

As for the author of this particular article, James Oliphant - he is currently (according to his Linked in page) the White House Correspondent for Reuters (and has been since May 2017 - he left the National Journal in March 2015).

As for this article being in a Postmedia paper - they, like every major paper in the world, subscribe to news agencies and take advantage of products produced by those agencies when using that expertise makes sense.  The same story is available on the Reuters site.  Mr Oliphant's analysis is very good and thanks for using it as an example.  I probably wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

Hi Blackadder

I publicly apologize for my comments. I am a reactionary and I don't think things through (its not an excuse) till way after the event.

This, of course, is not from fear or favour. Its just the right thing to do.

Same goes for boots12.

 

[shawn5o]

While I am a regular (almost daily) lurker, I don't normally participate on this site for a variety of reasons. However, this comment seemed too egregious to let lie unaddressed.

You entered a thread which was exclusively started to discuss a single phenomenon: a large media conglomerate (Sinclair) forcing its local stations to recite a canned statement about "media bias".

As succinctly explained in the first reply to this topic by both FJAG and his link to comedian John Oliver's segment, Sinclair uses local newscasters as well as explicit references to the local station and community's name in the segment to make viewers believe that this is a grassroots PSA by the local affiliate -a familiar source which many people across North America trust for their information- rather than a mandated initiative by their corporate ownership to force a specific message.

Given what's known of Sinclair from both comments in this thread as well as basic research, it is clear that this widely syndicated warning of bias is an attempt to lead the viewer to believe that the media by and large is untrustworthy, but your local, "independent" affiliate with its local anchors are here to guide one to the truth; they are definitely not just being forced to parrot US Conservative talking points (Sinclair has a well known Right Bias).

You then entered this thread with a complete non-sequitur; you state that newspapers and written media organizations regularly reprint stories from other media outlets, and thus imply a conspiracy and that this is equivalent to Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Must-Run Segments" (again, see FJAG's initial post).

When Blackadder1916 provided a well-reasoned explanation refuting your accusation, stating that this is a completely mundane phenomenon that's been happening since the dawn of (modern?) journalism, you decided to reply with a patronizing one-liner response implying that he hadn't read the thread (thank you for bolding this, the rest of us wouldn't have understood otherwise), and concluded your reply with a passive-aggressive " 'kay " to infantilize his argument. If your overall argument was stronger, one could reasonably accuse you of a Whataboutism/Tu quoque fallacy, yet here we are.

You specifically called me out on a thread not too long ago for penalizing you with negative MilPoints for "trolling". I will note that this had nothing to do with the thread in which you called me out, but rather your decision to refer to Canada's Prime Minister as "PM Blackie". While I do not consider myself to be either a proponent nor opponent of the current Canadian government, I deducted you MilPoints for choosing to introduce a schoolyard insult into the courteous, informed discussion that this website typically enjoys.

While I have not deducted you MilPoints for posts in this thread to date (namely because MilPoints are meaningless), and I have not searched your post history (I have only seen your posts in specific threads from the front page that I have chosen to read), I am concerned that you are bringing the all-too-common gutter-tier "Angry Veteran Facebook Group" drivel to this website. While I often disagree with the political and/or social positions taken by many of this site's regulars, I routinely read and appreciate their point of view, which in turn informs my own. In this vein, I typically only award or deduct MilPoints for posts which are especially well-reasoned or, alternatively, especially poorly reasoned.


*edited to make certain text items (Em-Dashes) conform to BBCode requirements

Hi boots12

I publicly apologize to you for my comments. As I wrote to Blackadder, I am a reactionary and I don't think things through till way after the event. It is not an excuse.

This apology is neither fear or favour. It's just the right thing to do.