sowny.net | The Southern Ontario/WNY Radio-TV Forum


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Sat Mar 31 11:40 pm  #1


Sinclair TV

This has been an issue in the US since last year.  Both Fortuneand John Oliver, among others, have been warning of concentration of ownership in television, and its influence on affiliate local newscasts.

But this newly released video comparison SINCLAIR SCRIPT FOR STATIONS, shows exactly how these affiliates have had to play ball with the ownership, simply to keep their jobs.  There will be certain people on this board that will suggest the same happens in this country.  I will beg to disagree, simply because its not as blatant. YET.



 

 

Sun Apr 1 12:20 am  #2


Re: Sinclair TV

splunge wrote:

There will be certain people on this board that will suggest the same happens in this country.  I will beg to disagree, simply because its not as blatant. YET.

Your thesis is superfluous.  Just "because its not as blatant" does not mean it does not occur in this country.
 

 

Sun Apr 1 12:48 am  #3


Re: Sinclair TV

aaah, wonderfully said cGrant.  ignore the premise, in order to assault the aside. A magnificent attempt at deflection 

But the post and premise was about Sinclair. forcing multiple stations to parrot the line of corporate bosses..

 

     Thread Starter
 

Sun Apr 1 8:43 am  #4


Re: Sinclair TV

For what it's worth, WUTV in Buffalo and WUHF in Rochester are both owned by Sinclair.

 

Sun Apr 1 9:19 am  #5


Re: Sinclair TV

WHAM in Rochester too.

 

Sun Apr 1 9:57 am  #6


Re: Sinclair TV

It might not be a political monologue, but that does happen every night in this country. It's the end result of our entire broadcast system essentially being owned and operated by the networks, who are in turn owned by penny-pinching telecommunication firms. The only reason you haven't seen a supercut is because there aren't enough people in this country for someone to care to do that.

Do remember, one of our "broadcasters" is about to celebrate the third anniversary of the end goal of that:

The production of the late-night and weekend newscasts east of Alberta, as well as Kelowna, will be moved to Toronto, where a single-anchor team will produce a local newscast for each market.

Why have multiple people read from the same script when you can just have one crew be everyone's "local" news anchors?

Sinclair doesn't even produce a news show for Buffalo, by the way. They run what WGRZ/Tenga makes.

edit: Had WIVB mixed up with WGRZ.

Last edited by Retaw (Sun Apr 1 2:47 pm)

 

Sun Apr 1 10:28 am  #7


Re: Sinclair TV

Sinclair are known as Fox TV in waiting.


Cool Airchecks and More:
http://www.lettheuniverseanswer.com/
 

Sun Apr 1 11:10 am  #8


Re: Sinclair TV

How is this any different than what happens up here in the (not so) Great White North?

 

Sun Apr 1 12:01 pm  #9


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

It's obvious how it's different to most people. You like to just complain. 

If challenging flawed logic and correcting people to see the truth is "complaining", then, yes, guilty as charged.

How is it you believe you and the supposed "majority" believe one thing and you are steadfast that you're right?  And, when someone challenges the staid old-guard of crumpled ideology and refusal to accept forward advancement of the business, we are wrong (and complainers)?  
 

 

Sun Apr 1 1:21 pm  #10


Re: Sinclair TV

As long as the FCC doesn't allow Sinclair to monopolize markets (admittedly not a guarantee with Ajit Pai and co.) I find it hard to care about what they're doing. If you dislike the content, simply don't watch it. Most markets will have at least four separate network affiliates, in addition to local print/digital news outlets. It's not 1974, where your only options were the NBC, CBS, or ABC affiliate and a newspaper subscription.

 

Sun Apr 1 1:50 pm  #11


Re: Sinclair TV

mace wrote:

For what it's worth, WUTV in Buffalo and WUHF in Rochester are both owned by Sinclair.

...but their news is WGRZ news on WUTV.  
I thought WGRZ was Tegna group...?

 

Sun Apr 1 5:50 pm  #12


Re: Sinclair TV

WUHF carries the WHAM newscast nightly at 10PM because of the Sinclair connection. Since Sinclair only owns WUTV in Buffalo, there is probably a financial arrangement to carry WGRZ's newscast at 10. Probably cheaper than producing their own newscast.

 

Sun Apr 1 9:53 pm  #13


Re: Sinclair TV

mace wrote:

WUHF carries the WHAM newscast nightly at 10PM because of the Sinclair connection. Since Sinclair only owns WUTV in Buffalo, there is probably a financial arrangement to carry WGRZ's newscast at 10. Probably cheaper than producing their own newscast.

Sinclair also owns WNYO.

 

Sun Apr 1 10:12 pm  #14


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

cGrant wrote:

How is this any different than what happens up here in the (not so) Great White North?

Democracy will not survive if ignorance becomes currency.[/color][/size]

 

Very true.  It won’t.  But to cGrant’s point, read two area newspapers, ones with very different political slants, and see how they approach the reporting of the news.  See how some stories appear in one and not the other.  Read the different slants of the common stories in each.  If you think Sinclair’s approach isn’t duplicated to some degree up here, then you’re dreaming!  😊
 


-- Chris Mayberry
 

Mon Apr 2 12:24 am  #15


Re: Sinclair TV

maybo:
Very true.  It won’t.  But to cGrant’s point, read two area newspapers, ones with very different political slants, and see how they approach the reporting of the news.  See how some stories appear in one and not the other.  Read the different slants of the common stories in each.  If you think Sinclair’s approach isn’t duplicated to some degree up here, then you’re dreaming!  😊




I think there's some difference.

We know The Star leans one way, The National Post leans the other way and The Globe&Mail scurries up the middle. So the reader is aware of the bias lean going in.

But what Sinclair has done is buy local stations across all the networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, etc) through out the U.S.  So they've got a pseudo masking of independence which hides that all these stations from difference networks are spouting the same opinion word-for-word from a single source.

It's a bit Orwellian. 

Last edited by g121 (Mon Apr 2 12:26 am)

 

Mon Apr 2 6:00 am  #16


Re: Sinclair TV

g121 wrote:

I think there's some difference.

We know The Star leans one way, The National Post leans the other way and The Globe&Mail scurries up the middle. So the reader is aware of the bias lean going in.

But what Sinclair has done is buy local stations across all the networks (ABC, CBS, FOX, etc) through out the U.S.  So they've got a pseudo masking of independence which hides that all these stations from difference networks are spouting the same opinion word-for-word from a single source.

It's a bit Orwellian. 

I don’t necessarily disagree, only to say that you know and I know about the bias exhibited by those newspapers.  The average reader who subscribes to one only?  I’m not so sure.
 


-- Chris Mayberry
 

Mon Apr 2 7:07 am  #17


Re: Sinclair TV

This story has attracted considerable interest in the U.S., but it might have started with this:


 

 

Mon Apr 2 10:02 am  #18


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

"Very true.  It won’t.  But to cGrant’s point, read two area newspapers, ones with very different political slants, and see how they approach the reporting of the news.  See how some stories appear in one and not the other.  Read the different slants of the common stories in each.  If you think Sinclair’s approach isn’t duplicated to some degree up here, then you’re dreaming!" 

Maybo, I alluded that newspapers here do have political bias.  The have a Editorial Section to address what the papers owners feel is right or wrong.  Sinclair is creating "Fake News" while calling other media such as WAPO Fake News creating confusion.  As I mentioned they regularly show the days "Terror Status" when there is none among many other nefarious attempts to sow discord.  They are demanding journalists become their mouthpieces under threat of immediate dismissal and flaunting labor laws by stating there will be no severance. They like Fox news, totally ignore facts and create their own. It's not journalism it's propaganda.  

They are playing to Trumps base on a local level he could never expect to reach. They incite violent response and do not condone those who react.  I work with TV stations in the US every day.  Most are finding ways to distance themselves from the "Fake News moniker" as hard as they can. Sinclair stations on the other hand embrace the disidence they create.  I no longer will not work for Sinclair.  I can tell you the number of excellent journalists with secret resumes floating about is at an all time high.

It's much different than newspapers taking a editorial stance and highlight some stories and bury others,  What I have noticed with Canadian newspapers is they have someone on staff who offers a dissenting opinion to the editorial.  So in a sense they are attempting to create parity however small that attempt may be.

Well said. Fox news and Sinclair have become the propaganda arm for Trumpism. They manufacture fake news while calling others fake. Insidious and straight out of the Nazi handbook.
 


Cool Airchecks and More:
http://www.lettheuniverseanswer.com/
 

Mon Apr 2 11:46 am  #19


Re: Sinclair TV

Question:  How is it that some here accept the notion that Sinclair and Fox are insidiously slanting the news, yet those same people seem to excuse the same notion when applied to The Star, CBC, etc.?

 

Mon Apr 2 1:32 pm  #20


Re: Sinclair TV

Sinclair needs to stop this audio/visual 'force feed' immediately...or lose their license[s] to broadcast.  Like one more time...and done.  Problem?  Governing bodies don't have anywhere near enough testicles to go around and the public interest is not a concern.  This is frightening.  Sinclair and Fox...2 fly attracting 'companies' which people need to stop watching/listening to or wasting their time with.  Make sure you let their advertisers know.  The audience can control programming and eh-holishness.  IF ONLY they would organize.

Freedom of speech is squashed when one company controls too much of the airwaves.  Various voices and points of view HAVE to be heard/need to be heard.  'Stupid shouldn't get to open mics and yap though.  When we're told how to think/what to think...especially when the self-serving agenda is chock full of lies, untruths and out and out non facts...we're screwed.  With the ever diminishing and increasingly limiting corporate broadcast choices available in Canada one would have to think, at the very least, that we'll soon be there.

It's plain to see that the audience hasn't counted or mattered for 20 years...minimum.  The staff?  Who?  It's only about money.  If profits increase by spewing BULL SHIT then these eh-holes will spew 24/7.  Time to tune out.  Don't listen to them if they don't listen to you.  Period.


The less 'Cyber Space' knows about me the better.  As a result I do not use my real name.  I would be willing to use yours' though.  No?  OK then.  So you 'get' it.  We're good.
 

Mon Apr 2 3:56 pm  #21


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

 Sinclair would reach over 70% U.S. households, which would be an unprecedented level of access. 

While I agree with your metrics, let's remember two things:
- Would the alternative of the pending cluster of stations going dark be a better option?
- Conventional television viewing is declining at a very rapid pace.  The younger folks aren't into TV and, if they actually care about the news, they get it via alternate means.

In the end, network conventional television is quickly being admitted to the ER on life support.
 

 

Mon Apr 2 4:19 pm  #22


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

The scariest part about Sinclair is it's pending purchase of Tribune Media. A controversial deal that would further concentrate local media and greatly expand Sinclair's reach. Sinclair is currently negotiating with the FCC and DOJ to get them to sign off on the deal. If the Tribune deal were allowed without any divestitures, Sinclair would reach over 70% U.S. households, which would be an unprecedented level of access. 

How is that scary? Cable and satellite services already undermined regional ownership regulations and the internet has made it futile. In another thread, we've got a Toronto rag looking to become Calgary's rag. A lot of the laws governing media are incredibly outdated and don't reflect current world realities, whether we like it or not.

Tribune was a dying company. If it wasn't Sinclair, it would've been someone else. Divestitures are expected if the deal goes through, specifically in markets where Sinclair already has a footprint.

 

Mon Apr 2 4:39 pm  #23


Re: Sinclair TV

Retaw wrote:

How is that scary? Cable and satellite services already undermined regional ownership regulations and the internet has made it futile. 
Tribune was a dying company. If it wasn't Sinclair, it would've been someone else. Divestitures are expected if the deal goes through, specifically in markets where Sinclair already has a footprint.

Absolutely agree.  This is a whole lot of the "sky is falling".  I trust in the general public's common sense and gut.  Sure, there are gullible people out there, but, are they really the ones that get involved in unpacking news?

There is such resistance to advancement, efficiencies and the future.  Here, in Canada, how did Bell, Rogers, Corus, Shaw, etc get as big as they are?  They bought out smaller outlets.  And, is the sky still blue?  You may not like media concentration, but, it's here and will continue to grow.  I am not one to wax nostalgic about yore cidevant epochs. Grasp the goose and make hay!  
 

 

Mon Apr 2 5:32 pm  #24


Re: Sinclair TV

As politically slanted as they are, at least Sinclair is a broadcast company. We're ground zero for what happens to local media companies that get bought out by cable companies and it's not a pretty sight. Heartless and unethical workforce reductions become constants in a desperate bid to improve margins (though, I wouldn't be surprised if Sinclair indulges in that, too). Corus, or as the CRTC considers them to be, Shaw, is slowly phasing out local news rooms. OTA is dead on a vine up here because it's against our cartel's best interests to invest in it. Small markets have been left to rot. Barrie is the flagship station for CTV2, yet its news casts continue to be produced in 4:3 480p in an era where broadcasters should be moving into 4K.

 

Mon Apr 2 6:12 pm  #25


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

"Very true.  It won’t.  But to cGrant’s point, read two area newspapers, ones with very different political slants, and see how they approach the reporting of the news.  See how some stories appear in one and not the other.  Read the different slants of the common stories in each.  If you think Sinclair’s approach isn’t duplicated to some degree up here, then you’re dreaming!" 

Maybo, I alluded that newspapers here do have political bias.  The have a Editorial Section to address what the papers owners feel is right or wrong.

Yep, they do.  And if the bias was limited to the editorial sections, I would completely agree with you.  But it’s not. 
And yes, the comparison to Sinclair is, in many ways, apples to oranges.  But the question was asked if bias exists on this side of the border.  And I believe it does, more than many people are willing to admit.

Fun debate!  😊
 


-- Chris Mayberry
 

Mon Apr 2 6:27 pm  #26


Re: Sinclair TV

cGrant wrote:

Grasp the goose and make hay!   

Soon to be followed by "...and I woulda gotten away with it, if it weren't for that damn corpse."
 

 

Mon Apr 2 6:48 pm  #27


Re: Sinclair TV

mace wrote:

For what it's worth, WUTV in Buffalo and WUHF in Rochester are both owned by Sinclair.

WUTV AND WUHF do NOT do their own newscasts; they partner with other stations to do so. WUTV has WGRZ producing its 10pm news(they're owned by Gannett's TV arm, TEGNA)and WUHF(owned by Sinclair)has WHAM-TV(which is operated by Sinclair)do theirs.

Last edited by ckg927 (Mon Apr 2 6:49 pm)

 

Mon Apr 2 7:30 pm  #28


Re: Sinclair TV

ok, great debate about can vs us tv.  but take it a step farther.  we can argue whether canadian media is involved in such group mind think.  but on the world scale, is canada really an influence peddler?

What sinclair, or fox, or even cnn is doing.... way beyond facebook crap.... is attempting to skew american values which ultimately reflect on world opinion.  whether you agree with trumpian politics, the reflection of his views are influencing everything from climate to stock markets.

one can be free to eschew the value of a free journalistic society, however individuals are prone to like minded bias on social media posts.  ultimately it comes down to whom to trust as an objective source.  if you know your source is leaning in one direction, then the onus is on the consumer to seek out balance.  but, like someone above said, local news is trusted.  demos be damned, viewers are still voters.

The americans are being presented with fewer and fewer objective sources.  do they care?  i am not sure.  but do they know?  that's the crux.  whatever they believe leads to the so called "leader of the free world"
 

Last edited by splunge (Mon Apr 2 7:33 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

Mon Apr 2 10:46 pm  #29


Re: Sinclair TV

maybo wrote:

But the question was asked if bias exists on this side of the border. And I believe it does, more than many people are willing to admit.

And, we circle back to my original reply, which was instantly discounted.....

cGrant wrote:

splunge wrote:

There will be certain people on this board that will suggest the same happens in this country.  I will beg to disagree, simply because its not as blatant. YET.

Your thesis is superfluous.  Just "because its not as blatant" does not mean it does not occur in this country.
 

 

 

Mon Apr 2 11:07 pm  #30


Re: Sinclair TV

cGrant wrote:

- Would the alternative of the pending cluster of stations going dark be a better option?

Ask yourself this:
If the situation is THAT bad, isn't it cheaper to just let the station(s) just go dark in the first place?
All while applying to the FCC for a fresh new licence to "undark" the stations, starting fresh with all new broadcast licences, staff, etc? 
Or is it just too much trouble to try and get new licences vs buying existing station licences?