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


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

April 2, 2018 11:39 pm  #31


Re: Sinclair TV

Radiowiz wrote:

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? 

I don't see the point to that.  Financially, I would surmise, it would be more expensive to re-hire, retrain and re-market a station than just a mere re-brand.  Think of the recent flip of Spike to the Paramount Network.  Sure, they've spent a bundle on marketing, but in-house, barely anything changed.  Now, it could be argued that there was little at stake, in that they didn't have a local presence or newscast, but, effectively, what changed was minimal compared to a fresh purchase. 
 

 

April 3, 2018 3:26 am  #32


Re: Sinclair TV

cGrant wrote:

I don't see the point to that.  Financially, I would surmise, it would be more expensive to re-hire, retrain and re-market a station than just a mere re-brand.  
 

Somewhere in that mess is also the question of a Union. If any of those stations are unionized, starting fresh terminates the union. 
Fire and rehire the same people for less or find new people that are already trained, desperate for work.
Also, flushing out senior staff in favour of cheaper younger staff may be in order, regardless.

Most importantly, Sinclair has the right to decide to pay a Sinclair wage, not any other wage unless the staff at those stations are already working for less...

 

April 3, 2018 7:30 am  #33


Re: Sinclair TV

If Sinclair Broadcasting had a left wing political slant, I doubt very much John Oliver would have done an 18 minute commentary on the subject.

 

April 3, 2018 9:32 am  #34


Re: Sinclair TV

NBC Nightly News actually did a story on this on Monday's show, which is highly unusual. Sinclair has now responded in a statement that I'll offer without comment. But I'm sure many here won't be so reticent. 

"Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. today responded to a series of media reports attacking the Company’s recent promotional announcement for its local news. These announcements were responding to the public’s distrust in news generally, confirmed just today by this Monmouth University poll, and spoke to our commitment to avoid such inaccurate reporting. The promos served no political agenda, and represented nothing more than an effort to differentiate our award-winning news programming from other, less reliable sources of information.
 
“We aren’t sure of the motivation for the criticism, but find it curious that we would be attacked for asking our news people to remind their audiences that unsubstantiated stories exist on social media, which result in an ill-informed public with potentially dangerous consequences,” commented Scott Livingston, Sinclair’s Senior Vice President of News.

“It is ironic that we would be attacked for messages promoting our journalistic initiative for fair and objective reporting, and for specifically asking the public to hold our newsrooms accountable. Our local stations keep our audiences’ trust by staying focused on fact-based reporting and clearly identifying commentary.”

 

April 3, 2018 2:33 pm  #35


Re: Sinclair TV

There's been a number of tweets from outraged citizens on how Sinclair is treating, some would say, threatening, their reporters and employees if they should refuse to follow the company public relations stance, including an internal staff memo from a member of the Sinclair executive that was screen captured, and posted to Twitter that clearly described the fate of anyone who has a problem with the Sinclair way of "doing business."

"House of Cards" and "The Newsroom" in real life? Not so much fun.

 

April 3, 2018 3:43 pm  #36


Re: Sinclair TV

Sinclair Employees Say Their Contracts Make It Too Expensive to Quit
Noncompetes, forced arbitration and a liquidated damages clause can equal 40 percent of annual salary.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/sinclair-employees-say-their-contracts-make-it-too-expensive-to-quit/

Last edited by g121 (April 3, 2018 3:43 pm)

 

April 4, 2018 6:45 pm  #37


Re: Sinclair TV

g121 wrote:

Sinclair Employees Say Their Contracts Make It Too Expensive to Quit
Noncompetes, forced arbitration and a liquidated damages clause can equal 40 percent of annual salary.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/sinclair-employees-say-their-contracts-make-it-too-expensive-to-quit/

And yet, many are thinking of doing just that as a revolt grows at some Sinclair stations.

Sinclair’s Media-Bashing Promo May Bring Consumer Boycott, Employee Walkout 

 

April 4, 2018 8:51 pm  #38


Re: Sinclair TV

This thread makes my sides shake. 

 

April 4, 2018 9:15 pm  #39


Re: Sinclair TV

Oh, a revolt! That'll show them. There are plenty of youngsters that will gladly take their place. And for cheaper.

 

April 4, 2018 11:52 pm  #40


Re: Sinclair TV

cGrant wrote:

Oh, a revolt! That'll show them. There are plenty of youngsters that will gladly take their place. And for cheaper.

Sadly, no, because:

cGrant wrote:

I don't see the point to that.  Financially, I would surmise, it would be more expensive to re-hire, retrain and re-market a station than just a mere re-brand.  
 

 

April 5, 2018 6:50 am  #41


Re: Sinclair TV

Radiowiz wrote:

Sadly, no, because:

cGrant wrote:

I don't see the point to that.  Financially, I would surmise, it would be more expensive to re-hire, retrain and re-market a station than just a mere re-brand.  
 

Nice try. But, context is key. I wrote "RE-hire, REtrain". That denotes hiring and training those that ALREADY have worked there. But, my second comment implied hiring and training NEW personnel.
 

 

April 6, 2018 4:53 am  #42


Re: Sinclair TV

cGrant wrote:

Radiowiz wrote:

Sadly, no, because:

cGrant wrote:

I don't see the point to that.  Financially, I would surmise, it would be more expensive to re-hire, retrain and re-market a station than just a mere re-brand.  
 

Nice try. But, context is key. I wrote "RE-hire, REtrain". That denotes hiring and training those that ALREADY have worked there. But, my second comment implied hiring and training NEW personnel.
 

Is there some law in the States that says that when a station goes dark, the replacement MUST hire people who used to work there first before considering anyone else? 
 

 

April 6, 2018 1:19 pm  #43


Re: Sinclair TV

Radiowiz wrote:

cGrant wrote:

Oh, a revolt! That'll show them. There are plenty of youngsters that will gladly take their place. And for cheaper.

Sadly, no, because:

cGrant wrote:

I don't see the point to that.  Financially, I would surmise, it would be more expensive to re-hire, retrain and re-market a station than just a mere re-brand.  
 

Um...the radio industry on this side of the border is doing that. And re-hiring veterans willing to stay in the business at a paycut.

 

April 6, 2018 1:29 pm  #44


Re: Sinclair TV

ONEIL wrote:

cGrant wrote:

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

It's obvious how it's different to most people. You like to just complain. 
Sinclair in 2004 forced it's affiliates to aired John Kerry propaganda. Also Sinclair branded "inflammatory Terrorism Alerts" - there was no national terror alert...they create their own.
Truth in journalism is fighting gale force headwinds. Democracy will not survive if ignorance becomes currency.


 

You mean when John Kerry committed treason? The only ignorance here is you. Maybe CNN should have stood up to say they are real journalists when wikileaks unveiled their part in sabotage of the Democrat Primary when they were caught handing Clinton debate questions. Then again, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to wake up, O'Neil. I guess I'm team Kowch now...

 

April 12, 2018 6:38 pm  #45


Re: Sinclair TV

 

April 13, 2018 5:42 pm  #46


Re: Sinclair TV

On April 11th, 12 U.S. Senators called on the FCC to investigate Sinclair Broadcasting for "deliberately distorting news" and "engaging in a systematic news operation that seeks to undermine the freedom of the press."

Guess the U.S. Senators are saying Sinclair Broadcasting has gone from breaking news to breaking the news.

Last edited by betaylored (April 13, 2018 5:52 pm)

 

April 14, 2018 11:26 am  #47


Re: Sinclair TV

cGrant wrote:

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.?

Here's how:
Trump: "Teachers should have guns."
MSNBC: Here's video of Trump saying teachers should have guns.  We don't think they should.  Here's why not.

Obama: I don't want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, but we need background checks.
Fox News: Obama wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens!

One is an editorial opinion, one is a lie.

 

August 9, 2018 3:02 pm  #48


Re: Sinclair TV

It's been a while since this was a hot topic here, but the final (?) word is that the deal is off - and to no one's surprise, the lawsuits are on. 

Tribune Media Sues Sinclair, Terminates Merger Agreement

 

August 10, 2018 11:41 am  #49


Re: Sinclair TV

Prod Guy wrote:

cGrant wrote:

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.?

Here's how:
Trump: "Teachers should have guns."
MSNBC: Here's video of Trump saying teachers should have guns.  We don't think they should.  Here's why not.

Obama: I don't want to take away guns from law abiding citizens, but we need background checks.
Fox News: Obama wants to take away guns from law abiding citizens!

One is an editorial opinion, one is a lie.

An inaccurate and ignorant statement. So you watch one and not the other. Forget denying it, your comment says it all.