LA Grant Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 As if we needed a millionth example of conservative brainwashing that conservatives themselves will ignore. But sure, keep prattling on about fake news and the liberal media. https://www.gq.com/story/sinclair-white-house-ties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted April 3, 2018 Author Share Posted April 3, 2018 If I cared to look for it, I'd quote one of Tasker's posts where he's getting misty-eyed thinking how Trump shall one day be considered equal status with Washington. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 Yeas or no: Do you find the actual content of what was read over the air to be objectionable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 Why does this need a new thread? Why do you feel so special? Who is John Oliver? Is he one of the !@#$s on Comedy Central? I turned it on last night and hoped South Park or Ow my balls would be on. Instead it was some !@#$ interviewing Parkland students. It definitely was comedy Central as the grown man asked the kid what he thought of gun control laws to ha e the kid stammer out a response. "I support the second amendment but I think there needs to be restrictions. I think more police need to be at our school and more guns to protect the innocent." This was probably your kid Grant. I won't even break down how stupid the kid was because I want you to figure it out. And Dan rather can get down on his knees and suck my Dingle. The guy is a joke and always was; talk about a corporate shill. Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 MEDIA GO NUTS AFTER SINCLAIR LOCAL HOSTS ALL READ ANTI-FAKE NEWS MESSAGE. Here’s Why That’s Ridiculous: There are companies that have tried to cram down particular viewpoints on hosts. That’s awful. But this isn’t that. Again, this message is utterly anodyne. The leftist media’s universal rush to condemn Sinclair for the message is actually more lockstep political than Sinclair’s message, which is lockstep but not political. Kimmel’s tweet is actually more telling than it looks: all the statements about Sinclair being “dangerous for our democracy” are just as collectivized and unanimous, and far more political, than Sinclair’s top-down edict to read an apolitical message on air. Read the whole thing. Mainstream Media Suddenly Concerned About Media Bias, Sinclair Broadcasting Edition ‘You should TALK’! This is the LAST guy who should be accusing Sinclair of trying to ‘obscure the truth’ BUSTED! Here’s why the MSM can take their outrage over Sinclair and SHOVE IT [video] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 How is it propaganda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, GG said: How is it propaganda? Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 I'll just point out the irony of someone appealing to a Jon Oliver production citing examples of propaganda. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 somebody give me a synopsis of what happened. I have tried to read stories but my eyes keep glossing over because each story seems to contradict the previous one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 9 minutes ago, The Poojer said: what happened... Summary: The OP brought up the recent case of mega-conglomerate news entity, Sinclair Group, which exerted influence with many affiliates seemingly in favor of Trump’s “fake news” crusade. Some of the conservatives here replied disagreeing with the assumption that this is somehow suspicious or inappropriate. Boyst, predictably, took it as an opportunity to once again invoke his “dingle.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, The Poojer said: somebody give me a synopsis of what happened. I have tried to read stories but my eyes keep glossing over because each story seems to contradict the previous one. Wouldja? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 was kind of hoping for an objective synopsis Just now, Cugalabanza said: Summary: The OP brought up the recent case of mega-conglomerate news entity, Sinclair Group, which exerted influence with many affiliates seemingly in favor of Trump’s “fake news” crusade. Some of the conservatives here replied disagreeing with the assumption that this is somehow suspicious or inappropriate. Boyst, predictably, took it as an opportunity to once again invoke his “dingle.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Poojer said: was kind of hoping for an objective synopsis No, he pretty much nailed it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The Poojer said: was kind of hoping for an objective synopsis I know, but I'm not sure if that's possible. Even if it is, this would not be the place. This mega news company played bully pulpit with a huge number of local affiliates. I'd say that's objectively creepy and that it undermines the idea of free press. However, many people sympathetic with the "fake news" message would probably argue that this is an appropriate counter measure and a legit tactic to try to rescue democracy from those lefty powers trying to hijack it. It's messy. You kind of have to dig in and decide what it means to you. Edited April 3, 2018 by Cugalabanza 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: Summary: The OP brought up the recent case of mega-conglomerate news entity, Sinclair Group, which exerted influence with many affiliates seemingly in favor of Trump’s “fake news” crusade. Some of the conservatives here replied disagreeing with the assumption that this is somehow suspicious or inappropriate. Boyst, predictably, took it as an opportunity to once again invoke his “dingle.” Don't you love how Trump completely co-opted the Democratic Party's "fake news" crusade for his own purposes? You gotta admit, he plays that stinkin' party like a harp from hell. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 Just now, snafu said: No, he pretty much nailed it. Except Sinclair is not a mega conglomerate news entity. It is the largest independent owner of television stations, however. It ran the promos to signal that they aren't necessarily influenced by the news pushed down by the 4 major broadcast networks that it's affiliated with. People who are supportive of the news narrative pushed down by the big 4 naturally had an issue with that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Don't you love how Trump completely co-opted the Democratic Party's "fake news" crusade for his own purposes? You gotta admit, he plays that stinkin' party like a harp from hell. He has a natural skill as a shyster, yes. 5 minutes ago, GG said: People who are supportive of the news narrative pushed down by the big 4 naturally had an issue with that. I think it's possible (and reasonable) to be dissatisfied by the mainstream media and still have an issue with the Sinclair move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: Summary: The OP brought up the recent case of mega-conglomerate news entity, Sinclair Group, which exerted influence with many affiliates seemingly in favor of Trump’s “fake news” crusade. Some of the conservatives here replied disagreeing with the assumption that this is somehow suspicious or inappropriate. Boyst, predictably, took it as an opportunity to once again invoke his “dingle.” Well, for starters it's being contested that this is a pro-Trump agenda in other threads (Grant is a self important !@#$ who LAMPs everything, so now we have this new one as well). I think it's also incredibly important to reiterate that we are in the midst of an information war, and the term "fake news" refers to Pravda-like propaganda coming out of state sponsored media outlets (both new media and old). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, GG said: Except Sinclair is not a mega conglomerate news entity. It is the largest independent owner of television stations, however. It ran the promos to signal that they aren't necessarily influenced by the news pushed down by the 4 major broadcast networks that it's affiliated with. People who are supportive of the news narrative pushed down by the big 4 naturally had an issue with that. You're right about "mega conglomerate" I suppose, but they're pretty frikkin big. To me, overreaction to a mission statement is stupid. I wonder what the reaction would have been if ABC or CBS or NBC or PBS had it's on-air personalities read this very same statement. Or if the NY Times or the Washington Post had published this statement. Maybe someone who's objecting to it should compare the Sinclair handling of news stories vs. any other news narrative they want to use as a "standard". And, yes, I see the hypocrisy of naming a "standard" by which someone should measure Sinclair's affiliates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 i don't really see anything wrong with the content of that statement. every media outlet should be striving to do what that message is saying, to provide unbiased news, period. not once did i hear anything that this was pro 'anyone' or anti 'anyone', simply stating that fair and accurate news reporting should be the end all be all for media outlets. If people want to boycott these outlets because of this particular unified message then i think we are in deeper trouble than i thought we were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts