Hacker News Reader

Comment by rambojazz | Hacker News Reader

- people trust local media

- a single corporation owns a fuckton of those local stations

- the same corporation writes a script to broadcast on every station

- media hosts or journalists can't say "no". Do the job or lose your job. They're not free to report news without bias

- you don't know everything about everything, so you're inclined to trust the news because they're supposed to be neutral and report facts

- ultimately you internalize a biased opinion that was poured down onto you by the will of a handful of shareholders

Why can't you see the problem?

View on HN

Not the person you're replying to, but I also have a hard time seeing the problem. Or rather, I can see the problem, but this is how I would've expected news to have been done for decades. I grew up when there was only 4 TV channels and no internet. I would have assumed CBS (or its parent) would have controlled all the CBS affiliates in this way in the 80s. NBC would do the same, etc.

Actually, no, back in that day long ago, in a world far away, the local broadcaster wasn't 'owned' by the big three. The local broadcaster was independent, and they got their feed for first run programming, and the "world news" from their affiliation (more akin to the local purchasing the rights to broadcast) with one of the big three majors.

There used to be actual regulations on the books that prevented this type of consolidation from happening. Then, sometime circa. the 1980's, those laws were tossed out, leading to today where one single corporate parent controls nearly 200 local broadcasters in a very direct way.

It's one (sinclair) pretending to be many (local news stations).

Standard advice is check multiple sources. This pretends to be "multiple sources" when really it's just one.

Sinclair is effectively and echo chamber on TV. Web standards, don't like it, navigate else where. TV Standards, change the channel, get the same stuff. See how that is much more dangerous?

But this is the way it's been as far back as I can remember. You might think reading your local news is an independent source, but it's often mostly a copy/pasta from Reuters or simply reporting that another news company said something. I never believed that my local "Action 9 News" caster was actually doing any journalism. Maybe for local stories, but for anything national they were just regurgitating the company line.

Newspapers pay Reuters for access to their stories because Reuters has pretty good writing on offer for less than it would cost the paper to do the work itself. They can choose what stories they want to put their name on, and they are even free to modify a story from Reuters if they want to. Reuters doesn't tell the newspapers want to print. It's not even a little bit similar to what people are talking about here.

Then I think the discussion should reflect that. So what has changed is that now there's apparently an explicit rule that news stations must continue to follow the behavior they've been exhibiting for decades. Also, there's a little more structure to it now.

No? A corporation forcing news outlets to issue editorial statements (and without disclosure) isn't remotely the same thing as a newspaper voluntarily paying Reuters for access to its reporting. It's like the difference between buying an apple at the farmer's market and having somebody pour bleach in your eyes. There's a level of abstraction where you could describe those two things in similar terms ("oh, you're just having a substance enter your body"), but they are not at all the same in any meaningful way.

I understand what you're saying, I'm just more cynical about old media than you are. Technically old media in the 80s could have theoretically expressed unique opinions that didn't toe the company line of the wealthy establishment, they just coincidentally never did. Now many of them are owned by the same company and use the same language.

I guess you're completely ignorant of the Fairness Doctrine, then.

A link, in case anyone is lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

"this way" is not news reporting, it's propaganda.

"They're not free to report news without bias... they're supposed to be neutral and report facts"

I know I sound cynical, but does any thinking person actually believe that? That strikes me as incredibly naive.

They're not free to report news without bias

You're taking this out of context. You come to know your local news reporters, learn their biases, and they build some kind of trust with them. You might even see them at events or having a meal with their family and have a personal relationship with them. As stated a few times in this thread, Sinclair bought this trust & is violating it.

they're supposed to be neutral and report facts

It's not naive to think this. News shows and publications generally have a clear divider between "reporting" and {"opinion"|"editorial"|"analysis"}. I'd also like to think most people can tell the difference, regardless, between and opinion, "immigrants are good for the country" and declarative statements, "Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any President before him".

Now, if the guy behind the desk on your 11 O'Clock news incorrectly reports that the the head of the local hospital personally leads a "death panel" that decides if your grandmother gets to live, you can easily march down there and sort it out yourself, hell you might even know the head of that hospital and know right off that this is factually false. Soon, you won't trust this lie peddling news outlet again, and they'll have to make some sort of change.

Of course, there are organizations out there that lie when making declarative statements, like the "death panel" example above, but those are generally on the national/Internet level, because someone in Jacksonville, FL can't reasonably verify a story about what's happening across the country or in DC like they can with a story about the Jaguars, so there's always some shadow of doubt...

The key here truly lies in buying up local news outlets.

It is cynical, but it's also very common now to believe that, and that is very dangerous to democracy. The level of distrust of anything and everything seems to be at an all time high. The idea that one large corporation is using their power to further that distrust should cause pause, or at least some questioning about motives.

Well, trust is earned, it is not a right. So far they appear to be failing in earning people's trust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com