This past weekend, Deadspin published a damning video of Sinclair Broadcast Group news anchors from local stations across the country reading the same script.
"Do you ever notice that a story about Sinclair will include talking points?""Do you ever notice that a story about Sinclair will include talking points?""Do you ever notice that...."
They're best bet is to cross the border in secret, make their way through the country without alerting the notice of the authorities, and cross the border into Canada before they start asking for asylum.
The PIO had a job to do, which was to pass certain information to the public, and being an officer was obliged to abide by a code of conduct which forbade lying. But I take your point. I was lucky to get that guy as a source.
Really. What a foe par. Irregardless, if his conversating doesn't pass mustard, he's going to get his just deserves. He probably thinks its one in the same - for all intensive purposes - but if he thinks he'll get off scotch free, he's got another thing coming. But I guess he's just an escape goat for the real problem, so it's a mute point.
Here's some regulatory oversight you might agree with - restoring FCC regulations that prohibited cross-ownership and limited the number of stations any one entity could own. Thirty-five years ago, we had 50 companies in control of 90% of our (broadcast) media. Now we have five. FIVE.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the FCC going after Sinclair. I just think it's a dangerous precedent if they explicitly do so for political reasons. Of course it won't really matter. No matter the reason a company's practices get reviewed, they will claim it is a witch hunt. That is SOP these days.
Sinclair, everywhere!!No more "meaningless dribble," for goodness' sake.
"Do you ever notice that a story about Sinclair will include talking points?""Do you ever notice that a story about Sinclair will include talking points?""Do you ever notice that...."
"Meaningless dribble" really? Are you fucking kidding me?
Boycott? That means I can't watch the ABC, Fox, and CW affiliates in my area.
Not a problem.
They're best bet is to cross the border in secret, make their way through the country without alerting the notice of the authorities, and cross the border into Canada before they start asking for asylum.
I wish they but I don't expect it. The MSM has the back bone of a, umm, umm, umm.
Oh never mind, they have no backbone. Sigh!
The dumbing down of Murika is proceeding .
The PIO had a job to do, which was to pass certain information to the public, and being an officer was obliged to abide by a code of conduct which forbade lying. But I take your point. I was lucky to get that guy as a source.
Some channels try to air them at like 3 am, when no one's watching, at least.
Really. What a foe par. Irregardless, if his conversating doesn't pass mustard, he's going to get his just deserves. He probably thinks its one in the same - for all intensive purposes - but if he thinks he'll get off scotch free, he's got another thing coming. But I guess he's just an escape goat for the real problem, so it's a mute point.
Here's some regulatory oversight you might agree with - restoring FCC regulations that prohibited cross-ownership and limited the number of stations any one entity could own. Thirty-five years ago, we had 50 companies in control of 90% of our (broadcast) media. Now we have five. FIVE.
I think the proposed expansion is to be in 72% of media markets, not to own 72% of stations?Still something the FCC should prohibit, though.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the FCC going after Sinclair. I just think it's a dangerous precedent if they explicitly do so for political reasons. Of course it won't really matter. No matter the reason a company's practices get reviewed, they will claim it is a witch hunt. That is SOP these days.
No one has to fact-check these accusations, assholes. The evidence is RECORDED and PUBLIC for anyone to see.
And maybe the FTC too? Not sure if they apply here.
I see what you're doing here. :-) Bravo Mrs. Malaprop!