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


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

Mon Apr 2 5:32 pm  #31


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  #32


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  #33


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  #34


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  #35


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  #36


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  #37


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?
 

 

Mon Apr 2 11:39 pm  #38


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. 
 

 

Tue Apr 3 3:26 am  #39


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...

 

Tue Apr 3 7:30 am  #40


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.

 

Tue Apr 3 9:32 am  #41


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.”

 

Tue Apr 3 2:33 pm  #42


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.

 

Tue Apr 3 3:43 pm  #43


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 (Tue Apr 3 3:43 pm)

 

Wed Apr 4 6:45 pm  #44


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 

 

Wed Apr 4 8:51 pm  #45


Re: Sinclair TV

This thread makes my sides shake. 

 

Wed Apr 4 9:15 pm  #46


Re: Sinclair TV

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

 

Wed Apr 4 11:52 pm  #47


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.  
 

 

Thu Apr 5 6:50 am  #48


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.
 

 

Fri Apr 6 4:53 am  #49


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? 
 

 

Fri Apr 6 1:19 pm  #50


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.

 

Fri Apr 6 1:29 pm  #51


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...

 

Thu Apr 12 6:38 pm  #52


Re: Sinclair TV

 

Fri Apr 13 5:42 pm  #53


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 (Fri Apr 13 5:52 pm)

 

Sat Apr 14 11:26 am  #54


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.