Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Want the FCC to Revoke Sinclair's Broadcast Licenses - They say it's to protect free speech.

[Ubiquitous]

How stupid is the panic over Sinclair Broadcast Group's hamfisted,
"must-run" promotional video decrying "fake news"? This stupid:
Yesterday 12 senators, including reported presidential aspirants
Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Cory
Booker (D-N.J.), officially requested that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) "investigate Sinclair's news
activities to determine if it conforms to the public interest." If
such an inquiry were to uncover "distorted news reports," the
senators reckoned, that "could disqualify Sinclair from holding its
existing licenses" and put the kibosh to its proposed purchase of
Tribune Co. television stations.

"Multiple news outlets report that Sinclair has been forcing local
news anchors to read Sinclair-mandated scripts warning of the
dangers of 'one-sided news stories plaguing our country,' over the
protests from local news teams," states the letter, authored by Sen.
Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). "As strong defenders of the First
Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press, we are
alarmed by such practices....Must-run dictates from Sinclair harm
the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment by
turning local journalists into mouthpieces for a corporate and
political agenda."

FCC chair Ajit Pai this afternoon responded with a curt thanks-but-
no-thanks. "In light of my commitment to protecting the First
Amendment and freedom of the press, I must respectfully decline,"
Pai wrote. "I have repeatedly made clear that the FCC does not have
the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on
the content of a particular newscast. I understand that you disliked
or disagreed with the content of particular broadcasts, but I can
hardly think of an action more chilling of free speech than the
federal government investigating a broadcast station because of
disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that coverage."

The full text of Pai's letter is below:

Dear Senator Cantwell:

Thank you for your letter requesting that the Commission
investigate a broadcaster based on the content of its news
coverage and promotion of that coverage. In light of my
commitment to protecting the First Amendment and freedom
of the press, I must respectfully decline.

A free media is vital to our democracy. That is why during
my time at the Commission I have consistently opposed any
effort to infringe upon the freedom of the press and have
fought to eliminate regulations that impede the gathering
and dissemination of news. Most relevant here, I have
repeatedly made clear that the FCC does not have the
authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based
on the content of a particular newscast.

I understand that you disliked or disagreed with the content
of particular broadcasts, but I can hardly think of an
action more chilling of free speech than the federal
government investigating a broadcast station because of
disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that
coverage. Instead, I agree with Senator Markey that "[a]ny
insinuation that elected officials could use the levers of
government to control or sensor [sic] the news media would
represent a startling degradation of the freedom of the
press." I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the
commitment I made to several members of the Senate Commerce
Committee last year that the Commission under my leadership
would "not act in a manner that violates the First Amendment
and stifles or penalizes free speech by electronic media,
directly or indirectly."

Thank you for your interest, and let me know if I can be of
further assistance.

Ajit V. Pai

Pai was quoting there from a letter Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote
to him in October, urging the chairman to pledge that the FCC would
not follow up on President Donald Trump's suggestion to challenge
and possibly revoke the broadcast licenses of network news
providers. Pai swatted away the notion of content-related license
challenges both before and after Trump's tirade. (And yes, Markey is
a signatory to Cantwell's Sinclair letter.)

Pai is currently under investigation by the FCC's inspector general,
who is considering whether he acted improperly when lobbying for TV
ownership rule changes in advance of the Sinclair-Tribune merger.
Sanders and Warren, like most of the contemporary Democratic Party,
are dead set against the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens
United legalizing the political speech of corporations. In
Commentary last year, I warned that the erosion of societal support
for free speech might eventually trickle up to the judiciary.


--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[J.B. Nicholson]

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> How stupid is the panic over Sinclair Broadcast Group's hamfisted,
> "must-run" promotional video decrying "fake news"? This stupid:
> Yesterday 12 senators, including reported presidential aspirants
> Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Cory
> Booker (D-N.J.), officially requested that the Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC) "investigate Sinclair's news
> activities to determine if it conforms to the public interest."

Did the 80%+ (figure comes from FAIR.org; I'll have to find a URL of
an article I've only seen in print) of pro-war news reporting during
the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 "conform to the public
interest"? Where was the comparable complaining on that matter of life
and death?

> FCC chair Ajit Pai this afternoon responded with a curt thanks-but-
> no-thanks. "In light of my commitment to protecting the First
> Amendment and freedom of the press, I must respectfully decline,"
> Pai wrote. "I have repeatedly made clear that the FCC does not have
> the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on
> the content of a particular newscast. I understand that you disliked
> or disagreed with the content of particular broadcasts, but I can
> hardly think of an action more chilling of free speech than the
> federal government investigating a broadcast station because of
> disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that coverage."

Sounds reasonable to me. This puts an even finer point on making RT
America undergo FARA registration and giving up its Capitol
credentials but not other 'foreign' outlets such as the BBC or CBC.

> Pai was quoting there from a letter Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote
> to him in October, urging the chairman to pledge that the FCC would
> not follow up on President Donald Trump's suggestion to challenge
> and possibly revoke the broadcast licenses of network news
> providers. Pai swatted away the notion of content-related license
> challenges both before and after Trump's tirade. (And yes, Markey is
> a signatory to Cantwell's Sinclair letter.)

Even sweeter. Heaven forbid we speak freely and be heard/read.

There's not even an allegation of fraud here; this is really about
airing a view people are not being encouraged to hear or read for
itself (amazing how much righteously indignant coverage of the
Sinclair script never included what was in the script[1]) and which
actually isn't objectionable. If anything, one could accuse it of
being vague about what precisely qualifies as "fake news". This isn't
fraud we're talking about either, it's a case where more speech would
help the audience understand how what Sinclair was saying is a promise
they've not demonstrated they can live up to.

You can read the script at
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/03/29/here-are-manipulative-ads-sinclair-forced-local-anchors-read-now-airing-across-country/219779
which is also ironic that FAIR interviewed someone from this
organization.

This is not really about how much Sinclair outlets live up to their
promises. CNN recently launched their "facts first" campaign (which
was billed as CNN's fight against fake news in variety.com[2]). And
RT's "The Resident" has done a number of spots where she shows how CNN
isn't living up to their promise to the viewer there. But I don't see
anyone who complains about Sinclair also complain about CNN, or
organize senators to try anything (even a bound-to-fail FCC letter) to
get CNN removed from cable TV or the Internet in their attempt to
protect us from that sometimes lying speech:

CNN's Brian Stelter admitted he let David Hogg lie on his show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5d2UAdE8i8

CNN's Brian Stelter got very excited about President Oprah despite
Oprah not confirming she's running.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNjG_JZulro

CNN releases poll indicating Trump won't win in 2020 even after
Hillary Clinton's much-predicted win didn't happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0y3l9i-CO4

And this lack of truth-telling isn't helping CNN's ratings: CNN's
ratings are abysmal in Q1 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvTG9inTXfA

The US already tolerates unconstitutional censorship with
sexually-related speech (read Nadine Strossen's "Defending
Pornography" for plenty of examples) where comparable limits on
nonsexual speech would never be tolerated.



[1] This includes rebuke from FAIR in
https://fair.org/home/sinclair-has-thrived-for-so-long-under-the-radar/
which objects to corporate control of speech over its employees
but never clearly states why Sinclair is worth this unique
focus. FAIR comes the closest I've seen to anyone providing
specific allegations of how the script is ironic or flatly not
true, but even they don't link to or quote the Sinclair script
(despite interviewing someone from Media Matters where the script
is quoted). This FAIR piece neglects to take on the reality that
businesses take over other businesses and mold what was acquired
into the ways of the parent business.

[2] http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/cnn-advertising-fake-news-facts-first-1202596220/

[RichA]

On Monday, 16 April 2018 09:06:50 UTC-4, Ubiquitous wrote:
> How stupid is the panic over Sinclair Broadcast Group's hamfisted,
> "must-run" promotional video decrying "fake news"? This stupid:
> Yesterday 12 senators, including reported presidential aspirants
> Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Cory
> Booker (D-N.J.), officially requested that the Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC) "investigate Sinclair's news
> activities to determine if it conforms to the public interest."

Liberal interests

[trotsky]

Yes, the only thing the public cares about.

[Neill Massello]

Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> quoted:

> How stupid is the panic over Sinclair Broadcast Group's hamfisted,
> "must-run" promotional video decrying "fake news"?

Nothing screams "We're losing!" louder than the left's desperate
attempts to silence criticism.

[Obveeus]

Putting forth a complaint that Trump (well, the idiot minions he hired
to run the FCC) has changed/re-interpretted/twisted the laws to allow
Sinclair to vastly expand is not about trying to silence criticism. It
is about trying to sound a warning bell of danger ahead. So: Danger! A
propaganda machine is being allowed to purchase Tribune in what would
have been a violation of the law under previous administrations, but has
been ok'd for partisan reasons by the current FCC. Same goes for the
FCC's choice on Net Neutrality under this new administration. Warning,
danger ahead!

[A Friend]

In article <1nng4z2.leso1s7zsjvrN%nmas...@yahoo.com>, Neill Massello

If this were actually an attempt to silence criticism, you might have
something there. (Well, no, not really.)

This has been about bringing notice to Sinclair's practice of putting
words in the mouths of local news anchors and reporters while making it
appear that the content originated locally. This is what we here in
the real world call a "lie." Apparently you have no problem with
either Sinclair's lying or in calling opposition to its deceptive
practices a "panic." (Calling it that would be a lie, too.)

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Another point of view--this documents the heavy-hand of Sinclair
broadcasting:

excerpt from Phila Inqr

Sinclair Broadcast Group is owned by a longtime backer of
conservative causes. What has been unusual about Sinclair
is its ascent to become — with little fanfare— the leader
in ownership of local TV channels and its increasing reliance
on “must-run” programming that comes from the home office
which reflects the strong political ideology of its owners.

For most of the history of broadcast television, local news
has been exactly that: local. The latest outrage at City Hall.
Sinclair blows that format up by taking large chunks of limited
airtime that could be dedicated to the doings of your city
council or school board and turning it over to the kind of
national political punditry you can also find on cable —
especially, considering the right-wing slant, the Fox
News Channel. The practices are not new — Sinclair first
entered the political lexicon when its stations aired a hit
piece on John Kerry right before the 2004 election, and
Sinclair’s bizarre “Terrorism Alert Desk” exists to keep
its viewers scared — but they’ve accelerated as Trump
arrived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Not long after Trump
became president the TV company hired a pro-Trump zealot and
former aide, Boris Epshteyn, to air “must-run” commentaries
on its stations.

full article at: (good piece on today's journalism issues)
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/will_bunch/stop-sinclair-broadcast-group-philadelpia-phl17-tribune-merger-20180412.html

[trotsky]

Yes, this explains the constant stream of Dem victories in formerly red
states. I wonder what kind of upbringing one has to have to crow about
being a lying piece of shit every hour of the day?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[trotsky]

Yes. I was flicking through AM radio stations today and I heard some
right wing asshole, probably on a Sinclair station, say "And people have
to realize the Steele dossier, which is full of lies, was funded by the
Clinton campaign!!" This, of course, is a common right wing lie. A)
Not one thing in the dossier has been disproved. B) Intially it was
funded by the Republicans wishing to find stuff on Trump during the GOP
primary, and then when Trump won the nomination it was further paid for
by the Dems. When I hear stuff like this I get very angry. I would
like to find the station where the guy was broadcasting, bring a fresh
pile of dog shit, and rub the guy's face in it for about five minutes.
Kind of waterboarding with dog excrement. And then say, "If you would
just tell the truth, snowflake, we wouldn't have to go through all
this." That would be funny.

[trotsky]

On 4/13/2018 9:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
> -- Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd have
> to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

A) NOT TV RELATED.

B) This sounds exactly like something "Irish Mike" would say. How weird!