• Honestly, people in the “TV watching” demographic starting to become aware of what’s happening, even the name “Sinclair” and how they are different from “TV” in a general sense, might be a little un-dangerous for our democracy.

      This is one of the nice things about Trump running this whole thing, is that it’ll all be done in a really stupid fashion and the people who are loyal to him in cringe inducing North Korea fashion aren’t going to get renumerated in any way for their loyalty.

        • Would you rather third Reich done by people who halfway know what they’re doing? I will take blessings where they are available.

          (Not that that makes it safe, people thought the early Nazis were hilarious idiots too. Hitler never got up before noon, Himmler was like the only guy in Germany who wasn’t a veteran at that point in history, Goebbels was stumping around on his club foot talking about racial and genetic purity, and so on. As has been discussed, one of their early openly fascist moves was getting rid of a bunch of the hilariously accurate comedy that was constantly being aimed at them by the comedians of the day. They were just kind of weirdo dingbats until they weren’t.)

      • kent_eh ( kent_eh@lemmy.ca ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 年前

        This is one of the nice things about Trump running this whole thing, is that it’ll all be done in a really stupid fashion

        Nice might not be the word I would have chosen, but I agree that it could be a whole lot worse if Trump and company were appointing competent people to do their bidding.

    • YoiksAndAway ( YoiksAndAway@piefed.zip ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 年前

      Well, Sinclair sucks, but affiliates aren’t obligated to show what the network airs. In fact, since Reagan got rid of the fairness doctrine, they could go full right-wing, nut-job propaganda 24-7. It sucks, especially since a few right wing douchebags control much of American media (looking at you, Murdoch), but it’s nothing new.

  • memfree ( memfree@piefed.social ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 年前

    Wasn’t this the initial ‘threat’ that got ABC to pull Kimmel? I thought Sinclair made this threat, then the FCC chimed in, then everyone else objected.

    So now Sinclair is following through, and we’ll see what the FCC does.

    • chaos ( chaos@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 年前

      The FCC regulates all 3, but they have a lot more control over OTA content because the electromagnetic spectrum doesn’t have enough room for everyone who wants a TV station to get a channel. As a result, if you do get one, it comes with strings attached and you have to serve the public good as well as whatever else you want to put out there. In addition, a broadcast is out in the open, blasted out in all directions for anyone with a receiver to see and hear, so much like being outside means some of the things you can do in private are not allowed, TV networks can’t broadcast some content that is otherwise legal. Those constraints offset some of the first amendment protections that would otherwise exist.

      Cable and internet don’t have these properties. They’re constrained only by how many lines of cable you can deploy in an area, and physics isn’t stopping anyone from running their own. And since it’s not being blasted out into the air in all directions, it’s closer to private communication. Without those justifications, the full protection of the first amendment still applies.