REICH COMMUNICATIONS

Sinclair Broadcasting... Pushing the Idea of "Fake News"

 

About a month ago, I wrote about some things happening on the "fake news" front.   One was that Sinclair Broadcasting, the largest owner of local TV stations in the U.S., was planning to have its local news anchors read scripted editorials implying that much of the mainstream news media are not truthful in their reporting.  Sounds a lot like what we hear from the White House and its occupant, as well as from the conservative movement's mouthpieces -- Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and, of course, FOX News.

It finally happened the other day ... dozens and dozens of local anchors at Sinclair's 193 stations read the same message, fomenting distrust in our news media.  

It made the news -- at least the media that report real news. It's also gone viral as someone put together a video that shows anchors from stations around the country voicing exactly the same thing.  I'm not sure if FOX did anything on it.

From what I've read in trade journals, many local news anchors were upset, but most read the pieces because their livelihoods -- and their families --  depend on them.  A few refused to do it, and I haven't heard if there have yet been any repercussions.

I'll repeat what I wrote about this a few weeks ago...

 

 

Even though these pieces are being labeled as “opinion,” it is still extremely harmful to our democracy and to the public interest to have on-air reporters and anchors demeaning other media and promoting the idea of them being fake news.

It’s unfortunate and it’s dangerous, since it further pushes the concept of our news media doing fake news, ironically from one of the media companies that has been most guilty of disseminating fake and biased news.

My advice… check to see which station in your market is owned by Sinclair and be forewarned.

Wayne Friedman, who covers TV for MediaPost, has an interesting take on it.  Worth reading what he has to say.

More on Fake News

 

Over the past several days, I’ve seen several stories relating in some way to how to deal with fake news.

A few days ago in the New York Times, tech writer Farhad Manjoo wrote about a two-month experiment -- getting news the old-fashioned way by reading about it the daily newspapers and not looking at online news or social media. The headline neatly sums up the outcome… “Opting for Yesterday’s News Today: Deep, Informed, Accurate and Inky.”

Getting his news mostly through daily newspapers via their print editions enabled him to get information more fully developed and reported, with fewer inaccuracies and errors. In other words, slower but the truthful, or at least more truthful. He also got insight and context that fast-breaking news coverage can't always provide. And by avoiding posts about news on social media, he says he missed out on the slanted and sometimes intentionally misleading representation of information that we’ve all fallen victim to online.

It’s a good read and it does make me wish we could go back to the way it used to be. I know we can’t – that genie’s been let out of the bottle. But it seems that we as a nation might be better off if we could go back.

...

About two weeks ago on C-SPAN I caught the last few minutes of a conference from London about fake news. There was talk of an effort in the U.K. to create grades of truthfulness or accuracy for digital media so users might have a better idea if what they are seeing is truthful or biased. I thought, what a great idea! I wish there was something like that to assess U.S. media.

So I was pleasantly surprised to see a story in The Wall Street Journal a few days ago. It was bylined by a former WSJ publisher L. Gordon Crovitz, and it said that he and journalist Steven Brill -- best-known as founder and publisher of American Lawyer – have started a company called NewsGuard that will rate news organizations and sites based on their accuracy, bias and other things that might impact their accuracy, including ownership and affiliations. Rather than relying on algorithms, NewsGuard will have real people monitoring news and what passes for news, rating media green, yellow or red depending on their truthfulness and transparency.

They plan to rate some 7,500 news brands that account for about 98 percent of traditional and online news in the U.S. It’s a much-needed thing that will help most of us see what’s real and what’s fake.

Of course, it won’t stop those who prefer to believe fake news because it lines up with their own viewpoint. But it should help the vast majority of us who do want accuracy and truthfulness in the news we consume.

...

And finally, as we speak of fake news, there’s something that Sinclair Broadcasting, one of the largest owners of TV stations nationwide with nearly 200 stations, is starting to do. Sinclair’s owners are conservative and have been inserting into local newscasts brief “must-run” segments reporting on national political news, but with a strong conservative slant that is not always a truthful slant. They also insist that their owned stations run “terrorism updates” that repeat and spread the latest conspiracy theories. The pieces carry no identification as “editorial” or “opinion pieces,” but are presented as hard and unbiased news stories.

And now, according to the latest reports in the trade media, Sinclair plans to have its local news anchors -- people who are known and trusted in their local markets -- read pieces echoing the complaints we hear from the White House, some Republican politicians and from conservative media like FOX that the “traditional media” like the networks and major daily papers are reporting fake news.

Even though these pieces are being labeled as “opinion,” it is still extremely harmful to our democracy and to the public interest to have on-air reporters and anchors demeaning other media and promoting the idea of them being fake news. According to a CNN report, many Sinclair TV stations news anchors aren’t happy about this, calling this forced move “manipulative.”

It’s unfortunate and it’s dangerous, since it further pushes the concept of our news media doing fake news, ironically from one of the media companies that has been most guilty of disseminating fake and biased news.

My advice… check to see which station in your market is owned by Sinclair and be forewarned.

There's still more work to do ...

 

Our friends at The National Safety Council just released their unofficial estimate of traffic fatalities for 2017, and it is down by less than 1% -- 227 lower than 2016 - for a total of 40,100.  

That's more than 109 people killed every day on our roads and highways!

Any decrease is good, especially after the increases of 8 and 9 percent in 2015 and 2016.  But it is still a lot more than 2015's total of 32,485, which had been the lowest number since 1949.

We still have more work to do.

More fake news...this time on infrastructure spending

 

Once again, we are getting fake news from the White House, this time regarding one of the president's big campaign promises -- spending to fix our nation's infrastructure.

On the campaign trail, he complained about crumbling bridges, roads and rails, and our power and water systems.

The official White House proposal revolves around a $1.5 trillion infrastructure spending bill.  But as is typical from this Administration, what they say doesn't line up with reality.  In reality, it is more like a $300 billion plan...way short of what the president is touting.  Here’s why…

In the past, government spending on infrastructure generally worked on an 80/20 ratio... the Feds putting up to 80 percent for projects, with states and/or local governments putting up the remaining 20 percent. 

The new proposed spending reverses that ratio, making it, in many experts' opinions, unrealistic.  The White House says we should look to private funding and other sources of revenue like tolls and taxes...more taxes by that will impact the middle classes, now that we are swimming in money from our huge temporary tax cuts. (Sarcasm here, in case you missed it.)

Even some industry and manufacturing groups, as reported in respected trade publications like Industry Week and Route 50, are skeptical of the president's proposal.  As to be expected, some industry officials are being a bit cagey in their quotes so they don’t incur nasty tweets from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I find it curious that the White House continues to push for full funding of a southern border wall for $31 billion that, supposedly, Mexico was going to pay for.  Why can’t we use the same 20/80 ratio the president proposes and see how quickly that project gets done?  Hey, here’s an idea for the funding the wall… sell ad space on it.  Trump himself might buy some to plaster his name all over it.

It seems this infrastructure plan is yet another broken campaign promise accompanied by the usual falsehoods and misdirection we’re getting used to seeing from the White House. 

Hope.... A Year Later

Below is a post I put up two days after the presidential election a year ago. 

As you'll see, I was worried but I also had hope that the new president would behave in a more civil and dignified manner than he had during the campaign - a manner befitting the office he was about to inherit.  I had hope that he would work to unite us.  And I expressed hope that he wouldn't shame the United States in the eyes of the world.

So far, I've been wrong on all counts.  And I see no reason to hope he will change his behavior. 

I continue to hope, however, that people with integrity in Congress will provide a much-needed check to offset some of his craziness.  Perhaps the results of Tuesday's election will embolden some Republicans to begin to speak out.  And we have to prepare for the 2018 elections, when voters can hopefully restore some sense of decency and integrity to the House and Senate and, eventually, to the White House.

I hope.

.....

 

November 10, 2016

The election certainly did not turn out the way I had hoped and, honestly, I am still trying to get myself out from under the strange haze that's enveloped me since late Tuesday night.

 

But the sun rose as usual this morning. 

I woke up and l'm still breathing.

 

I was heartened to see that Hillary won the popular vote, which just points up the idea that the Electoral College system, which was initially designed to preserve power for the less populous southern states where slave-power fueled the agrarian system, needs to be changed.  But that's a battle for another time.

 

For now, I have to have faith in our system.  As much as I can't stand him on a personal and business level, Trump will be the president, hopefully for all of us, as he pledged yesterday.  I have to hope that much of his nasty and hateful rhetoric was an act in order to gain attention.  I have to hope that his advisors and Congress, including the many decent Republicans, will calm him and make him behave in a manner that won't shame us in the eyes of the world. 

 

Hopefully he will reach out and try to hear those he demeaned in his campaign rants.  Of course, we cannot forget what he has said and done over the years, and we will need to remain vigilant that he doesn't try to repeat some of that terrible behavior while in office.  Hopefully Congress and the court system, if necessary, will act as a check...hopefully.

 

I will probably find it difficult over these next few months to watch the news on TV without the remote in my hand, ready to flip the channel so I don't have to hear his voice.  I will rely on newspaper reporting, and if I see a headline that scares or disgusts me, I can avoid or delay reading that story.  I certainly won't be watching the inauguration in January.

 

I know...it's burying my head in the sand, but that's how I feel I must cope for now. 

 

And, above all, I will continue to hope that good triumphs over evil and that love ...and decency...trumps hate.

That is how I expect to get through these next few months and the coming four years.

 

Dealing with Fake News

 

Unless you've been hibernating or even if your only source of information this past year has been FOX or Breitbart, you've been hearing a lot about fake news.

The White House uses the term for anything even remotely critical of the administration and its policies, including news reports and analysis based on facts.  The president often uses the fake news phrase when referring to his differing version of things we’ve seen with our own eyes or heard with our own ears, as trivial as the size of the inauguration crowd or as important as who the” good people” were at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

We now know fake news had an impact on the 2016 election, possibly to the point of swaying it toward the Republican candidate.

So how do we, as a nation, deal with take news and what can the media do?

We've seen major media do more fact-checking and correction wrong statements right there in the context of the news stories.  We've seen some media outlets emphasize "truth" in their promotional ads and even on their mastheads, such as the Washington Post's new tagline "Democracy dies in darkness" and CNN's new ad campaign "This is an apple."

We've seen some schools and non-profit groups developing programs to help educate young people on how to consume news critically and to distinguish between real and fake news.  And Google announced last week a partnership with the Poynter Institute to expand the International Fact-Checking Institute, which promotes best journalistic practices for online content.

And here's more... Publisher Steven Brill, known for founding the magazine American Lawyer, Court TV and in 2006 the Yale journalism Initiative, has just announced a new effort to combat fake news.

He is calling it News Guard and it will be an independent fact checker.  Brill plans to start with a core of 40 – 60 journalists who will research statements and issues in the news to verify their accuracy or correct them as necessary.  He plans to charge a fee to news organizations for the service.

Hopefully, this and other efforts will help make the public more aware of what can be fake news, while offering an easy and trustworthy way to check the accuracy of what is reported.  This is needed, on so many levels and for many reasons, especially in these times when we have a White House that is leaning toward authoritarianism.

Opinion: Where is the leadership?

 

One of the most important roles an American president traditionally plays is that of healer-in-chief.  In the past, presidents consoled, offered words of sorrow and hope, and generally united us as we, as one nation, mourned and tried to make sense of senseless acts. 

A little more than 16 years ago, our president, who had won office with the most narrow of margins, united us as a nation, as we mourned and tried to process the unthinkable acts of terrorism in New York, Washington and a field in Pennsylvania.  He put politics aside in an attempt to bring us together as one country.

Our current president has once again failed in that role.  He responded inappropriately to the killing in Charlottesville and he did a half-assed job after the Las Vegas shooting.  His response to the natural disaster in Puerto Rico was a national embarrassment.

Now, after what is being called the biggest act of terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11, the president has turned it into a political play.  His tweets placing blame on Sen. Schumer and the "diversity lottery" are not only misplaced and highly inappropriate, but they are factually incorrect.

Sen. Schumer's response to the crazy tweets was spot on.  "Mr. President, where is your leadership," he said.  It's a question more than a majority of Americans -- at least three million more and growing with every day and with every nasty tweet -- are asking.

Where is the leadership? 

Not in the White House these days, that's for sure.

Our Censor-in-Chief

See Oct. 12 update at bottom of this post...

 

 

The president constantly complains about “fake” news when news outlets report accurately on things he doesn’t want the public to know about or when news reports contradict things he says. 

We’ve been hearing it literally from the start of this Administration, as the president and his minions claimed “fake news” when photos of his inauguration crowd were clearly a lot smaller than those of his predecessor.  The photos told the truth and belied White House claims that 45’s crowd was bigger.  In that case, it was an annoying or amusing curiosity, since who among us really gives a damn about the size of an inauguration crowd?

But the continued hammering of the media as “fake news” and “really bad people” has become more than amusing or annoying… it’s dangerous.  By design, the president claims “fake news” in order to delegitimize real news outlets, in hopes the public will simply believe his unfiltered tweets or the constant “clarifications” from his press secretary.

He has threatened to sue newspapers for libel, which would, of course, go nowhere in any court.  But in his morning tweetstorm today, he threatened to pull the broadcast licenses of the NBC’s TV stations.  It’s a move that would likely never hold up in court, but since the president exerts some control over FCC commissioners he appoints, a struggle to hold onto a broadcast license could be conceivable.

Here’s what he tweeted this morning… “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”

He is wrong.  What is bad for the country is if he were to act on his threat or if broadcasters were to cave to the threat and instruct their news divisions to report only what the White House says. I can’t see that happening without broadcast journalists resigning en mass.

 

This is probably yet another tweet done out of frustration and anger by the “moron” in the White House, but bearing no real intent.  But since, Heaven help us, he is the president, his words (and tweets) do matter.  And last time I checked, this country is not a dictatorship.

 

Update Oct. 12 -- An FCC Commissioner has responded to the president's tweets, telling him "That's not how it works."  FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel tweeted to the prez... “Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy,” she added in a subsequent tweet. “I hope my @FCC colleagues can all be on the same page with respect to the 1st Amendment.”

Thank goodness there are some adults in the room.

 

 

The Failed Presidency of 2017

 

It took only a little more than 200 days, but Donald Trump has put a dark and deep stain on the presidency – his presidency – that may be impossible to remove.

His strange and “off-the-rails” news conference today in New York sealed the deal. 

A president who equates Neo-Nazis and white supremacists with protestors who oppose bigotry cannot – and does not – speak for the people of this great nation.  It is simply unacceptable.  It is simply un-American.  It goes against the very principles on which the United States was founded.

That this president used, as an excuse for taking a day to respond and then not calling out by name the hate-mongers, the idea that he didn’t want to make a statement until he had all the facts, is the height of sad and sick irony.  This is the same person who, without all the facts, said for years that President Obama was not an American citizen.  This is the same person who claims, without any facts, that the previous Administration has wiretapped his phones.  This is the same man who, despite the plain-as-day photographic facts, claimed his inauguration crowd was larger than President Obama’s.

I am willing to bet that the vast majority of Americans – as well as people around the world – put very little, if any, credence in things that the president now says.  He has almost no credibility.  He has squandered whatever public trust the Office of the President had on January 19 of this year.

I don’t know where it goes from here, but all people who care about the values of this country must speak out and let it be known that this president, who has abdicated his authority and his responsibility as our leader, cannot be allowed to continue along this ridiculous and un-American path he has chosen for himself.   Our elected leaders, regardless of party affiliation, must speak out loudly and continuously until we see real change.   

We can no longer accept silence.

Another FOX?

 

 

A majority (68%) of the public still places trust in the news they receive from their local TV stations, according to a study just released.  And a study last year by Pew, which included local newspapers in the mix, had similar results --  82% trust local news sources.

But a recent move by a major broadcast owner, and approved by the FCC, puts that trust in jeopardy.  Or maybe, worse yet, it puts the health of our democracy in jeopardy.

Sinclair Broadcasting, which already owns 179 TV stations, is buying Tribune Media’s 42 stations, including stations in the top U.S. markets where Sinclair hadn’t had much of a footprint.  The purchase will make Sinclair’s signals reach about 80% of the nation.

But here’s what is troubling – dangerous, even – about the move.

Sinclair, whose ownership is quite conservative, is creating news briefs that are overtly conservative and ordering its local station managers to insert them into local newscasts – as news content rather than as editorial.   So now, viewers of local news who trust their local stations for honesty are being fed slanted and sometimes false or misleading information about the White House and political issues.

Can the U.S. survive a FOX News clone?  The original FOX News has done tremendous damage to our national dialogue, and now more unsuspecting viewers will be fed “fake” news disguised as local news content. 

Yes, I know… MSNBC is hardly unbiased.  But they haven’t been spreading false information and rampant conspiracy theories that made it easier for trump to slip into office by playing off the stuff that FOX and others like Limbaugh and Brietbart have been spouting.  Despite rantings and tweets from the White House, the major broadcast networks and major dailies are not fake news. But now on some local TV stations... fake news.

This is not good.