General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSinclair Chairman Claims Entire Print Media Has No Credibility
David Smith, the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, said he dislikes and fundamentally distrusts the print media, which he believes serves no real purpose. In emails to New York, Smith said that print as in newspapers and magazines is a reality-distorting tool of leftists. Print media, he said, has no credibility and no relevance.
I must tell that in all the 45 plus years I have been in the media business I have never seen a single article about us that is reflective of reality especially in todays world with the shameful political environment and generally complete lack of integrity. Facts and truth have been lost for a long time and likely to never return, Smith said.
<snip>
New York communicated with Smith in mid-November, after requesting an interview. Appreciate the interest in your wanting to do a story but we dont talk to the print media as a general principal as we find them to be so devoid of reality and serving no real purpose. Have a great holiday, Smith said in response. Later, he added, Again my experience has consistently been that even with an interview its of no consequence in terms of spin, facts or distortion, political bent etc. The print media is so left wing as to be meaningless dribble which accounts for why the industry is and will fade away. Just no credibility. see ya.
For a pundit or a far-right politician, statements like Smiths have become expected in the Trump era. But from one of the most powerful media executives in the country, theyre not. The media is typically talked about as though its a monolith, with no distinctions made between news or opinion, reporters or columnists, anchors or commentators. To cast doubt over certain swaths of the industry, then, is to risk unsettling whatever faith is left in the whole gamut. And if TV is the only pure and honest news source, what about the websites of TV networks, like NBC.com or CNN.com, where reporting that is technically considered print appears? Or what about TV reporting thats informed by stories that appeared in the New York Times or the Washington Post? Is any information that doesnt come directly from Sinclair or from the mouth of David Smith himself suspect? Perhaps thats the idea.
When New York asked Smith if hed be open to meeting off the record at least, he replied, I have also learned that there is no such thing as off the record. Bye.
more: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/sinclair-chairman-entire-print-media-has-no-credibility.html
imanamerican63
(13,835 posts)This is called censorship!
no_hypocrisy
(46,297 posts)1. New York Post
2. Wall Street Journal
3. A few publications in the U.K.
NoMoreRepugs
(9,506 posts)HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Will free speech itself eventally bring an end to free speech? I think we are going to see it tested like never before...
Freethinker65
(10,105 posts)Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)This is the best he has?
lunasun
(21,646 posts)NotASurfer
(2,157 posts)It's fake news if:
- it reports what someone actually says and does,
- it checks facts before dissemination,
- it vets sources, and
- it corroborates information by using multiple independent sources
You know...journalism?
UCmeNdc
(9,601 posts)Bring Back the:
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that wasin the FCC's viewhonest, equitable, and balanced.
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)The cat is out of the bag, and you failed. You needed to be shady, quietly.
Oh well, we all know what you guys have your hooks into. Guess you can run the local news for free. You're only fooling the people already in the feedback loop. Some of us need actual facts to live our lives, we can skip your commentary.
Boris ? Seriously? Hell, the tv show the Americans wouldn't even put that stupidity in their script.
.
ProfessorGAC
(65,381 posts)Did you see the John Oliver bit where he is discussing that Boris is only 35 years old? Pretty funny set of lines.
And on that subject, what the heck happened to that guy to make him such a "get of my lawn" type at 35 years old?
Corgigal
(9,291 posts)He's probably just some 3rd rate actor, screen name Boris. To please the pay masters.
He looks late 50s, but that Mano act might age you.