Sinclair Seattle Reporter Makes Proud Boys Gathering Sound Like Cub Scouts

from the misinfo-central dept

Generally, when you talk about disinformation or propaganda, “big tech” companies like Facebook, or media giants like Fox News get the lion’s share of the attention. But as we’ve long noted, local news outlets in the U.S. were hollowed out years ago and replaced with something that looks like news, but is generally just gibberish and propaganda.

At the heart of this movement sits Sinclair Broadcasting, as the old version of Deadspin made clear in this video from a few years back:

Last Friday, a Sinclair reporter at Sinclair’s KOMO station in Seattle decided to cover a gathering of the Proud Boys in Washington State’s capital of Olympia. In a since deleted tweet, the reporter portrays the gathering of the violent white supremacist group as something akin to a local job fair or a cub scouts rally:

The widely-ridiculed and now deleted tweet and video even featured a song widely regarded as a rallying cry for neo-nazis. You know, just your ordinary afternoon coffee and donut mingle with some white supremacists bent on the wholesale murder and destruction of minorities.

While the tweet has since been deleted, this isn’t too far outside the norm for this sort of pseudo local news, which generally involves amplifying right-wing disinformation at every possible opportunity. In Seattle, one of the more progressive U.S. cities, the company’s take over of local broadcaster KOMO is still a point of contention years later, well documented in this article from a few years back.

As with most propaganda, there’s just enough actual news peppered in between “must run” segments and far right editorials to keep up the veneer of respectability. But the goal is always the same: to distort reality through a specific filter (see the tendency to pour lemon juice in the wound of the Seattle homeless problem) for political benefit.

While the savvy Twitter pundit take is often that this kind of propaganda doesn’t matter or is somehow overstated, when you actually talk to academics who study it for a living, they’ll be quick to tell you the replacement of genuine local news with this kind of disingenuous dreck not only matters, it can increase partisan extremism, make people measurably less informed, and even shift elections.

Again, as the newspaper industry was disrupted, many things changed for the better. The death of meaningful, quality local reporting wasn’t among them. Not only was quality local news killed off in the United States due to low profitability, into the vacuum has surged all manner of dangerous garbage, including pseudo-news propaganda mills (aka “pink slime“).

The broader discourse has no answers for any of this. First Amendment experts (correctly) argue there’s little regulators can do under the Constitution and the law (though they won’t offer much in the way of solutions). Outside of the occasional boycott and whining on Twitter, the United States generally has few creative answers for its propaganda problem, and doesn’t seem in any rush to find any.

Meanwhile, “big tech” and Facebook continue to get the lion’s share of attention for the country’s disinformation problem, despite only being one subset of a much larger picture.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: sinclair broadcasting

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Sinclair Seattle Reporter Makes Proud Boys Gathering Sound Like Cub Scouts”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
146 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Just a side note that newspapers had issues long before the public internet was even a possibility. Both newspapers and local tv suffered through batshit buyouts and consolidation, also before the net.

Of course, all industry and the economy were subject to ridiculous activity especially since the 80s.

Also, “before the internet” is long before the era when web offerings were competing with news, never mind the “2.0” era.

tl;dr they cannot blame teh nets or big tech for this, or the other things they like to lay on it. ‘Big tech’ / social media indeed is and has issues of its own, pbut confkating the two is just another huge, and unhelpful, lie.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: I'm Latino

I’m Latino. Latino is not a race you moron. There is no checkbox for Latino or Hispanic on an census in any country south of the Rio Grande. The idea that we are a race is an invention of liberal white Americans.

There are black Latinos, white Latinos, Asian Latinos, Jewish Latinos, Ginger Latinos (Canelo Alvarez) on and on and on. You name it there is a Latino version.

What does this all mean? We will fuck anyone!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Black isn’t a race either. It was also invented. Because the concept of race was invented.

Enrico Tarrio is Afro-cuban. I certainly can not speak as an expert, but those of my friends who are mixed often identify with one background over another based on the culture shared with them. When it comes to those from Puerto Rico, My friends universally identify as Puerto Rican, not Black, despite an Afro-Puerto Rican Background. Not sure why you’d complain that someone who is Afro-Cuban would identify more with their Cuban heritage than their Afro one, and identify themselves as such.

I would have thought someone complaining about lumping Native American cultures across 2 continents together would understand the idea that Enrique Tarrio does not identify with the blanket term ‘Black’.

Then there is the long history of White Supremacy being willing to flex the definition of White. Used to be, if your granddaddy was white, you were white, no matter the color of your skin. White supremacist groups often flip-flop on treating the Jewish community as white. And any such group concerned with optics would love an Uncle Ruckus to use as a shield. Id point to the Japanese Americans who avoided internment by acting as supporting voices for internment.

I don’t think Enrique Tarrio is a white supremist. I think a group explicitly founded on their supposed male superiority will attract White supremacists whose values typically are conservative and also feel as though their masculinity and power are being threatened, and many of the chapters of the proud boys are white supremist groups. The Proud boys made a lot of press about not being white supremacist’s early on, but since the rise of Enrique Tarrio as the leader, there has been a clear clash between the nominal leader and white supremacist factions, and if Enrique Tarrio can’t stop those factions from spouting White Supremacy in the name of the proud boys, it doesn’t matter his ethnic background is, The group, not its leader, not specific individual member, but the group supports white supremacy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Tan estúpido!

Tan estúpido! There are racial check boxes in censuses you ignorant American white liberal. In most Latin American countries the overwhelming majority of people are white. Southern Europeans have always been darker than northern Europeans. We are still white you ignorant WASP moron.

Look at Mexico. Your ignorant ass thinks they are another race. But according to Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática around 80% of Mexicans are … WHITE!!! GASP!!!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wow

“There are racial check boxes in censuses you ignorant American white liberal.

Yet…

There is no checkbox for Latino or Hispanic on an census in any country south of the Rio Grande.”

WOW

Eres más tonta de lo que pensaba.

That’s because Latino and Hispanic are not races. That is why they are not on a Latin American census. Every person from Latin American origin is Latino. Every person of Spanish origin is Hispanic.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I dunno, considering we went from “multimillionaire Hollywood writer with a harem of women and mailing lists” to “Latino with multiple vague degrees throwing his lot behind a president who called his birthplace a shithole country”, it seems like one hell of a downgrade.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

You obviously disagree with the idea with Korea, your not alone but even prominent Dems supported the idea at the time.

When you bring a rogue dictator to the international table they’re no longer rogue. You form international agreements and trade this-for-that.
You don’t complain about START from the 70s. SMART 1&2. The Iran Nuclear Ransom. But Korea was wrong only because it was Trump?

As for China and Russia, we’ll, the two largest countries in Asia when you count above and below ground; hold 80-some % of the worlds rare earth minerals, the majority of precious metals like palladium and nickel and platinum, condensed gas pocket like Florine and Neon.

A US Russia agreement in the late 20-teens and under Trump today would likely have kept Russia out of Ukraine.
Now we have no pull in East Asia at all.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Shut the Q#$^ Up

You are on a techblog where the owner of the blog confuses owning a pert of the electromagnetic spectrum and owning a spectrum license.

Seriously why does pub matter when Mike doesn’t understand the difference between owning a thing and owning a license to use the thing?

You are a god damn idiot.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

“Seriously why does pub matter ”

It doesn’t, it’s just that your hilarious inability to understand the difference between a public house and public accommodation when you failed to try and back up your claim about required security was the first thing most people here remember you saying, and it’s still really funny to see you flail in order to avoid admitting you were mistaken.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 And I Was Correct on All Counts

And I was correct on all counts. You dipshits had to cite Texas law which is an extreme example because you couldn’t find other state laws agreed with your assertion that the owner of the property can physically throw people out.

Back to the point this is a techblog and the owner said that satellite cable companies own the spectrum they broadcast in. When challenged the he was a manchild confusing owning a spectrum license with owning the actual spectrum he tried to weasel his way out of the monumental mistake for a tech expert as “semantics.”

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

You are on a techblog where the owner of the blog confuses owning a pert of the electromagnetic spectrum and owning a spectrum license.

To be clear, this is bullshit. I referred to owning the spectrum, which is how most people refer to licensing the spectrum. It’s basic shorthand that everyone understands, including Chozen, a dedicated and malicious troll.

It’s the same thing as when people say they “purchase” a song, they are actually just licensing it. Everyone understands.

Chozen is just being an asshole who has no legitimate points to make and has descended to a new level of truly pathetic trolling after all of his attempts at actual arguments failed laughably.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Context

The context was use of broadcast on public air waves and regulation. Your attempted point was that satellites fall out of regulation because they own the spectrum. That was not some “shorthand” as you are now claiming. It’s a significant misinterpretation of the facts and extremely significant in the context of regulation. I don’t think you lied I just don’t think you knew the difference.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

Yeah, that’s a great call. If you’re proven wrong, just claim that you saw something nobody else can possibly verify.

I mean, I wish you people would stick to facts, but that’s a step up from the usual claim that comments that people can easily look at by clicking a single time have been censored.

“Got to be nice to run your own blog”

You should try it. Millions of others have, it costs virtually zero money and effort, and the effort required to moderate even a smaller blog gives you some perspective as to the challenges that face people with way more successful sites.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:10

You don’t complain about START from the 70s. SMART 1&2. The Iran Nuclear Ransom. But Korea was wrong only because it was Trump?

The difference is that when it comes to North Korea, what Trump did was what I would call “stunt diplomacy” – a lot of performative nonsense but nothing actually changed in any way except that the rest of the world laughed at Trump and the USA for his clownish attempt at diplomacy. When you treat a tin-pot dictator better than your allies something is seriously wrong.

A US Russia agreement in the late 20-teens and under Trump today would likely have kept Russia out of Ukraine.

Trump sucked up to Putin and Putin played him like a violin and it did exactly what Putin wanted – it caused dissent and instability while pissing off all of USA’s allies. 25% of Russia’s GDP is derived from the energy sector and the EROI keeps diminishing and are now between 6:1 and 3:1 which is why Russia needs instability since it drives up the price on oil/gas – which is also why they want Ukraine’s gas reserves for the simple reason it’s so much cheaper to extract than the gas from Urengoy.

In other words, any agreement with Russia wouldn’t be worth squat – Putin’s Russia have proved over and over that they’ll gladly ignore and break agreements and if you think Trump could have made an agreement with Russia that would have kept them out of Ukraine you are deluded – especially considering that Russia had already signed an agreement guaranteeing Ukraine’s independence.

Now we have no pull in East Asia at all.

Yeah, I do wonder why…🙄

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

but nothing actually changed

Something could be said about congress hamstringing him on it.

better than your allies

What allies did he mistreat?

And while you are one of those people willing to ignore 6+ years of civil war in Russia populated areas, I am. It. The idea that Russia would have moved beyond the areas of dispute, assuming he went that far at all.

No, I don’t believe for a second that this would be occurring today if Trump was still in office. And you could save whatever talking point crap you want. It’s my opinion. Neither your premise nor mine on how we would be today under Trump are based in reality but our own opinions.

But the only violin I see being played is Biden… who’s so confused daily it doesn’t really matter.
Anyone who thinks anything Biden says is a problem is a deluded idiot. Russia sees home for what he is, a bumbling idiot of olde who has now slipped fully into the results of dementia.

Now you figure out if you’d rather our supply partner be a self-aggrandising tech producer or a large industrial and mining country.
Because both regimes would murder every one of our country’s minorities.
We have had a longer standing partnership of respect, despite the lack of trust, with Russia for decades.
China has never been an ally.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:12

No, I don’t believe for a second that this would be occurring today if Trump was still in office. And you could save whatever talking point crap you want. It’s my opinion. Neither your premise nor mine on how we would be today under Trump are based in reality but our own opinions.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you are either missing information or ignoring it: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently said that they have suffered “significant losses in Ukraine” and in the same statement he also said that in regards to the sanctions they had already planned for them last year which tells us that Russia plans to attack Ukraine have been in the works for years – which was also evident by the rhetoric Russia have been using since 2014 and the annexing of Crimea.

And in regards to Biden, everything he has said about Putin and Russia has been more or less spot on – for the last 20 years. The real irony here is all the fawning over Trump meeting Putin and how Trump could have saved Ukraine bla bla bla – but he didn’t fucking do it now, did he? What’s worse, all those GOP-clowns fawning over Trump and Putin – they had the gall to question Biden’s summit with Putin last year saying that Biden was weak.

Now you figure out if you’d rather our supply partner be a self-aggrandising tech producer or a large industrial and mining country.

US can’t survive without China, it can survive without Russia – that makes the question kind of moot.

We have had a longer standing partnership of respect, despite the lack of trust, with Russia for decades.

That’s a misconception, Russia doesn’t have any respect for the US intellectually – they respect the power of the US military power somewhat.

It’s fascinating to see people in the US defending Russia’s actions, the world have indeed gone topsy-turvy.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

plans to attack Ukraine have been in the works for years

The difference being if Russia would be liberating two or three small states that declared their independence… or assaulting the whole of a country.
I believe their planning is quite clear in how fast they completed operations on the ‘liberation’ aspect and how totally unplanned the rest of this war has been.

US can’t survive without China, it can survive without Russia

Either you’re not well informed, or lying.
Either country as a raw materials partner would keep the US tech industry moving. Our choice of international production (Chinese factories) is not the equivalent to inability for doing so domestically.

they respect the power of the US military power somewhat.

Yes. They did.

It’s fascinating to see people in the US defending Russia’s actions, the world have indeed gone topsy-turvy.

I’m not defending Russia’s current actions. I have/had Defended the claim of liberation for the independent states the broke from Ukraine.
Much like I support the old claims of a separation of California from the US. Of splitting that state in two. Of the east and central lands of Oregon to join Idaho. The split of the south from the north.
Jeffersonian. The colonial revolts and revolutions. Etc.

It’s a matter of freedom of choice for the populace. From my pov.
Liberation of free states = good.
Further assault on unwilling civilians = bad.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Well, considering I’m omnisexual (pan is the trending term), despise Judaic-Islamic-Christian god of Abraham mythology, support moving towards green living, like solar energy, think all religious schools should have their educational licenses revoked if they spend one minute of time on religion, support federal government guaranteed income, etc etc etc.

Only an ignorant fool would ever consider me republican. Social libertarian is close. But even there I tend to be too left for platform wide support.
Beyond security/defence you’ll be hard pressed to find anything I think republicans have a good answer for.

I’ll call your hand!
Feel free to come up with proof anywhere that shows otherwise.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

If bringing North Korea to the table was the point of Trump’s attempts to play diplomat then sure, you might have had a point. What did happen was North Korea proceeding to do what North Korea does best, be the asshole in the room who made it clear that nothing was going to change. For his part, Trump shrugged and checked the “I had a lunch date with an autocratic pile of shit” box off his bucket list and called his one-time deal in Singapore a success story before moving on with his campaigns.

Now to be fair, I don’t think the Democrats would have stood any better chance getting North Korea to budge. Kim knows that the stranglehold he has over his own citizens is a much more preferable state. He’s already got his. Why cooperate and collaborate when you’ve got China willing to entertain your antics and you can hold the world to ransom?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

“White liberal Paul is unable to believe that actual Latin American countries don’t consider Hispanic or Latino a race”

I don’t believe you when you say it, because you’re always full of shit.

Which is presumably why when I gave you the benefit of a doubt and asked for a citation, you chose not to provide one.

But, waah wahh libruls and our need for facts and evidence amiright?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Of Course There is No Destinction

Of course there is no distinction between white and Hispanic.

Hispano means of Spanish descent. AKA WHITE!

WASP liberal Americans are shitting all over us, our history, and our culture trying to create a race so we can be your new blacks. FUCK YOU!

¡Nunca seremos los nuevos negros de los demócratas!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

This isn’t a surprise. There’s been black people, LGBT+ people and black LGBT+ people who supported Trump. It was hilariously poor-sighted and self-defeating of them to do so, but they were still free to associate with him – as is their freedom to be associated with the consequences of his political decisions.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a something!

I mean, you clearly believe that every time you post here. Anyone who disagrees with you is part of the Masnick cult.

David says:

Re: Re:

This isn’t a surprise. There’s been black people, LGBT+ people and black LGBT+ people who supported Trump. It was hilariously poor-sighted and self-defeating of them to do so, but they were still free to associate with him – as is their freedom to be associated with the consequences of his political decisions.

Well, it’s the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” fallacy. Now your enemies quite often are competing for the same resources as you because they are similar to you. So supporting their enemies is a matter of practical spite, and Trump is the master choice for spite and resentment.

That Trump has a habit of spitting out people like gnats that he doesn’t have an immediate use for doesn’t really change that they are queuing up to be next.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Back to Party

Back to the point on party. About 50% of LBGT are registered democrat 15% republican 22% independent and 13% some other party, with that other party being overwhelming libertarian because libertarians have led the charge for gay rights.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020-LGBT-Vote-Oct-2019.pdf

This belief that LBGT are some monolithic voting block is simply a false belief held by the left. Its the same false belief they hold for Latinos. Both of these false beliefs are coming back to bite the left in the ass. They simply believe that these groups are going to be just like black folk.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

There are plenty of issues that sexual minority communities are going to have to resolve among themselves. I will concur that quite notably (I hesitate to use the word “often”, because I do not have the statistics on exact numbers), they will turn on each other if they believe it conveniences their specific flavor of sexual minority. You see it in the lesbians and gays who flat out don’t believe that bisexuality exists and is simply a facade to appear more “acceptable” to straight normies, to the point where they bullied August Ames into suicide. There’s also the TERFs who claim that transwomen are an old white guy conspiracy to get more incels into safe spaces for females. And the people who went after Vivziepop for a blogpost she made when she was 14 about fucking snakes.

All of the above, though, doesn’t automatically absolve Trump and his cronies of the consequences of their actions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Why mention that non-binary PurpleKecleon has built an entire community around child grooming and abusive, manipulative behavior, when it’s much easier and profitable to talk about how heteronormative freaks like idiots who believe in an imaginary sky friend are assholes?

It’s not intentionally not covered, it’s just far less worthwhile to do so when it’s better to claim that anyone religious is probably a closet child molester 95% of the time.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

It’s not brought up because what’s important for sexual minorities is normalizing at all costs. The narrative for sexual minorities is that they’ve been marginalized for something they can’t control – up until recently. After all, you can’t say “God makes no mistakes” when one letter in your acronym represents people who take hormones and operate on genitalia because God put them in the wrong body. So it’s shifted to “Oh yeah, external influence might be a thing” and “If you feel uncomfortable it’s because you’re a old white boomer who probably molests children anyway”.

Like you said, it’s not unintentionally not covered – but why would you want to bring it up? There’s absolutely no reason for the community to air their dirty linen. Why do that when you can call everyone who believes in an imaginary sky friend irredeemable scum who rapes and abuses women and children?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Why didn’t you mention that Choe is no longer employed by KOMO.

In a statement, KOMO news director Phil Bruce confirmed that the station “decided to end our employment relationship with [Choe] effective today.”

Bruce said the outlet “did not direct or approve Jonathan Choe’s decision to cover this weekend’s rally, nor did his work meet our editorial standards.”

Source: KOMO Journalist Blasts Out Proud Boys Propaganda — UPDATE: He’s Out

Mike says:

KOMO

I watch KOMO regularly and typically they have very little of this kind of stuff. In the trump era, they had Boris Epshteyn do a segment towards the end of every broadcast and I would puke a little bit in my mouth and quickly flip the channel. His replacement is some black chick is slightly less doctrinaire, who avoids the really controversial stuff.

My heart goes out to the KOMO air staff. There’s a lot of good people there, a legacy of the glory days of Fisher Broadcasting before they sold out to sinclair. Many of them have been there 15-20 years. They’ve pushed back, as much as they could, keeping some of the worst content off the air.

If it was me, I’d have waited till my contract expired then moved to a different city – even if there was a huge pay cut – as there would likely be. But like I said, many of them have deep ties to this community.

It’s really unfortunate.

According to Fortune, [Sinclair] owns or operates 186 television stations, in 87 U.S. markets that together account for 40% of American households.

That’s staggering. It oughta be outlawed.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“it oughta be outlawed”? on what grounds, given your own Constitution?

From 1934-1996 we had laws controlling the amount of consolidation in media, and there was no constitutional issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

There’s a downside to the 1st Ammendment?

There are downsides, but this isn’t one of them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Meanwhile, Over on CNN...

Umm… that’s an actual screen grab from CNN. You’re gonna have a tough time convincing anyone with an IQ higher than that of a rutabaga that CNN of all platforms is a right-wing propaganda outlet. The gaslighting in these comments is simply amazing in its brazenness at times…

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning

Even CNN’s own Brian Stelter admitted that they fucked that one up. During an appearance on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal,” Stelter said the chyron was misleading and should not have appeared on screen.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Umm… that’s an actual screen grab from CNN”

OK. Why does CNN matter, and why do people like you thing that showing something from them is a “gotcha” moment, even though most people you respond to don’t watch it? Why does such a thing always appear instead of defending the thing you’re meant to be defending.

If Sinclair are accused of doing something, why is it “whaddabout CNN” and not “well, Sinclair were correct to do this because…”? Is it because they were wrong to do that and there’s no way of defending them other than deflection?

“Even CNN’s own Brian Stelter admitted that they fucked that one up”

Cool. So, show us the press release from Sinclair that they fucked this one up and we’re square.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Meanwhile, Over on CNN...

Why does CNN matter

It matters because Bode chose to focus on right-wing spin in the media coverage at KOMO.

Pointing out that spin and propaganda comes in all flavors with the corporate media is perfectly relevant and appropriate.

instead of defending the thing you’re meant to be defending

Who the hell said I’m ‘meant to be defending’ anything here? You? Who are you to give me tasks to complete and points of view to adopt and defend for you?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Pointing out that spin and propaganda comes in all flavors with the corporate media is perfectly relevant and appropriate.

The problem is that you never shit on right-wing media for their spin, their bias, their propaganda⁠—you only ever shit on left-wing/centrist media for it. If CNN did something stupid and everyone went “BuT wHaT aBoUt BrEiTbArT?!”, I guarantee you’d be calling foul on that whataboutism. It only ever goes one way for you; that’s what makes your argument disingenuous.

Did CNN fuck up? Absolutely. But that doesn’t absolve your favorite right-wing media outlets when they fuck up.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

If CNN did something stupid and everyone went
“BuT wHaT aBoUt BrEiTbArT?!”, I guarantee you’d
be calling foul on that whataboutism.

You shouldn’t make guarantees you can’t keep, boyo. I despise all the corporate media and their corrupt practices. I’ve been quite clear about that in the past. That includes Fox News, which along with Breitbart, I don’t even patronize, let alone defend.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I despise all the corporate media and their corrupt practices.

Then why do you only ever seem to get your panties in a twist about corporate media’s political bias whenever it’s CNN or MSNBC or the New York Times? I’ve never seen you bitch about right-wing media outlets with the same venom that you spew at left-wing/centrist media.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

I’m saying that I’ve only ever seen you whine about left-wing/centrist media outlets and their propaganda. I’ve never seen you shittalk right-wing outlets and their propaganda⁠—not without equivocating or doing a whataboutism in re: left-wing/centrist media. I may shittalk right-wing outlets more than their left-wing/centrist counterparts, but at least I’ll admit my bias. What keeps you from admitting yours?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“It matters because Bode chose to focus on right-wing spin in the media coverage at KOMO.”

That’s not an actual explanation. Yes, left-wing bias exists. The existence of it doesn’t excuse or explain the right.wing propaganda. It’s possible to both criticise the bias being noted and never watch CNN. Why do you assume anyone reading this article gives a shit about CNN?

“Who the hell said I’m ‘meant to be defending’ anything here?”

You did when you dived in to defend them.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Why do you assume anyone reading this article gives a shit about CNN?

Because it certainly got your panties in a twist when I brought CNN up.

If you didn’t care about CNN, you wouldn’t be in a multi-post exchange with someone who merely posted a screen grab off their network feed.

But more to the point, if you don’t care about CNN, don’t read my post. Isn’t that what y’all always say to anyone who complains about TechDirt’s constant anti-cop drumbeat? “Don’t like it, go read some other blog.”

Well, if I post about CNN (or anything else) and you don’t give a shit about it, skip right over my post and go read something you do give a shit about.

You did when you dived in to defend them.

Which I literally did nowhere on this forum or any other. (See what I mean about the gaslighting?)

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Because it certainly got your panties in a twist when I brought CNN up.

Thank you for admitting you’re a troll.

If you didn’t care about CNN, you wouldn’t be in a multi-post exchange with someone who merely posted a screen grab off their network feed.

We’re in this exchange because you decided to raise a bad faith argument and we’re all telling you why it’s a bad faith argument despite your inability (intentional or not) to grasp that concept.

if you don’t care about CNN, don’t read my post. Isn’t that what y’all always say to anyone who complains about TechDirt’s constant anti-cop drumbeat?

Again: You made a bad faith argument; we’re allowed to tear it apart. Don’t like what we’re saying? Go somewhere else.

Which I literally did nowhere on this forum or any other.

In your zeal to attack CNN, you didn’t do anything to decry KOMO’s bullshit⁠—which is, at a bare minimum, an implicit defense of said bullshit. You shouldn’t have pulled that whataboutism out of the same place you pull your political opinions from if you didn’t want to be seen as defending their bullshit.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

“Because it certainly got your panties in a twist when I brought CNN up.”

No, it got me rolling my eyes because whenever some right-winger tries to deflect from wrongdoing within right-wing media you always try whining about CNN/MSNBC instead of actually supporting the position you’re defending, while being oblivious to the fact that it’s possible to both oppose right.wing propaganda and never look at either of those networks. I’m willing to accept that there’s other arguments, but if your first instinct is to try to deflect to a regular strawman you might be taken less seriously than if you actually defended the position you are trying to defend.

“If you didn’t care about CNN, you wouldn’t be in a multi-post exchange with someone who merely posted a screen grab off their network feed.”

I care about honesty in intelligent debate, and “look here at an irrelevant screenshot of a mistake that’s already been apologised for” doesn’t fit the criteria I believe in using.

“Which I literally did nowhere on this forum or any other.”

You’re doing a very good impression of someone who’s doing that if you didn’t intend to. Maybe, next time you should comment by saying “I believe X was not wrong for what they did because Y” rather than “but Z also did something wrong” if you wish to be taken in a different manner.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

You keep deflecting to what CNN did as if that excuses what KOMO did.

Wrong. Showing that media propaganda comes in all flavors is not excusing anything. That’s just your own presumptions and biases at work.

you’re defending KOMO by implication.

LOL! “I can’t show where you’ve ever defended KOMO so I’m just going to say you implied it.”

Neat trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Showing that media propaganda comes in all flavors is not excusing anything.

Except for the part where it’s literally the very definition of whataboutism.

I can’t show where you’ve ever defended KOMO

How can you have trolled here for so long without grasping the concept tthat the screen can also scroll up?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Showing that media propaganda comes in all flavors is not excusing anything.

Person A: “Breitbart lied about [x]!”

Person B: “But what about CNN? They lied about [y]!”

Whataboutism is the notion that one entity’s bad behavior can be excused if another entity’s similarly bad behavior is pointed out in defense. In the example above, Person B is excusing⁠—and therefore implicitly defending⁠—Breitbart’s behavior by pointing out CNN’s bullshit. If someone were to say “Hillary Clinton is awful for her handling of Benghazi” and I were to say “but what about Trump and his handling of literally everything” in response, I’d be doing a whataboutism that implicitly defends Hillary Clinton against criticism rather than addressing those criticisms.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Just out of curiosity. Do you flat out deny that some people can speak without secondary motivation? That words sad (or written) could mean only what they say?
Or does absolutely everything have a hidden message in it?

Because your take on what-about-ism mandates support.

Now granted you don’t live here. But both CNN and FNC run real (if slightly biased) news for the vast majority of the day.
The prime time hosts are political entertainment meant to cater to their specific targeted audiences.

Complaining about one doesn’t mean accepting the other.
It does often mean one bothers us more than another, but not a green light.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Now now!

At least CNN will generally bury their corrections at the 17 minute mark just following a commercial. But admit it none the less.

CNN is no more or less a party propaganda machine than Fox News (from 6pm-midnight)

Compare that with the likes of MSNBC who won’t retract much of anything, or NBC that used paid actors to increase covid-related lines, or PBS/NPR and their long list of fakes and frauds.

Taking a page from the WWE there’s a difference between the prime time news entertainment of CNN/FNC and and tabloid forget the facts fraud like MSNBC. Or OAN.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

He’s probably still confused as to why Google is not showing him the information he’s searching for when he deliberately withheld the context that would allow them to return the correct result. Probably doesn’t leave him time to contextualise things with more nuance unless someone else tells him what to think.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Nah. I think I made it clear up front that I don’t use google. Other search providers can return better results based on my methods of classical searching and working modifiers.
Bing is and long has been my default. Google is a last resort.

Not only is Bing faster to use with more relevant results (for me) but they pay for using it and the targeted advertising is both more consistently of interest AND less intrusive.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Yeah, whereas I find Bing to be horrible for returning useful results on many subjects and only use them because MS give me reward points for a certain number of sources.

But, that wasn’t the point of the previous discussion. It was the fact that you withheld information from your search query then complained that the results didn’t match what you had in mind. That’s not a problem with the search engine, it’s the disingenuous idiot on the other side of the keyboard.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Well then, obviously you are an idiot when using Bing, as I get good reliable results?

Or… maybe different search engines work differently and some people work with one better than the other?

The point of the discussion was that search engines as a whole often have “some results have been removed”
And if results are removed for “relevance” it would be nice to have an ability to un-remove items.

The point was that some people have an actual use for the fine grained sort options you personally find useless.

Luckily for everyone there is still choice on these matters. And we can use what works best for ourselves.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

What’s actually a bit irrational is claiming that my reply to btr1701‘s commentary somehow becomes my inabilities in your perception .

I’m not sure what “enemy” you speak of but surely btr1701 is of a different political belief system than I am.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Or a good thing. Just an apparent fact.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Meanwhile, Over on CNN...

No, what’s irrational is your constant and unending presumption that we’re required to defend anything here just because you say so.

You keep claiming we have an “inability to defend an issue being discussed” as if defending this news station is somehow our responsibility and designated role here.

Let me say it slow for the cheap seats: Regardless of your perceptions of my “abilities”, I have never attempted to defend KOMO and I have no desire to defend KOMO. KOMO’s position is not my own. I am not their designated spokesman on this forum.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Something missing in the thought process on the topic. Agreement of the existence of a right and supporting the exercising of that right doesn’t mean we support the message. Some do. Some don’t.

Support of by inactivity is an absolute fallacy! My unwillingness to support or cheer one way or another is no sign of agreement. Just an acceptance of existence. I defend neither what is said nor what is not. Nay, I defend not even the thoughts that I must.

I do support my right to not care.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

“Support of by inactivity is an absolute fallacy!”

Unless it’s, say, Muslims not decrying terrorism, in which case it’s used to pretend that the nearly 2 billion of them on the planet are all terrorists, including people like Sikhs who look the same to ignorant racists but actually have no relation to that faith, let alone the Muslims who get attacked for Sunni actions despite them hating them also.

“I do support my right to not care.”

I support that right as well. It’s the whining about what people think about you because you announced that you don’t care that’s the problem.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 I have never!

Unless it’s, say, Muslims not decrying terrorism, in which case it’s used to pretend…

I’ve never made any comment even remotely close to this.
In fact the closest you‘lol find is me calling the NOI a black militant racist anti-everyone except themselves terrorist group.

Why would you even bring up such a comparison, especially someone on record at this site calling for a free and independent Palestine with full UN membership and holding the Israeli government terrorist members accountable for their war crimes.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

“Why would you even bring up such a comparison”

Because the usual modus operandi of Murdoch media is to pretend that every Muslim who remains silent about an issue is complicit (even when they have actually spoken up against the issue but Fox decided not to report on it), while every white/American/Christian/whatever person who does something bad can never be representative of the whole.

I’m fairly tolerant of opposing points of view, but you have a habit of parroting some of the weakest, most easily debunked viewpoints issued by the Murdoch/Breitbart sphere that you have previously admitted to following, so I apologise if I incorrectly associated one of those viewpoints to you incorrectly. But, that doesn’t change the fact that you keep attacking CNN/MSNBC as if I have any interest in them, and they affect my point of view in the slightest.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

that you keep attacking CNN/MSNBC as if I have any interest in them

Actually I generally attack MSNBC, and occasionally OAN since I don’t have access to it at all.
I believe I defend CNN as a whole despite calling out their prime time propaganda entertainment. About the same way I defend FNC as a whole despite their prime time propaganda entertainment.
Both have biased slants, but generally do a good job of reporting news when they report news.

And no, I have absolutely never blamed anyone knowingly for the actions of someone else. My post history is quite clear on personal responsibility vs implied responsibility.
I never have and never will claim inaction is contributory.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

“I believe I defend CNN as a whole despite calling out their prime time propaganda entertainment.”

That doesn’t sound like a defence. Also, have you ever looked into the differences between CNN’s domestic and international reporting? There can be very interesting and telling differences.

But, the point is – there’s thousands of news media outlets. If your knee-jerk reaction to one perceived as the “right-wing” is to attack CNN or MSNBC as if the person criticising that outlet even watches those outlets, let alone holds them in high regard, you’re already losing the argument.

I’ll happily discuss the rights and wrongs of the subject of an article, and the rights and wrongs of any source I supply myself. But, if you go immediately to “whatabout CNN” because I criticised a right-wing outlet, you lost the argument before you clicked submit.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

The us is very different in media than international.
We have three big news stations. (We had 4 but one of the two toxic stations has been dealt with so-to-speak).
Outside of FNC, CNN, and MSNBC there’s little in all day choice. So those are the ones we talk about. CNN and FOX provided good counter balance to each other in slightly slanted news. Despite the prime time crap.
Few, even fans, take MSNBC all that seriously. They don’t pretend to be news. (For some reason OAN does). They’re a political commentary station.

And of the two stations that provide 12 hours of news or more, CNN and FNC are both equal.
When you have only two real options the comparisons are inevitable.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

“The us is very different in media than international.”

It is. Which is why it’s always funny when people leap from criticism of right-wing sources to attacking CNN as if they’re the leftist news ever, when even their more moderate international coverage barely counts as centrist elsewhere.

I understand that you’re already rejected any opinion fro m outside of your borders, and most of the opinion from within it, before starting your comments here, but even within the context of US media being uniquely skewed, such comments are still lacking.

“Outside of FNC, CNN, and MSNBC there’s little in all day choice”

On TV. The immediate fallacy is assuming that whoever you’re talking to gets their news from TV. If that’s the launch pad for a defence of a source where in lace of an actual defence a person instead goes straight to whataboutism regarding whatever they assume is the polar opposite of the thing they’re deflecting from, they fail on multiple fronts before they finish typing.

“CNN and FNC are both equal”

You keep saying this, but it’s objectively not true and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which started with Sinclair media being criticised. This is, of course, why such threads always start with someone deflecting when they can’t defend what’s being criticised. Much easier to turn it into an FNC vs CNN strawman fight than explain why Sinclair were not in the wrong in their coverage being discussed.

“When you have only two real options the comparisons are inevitable.”

When you ignore all the actual options and demand that a false dichotomy is addressed instead of the actual conversation at hand, it’s inevitable that no conversation of value will take place.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16

The subject of the thread is one person complaining they don’t like the coverage of an org they don’t like by a station that didn’t portray whatever it is the writer thinks should be portrayed.

The premise that there is news beyond two stations on cable is misleading. In reality the same stations that broadcast on cable make up the vast majority of commercial news in other formats here.
Be it print or online. Aside from that the general aspect is non-news talk, chatter, and fake experts flaming on social media and web forums.
Or
International news. But how much of your news choices is devoted to coverage of US topics?

Ultimately what this boils down to though is we have a full article written by an author complaining a broadcast used it’s free speech in a way the author dislikes.

Interesting how much response a non-story can stimulate ‘though.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

“The premise that there is news beyond two stations on cable is misleading”

So, your assertion is that the only news available is that on US cable networks? I suppose that’s part of your usual M.O. – if there’s something that makes it difficult to assert what you claim, pretend it doesn’t exist.

“International news. But how much of your news choices is devoted to coverage of US topics?”

Most non-US news sources cover it, and most non-US sites have a section devoted to it. In my experience, news sources outside of the US cover US news way more than US sources cover non-US news. Unfortunately, you still have influence over the rest of us even if we don’t have the chance to challenge your actions.

“Ultimately what this boils down to though is we have a full article written by an author complaining a broadcast used it’s free speech in a way the author dislikes.”

No, what we have is a legitimate criticism immediately followed by whataboutism to deflect to people who weren’t even mentioned in the article.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19

“If you don’t like their commentary change the channel”

You seem confused. My issue is that morons tend to attack a channel I don’t watch as if it’s a “gotcha” deflection from dealing with the actual criticisms. I did change the channel, if I even watched it to begin with, but some people need to pretend that it’s the only alternative.

Again, there’s thousands of choices out there. There’s good debate to be had by discussing them. But if someone criticises right wing stories and the response is not “let’s debate the facts” but rather “waaaahhh MSNBC/CNN”, you can expect people who watch neither to correctly mark you as an idiot.

Lostinlodos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:20

Understood.

You should note though that US television is different. We have “broadcast” options that maybe have a grand total of 3-5 hours of local and national news each weekday. That’s NBC, CBS, Fox (independent stations), ABC, and UPN/WB/AEIOU whatever they are today.

There’s two national “news” stations with 12-16 hours of news and the rest prime time commentary/rerun slots. That’s FNC and CNN.

And there’s two politically partisan stations. OAN and MSNBC.

Getting much else requires paid access packages. Or finding open-access services from international station websites.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Unless it’s, say, Muslims not decrying terrorism
in which case it’s used to pretend that the nearly
2 billion of them on the planet are all terrorists

So me declining to defend the actions of KOMO is equivalent to smearing all Muslims as terrorists… or something?

Say, you wouldn’t have just taken a whole bunch of drugs, would you?

Also, when do y’all hold the meetings where everyone’s mandatory positions on each topic are handed out? I obviously missed the one where I was given the “KOMO apologist” assignment.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

“Also, when do y’all hold the meetings where everyone’s mandatory positions on each topic are handed out?”

It’s called the real world. The fun thing about facts is that they don’t change depending on who’s in power or what the current headlines are. They change on introduction of new facts.

So, why so you not only go straight to defection mode, but you also happen to pick the same whipping boy that every other right-winger happens to pick, even though you have no evidence that the person you’re responding to has ever watched that particular network, let alone the US version of the network they other right-wingers try to pretend is the only other network?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, of course it does. But, if instead of addressing the valid criticism of the media being discussed here, you go immediately to (whatabout this other media that I think is counter to it, even though many people I’m talking to don’t consume that either), you probably don’t have an honest position to defend.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

ECA says:

Big Subject

The wonders of Opinion, and Where the F’ did you hear that?

As long as there are a few problems, we will always look to find Someone to blame.
Be it God, or that Irish Mofo sitting over there at the bar.
The Most hilarious part is when we Finally find the problem/solution, it gets derailed, they point at something else, CHINA DID IT.

There is a History about the Old style Stores. Where the Store was the lower 1/2 and the residences above. Similar to Allot of Short buildings with Business at the bottom and Apartments above.
Ordinances were created that made this illegal, to use the Lower section as a business If you lived in the house above. It became REQUIRED to rent a Location that was Built for Business. Which had all the lands bought up already(mid town/downtown/main street/..)
We have dealt with This crap along time, and its still not improved, even after the Continental rail was installed by Asian and Irish. Cheap labor lots of Profits.
WE can explain the problem, and a few solutions. But nothing will ever get DONE.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...