Sinclair's Well Intentioned But Poorly Managed Idea

[Wildcat66]

If you've been following wrestling for a while now, you'll know that Sinclair is the TV provider for Ring of Honor. However, there's another that Sinclair is known for, and it seems to be taking some of America by storm.

Apparently local news anchors from various stations that are owned by Sinclair were forced to read an anti-media script of 'bias' and 'fake news'. Now, this may not seem that bad at first: Bias and false stories are a major problem in news, and they have been for a long time. But given Sinclair's conservative slant it does seem a bit hypocritical that they would be calling out others for their own bias, be it liberal, conservative or otherwise.

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490

They have since been followed with several people boycotting the group and attempting to discourage other marketers from coming their way. This is not the first major incident Sinclair has had, back in 2004 they ran anti John Kerry segments during that year's election season.

On another note, they also require their stations to run so-called 'commentary' from former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn nine times a week. That's something that they do.

My opinion: Either this is their attempt at playing the rational one or Sinclair wants to be the FOX News of telecommunication companies, but no matter what the case, it doesn't change the fact that it is very irresponsible of them to try and skewer the news in their direction, then call out others for doing the same thing.

I can respect Sinclair for at least addressing the problem of bias and untrustworthy sources, but you might want to practice what you preach before hand. Maybe then you won't end up with a ton of people wanting to boycott you.

Saying that, I can't help but feel that had this been a left leaning news channel saying the same thing, the reaction would be different. The same goes for if any of the major news channels decided to run that script. And god knows what would happen if it were on a political radio channel like the ones of AM Radio or otherwise.

In short, people are biased, that's a fact everyone should know by now. But what the news is supposed to do is to report from an unbiased position. Yes, there are left leaning and right leaning news sites, channels, radio stations, talk shows, etc, but if you're going to warn people about it, make sure you're not doing it first.

[Fallout]

Disclaimer: I wrote this with a lot of passion and vigour, which, given how some of my political views have been received here, is probably a recipe for disaster. I welcome polite debate on this, but please, I don't want this to turn into personal attacks or outright hostility like some of the other political threads have turned into, we're ALL better than that.

Sidenote, but that article is horrendously awful, and probably shouldn't be used to back up your argument. Deadspin are very staunchly biased towards left-wing positions, and I'd recommend you use news sites either linked here (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/), or at least, in the left-center or right-center area of that same website. I strongly recommend Reuters myself, but I also quite like the BBC and The Telegraph generally, despite their slight leans.

Here's a better article by ABC on the topic. (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trump-defends-sinclair-broadcasting-critical-video-54175942)

As for the topic, you're right, both left-wing and right-wing partisans hacks distort the truth to suit their own agenda, whether that be Fox News's laughable smears on Barack Obama before and during his presidency, or CNN's laughable smears of Donald Trump before and during his presidency today. I could make a point about how it's interesting to see how perspectives change depending who's in power, but there's two more important points that I want to focus on in this post.

Firstly is the difference in behaviour between the two partisan hacks and the means that they spread their information. A stereotypical right-wing hack nowadays are your retards on /pol/ and Youtube comment sections, who only want to offend as many people as possible, and who want to sour the discourse into pure vitriol for anyone that opposes them. They will spread false information and damage control when necessary, for example, after Charlottesville last year, they attempted to brush away the fact that a woman was killed because "She had a heart attack" (yeah, because that excuses plowing a car through dozens of fucking innocent protesters, not to mention that the car still onset that heart attack.) You also have nonsense like Pizzagate, and the lunacy of far-right extremists who seem to think all Muslims are terrible people solely because of their religious doctrine, as well as non-ironically celebrating the deaths of those killed in gun incidents.

On the other hand, a stereotypical left-wing hack is a little more subtle. The common perception of social justice warriors I would say is somewhat inaccurate nowadays, because many people are realising the error of their ways, and the radical left is shrinking somewhat. Not to say they don't exist (Rob Taylor anyone?), but it is an unrealistic stereotype for the majority of the left-wing. Rather, a lot of left-wing partisans tend to snipe from afar at their political opposition, often over ridiculously arbitrary things that don't even have to do with politics or out of context selective quotation for the purpose of character assassination, enforcing their personal moral code onto others and society as a whole (to be fair, a right-wing issue too, but the left are much worse at this today), and vilifying anyone who disagrees with them on politics as an irredeemable villain, boiling the intricacies of humanity and politics to a basic "good vs evil" conundrum, driving more hatred between political groups because of their intolerance of others' political decisions. You might think by looking at these two in a vacuum, the far-right is far worse based on what I've presented, and in that vacuum, I'd probably agree, but the context of the situation matters. Which brings me to my main difference:

One has clear support from the prevailing narrative that the mainstream media likes to push. And take a wild guess which one that is.

(just another sidenote before I go onto my second point, but yes, I know alternative media is very much biased toward the other side, but alternative media does not have the same credibility or standards as mainstream media does, nor should it ever have it.)

My second point is that I'm glad Sinclair is doing this, and I encourage ALL media outlets to try and follow this example. I try to be objective in my politics, and whilst I'm far from perfect, I consider the pursuit of the truth to be a key virtue in having mature and rational political discourse. I run a political Discord server, and whilst I have some basic rules in place, I allow anyone with any political opinion to express their views so long as they abide to the rules. I don't care if someone is a communist, fascist, anarchist, nativist, whatever, I try to judge then on their actual behaviour rather than their political views, because I accept people are always going to come to different conclusions than me, and I can't ultimately claim that they have no right to have their views or that my view is the ultimate view. I'll certainly debate any of those four groups aforementioned on those views and challenge them as I strongly disagree with all of them, not only to maybe change their mind, but to potentially improve upon myself. Hearing different points of view, even if they are radical, is ultimately good for us. Vitriol and hatred, even over minor disagreements, is absolutely not. Obviously there's a limit to what I'm saying, but behaviour is a much better judge of character than political views, which is something, in our increasingly divided landscape, that people are struggling to understand. Fake news from both sides is perpetuating this problem more and more, because people want to fight and win, rather than learn and understand, and will spread false information to the point where it's difficult for anyone to really distinguish what's real and what's fake anymore.

People should learn from Sinclair's example, and while Sinclair is biased themselves, this new era of misinformation is ultimately detrimental to the entirety of politics, and to us all. We all need to bring some maturity back to politics, particularly when the President Of The United States is objectively and by far, the least mature president of all-time.

[Wildcat66]

Disclaimer: I wrote this with a lot of passion and vigour, which, given how some of my political views have been received here, is probably a recipe for disaster. I welcome polite debate on this, but please, I don't want this to turn into personal attacks or outright hostility like some of the other political threads have turned into, we're ALL better than that.

I actually really liked your response if you were wondering.


Sidenote, but that article is horrendously awful, and probably shouldn't be used to back up your argument. Deadspin are very staunchly biased towards left-wing positions, and I'd recommend you use news sites either linked here (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/), or at least, in the left-center or right-center area of that same website. I strongly recommend Reuters myself, but I also quite like the BBC and The Telegraph generally, despite their slight leans.

Here's a better article by ABC on the topic. (https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/trump-defends-sinclair-broadcasting-critical-video-54175942)

It's ironic, because I tend to search up that website every so often. Probably should've done that for this article.

These three websites are excellent for high quality articles and analysis. Here's a few of my personal favorite news sites.

Vox
Snopes
The Atlantic
CNBC
FiveThirtyEight
Al Jazeera
The Guardian

As for the topic, you're right, both left-wing and right-wing partisans hacks distort the truth to suit their own agenda, whether that be Fox News's laughable smears on Barack Obama before and during his presidency, or CNN's laughable smears of Donald Trump before and during his presidency today. I could make a point about how it's interesting to see how perspectives change depending who's in power, but there's two more important points that I want to focus on in this post.


Firstly is the difference in behaviour between the two partisan hacks and the means that they spread their information. A stereotypical right-wing hack nowadays are your retards on /pol/ and Youtube comment sections, who only want to offend as many people as possible, and who want to sour the discourse into pure vitriol for anyone that opposes them. They will spread false information and damage control when necessary, for example, after Charlottesville last year, they attempted to brush away the fact that a woman was killed because "She had a heart attack" (yeah, because that excuses plowing a car through dozens of fucking innocent protesters, not to mention that the car still onset that heart attack.) You also have nonsense like Pizzagate, and the lunacy of far-right extremists who seem to think all Muslims are terrible people solely because of their religious doctrine, as well as non-ironically celebrating the deaths of those killed in gun incidents.

On the other hand, a stereotypical left-wing hack is a little more subtle. The common perception of social justice warriors I would say is somewhat inaccurate nowadays, because many people are realising the error of their ways, and the radical left is shrinking somewhat. Not to say they don't exist (Rob Taylor anyone?), but it is an unrealistic stereotype for the majority of the left-wing. Rather, a lot of left-wing partisans tend to snipe from afar at their political opposition, often over ridiculously arbitrary things that don't even have to do with politics or out of context selective quotation for the purpose of character assassination, enforcing their personal moral code onto others and society as a whole (to be fair, a right-wing issue too, but the left are much worse at this today), and vilifying anyone who disagrees with them on politics as an irredeemable villain, boiling the intricacies of humanity and politics to a basic "good vs evil" conundrum, driving more hatred between political groups because of their intolerance of others' political decisions. You might think by looking at these two in a vacuum, the far-right is far worse based on what I've presented, and in that vacuum, I'd probably agree, but the context of the situation matters. Which brings me to my main difference:

One has clear support from the prevailing narrative that the mainstream media likes to push. And take a wild guess which one that is.

(just another sidenote before I go onto my second point, but yes, I know alternative media is very much biased toward the other side, but alternative media does not have the same credibility or standards as mainstream media does, nor should it ever have it.)

I've stated before that while I don't agree with how the 'SJW left' goes about their way of politics, I can at least agree with the overall demand from them) (respect and tolerance for all genders and races). However, the alt-right is practically the same thing as a SJW, but only on the right.

But allow me to take a guess and say it's the alt-right that's getting the big push over the SJW, and given what they have done over the last few years it would come as to no surprise should that be the case.

(As a sidenote: The alternative media will never be like the mainstream media, even big names like TYT, RT, Phillip Defranco and just about everyone on the skeptic community will likely never taste that sort of level. The closest anyone has ever gotten to it has been Alex Jones and that perhaps may be the closest anyone ever gets unless someone does something revolutionary. The chances of it happening are not likely.)


My second point is that I'm glad Sinclair is doing this, and I encourage ALL media outlets to try and follow this example. I try to be objective in my politics, and whilst I'm far from perfect, I consider the pursuit of the truth to be a key virtue in having mature and rational political discourse. I run a political Discord server, and whilst I have some basic rules in place, I allow anyone with any political opinion to express their views so long as they abide to the rules. I don't care if someone is a communist, fascist, anarchist, nativist, whatever, I try to judge then on their actual behaviour rather than their political views, because I accept people are always going to come to different conclusions than me, and I can't ultimately claim that they have no right to have their views or that my view is the ultimate view. I'll certainly debate any of those four groups aforementioned on those views and challenge them as I strongly disagree with all of them, not only to maybe change their mind, but to potentially improve upon myself. Hearing different points of view, even if they are radical, is ultimately good for us. Vitriol and hatred, even over minor disagreements, is absolutely not. Obviously there's a limit to what I'm saying, but behaviour is a much better judge of character than political views, which is something, in our increasingly divided landscape, that people are struggling to understand. Fake news from both sides is perpetuating this problem more and more, because people want to fight and win, rather than learn and understand, and will spread false information to the point where it's difficult for anyone to really distinguish what's real and what's fake anymore.

People should learn from Sinclair's example, and while Sinclair is biased themselves, this new era of misinformation is ultimately detrimental to the entirety of politics, and to us all. We all need to bring some maturity back to politics, particularly when the President Of The United States is objectively and by far, the least mature president of all-time.

You pretty much hit the nail with the hammer, Martin Luther King Jr once said that we should judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That is something I have prided on following and is a personal creed of mine. I could care less if your black, white, Hispanic, Asian, trans, LGBTQ, whatever. What kind of person are you? That is all I want to know.

Even as I find Sinclair to be a little hypocritical, I still agree with and even respect Sinclair for trying to help spread the cause against false information. With sites like Facebook and to a lesser extent Twitter and Reddit spreading stories like wildfire, some of it not being truthful, you have to be very wary about what stories have the facts and what are straight up opinions or false claims.

This is why I feel the mainstream media does get some undeserved flak, yes they may be into sensationalism, but they do have standards. For one thing, they have people that are willing to get all of the facts before they can run a story. That is an advantage the alt-media doesn't have.

Right now, the world as we know is in yet another of these tipping points where one major shift towards a certain side could change the course of history for the next few decades. Fake news is one of the key proponents of this, and as such, it is harming everyone who lives in this great planet. What needs to happen is simple: We need to think with not our emotion, but with reason. And I feel that most people, despite what the internet may reveal, do think with reason. The question is, is there enough? Who knows for certain.