shakran

There's a difference there. Microsoft would be forcing people to accept content. It's already lost that battle (even though it seems to have gotten away with it despite the finding against Microsoft) with the bundling IE with Windows case.

Sinclair isn't forcing you to do anything. They're not gonna tie you up and prop your eyelids open with toothpicks to make sure you watch their documentary. If you don't like it, watch something else.

Read the last sentence! That specifically exempts stations like Sinclairs from the rule! Sinclair's making the statement. Sinclair is a media outlet. The law doesn't say it HAS to be in a news program to be exempted. It just says it HAS to be said BY the media outlet.


1) It's not a he, it's a they. Sinclair is a media conglomerate, not a man. It was started by 4 brothers, one of whom was named Julian Sinclair Smith.

2) Pretty heavilly I'd say. No one would care if it was one Sinclair station, but they own or control 62 stations. That's why people are so pissy about this.

3) They have no controlling interest in the network. And by the network I mean ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, WB, and UPN, because their various stations are affiliated with different networks. The networks are dependent on local stations to air their programming. It's a relationship that works well because only the network has the cash it takes to produce all the sitcoms, soaps, reality shows, etc that you watch every day. The local stations affiliate with a network and pay for those programs. They ALWAYS have the option to decline to broadcast programming. Every once in awhile you hear about some station, usually in the bible belt, that refuses to broadcast an episode of a series because they consider it morally offensive. Sometimes a local station will refuse to broadcast a specific show because their ratings plummet when they show it and they lose money on it.

The only exception is an O&O station - one that's owned and operated by the network. WCCO in Minneapolis and KPIX in San Francisco are examples. They're owned and operated by CBS, which means they must air whatever CBS tells them to air.

None of Sinclair's stations are network O&O's, so they don't have to air anything they don't want to.




That's a whole 'nother topic. Media consolidation is bad for the public, but unfortunately it's totally legal. I don't think it should be, and not just because of situations like this. Ever notice how radio stations suck compared to 20 years ago? That's cause most of them are programmed from thousands of miles away from your home town by some media conglomerate. You may or may not even have a local DJ. The songs you're listening to are piped in from the conglomerate who has no CLUE what people in your town want to listen to. It's sapped the art out of radio programming, and now no matter where you go in the country, you'll find a radio station that sounds exactly - right down to the bumper music - like one in your home town.

So yes, you're right that media consolidation is a very bad idea. Unfortunately, it's a perfectly legal idea so there isn't much that can be done about it at this point.



By the way, the following quote recently appeared on Sinclair's website:

Food for thought, but on the surface, that REALLY blows the campaign finance violation arguments, doesn't it.