Local TV News Veers Right!

The Washington Post noticed this happening in DC but Sinclair has been doing this in markets around the country for years. The company first attracted notice by its blackout of "Nightline" on its ABC affiliated stations a decade ago when the program started showing lists of war dead. Since then, the company has continued to gobble up local stations largely under the radar and to impose a right-wing slant on local news.

Under new ownership, WJLA-TV takes a slight turn to the right

There’s a new owner and a new approach to the news at WJLA-TV, Washington’s ABC affiliate. Under the direction of its ambitious corporate parent, the station’s news operations have taken a subtle but noticeable turn to the right.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

Click to expand...

Of course, Sinclair will claim "nothing personal, just business." That's the usual lie in this situation.

When Hyman offered commentary as 'The Point' on Sinclair stations they were clearlyh labeled as commentary. I see no issue with this, or left leaning commentary as long as it is noted as commentary, not news. I've not seen the WJLA newscast so I don't know how it's portrayed. The Post article doesn't allege that the news reporting is turning right. I thought Sinclair was onto something when they had News Central, but that effort faded. Perhaps now that they have more stations they will centralize certain aspects of the newscast, lowering the cost and enabling them to bring news to more of their stations. We'll see. I'm confident that the other stations in the DC market more than make up for one offering center right commentary, so local news 'veering' right is likely an exaggeration.

All well and good but where is the "left-leaning commentary" on Sinclair stations? Right! There isn't any. Just one more reason why we need to restore The Fairness Doctrines (and a good many other regulations the industry foolishly purged and as a result stopped being profitable and respected).

Hogwash. Total, utter hogwash.

FredLeonard said:

All well and good but where is the "left-leaning commentary" on Sinclair stations? Right! There isn't any. Just one more reason why we need to restore The Fairness Doctrines (and a good many other regulations the industry foolishly purged and as a result stopped being profitable and respected).

Click to expand...

The Fairness Doctrine wouldn't necessarily require a "left-leaning commentary." And there is no factual connection between changes in regulations and the profits or respect of broadcasting.

FredLeonard said:

All well and good but where is the "left-leaning commentary" on Sinclair stations? Right! There isn't any. Just one more reason why we need to restore The Fairness Doctrines (and a good many other regulations the industry foolishly purged and as a result stopped being profitable and respected).

Click to expand...

Right. The Fairness Doctrine is the reason the industry stopped being "profitable and respected", because we all know stations whose main concern is profit will totally do something that makes them less profitable in the absence of regulation preventing them from doing so. And we totally wouldn't have Fox News today if the Fairness Doctrine were still in effect even though the FCC has steadfastly claimed inability to regulate cable networks in any way whatsoever, which ultimately stacks the deck against broadcasters and in favor of cable.

Morgan Wick said:

Right. The Fairness Doctrine is the reason the industry stopped being "profitable and respected", because we all know stations whose main concern is profit will totally do something that makes them less profitable in the absence of regulation preventing them from doing so. And we totally wouldn't have Fox News today if the Fairness Doctrine were still in effect even though the FCC has steadfastly claimed inability to regulate cable networks in any way whatsoever, which ultimately stacks the deck against broadcasters and in favor of cable.

Click to expand...

The right loves to twist things! The Fairness Doctrine not the only reason but it was part of a group of regulations broadcasting industry lobbyists managed to get disposed of.

And the FCC does claim they can regulate cable and they do. Do you make this stuff up?

FredLeonard said:

The Fairness Doctrine not the only reason but it was part of a group of regulations broadcasting industry lobbyists managed to get disposed of.

Click to expand...

Broadcasting industry lobbyists had no reason to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine. If you can post quotes from industry spokespeople at the time, I'll be interested to see it. The industry was perfectly happy with the Fairness Doctrine at the time because it covered their butts. They could point to a regulation as a reason for them NOT to do something. And they took every advantage of it. The FD was eliminated as a cost-savings thing when the FCC budget was cut. They do it all the time. If all things were equal, and it cost no money to enforce, they'd gladly impose all kinds of regulations. But it would take an act of Congress to get the funding, and Congress isn't interested in giving them any more money.

@BigA, here are some articles from the period:

1989 Gainesville Sun: Editorial against a proposed bill from Rep. Dingell (MI) to reinstate FD as law: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...0tWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L-oDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6158,9791443

1982: Gettysburg Times: The industry here is pushing FOR the repeal of the doctrine: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...k55cAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QFgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6593,163751

1985: Lakeland Ledger: More industry support for repeal: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...O8vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2fsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3435,2944258

1987: Star News (Wilmington NC): Right after repeal, move was correct decision: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...rkyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=nhMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6822,2947549

1987: Victoria (TX) Advocate: Doctrine Repealed: http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...51HAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZX8MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1353,6725710

I think the articles contradict your assertion that the industry was happy with the doctrine. The industry, in fact, sought it's repeal. Not for the reason Fred gets at, but because it was a potential liability they could be fined on or placed their license at risk. We don't need a return to the Doctrine. Any such return should only be considered if all taxpayer funding for 'public' broadcasting is fully rescinded at the same time.

umfan said:

Any such return should only be considered if all taxpayer funding for 'public' broadcasting is fully rescinded at the same time.

Click to expand...

I don't see a connection between the two but fine, I'm OK with both. Public radio news and information stations already have more revenue than commercial news/talk stations in their markets. They don't need CPB money.

umfan said:

I think the articles contradict your assertion that the industry was happy with the doctrine. The industry, in fact, sought it's repeal. Not for the reason Fred gets at, but because it was a potential liability they could be fined on or placed their license at risk.

Click to expand...

And yet no station ever lost its license for a Fairness Doctrine complaint. The key as explained in the Gettysburg Times article, was the cost of enforcement. And the FCC was facing budget cuts because of the Reagan administration, coupled with the increase in new licenses due to Docket 80-90. They simply had no time or staff to handle the paperwork any more. They eliminated a lot of requirements at the same time for the same reason. The other point you'll read in those articles is that even WITH the Fairness Doctrine in place, a lot of points of view weren't being heard. So regulation didn't guarantee that points views would be heard.

umfan said:

Any such return should only be considered if all taxpayer funding for 'public' broadcasting is fully rescinded at the same time.

Click to expand...

There is no Congressional interest in re-regulating broadcasting, and there's no interest in rescinding funding for public broadcasting.

FredLeonard said:

Public radio news and information stations already have more revenue than commercial news/talk stations in their markets. They don't need CPB money.

Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. Government funding isn't based on need. If it was, we'd still have welfare.

No station lost its license over a fairness doctrine complaint?

I have two words for you. Red. Lion.

FredLeonard said:

No station lost its license over a fairness doctrine complaint?

I have two words for you. Red. Lion.

Click to expand...

OK, one example. Great. That refutes my "no station" comment. Any more, maybe from more recently than 60 years ago? Any reason why anyone should believe that decision would hold any water today if the FD was reinstated? Clearly, by the time the FD was repealed, courts were already beginning to question the Red Lion decision. And if you read the discussions about the FD in the early 80s, you can see the reason for it's repeal had more to do with its Constitutionality than with industry lobbying.

The threat of loss of license over violations of the Fairness Doctrine was a sufficiently "big stick" that the mere threat was sufficient to inhibit broadcasters from airing all sides of any story. So long as two sides were given equal time, the FCC was happy. If there were more than just two sides, the third side could be ignored. It also didn't matter if one side's time was presented by an articulate spokesperson, while the opposing side was represented by a blithering idiot, as long as both sides got equal time, everything was OK.