Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.


view as:

I agree. 232 people control the news that 277 million americans are allowed to see. ([1] from 2012). Many of us have been pounding this drum for a long time, including Trump himself. I think it is this control at a national level that the Sinclair news anchors were being told to warn people about, but the NYT has flipped the narrative on them, and now they're the bad guys. Genius, but unfortunate.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-...


> Many of us have been pounding this drum for a long time, including Trump himself.

Can you cite that? It sounds like prime material for Reddit's /r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/


Cite it? Fake News has been his mantra for awhile. I think you'll find it.

I don't see how "fake news" relates to media monopolization. It's just a fallacious outright rejection of unpleasant news.

In fact, Trump just stated he supports Sinclair's monopolization.


Monopolization is highly beneficial to facilitating fake news, you don't see that?

It's the other way around. Fake news is selective ignorance that distracts from the cancer eating away at our formerly-educated electorate.

One entity owning multiple outlets and therefore having the ability to broadcast a consistent message, as literally shown in the video, not only does not facilitate fake news, but can not? It acts as an antidote to fake news, in all cases?

"Fake news" is a symptom of consumer ignorance, and beneficial for facilitating monopolization.

Please answer my question.

Which one? They looked rhetorical to me.

Your take doesn't jibe with Sinclair requiring their stations to air Boris Epshteyn and his, uh, "analysis".

Agreed. This has been no secret and a lot of people have absolutely been pounding this drum for a long time.

Bernie talking about it in 1988 as mayor of Burlington: https://youtu.be/KIQ_Kj7uBeg


It is not "are allowed to see" but "chose to consume". This whole "fake news" jazz is for the wrong reason.

Or our constitutional republic, as the case may be.

The United States is a monarchy now, you just don't realize it yet.

A constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Trying to draw a distinction there is beyond splitting hairs.

I agree that a constitutional republic is a type of democracy, but a democracy is not a constitutional republic. Both systems are a representational form of government, but in a true democracy the majority rules. In a constitutional republic, constraints are placed upon the government which, ideally, work to protect the minority.

For example, in a pure democracy, gay marriage would not be a thing, because the majority voted against it. However, because we are a republic, and the government is compelled to recognize the minority and protect their rights, gay marriage is now legal.

I don't think this distinction is "splitting hairs," since it is of vital importance to the minority.


It's about as dangerous as Twitter spam. If people's votes are swaying based on the trash that is cable news and fake Twitter accounts, I'm not sure we had much hope for government-by-the-people to begin with.

I'm not so sure. It really could just be a symptom of the fact that it's hard to make money on local news, because people get their news elsewhere now, so costs have be be kept low. This means getting stories from news services, and automating as much as possible.

Legal | privacy