> This video (from a shadow banned account) show how the media talk with one voice. https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE
That was that Sinclair media thing. The fact that they have independent teams serving many smaller markets gave it away. If (say) CNN were to do the same thing, they could probably reach an even bigger audience with one guy reading the script, which can't be exposed with a supercut.
Broadcast TV continued that, but cable meant TV no longer controlled by local folks with their local accents and opinions.
TV anchors all learn to spike with a bland accent. And now Sinclair's "local" stations have tightly scripted news, so local news is becoming more of a simulacrum of national news.
>So, this explains the creepy video I saw over the weekend, of numerous news stations reciting the same canned speech, verbatim.
Local news stations receive packages and content with scripts pre-written from national networks and other sources all the time. It's not a conspiracy, and it shouldn't cast doubt on the truthfulness of a story.
Television news is a scripted medium, and most stations don't have the time or talent to write a completely unique script for every newscast from scratch.
>
Honest question: would you be similarly dismissive if it turned out that it’s secretly mostly the right who “shapes the flow of information” in order to influence public’s opinion and has already used that power during the past election cycles?
This indeed happens, The [Sinclair Broadcast Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group) being one of the most prominent examples. They're a huge nationwide TV station operator known for pushing conservative narratives nationwide and for supporting Donald Trump during his campaign.
One of Sinclair's assets is its reach and influence, and they are very transparent about that. If you're in the US and this is news to you, you might want to check if your local Fox or NBC (or CBS, ABC, etc) network is affiliated: https://sbgi.net/tv-stations/
> Personal opinion: I think it was around 2004 when the media slowly stopped being the journalists that protect our democracy, and instead corporations and individuals with political agendas.
It's literally always been that way.
For a while in the late 20th Century US, the alignment of the propaganda interests of the major US media was such that it spoke with almost a single voice, but the homogeneity wasn't some kind of virtuous objectivity.
Not OP but I'll try: have you ever looked at the massive consolidations that happen in the news space? A couple of truly independent but small papers and public TV/radio stations remain, but the rest? Owned by Murdoch, Sinclair, Axel Springer and a couple other billionaires.
Coincidentally or not, Murdoch/Sinclair/Springer media massively lean towards the right/hardcore conservative edge, which basically means that the population is fed a heavy bias in news (and some programs don't even deserve that name anymore, they're outright propaganda). And these media conglomerates are those defining current politics, simply because of their massive reach capability.
Media needs to be broken up if democracy is to survive - and similar with entertainment, given that Disney basically owns all major movie franchises now.
> There isn't a single media (often, when your tribe is against another, you view the opposition as monolithic rather than a spectrum composed of different viewpoints)
The overwhelming majority of the media that people consume in the U.S. is created by the same handful of companies, which each have roughly the same rules about what kinds of stories you're allowed or not allowed to publish. Having worked at one, I can assure you that you're not just allowed to publish whatever you want as long as it conforms to basic journalistic standards or whatever.
> But wow, you just trust a billion lines of closed source written to satisfy ad optimization criteria with zero transparency?
I trust that a multi-national serving multiple markets is going to give me less nationally biased information than the government of a superpower (with political ambitions that span the globe.)
It's why I generally don't turn to the Voice of America for news.
>However, do you really believe in this concept of a conspiratorial all powerful MSM, that spans the political spectrum and co-ordinates efforts to refute viewpoints
Pretty much all the media we see is controlled by a handful of corporations with varying degrees of connection
It's worse now than the image above because AT&T is purchasing Time Warner
With relation to Facebook it's pretty obvious that everybody in the traditional media industry would like to see them lose influence because it costs them money. Instead of watching the news or buying newspaper subscriptions people get the info from Facebook. There really doesn't need to be coordination because it's in their self-interest to pile on Facebook.
Go back 20 years before social media and if the news and the newspapers didn't cover it, it basically didn't happen. The MSM has lost a massive amount of influence due to social media because they can't completely control what information is spread around.
There have been facilities before, but this isn’t happening the same way it was where separation was on purpose. There are stories covering the current conditions, but I think you’re overlooking the fact that the prior administration and supporters seemed to embrace and encourage that narrative because they saw it as a deterrent.
> I think journalists are masters of rhetoric
You should meet the average journalist. Just like any other industry, the vast majority are unremarkable people. They’re not rhetorical masterminds. Like most people they see and write things from their point of view.
What’s more interesting to me is how some of the biggest names in media are obviously the rhetorical masters you speak of. I’m referring specifically to the TV and YouTube stars. Some of them are incredibly good at being convincing even if often contradictory or wrong. I also think video can be effective in ways text cannot be.
Well, yes. I mean, we've had that in a more sophisticated way for the longest time via press agencies. They deliver the news to the media companies, the editors rewrite it a bit to match their audience's taste and add a bit of opinion, but the basic facts are the same. Sinclair was probably just too cheap to spend the extra few bucks to hire somebody to write 20 scripts that have the same content but aren't worded the same.
> So you'd rather live in a made up fantasy world as long as we all share the same made up fantasy world?
I'd prefer if we all shared reality. But we have a terrible hard time finding out what reality even is, and if you read any kind of media, you're certainly not learning about reality, you're just learning about whatever reality the media thinks is real (or wants you to think is real). And in that case, yeah, a shared fantasy is better than many fantasies. You can communicate about a shared fantasy reality. You'll have a hard time communicating when you don't share reality.
>You can't silence truth on social media. You could spread lies, but you can't silence truth. Whereas news companies can silence truth and spread lies.
News outlets never had the ability to silence truth, just limit how easily it could spread. You could still self publish your truth or tell everyone you know, the same thing social media allows.
>If you really cared about fake news, then you should be more worried about the news companies than social media. It's odd you are not
Media companies are perfectly capable of using social media to spread their propaganda. It's likely easier, as it allows them to craft separate versions that appeal to different people.
>but news outlets who lie to you, will also only show video that supports their point.
Oh absolutely. I was thinking more of citizen journalist videos which are typically uncut. One example I know of is when the news video has a hard cut, they're trying to manipulate it. This is pretty common, and they use it often when showing videos of people speaking.
> This is not fun at all, this is dangerous, as the media is used mainly for propaganda.
Well, in the United States we have Fox News and OAN. They're entirely commercial and serve a single party's interests. (Or rather, the interests of the management.) These channels are profitable because people want to watch it.
>> with private media in this country having a financial motivation to knowingly lie is pretty reprehensible.
> That can be balanced-out with other media outlets voicing other side.
It's entirely possible to counter balance something with a lie, neither the original or response being the truth, which doesn't help inform the viewers either.
That was that Sinclair media thing. The fact that they have independent teams serving many smaller markets gave it away. If (say) CNN were to do the same thing, they could probably reach an even bigger audience with one guy reading the script, which can't be exposed with a supercut.
reply