[HN Gopher] Multiple local news stations say the same thing verb...
___________________________________________________________________
Multiple local news stations say the same thing verbatim [video]
Author : garraeth
Score : 161 points
Date : 2021-06-18 13:36 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.youtube.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.youtube.com)
| guscost wrote:
| This also happens nationally, and on the web. Today one
| paraphrase is "Rumors are _swirling_ about Dong Jingwei (Dong
| Jing Wei ) ".
| Black101 wrote:
| I have seen something similar to this before, but for the left-
| wing stations.
|
| This is not the same one that I have seen before, but here is
| another that I just found:
| https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/26/21271137/amazon-propagand...
|
| There are a bunch more examples if you do a little research.
| legitster wrote:
| I worked with someone who worked in a local news studio. They
| told me that A LOT of the stories came pre-scripted.
|
| Imagine you are a local news studio. You went from being
| responsible for 30 minutes of content a day to (often) upwards of
| two hours. And you only have a skeleton crew of on staff writers.
| To stretch the time, corporate offers a library of "stock" news
| stories and scripts to choose from.
|
| I am told that local studios still have a lot of choice on what
| they use, but yeah, you're going to find a bunch of different
| studios grabbing the same script and not making any changes.
| Grain of salt.
| Grieving wrote:
| I used to work for a local newspaper that had been operated by
| the owner's family for generations. Our content was almost
| entirely unique, with the exception of a few filler stories
| we'd occasionally pull from another source (small stuff like
| "Spring Cleaning Tips"). The owner was proud that we were the
| last small newspaper in the state to resist being bought up by
| the owner of the capitol city's paper. We were well-respected
| in the area, and it was joked that the only time we lost a
| subscriber was when they passed away. The owner died a few
| years ago. Her sons didn't want to keep her "hobby project"
| afloat, so the paper finally was sold like all the others.
|
| A couple of years later I wrote a script to consolidate stories
| from news sites across my state and display them with a nice
| UI, since I have family all over the place and want to keep up
| with what's going on. The _majority_ of stories were duplicated
| across all of them, and local news had become the filler
| content. Even for stories of national importance, they can be
| interpreted in so many ways that you 'd expect different people
| in different areas to have different analyses of the facts
| (which is what used to happen), but that doesn't exist anymore.
| With the pushback against "fake news", official news sources
| are the only acceptable source of information, and those are
| monopolized by an increasingly tiny minority of people. BTW I
| don't put "fake news" in quotes to say that it doesn't exist,
| but that it's a catch-all term for propaganda that goes against
| the official propaganda.
| pmyteh wrote:
| That's absolutely true. I understand that this particular piece
| is a step beyond that: a 'must run' segment that was mandated
| by corporate (something for which Sinclair has form).
| legitster wrote:
| That's the thing: I don't know if anyone ever established
| that it's a "must run". I've only ever seen this clip as
| evidence for it, so I'm still not sure that it's not entirely
| conjecture.
| exsinclair wrote:
| > I don't know if anyone ever established that it's a "must
| run".
|
| It was.
| stonogo wrote:
| It didn't really need establishing, since Sinclair
| themselves acknowledged it. The debate was over whether
| that was normal, which it is not:
| http://www.mediafiledc.com/sinclair-says-must-runs-normal-
| in...
|
| Lots of people like to point to AP or Reuters as examples
| of copy-paste news programming, but that ignores the
| primary difference: affiliates select which AP or Reuters
| stories they want to air and/or publish.
|
| Others compare TV networks like ABC or CBS requiring shows
| to be aired at certain times, but none of the networks
| mandate local news coverage like Sinclair does.
| cryptoz wrote:
| That phenomenon has nothing to do with the linked video,
| though. They are totally different. One is news, from news
| agencies, the other is corporate right-wing propaganda from the
| owner of the station.
| reureu wrote:
| But is it extremely dangerous to our democracy?
| tablespoon wrote:
| [2018]
| [deleted]
| phkamp wrote:
| The correct description for that kind of operation is not "news
| stations" but "propaganda outlets".
| myfavoritedog wrote:
| Not surprising since those are all Sinclair stations just
| repeating canned statements.
|
| What's really scary is when mainstream media outlets from a
| variety of corporate entities all repeat the exact same talking
| points that are exactly in sync with one political party.
| eplanit wrote:
| Newspapers do this a lot with Associated Press stories -- they're
| filler for what you don't have the capacity to create yourself. I
| don't really see a problem with it.
| kube-system wrote:
| They might repost _news_ from the AP, but not opinion pieces.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| This is Sinclair Broadcasting Group which operates "a total of
| 193 stations across the country in over 100 markets (covering 40%
| of American households), many of which are located in the South
| and Midwest". It has had "must run" segments that all stations
| are required to run coming down from management that are
| generally right-wing talking points. In a John Oliver segment
| about Sinclair he stated that he "did not know it was possible to
| dip below the journalistic standards of Breitbart". Sinclair also
| struck deals with the Trump family and campaign to promote them
| during the 2016 campaign.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
| dfxm12 wrote:
| This is what happens when one media company [0] keep buying up
| local affiliates.
|
| Take a look at the stations, they are all owned by Sinclair:
|
| Fox 29, San Antonio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KABB
|
| Fox 66: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSMH
|
| KATU 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KATU_(TV)
|
| CBS 4, El Paso: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDBC-TV
|
| KGAN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGAN
|
| etc.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group
| temp8964 wrote:
| Search this in Google News: "mass shootings surge as nation faces
| record high"
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=mass+shootings+surge+as+nati...
| josefresco wrote:
| The sites in those results (at least the 10 I checked) are all
| low quality blog spam. I suspect this is a politically
| motivated spam network created for the purpose of then using it
| as an example of media bias. Similar to what's happened in the
| parent story actually!
| swiley wrote:
| Televised news is harmful manipulative crap. Just like most
| Google products you should avoid exposing yourself to it.
|
| Of course I feel a little bad telling people this because it's
| pretty easy to avoid. Once TV news becomes unpopular they'll
| probably start shoving the same stuff into something that was
| previously mostly free of that kind of thing.
| ElViajero wrote:
| > Televised news is harmful manipulative crap.
|
| Not all news stations are the same, not all countries have the
| same TV news.
|
| It is easy to just give up and think that you cannot trust
| anyone. But, the reality is that there is many journalists that
| care and try to create high quality news. To put them all in
| one bag is not fair, nor helpful.
| filoeleven wrote:
| What's the old saying? 90% of X give the rest a bad name?
|
| The problem lies in finding the high-quality journalists. A
| default assumption of "TV news is crap" is warranted by the
| signal-to-noise ratio. Nobody's putting them in the same bag;
| they are already there and must be sorted out. And that takes
| time and attention that is already scarce for most people.
|
| I don't know if there is a viable solution to this that
| doesn't start with journalists themselves. As you say, some
| have a great record. IMO part of that is, and will
| increasingly involve, more extensive provenance and
| supplementary documentation for the stories they report,
| whenever possible.
| coliveira wrote:
| TV is a propaganda arm or the big companies. They will continue
| to spread the same type of content on other media, as long as
| they have money.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| The new strategy is to saturate social media with the same
| talking points ad-nauseam. It's especially apparent on Reddit
| and Twitter.
| nitrogen wrote:
| You can even do this with things that are true, to discredit
| them. Then, when someone independently comes to the same true
| conclusion, their friends can robotically shut them down with
| "you are just repeating side X's talking points!"
| fallingknife wrote:
| Or it's been "debunked," like the lab leak theory (until it
| was rebunked a couple months ago).
| kube-system wrote:
| I think that is also a case of multiple different claims
| muddying the water, partly fueled by conjecture on social
| media.
|
| There were (and still are) multiple "lab leak" theories
| that are in widespread circulation, ranging from "it is
| possible that there was accidental infection at a
| research facility" all the way to "it is a bioweapon"
|
| The scientific community has always discounted the
| latter.
|
| Also, science is evidence based, and so many scientists
| are (rightly) hesitant to make conclusions (and to
| support others conjecture) unless they have some sort of
| evidence to support it. China knows this, and knows they
| can avoid bad publicity altogether by limiting the
| evidence that is released. Scientists are not in a
| position to make political accusations in the absence of
| other information. "We don't have any evidence to support
| that theory" is perfectly reasonable scientific
| statement, regardless of the political realities.
| Haga wrote:
| Yet in this case most experts were not neutral referees.
| They had careers in "gain of function" research at stake.
| peytn wrote:
| That's a just-so narrative. Scientists can't make
| political overtures and require evidence to draw
| conclusions, yet simultaneously are able to discount the
| weapons program hypothesis? It's one or the other.
|
| Anyway, one of the problems with media consolidation is
| that people don't hear competing narratives, so whatever
| narrative a small group of people decide on is what ends
| up feeling true to people.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| > yet simultaneously are able to discount the weapons
| program hypothesis? It's one or the other.
|
| You can discount it from the lack of evidence. I can be
| considered again once some evidence is available.
| kube-system wrote:
| I think if you looked at the specific questions that top
| US scientists were asked, the questions may have been
| political at times, but the responses have always been
| scientific and based on evidence. The absence of evidence
| is not evidence of absence, although some have
| misinterpreted their responses to mean that. Science is a
| nuanced thing. Politics is a steamroller to nuance.
| chiefgeek wrote:
| I've consciously not watched news for at least the last 20 years.
| I never watched it much before that. My life is better because of
| it. It's nothing but fear mongering.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| I heard once that the ten o clock news is when the presenter
| starts with a "good evening" then explains why it's not.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| Tangentially related segment from Last Week Tonight.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIi_QS1tdFM
| clan wrote:
| There is a recent Last Week Tonight covering sponsored content on
| local news stations which is worth a watch as well.
|
| https://youtu.be/sIi_QS1tdFM
| desktopninja wrote:
| Nothing new I guess. Its like youtube reposting lol
| underseacables wrote:
| I've always felt the media is generally reading from the same
| script. The News, locally or national, is more of a theatrical
| production than actual information.
| MarkLowenstein wrote:
| The classic Onion News Network videos are proof of your point.
| They're hilarious because while the content is ridiculous, the
| rhythm and theatrics are so clearly shared with every other
| newscast.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| ONN has more in common with "satirical news" skits in UK
| comedy shows than BBC News. I know ONN is US-based, but still
| - the format is local.
| dougb5 wrote:
| Tangent, but to my American ear, the British English sense of
| "presenter" -- someone who reads the news -- seems to
| acknowledge the theatrical aspect of the role. More so than our
| "anchorperson" which seems to come from a game show.
| dylan604 wrote:
| There's a difference from everyone quoting from an AP or
| Reuters new service. It's an entirely different thing when one
| media company forces it's stations to literally read from the
| exact same script, or worse, force a must-run segment produced
| externally from the local station.
| coliveira wrote:
| But it's not that much different. The main difference is who
| is doing the scripting. The reality is that local TV never
| did anything by themselves, they're repeating messages that
| have been fed by someone else.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >But it's not that much different. The main difference is
| who is doing the scripting.
|
| That's just being totaly unrealistic. The news agencies
| like AP report news where forced must-run scripts from
| agenda pushing corporate owners cannot even be considered
| the same ballpark as "not much different"
|
| >The reality is that local TV never did anything by
| themselves
|
| If you are referring to local news reporting on anything
| outside the local area, then of course they don't do much
| themselves. If they had first party reporters outside of
| their local area, they'd no longer be a local news. This is
| why local news have partners in other markets, or other
| agencies like AP.
| nisa wrote:
| is this related to the sinclair broadcast group[1,2] or something
| else?
|
| 1:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group#2018_...
|
| 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvtNyOzGogc
| rejectedandsad wrote:
| This is Sinclair, and I find it extremely funny that the right
| has taken this video to smear the rest of the MSM.
| [deleted]
| voldacar wrote:
| Woah, it's almost as if the right isn't monolithic
| tolbish wrote:
| I think the point being made is that the smearing is not
| done in earnest and is a deflection tactic.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| fallingknife wrote:
| Hypocritical, but not wrong.
| tboyd47 wrote:
| Thanks for the context!
| res0nat0r wrote:
| Yep, here's another a 90 second clip demonstrating how Sinclair
| is a rightwing media news org, also using the same forced
| talking points across the board:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
| toxik wrote:
| That's the exact same video as OP, buddy.
| slg wrote:
| Although this one is the original source. It is only dated
| later because the video didn't originate on Youtube.
| tboyd47 wrote:
| Relevant here is an article by Huffington Post from 2012
| criticizing a bill to update the Smith-Mundt Act which prohibited
| the US government from spreading propaganda to American citizens.
| The congressmen were complaining that if other countries can
| propagandize Americans, our government should have the same
| right. Their update would effectively remove that prohibition.
| The bill was swiftly passed and made law.
|
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/propaganda-public-diplomacy_b...
| kube-system wrote:
| That bill was about "propaganda" like VOA... which is mandated
| to provide pretty damn fair and accurate news by other laws. Do
| you really think it should have remained (technically) illegal
| to click this link: https://www.voanews.com/ ?
|
| In any case, that law/amendment has nothing to do with the
| video in this post. The reason all these stations are saying
| the same thing is not because of the government, it is because
| they are all owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, and those who
| run that company wanted to push this message.
|
| Honestly, the quality of "government propaganda" from VOA is
| better than what we get from Sinclair.
|
| https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/
|
| https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sinclair-broadcast-group/
| coliveira wrote:
| VOA is not propaganda with quotes, it is real propaganda
| produced by American government targeted at other (mainly
| eastern European) countries. It is the same thing they
| complain about in RT and similar state controlled news
| stations.
| kube-system wrote:
| It is propaganda in the most technical sense of the word,
| which is why I used it. I put it in quotes because it is a
| very loaded word with colloquial connotations that depart
| from the technical sense.
| slg wrote:
| As the video description says "Found the clip, sharing it here."
| We probably shouldn't link to someone who just stole this clip.
| On the other hand, the original clip was posted on Deadspin,
| which was mismanaged so badly that the entire staff ended up
| resigning roughly a year after they first posted this clip so I
| don't want to link to them either. So instead I will point to the
| author of the original article that contained this video, Timothy
| Burke [1][2]. He has an insane setup for capturing television
| broadcasts and does a lot of great work like this to highlight
| the most interesting and troubling aspects of news and sports
| television.
|
| [1] - https://twitter.com/bubbaprog
|
| [2] - https://www.patreon.com/bubbaprog
| mistrial9 wrote:
| A stealth tech company in Calif-US created a system to record
| as many news casts as possible, 24-7, and invoke the closed-
| caption system to annotate it, and make it searchable. The
| company was sold in the early 2000's for $1B+ ; I have never
| seen the name in any tech news.
|
| source: colleague was a core engineer there
| RC_ITR wrote:
| As far as I can tell about how the unlimited cloud DVR on
| YouTube TV works, google is already recording all local news
| broadcasts all the time and retaining them for at least 90
| days.
|
| I don't think they have any plans to do anything other than
| what they do now (selectively offer playback to subscribers
| who opted in before the broadcast), but makes you think it's
| a solved technical problem that governments and other players
| are also probably doing.
| ralusek wrote:
| I would've said this was no doubt bought by a financial
| sector company looking for bottom up sentiment analysis, but
| the whole premise of the parent post is that there's hardly
| such a thing as bottom up sentiment in local news.
| lstamour wrote:
| I've no idea if it matches your story, but I hear a lot of
| shows use SnapStream to find content?
| https://www.thewrap.com/the-secret-to-daily-show-colbert-
| rep...
|
| And I remember back when Google Video was a thing that Google
| was indexing feeds of TV channels' subtitles. I remember
| there was a search engine at one point for subtitles?
| Presumably they still index live TV subtitles and content
| both to support YouTube TV but also to feed content into
| their YouTube Content ID program... I wonder if anyone's
| comparing TV subtitles to speech-to-text output to catch
| differences in either.
|
| Here's an article about Google's early Video Search product
| for captions: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/08/brief-
| history-of-go... Apparently displaying and searching captions
| to the public for free lasted barely 6 months... Here's a
| screenshot showing a search result:
| https://informitv.com/2005/01/25/google-video-search-for-
| tel...
| JoblessWonder wrote:
| SnapStream by the makers of BeyondTV started doing this
| around that time frame. As another commenter mentioned, it is
| WIDELY used in media for searching/archiving/clipping
| programs.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| It happens at a national level, too. Especially when politics are
| involved.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEchPZm318&t=27s
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| This type of thing is why I like shows like
| https://unfilter.show/ that not only are "independent" but also
| provide some meta-commentary on the production of the news
| stories themselves, rather than just using the headline to jump
| off onto whatever rant they feel like.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-18 23:02 UTC)