Corporate Consolidation of Local News

The role of the news media is arguably just as important as any of the three branches of our government. Our freedom of press allows for the media to serve as a checks system on our political figures while also informing the general public on candidates they are going to be voting for. However, recently the media has plummeted in polls ranking its trustworthiness, and is seemingly increasingly polarizing.

Under the Trump administration, constant echoes of the phrase “fake news’ and the “liberal media” have been heard day after day. However, whether on purpose or not, the constant focus on the generally left leaning media, has allowed Sinclair Broadcasting Group to slip through the cracks of the national news. This conservatively leaning news company, controls 72% of America’s TV news coverage, their news shows airing in approximately 2.2 million households. These numbers are larger than the viewings of any one Fox show, meaning Sinclair could potentially be influencing more Americans than any other news network.

The issue isn’t Sinclair’s conservative bias necessarily, as I mentioned before most media is heavily biased, but Sinclair tends to go slightly beyond having biases. During the coverage of Michael Flynn, Sinclair distributed scripts to all of its news channels, easily seen by the question “Did the FBI have a personal vendetta in pursuing the Russian investigation against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn?” being asked by anchors all over the nation in separate local channels. The way the question itself was phrased automatically created shifted the audience’s perception of what happened. As we learned previously when studying polling, if you change the way you ask a question, the answer may shift entirely even if their viewpoint on the issue hasn’t changed. The largest demographic viewing these local news shows is a middle aged, white, non-college attending, male- a segment of the population that is heavily susceptible to coercion and bias in their news.

If this deal goes through, Sinclair will own 233 stations, mostly local. Currently Americans favor local news when it comes to trustworthiness, especially since national news is constantly under scrutiny by the president for being “fake”. Many are viewing this deal as any other business merger, however, I pose the question- is allowing our local news stations to be controlled by the mandates of one, bipartisan company, something that should be allowed, or does the government have the responsibility to step in and regulate who owns local news shows? I personally don’t know where I stand on this issue, especially from a legal standpoint, but it’s interesting to note that Sinclair’s bid was placed shortly after Trump’s administration reinstated the UHF discount. The UHF discount basically allows for companies to lower the percentage of the country it says it presents its shows to, as it’s illegal for one company to reach more than 39% of the country.

(I’ve added some links below that I used while researching that further explained the Sinclair situation).

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/the-twilight-of-fox-news/497684/

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/fcc-reinstates-uhf-discount-media-ownership-1202391206/

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/340542-john-oliver-roasts-sinclair-medias-conservative-slant

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/reed/ct-sinclair-tribmedia-deal-end-robert-reed-0824-biz-20170823-column.html

http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/

7 Responses to "Corporate Consolidation of Local News"

Jackson Krase says:

October 27, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Often overlooked in many political campaigns and agendas, the corporate consolidation of local news is transforming the way in which information is delivered to the American public and will have long lasting effects on our democratic system. As local news is continuously becoming less local, I personally believe it to be vital for the government to step in and regulate the ownership of local news companies. Sadly, the opposite is occurring in Washington as just this Tuesday the Federal Communications Commission got rid of the “main studio rule,” a well-established regulation requiring news corporations to have a studio in the area that they are transmitting in. This in turn has greatly decreased the ability for citizens of a local community to interact and engage with their news provider and has limited the sense of responsibility that news corporations have to their local viewership. Furthermore, on Wednesday the FCC Chairman Ajit Pai set in motion plans to scrap even more media ownership regulations. Through this process of deregulation the government is allowing the flow of news and information to be controlled by a smaller and smaller number of actors.
I also think it is important to note that according to a PEW Research Poll conducted in 2016, a higher number of U.S. adults get their news from local TV channels rather than national news organizations. As Americans continue to stay attached to their local news networks, it is important to ensure that the information that they are receiving is free from bias and or false information. I found the inclusion of Sinclair Broadcasting Group in your blog post to be a perfect representation of the expansion of corporate companies influence over the local news. Sinclair exerts a tremendous amount of influence within the local news business, reaching around 40 percent of households currently. However, by promoting a clear pro-Trump conservative agenda and forcing stations to run mandatory segments, Sinclair Broadcasting Group is threatening the very cornerstone of freedom of speech.

PEW Research Poll: http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/trust-and-accuracy/
Spencer Yacos says:

October 27, 2017 at 3:12 pm

The accessibility of local news is a factor I believe shouldn’t be overlooked. Local news is not only more trustworthy (which is basically a given, considering how it isn’t under constant attack and scrutiny like the national networks are) but also exist in virtually every location, so even if a viewer doesn’t have access to CNN or Fox News, they’ll more than likely have access to this local broadcasting. It’s also important to note that while Sinclair does undoubtedly have a conservative lean, it is still ruled by a profit motive. For a market as large and diverse as the one watching local news, Sinclair must be equally diverse in terms of catering to them.
While I agree the recent decision by the FCC overextends Sinclair’s power and this is a victory for conservatives, Democrats have to be realistic in terms of what effects this has on the broadcasting world as a whole. Local news, for the most part, still just covers local events, where political happenings are a lot more low key and it’s harder to express a given political stance. That being said, this consolidation of local broadcasting is negative in the same way monopolies are negative in any business. Diversity is quashed, and the uniformity could breed complacency and a lack of innovation in the broadcasting market.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-27/sinclair-s-washington-winning-streak-has-democrats-crying-foul
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-rr-sinclair-20171027-story.html
Helen Spiller says:

October 29, 2017 at 8:52 pm

If the statement is true, or at least moderately true that the news media is arguably as important an aspect of government as the three branches then I wholeheartedly believe there should be more government regulation. Our government has checks and balances on all three branches to ensure protection for the citizens and within the government, so if the media is arguably equal to those it is necessary for some regulation. I definitely would argue it is a worry that Sinclair is going to own over 200 stations with most of them being local. If national news was biased, you’d hope that at least local could provide truth for the people. It is also important to note that six corporations control 90% of the national news today and, as you have pointed out, these corporations are only growing by seeping into the local news. I do think there needs to be a regulation of some sort in order to ensure that the news is a positive source for our democracy provides information to the people and checks on the government and not a source of biased and divisive information.

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
Stella Von Spreckelsen says:

October 29, 2017 at 11:03 pm

This is a really well put together blog post that highlights the effects of biases in the free press. Under the first amendment, people have freedom of speech which obviously allows for news channels to say what they would like to say depending on their political affiliations. However, in a sovereignty, people should be allowed access to unbiased media that is not supposed to tell them which way to lean. This however has not been the case in America and especially recently with Trump being the president, the two parties have become so polarized. I really liked how you mentioned leading questions, a phenomenon discussed by many psychologists as having an affect on the way people respond when asked questions. If there’s already an implicit bias in the way the question is formed, then people will base their responses off of the way the question came out and not on how they actually feel about it. It is now so prevalent that our polling system as a whole can be so skewed simply based on the way pollers choose to word the questions about candidates. For a Trump supporter, they may ask questions about the Hillary Clinton emails that automatically puts Clinton in a bad lightening. If SInclair ends up owning more TV channels and can control the way the channels lean towards (conservative), it will negatively affect the political culture in the U.S. As mentioned in your post, the people who tend to view these news channels the most are middle aged white men who typically tend to lean towards the conservative side and are more likely to contribute to these channels and fund them more. I definitely believe that the media has a huge impact on the way people vote in elections in America.
Camryn Travis says:

October 30, 2017 at 12:02 am

I think this issue with corporate consolidation within local news media is very interesting; mostly because of the ‘sneaky’ nature of the take-over large corporations make in local news. I think it is very important to note that the news media is one of the less regulated monopolies in American government. All of the data relating to Sinclair Broadcast explicitly identifies the nature of these major news monopolies. Not only does Sinclair Broadcast a large amount of local news media outlets, but they are also able to directly control what topics are aired or what clips are used during a broadcast. This strict domination of Sinclair Broadcast on local news media can cause a monotony in news stories and prevents innovative and diverse news topics. This limits citizens to learn from multiple viewpoints on a particular story topic and can often leave the viewer with a level of bias in news facts.
Alexandra Friedman says:

October 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm

It is hard to imagine a time when we did not have to deal with the drama of “fake news”. You are correct; the role of the media should be one which we can trust. But, how can we trust the media when it is all being controlled by one group? Before this class, I did not know of Sinclair. I think you make a really interesting point in talking about local news. This reminds me of what we talked about in class in terms of people only wanting to listen to news when it is what they want to hear. Since the demographic of Sinclair’s local news stations seem to be similar, it is easy to understand why these people would want to watch their news. This also made me think about when we discussed how different stories can be presented. There are very few, if not only one, official sources in the country. The only insight we get into Trump’s mind are Sarah Huckabee Sanders and his twitter. Yet, these stories and the information presented about him seem to vary greatly as you go from channel to channel. This makes me wonder, to what extent should opinion and news be mixed? Is asking a leading question, like you mentioned, something that is fair in our expectation of the role of the media? I think that in answering this, we must realize there is a blurry line. The news companies are built on a principle of profit and this is not something that is going away. But, these profit motive should not be turning the media away from serving its true purpose.
Alexandra Friedman says:

October 30, 2017 at 12:36 pm

(continued) In addition, trump himself posts “fake news”. His twitter is filled with many statements that are blatantly not true. In june 2017, the NYT started publishing a list of all of his lies. How, then, are we supposed to trust our media when they can’t trust their official source? News is becoming blurrier and blurrier. Living in the United states, we just expect our media to be fair and honest. But in reality, it is not what we perceive it to me. It scares me to think about this, and it makes it clear that there does need to be some form of change. But, who should be responsible for enacting this change? Clearly, if the government won’t fix it the citizens need to act.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Comments are closed.