[move-on-by]

I can see why the FCC might be hesitant to get involved with these segments and scripts. However, the Sinclair merger should unequivocally be rejected. This business pattern only becomes an issue once you get monopolies and oligopolies. We need competition and variety in our news sources. Oligopolies are extremely dangerous to our democracy.

[dabbledash]

It would be very hard to view them as a monopoly in any case if you consider all the other media sources they compete with.

I can’t think of the last time I saw broadcast local news.

[rhino369]

Any justification for censoring Sinclair would apply 100 fold to Google or Facebook.

Its just not constitutional to ban Sinclair for running pro GOP content.

[kolpa]

Sinclair has a government-granted monopoly on the frequencies on which they broadcast. Google and Facebook offer service accessible over the (almost entirely) capacity-unconstrained Internet medium.

[rhino369]

And a movie theatre has a government granted monopoly on a piece of land on which they show movies. Doesn't mean you can't just build another one next door.

Facebook has an actual monolopy on an entire market.

[lovich]

I agree that Facebook is a bigger issue, but you can't just build on more frequency. There's only a small, already claimed amount, that is suitable and allowed for broadcasting tv

[gregdunn]

TV broadcast frequencies are a far scarcer resource than land.

[will4274]

And yet, there are more TV stations than movie theatres in many towns.

[pnw_hazor]

As well as networks, in general, like ABC, etc.

[s73v3r_]

Just because you don't use something doesn't mean a lot of other people don't. TV is still the most popular medium for getting news.

http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

[dabbledash]

Absolutely it’s popular, especially with older people, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly.

I’m very hesitant to have the government interfering with media, even against right wing clowns like Sinclair.

[chiefalchemist]

True. But out of curiosity, how many people live within the "traditional" broadcast influence of Sinclair media properties.

[godzillabrennus]

Coupled with Citizens United verdict I agree. Also makes it easier for foreign money to influence our elections. Behind the scenes a foreign government can invest in American companies that buy advertising to change the outcome of an election.

[beckler]

Imagine if a foreign company bought Sinclair.

[r00fus]

What makes you think they're not already somehow manipulated by foreign interests? How would you know?

[chiefalchemist]

Foreign interests? Domestic interests? I struggle to see the difference when it's all said and done. In either case the spirit of the republic is spat on. In either case, We The People get some perverted version of a gov said to be: of the people, by the people, for the people.

Death is still death whether by foreign cancer of domestic cancer.

If you trust (e.g.) Wall Street more than you trust (e.g.) The Russians then I have a bridge you might be interested in. Given their presumed loyalty - but ultimately the lack there of - the former's violations are relatively worse.

Let's not be naive.

[r00fus]

I stand corrected. Foreign or domestic, their interests don't align with the US public at large.

[nasredin]

IIRC China recently bought a major Hollywood studio.

Also notice the increase in token Chinese actors in recent blockbusters.

Transformers even had some CCP pandering in the script.

The self-censorship this brings is a real problem.

[kolpa]

That's more for making the movies popular in China than for manipulating American attitudes.

[floatrock]

It would be blocked. Just last month for example the administration blocked Singapore-based Broadcom from a takeover bid of Qualcomm on national security grounds.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/technology/trump-broadcom...

Not a fan of any of these folks, but if Trump is willing to do a USPS audit pony show just because he's in a kerfuffle with Amazon's WaPo, an international takeover of a large media conglomerate is highly unlikely.

[mulmen]

Amazon does not own WaPo. This distinction is important.

[mieseratte]

How about this, the guy who owns the Washington Post is the founder and a major stakeholder of Amazon.

[floatrock]

Of course not. The point is billionaires get into pissing contests by attacking whatever flank or asset is the easiest target.

[InitialLastName]

I don't think you can generalize this to "billionaires". More like "one specific 'billionaire'".

[solarkraft]

While blocking large foreign buyouts is probably a win for the US I still wouldn't trust the admin to do so reliably. Just throw a few hundred bucks their way.