[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.