Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group met Donald Trump at the White House during a visit to pitch a potentially lucrative new product to administration officials, the Guardian has learned. David D Smith, whose company has been criticised for making its anchors read a script echoing Trump's attacks on the media, said he briefed officials last year on a system that would enable authorities to broadcast direct to any American's phone.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In his interview with the Guardian, the Sinclair boss also struck out at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and adviser, for reportedly boasting that Trump's 2016 campaign team made a deal for favourable coverage on Sinclair stations in return for giving access to the company's journalists.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Where can I find a complete list of advertisers on Sinclair stations?

#1 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-04-11 12:53 AM | Reply

Answered my own question:

https://listofsinclairadvertisers.wordpress.com

#2 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-04-11 12:58 AM | Reply

Also here,
www.sourcewatch.org

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 04:15 AM | Reply

one of those links almost sort of still works!

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 04:16 AM | Reply

#1 Boycott's are unamerican!

- The Right.

Also

www.ranker.com

#5 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-11 07:06 AM | Reply

Trump put in some programming requests:
-more hot weatherbabes, like they have in Spanish-speaking countries
-return of Benny Hill
-Remove "Cheaters"

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2018-04-11 08:39 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

1,2,3,4,5. You guys ever hear of the channel changing button on the remote? I don't agree with half of what is on on MSNBC or NBC's meet the Press but I still watch it (a little) to see where they are coming from. I don't think they should be off the air and cry like you to have their advertisers drop them. Grow up.

#7 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-04-11 09:34 AM | Reply

"cry like you to have their advertisers drop them."

Yeah!

Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!
11:51 AM - Feb 8, 2017

Donald J. Trump✔
@realDonaldTrump

I love that thousands of people are boycotting @Macys and cutting up credit cards. No guts no glory. This really backfired - love it!
1:08 AM - Jul 11, 2015


Serenity @serenityatsea
12 Nov 2017

Hey, #MAGA supporters who boycotted Starbucks by buying Starbucks #TrumpCup You no longer qualify for the biggest dumbass award. The people who already paid for their Keuring coffee makers and are smashing them have you beat.
#BoycottKeurig

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-11 11:18 AM | Reply

So, Sinclair is the new boogeyman for the left, I take it.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 02:07 PM | Reply

#9 Yes, they are being told by their leaders that they can't watch it and since they are not allowed to watch it they don't want anyone else to watch it. Another day in the play ground.

#10 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-04-11 03:00 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

So, Sinclair is the new boogeyman for the left, I take it.

#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Wait, you're kidding, right? After all the whining and bitching about the so-called "liberal" MSM, you post that? Sinclair dominates local news stations and its forcing its new anchors to parrot the President, and you call it a boogeyman?

I don't know any other station that tries to control its anchors like this, including Fox News.

#11 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-11 03:34 PM | Reply

So you watch it and know what their anchors are told to say? So why do you want it shut down if you watch it?

#12 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-04-11 04:13 PM | Reply

That some can't see the problem with one company owning so many stations indicates either they are too stupid to see it or too dishonest to admit it. Democracy needs all voices to be heard, let's face the truth, the right is trying to monopolize the media. I don't care if you are a complete right wing person, if you are even slightly intelligent you would oppose monopolization too.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-11 04:28 PM | Reply

So you watch it and know what their anchors are told to say? So why do you want it shut down if you watch it?

#12 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

Wait, have you been following the news on this at all? Or do you just listen to Hannity whine about Hillary all day?

And no one said shut it down. But certainly there should be a public uproar.

This kind of garbage is ironic given how you whine about the so-called "Liberal" MSM. I assume we'll NEVER need to hear you use that phrase again after this event with Sinclair.

#14 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-11 04:29 PM | Reply

That some can't see the problem with one company owning so many stations indicates either they are too stupid to see it or too dishonest to admit it. Democracy needs all voices to be heard, let's face the truth, the right is trying to monopolize the media. I don't care if you are a complete right wing person, if you are even slightly intelligent you would oppose monopolization too.

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI

I agree with you. I think it's a problem and quite possibly an anti-trust violation.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 04:42 PM | Reply

Careful Sinclair.

Fox News doesn't want anyone ---- riding Trump besides them.

#16 | Posted by Tor at 2018-04-11 05:20 PM | Reply

#9 true to righty form after screeching about paper tigers for years you act like a real problem is nothing.

There is nothing about the Sinclair situation that should be taken lightly, unless you want to be a hypocrite.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 09:24 PM | Reply

#12 why do you bother posting if you're just going to barf stupid drivel every post?

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 09:25 PM | Reply

#9 true to righty form after screeching about paper tigers for years you act like a real problem is nothing.
There is nothing about the Sinclair situation that should be taken lightly, unless you want to be a hypocrite.

#17 | POSTED BY JPW

Why cherry-pick?

Read #15, -------.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 09:26 PM | Reply

Also, as if you have ever given a ---- about media bias as long as your team benefitted...

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 09:27 PM | Reply

"Also, as if you have ever given a ---- about media bias as long as your team benefitted..."

You support Citizens United, where the benefit of using the public media and airwaves is auctioned off to the highest bidder.

So, if you ever don't favor a policy that favors the rich, it will be the first time.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

bogeyman

an imaginary evil spirit, referred to typically to frighten children.
"with the blankets pulled over our heads to keep out the bogeyman"

a person or thing that is widely regarded as an object of fear.
"nuclear power is the environmentalists' bogeyman"

Well, which one is it, JeffJ?
Or can your conservative mind not discern any difference between those two examples of real vs imagined fear?

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:33 PM | Reply

- about media bias as long as your team benefitted...

They LOVE, love, LOVE! media bias. as long as it benefits their team, or tickles ears.

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-11 09:33 PM | Reply

You support Citizens United...

#21 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I 100% support it. I 100% oppose government-sanctioned book-burning and government censorship. It's a 1st Amendment thingy.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 09:35 PM | Reply

#19 I comment as I read the thread. Should have finished this one first as it's not that long.

That being said, the issue is anti-trust (which is an issue, but not THE issue).

The issue is a media company that owns a large proportion of the media available across the country willing to brazenly control the information flow to the extend you can mash up anchors reading the exact same script from dozens (hundreds?) of stations across the country, all centered around talking points parroted by DOTUS.

It's the closest thing I've ever seen to an actual propaganda campaign and you guys act like your "liberal bias" bogeyman is worse.

So save me the sanctimonious "as if you have ever given a ---- about media bias as long as your team benefitted" garbage.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 09:38 PM | Reply

#24 drop the sanctimonious act, Jeff.

Restricting the influence of money in politics is hardly akin to book burning.

#26 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"100% oppose government-sanctioned book-burning and government censorship."

Auctioning the public airwaves is censorship, you just refuse to see that when the government makes rules to set the price of a ticket above what most people can pay, mot people have been censored.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:42 PM | Reply

"Restricting the influence of money in politics is hardly akin to book burning."

It might be fun to hear him explain why he 100% supports foreign corporations being allowed to spend money to influence our political sphere.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:44 PM | Reply

Restricting the influence of money in politics is hardly akin to book burning.

#26 | POSTED BY JPW

Yes it is. Our government made that argument when Alito asked a very pointed question.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 09:52 PM | Reply

It's the closest thing I've ever seen to an actual propaganda campaign and you guys act like your "liberal bias" bogeyman is worse.
So save me the sanctimonious "as if you have ever given a ---- about media bias as long as your team benefitted" garbage.

#25 | POSTED BY JPW

I agree it was bad. Absolutely agree. Of course, it was a pledge to fealty to the 'truth', much like FOX proclaims to be 'Fair and Balanced'.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 10:01 PM | Reply

#29 they argued that books could be restricted within the time frame of the current law.

And argument that isnt surprising nor unexpected given the nature of the law being argued and certainly an issue that could have been more narrowly ruled on. (It's also not the same as book burning BTW)

I'd have to read more, however, as the connection from that to nearly unbridled campaign contributions seems absurd.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 10:06 PM | Reply

#29 they argued that books could be restricted within the time frame of the current law.

Yeah, I know - any political book published within the (completely arbitrary) 60-day window could be mowed down Fahrenheit 451 -style with complete immunity...But CU preventing that from happening is the worst thing ever...striking down a book-burning statute than had been in existence for all of 8 years...

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 10:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It wasn't book burning Jeff. Quit the hysterics.

The material could be published the day after the election or, God forbid, 61 days before.

I'll gladly go back to that than the nonsense we have now.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 10:27 PM | Reply

It wasn't book burning Jeff. Quit the hysterics.
The material could be published the day after the election or, God forbid, 61 days before.
I'll gladly go back to that than the nonsense we have now.

#33 | POSTED BY JPW

So, within a 60-day time-window it was totally cool to burn books?

Please forgive me for going full Snoofy on you...My point is do you not see the slippery slope? What is so magical about 60 days? If SCOTUS were to bless 60 days why not 1459 days?

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 10:50 PM | Reply

"My point is do you not see the slippery slope?"

My point is do you not see how an auction favors the rich?
Once you can see that, tell us which slope is steeper.
Cite contemporary nations and how they manage their elections.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 10:52 PM | Reply

"What is so magical about 60 days?"

What is so magical about having to be 35 if you want to run for President?
What's so special about the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November?

Your question is not a very good one.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 10:55 PM | Reply

What is so magical about having to be 35 if you want to run for President?
What's so special about the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November?
Your question is not a very good one.

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

You are absolutely horrendous when it comes to equivalence. It's embarrassing to the point where I kind of feel bad for you.

I should have responded with the Ashton Stamp but pity and a devotion to the truth, no matter how uncomfortable, won...

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 10:59 PM | Reply

So, within a 60-day time-window it was totally cool to burn books?

I'm done until you drop the hyperbolic --------.

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 11:12 PM | Reply

The hyperbole is spot-n. You are advocating censorship and you can't square it with the 1st

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 11:14 PM | Reply

So, let's censor any book or movie that is critical of Trumpl 60 days before he is up for re-election?

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 11:16 PM | Reply

The hyperbole is spot-n. You are advocating censorship and you can't square it with the 1st

It's horse ---- meant to replace an actual argument.

As for the 1st, there isn't such a thing as an absolute right and censorship exists to some degree in many contexts.

So, let's censor any book or movie that is critical of Trumpl 60 days before he is up for re-election?

Along with everything else, sure. No special treatments or exceptions.

Did you expect me to say something different?

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 11:25 PM | Reply

It's horse ---- meant to replace an actual argument.
As for the 1st, there isn't such a thing as an absolute right and censorship exists to some degree in many contexts.

The 1st was enacted with the protection of political speech in mind.

You obviously are good with censorship within 60 days of an election. Where do you personally draw the line?

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 11:30 PM | Reply

The 1st was enacted with the protection of political speech in mind.

And given all the possible means of communicating and disseminating information in the digital age, this was a very narrow restriction for a very brief amount of time.

You obviously are good with censorship within 60 days of an election. Where do you personally draw the line?

Quit the broad strokes. You're making it sound like people were going to jail for attending the wrong candidate's rally or something.

BTW I draw the line at 60 days.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 11:43 PM | Reply

First amendment protects the citizens' speech and expression from government intervention and/or retaliation. That's it.

Even then, certain speech is still retaliated against vis-à-vis the government (e.g., screaming bomb on an airplane).

#44 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-04-12 02:08 AM | Reply

-Remove "Cheaters"

Tonight on Cheaters, the case of the Demented Dotard Diggler. We first meet up with our client "Melanie" as slovakian immigrant who met her husband in New York when she gave him a ------- in the back of his limo. She knew at the time he was already married, but he confessed his love to her and promised to change his ways "Yuggggeeely".

We begin active surveillance on our subject, a 71 year old man with an orange complexion, horribly cheap scalp reduction surgery who suddenly grew from 6 foot to 6 foot 2 inches on the golf course....

#45 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-12 08:11 AM | Reply

BTW I draw the line at 60 days.

#43 | POSTED BY JPW

Why 60? Why not 90? Or 180?

And given all the possible means of communicating and disseminating information in the digital age, this was a very narrow restriction for a very brief amount of time.

It's still government censorship and it's precisely why it was struck down.

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 09:29 AM | Reply

#12 | POSTED BY FISHPAW
Wait, have you been following the news on this at all? Or do you just listen to Hannity whine about Hillary all day?
And no one said shut it down. But certainly there should be a public uproar.
This kind of garbage is ironic given how you whine about the so-called "Liberal" MSM. I assume we'll NEVER need to hear you use that phrase again after this event with Sinclair.

#14 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2018-04-11 04:29 PM | FLAG:

Hey Dummy, try reading next time. Here it is again. Have someone else read it and then explain it to you.

1,2,3,4,5. You guys ever hear of the channel changing button on the remote? I don't agree with half of what is on on MSNBC or NBC's meet the Press but I still watch it (a little) to see where they are coming from. I don't think they should be off the air and cry like you to have their advertisers drop them. Grow up.

#7 | POSTED BY FISHPAW AT 2018-04-11 09:34 AM | FLAG:

#47 | Posted by fishpaw at 2018-04-12 10:24 AM | Reply

"I agree with you. I think it's a problem and quite possibly an anti-trust violation."

Wow Jeff! That is gratifying. To me it is the issue, not an issue. Right this minute we have a President threatening to send missiles into Syria and the Russian President saying that if we do he will attack the source of those missiles. That is war! And we don't know if the gas attack happened, who did it or anything because we can't really believe our corporate owned and controlled media any more. We need diversity in media so that we have many voices with many opinions from which we can choose the ones we think are most credible based on their history of reporting.

#48 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 10:58 AM | Reply

We need diversity in media so that we have many voices with many opinions from which we can choose the ones we think are most credible based on their history of reporting.

#48 | POSTED BY DANNI

I completely agree. We absolutely have a media problem in this country.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:18 AM | Reply

I completely agree. We absolutely have a media problem in this country.
#49

So you're against Sinclair's acquisition of Tribune Media?

#50 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2018-04-12 11:33 AM | Reply

Why 60? Why not 90? Or 180?

I've always liked 60. 18 more than 42 just feels right.

It's still government censorship and it's precisely why it was struck down.

Fine. For the sake of argument lets say I agree.

How then does the scope get broadened to the point where money=speech?

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-12 12:46 PM | Reply

"Why 60? Why not 90? Or 180?"

Why 35 to be President? Why not 50, or 25?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 09:54 PM | Reply

"We absolutely have a media problem in this country."

What does that even mean?
What is a "media problem?"
And if we have this problem, maybe you should explain how Citizen's United fits into it.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 09:55 PM | Reply

"You obviously are good with censorship within 60 days of an election. Where do you personally draw the line?
#42 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

You are obviously okay with censorship within 1000 feet of a polling place.
Where do you draw the line?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 09:56 PM | Reply

"I know - any political book published within the (completely arbitrary) 60-day window could be mowed down Fahrenheit 451 -style with complete immunity.."

The reason I asked you to look at other nations is it's pretty common to have a cooling-off period after the campaigning ends but before the election takes place.

Think of it as the time between when you're seated at the restaurant and the waiter tells you the specials, and then gives you some uninterrupted time to yourself to decide.

Democracy can function perfectly fine under those rules. You seem to think it can't. You're wrong.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 09:59 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort