The unofficial official "SMMFH" thread

Sinclair has a small presence at this point.
Their Boston station has no political programming and only has a 10 pm newscast.
They have shows like Maury Povich, Pawn Stars, and Jerry Springer.
To say that their stations can reach 72% of the viewers is meaningless if people aren't tuning in.
As of yet, they are a very small voice.
It's just that the libs don't like them so they're portraying them as a threat.

 

Is you're going to say it's not true, give the correct numbers.

It's very relevant against claims that fair content on Trump can't reach TV viewers because all the mainstream media are against him.

 

OK, I was not clear enough and made the assumption that everyone would know "the media" was referring to the mainstream media that the majority of the country consumes. Please substitute "the majority of the mainstream media" everywhere that I referred to "the media". And I have never heard of The Sinclair Group but when I looked at their channel lineup it became very apparent why I had not heard of them. Wrestling, tennis and local stations with dimly lit studios and ugly reporters and anchor people is the impression I got.

 

Why don't you give meaningful numbers instead of a bullshit percentage number that means nothing?
You're the one claiming they have some presence here.

 

Just because it means nothing to you doesn't mean the numbers are meaningless. I realize that anything outside New England doesn't exist to you, but their absence from Boston doesn't make them as insignificant as you try to portray them. There is a whole lot of USA outside your area. So far, the only number you've given is "small." You're not exactly in a position to demand better research from anyone.

I gotta tell you, I was watching a clip earlier today that showed newscasts from several of their stations. They clean up pretty well when they're done talking about wrestling and tennis. One would have thought they were just like any other local news team.

 

I forgot you're an authority on the USA also.
When was it you were here last?

 

I used to work for Tribune Media and have knowledge of things related to broadcast licensing, what strings Sinclair has pulled with the FCC on avoiding/sidestepping the rule that an owner can not have licenses covering more than 39% of the US population.

But these days, people choose their beliefs, then focus on finding information to support that belief, rather than being open to other possibilities of fact.

I realize that for each individual, their perception is their reality. I just wish more people would expose themselves to ideas/opinions outside what they already believe.

 

I would be absolutely shocked if you've seen more of the US than I have. You should be embarrassed and just shut up.

 

So traveling in the USA years ago makes you an expert on current events?
What a massive ego.

 

Well, I saw that you had switched the discussion to bring up irrelevant points, so I followed. Don't start something you're not equipped to finish, Magellan.

(And I'm not just talking travel. I'm talking about living in more states/towns than you have in the US.)

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/1...ill-have-to-work-hard-and-avoid-drinking.html

So students are triggered because they will have to work hard? Color me shocked.

My wife and I were at a sushi joint last night that is close to Stetson. Some students walked in and were still talking in their "outside" voice. One of the students was complaining how stressful pledge week was. I just laughed. These kids are in for a rude awakening when they get to the real world.

 

I forwarded this to my daughter who is in her Sr. year of a Physics / Astronomy degree. Her opinion is the professor is correct and that the students that are protesting and whining are too stupid to pass and will likely drop out within the first year. But this is also the same girl that told the "women are downtrodden on campus" group to go to the admin building and ask for their tuition money back because obviously the education was not working for them.

 

OoooooooooooK?!?!?

 

I think they need mental help rather than jail.

 

I swore I wasn't going to do your research for you but here it is.
Here are the Sinclair stations, their map. Find it here, it's interactive.



This is the list of markets ranked large to small. You can use that interactive map to see which DMA each station is in, or where it falls on the list. You can find it here.



Note that Sinclair has no presence in 9 of the top ten markets, but the one they are in is DC.
They aren't any competition in the large markets, they have been amassing mom and pop stations.
Let's take a massive market like CA as an example.
They have stations in Redding, Fresno, and Bakersfield.
Total possible viewership in CA is 984,440 TV households. What a powerhouse!
You'll notice that LA, where they have no stations, accounts for 5.476 million TV households.

Saying that Sinclair has access to a certain percentage of TV households does not mean that those households are watching Sinclair stations. Other stations exist and compete in the same market.

While Sinclair has a conservative bent, they do not produce any appreciable amount of conservative programming. Without original programming, they have very little effect.
In short, when it comes to being a conservative voice in US media, Sinclair is currently a small fish.
You've just been misled into thinking otherwise because they have the potential to be another Fox network and certain forces want to nip that in the bud.
Sinclairs largest number of affiliate stations are Fox stations, btw, so any conservative programming on those stations would be shown to people who are already watching Fox stations.

There are your numbers.

 

I thought you were talking about this:

 

She did too.

 

So why did you? I didn't spend the past few days waiting for you to support your case. I was perfectly fine with where we left this.

I said: "And it will only get bigger if their $4 billion offer the by Tribune Media goes through and gives them access to markets they are not currently in, like Pittsburgh or Philadelphia. They would be able to reach 72% of viewers…"

That not only acknowledges that there are large markets where they are not currently present, but it also makes it pretty clear that the 72% coverage is what will happen if the merger goes through. I'm not sure which part was confusing to you.

Access to those households is the important part here. You can't compete where you have no access. I said: "It's very relevant against claims that fair content on Trump can't reach TV viewers…"
I never said, or even remotely implied, that everyone would want to watch it.

I'm not sure what falls into your classification of "original programming" but I was talking about the news, which seems to be the main focal point of people complaining about liberal bias on TV and fake news. They do have stations broadcasting local news, with some editorialized content coming from the corporate level.

Now, the best part: when did you drive to all to cities to get the information? I mean, your presence in the US makes your research more credible, right? So it can't possibly be numbers you got from the Internet.