Left vs Right John Oliver Fake News and Sinclair Broadcast Group Merger

Fake News: John Oliver and Sinclair Broadcast Group
Comedian John Oliver did a segment on Sinclair Broadcast Group, essentially asserting that the television behemoth had a conservative bias, which slanted news towards falsehoods and non-facts. Oliver’s criticisms of Sinclair arose during a time when the broadcast group was close to sealing the deal on a merger with Tribune Media, a deal which was worth just under $4 billion and which would have a significant impact in the consolidation of local television networks. This is the event that caused so much of the controversy, as some political commentators seemed to think this would cause alt-right messaging in local news profiles, whereas others dismissed it as a business as usual.
Oliver used his platform on his weekly HBO show to assert that the predominantly right-wing prejudice that Sinclair demonstrated, which he said rivaled that Fox News and Breitbart, was often riddled with lies—a statement that was made with repeated humorous jokes, but also clear examples directly from the media of attack ads riddled with falsehoods (Locker). For example, Oliver played a piece of local news originating from the Sinclair Group, which asserted that Obama had amassed over $750 million during one of his presidential campaigns and that Obama had never revealed where the money had originated. The ad supposed that perhaps this was because some of it was from the terrorist group Hamas. Clearly this ad used the word “might” and did not assert an outright lie; however, speculations such as these given over mass media channels could influence viewers: not everyone might understand that these statements are wild speculations and not being asserted as facts (Locker).
One of the major issues with the television conglomerate that Oliver was quick to point out was not merely that it was exceedingly conservative, “adding it wouldn't be a problem if ‘the opinions were confined to the commentary or the ad breaks.’ Oliver, though, said Sinclair steers the ideology and tone of broadcasts across the country on TV stations it owns. He said Sinclair distributes news scripts to its stations, one of which suggested the FBI’s investigation into President Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn was politically or personally motivated” (Breland). For example, Sinclair Media Group had local news broadcasters all over the nation reciting this piece of text into the homes of Americans all over the country. “Did the FBI have a personal vendetta in pursuing the Russian investigation against President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn?” Sinclair anchors wondered in front of camera rolling all across the nation (Breland). Oliver noted that one of the major issues with certain Sinclair segments is that some of them are presented to media stations as “must run” and that these segments are being run during local news: the key problem that Oliver noted is that none of these segments were presented as commentary, but as fact (Locker). The problems within this are obvious: opinions should not be presented as facts and delivered on a local format that people trust: it resembles a willful manipulation of the American public (Locker).
However, not everyone sees this as a danger; many view the merger as a routine business deal and find Oliver’s statements to amount to nothing more than hysterics (Smith). Consider the following summary: “The Right is gaining more platforms to deliver its take on the news, and this trend is posing a danger to the historically unbiased, nonpartisan, straight-down-the-middle reporting of the major media. Who says so? Why, John Oliver” (Smith). The argument here is clear: the major media is already biased and the bias that exists is often towards the left. Thus, by this argument there’s no harm in giving more right-leaning journalists a platform, if anything, it levels the playing field. For example, when it came to the “must run” segments that Oliver addressed, notably the ones that suggested the FBI had a vendetta against Michael Flynn, some political commentators don’t see this as anything newsworthy. Some found that Oliver’s “gotcha” moment where he pointed out that many local anchors addressed the story with the exact same words, was nothing noteworthy or of much significance. “Sometimes Sinclair stations conduct polls with questions slanted so as to nudge respondents toward a desired answer, a technique that is so common in the polling world you might as well call it ‘polling.’” (Smith). Hence, this position contends that Sinclair Media Group is not doing anything that most media outlets don’t already do: most media groups have an opinion and they find a way to communicate their bias to their viewers—just as those on the left do.
Yet others agree with Oliver’s opinions that Sinclair iron first via their “must run” segments could make them too powerful and too corrupt, spreading that influence around the nation. As one political commentator states: “Sinclair forces all of its stations to air a daily segment called ‘Terrorism Alert Desk.’ Its dubious coverage ranges from the Islamic State chainsaw-killing nine Iraqi teens (an unverified story even Breitbart reported skeptically); to an ISIL flag hanging at a New Hampshire home; to French legislation on burkinis” (Fessler). While Fessler did note that Oliver made the joke that by these standards, terrorism could be considered “anything a Muslim does”, there is a point being made here: loose definitions and manipulation of facts undermine the entire integrity of journalism and broadcasting and is an egregious assault on the American public.
Americans trust their local news sources, more than their national news outlets, which is precisely why the habits of Sinclair Broadcast Group is so concerning (National Memo). While many argue that today all sources of media have some sort of bias, local news reporters still perform crucial services and pivotal instances of investigative reporting. To many, the merger between Sinclair and the Tribune Media Group represents a move towards increasing control (National Memo). Other political commentators argue that this corporation has a history of engaging in shoddy journalism, regardless of whether one is liberal or conservative—by any standard, the broadcasting and journalism standards are flimsy. This is found in the hard-right clichés, the heavily slanted campaign coverage, and dubiously conducted polls (National Memo). When it comes to Mark Hyman, one of the commentators of the outlet, many journalists agree that Oliver is able to showcase his “unintentionally hilarious,” yet “idiotic remarks” (National Memo). “And recently the media giant hired Boris Epshteyn, a blustering Trump spokesman who has earned a ‘Pants on Fire’ ratings from Politifact” (National Memo). These remarks, while emotionally charged, demonstrate how forcing local stations to carry the commentaries of one’s right-leaning big bosses, takes a few disturbing steps towards something that resembles fascism.
In conclusion, while the merger of Sinclair Broadcast Group with Tribune Media Group was decreed by many as simply another business deal, many political commentators felt differently. There are several dominant opinions that Sinclair has conducted themselves with conservative extremism, and that their opinions are often flagrantly unsupported by facts. To those on the left, this is a problem because the merger suggests more power and a wider platform for Sinclair. However, others contend that since mass media is already largely left-leaning, it’s perfectly acceptable to permit conservatives to broadcast their opinions within local news formats. This side of the discussion believes the left is already doing this, so they should be able to level the playing field by mimicking this behavior.




















Works Cited

Breland, A. "John Oliver Hits Sinclair Broadcast Group for Conservative Bias." TheHill, 3 July 2017, thehill.com/policy/technology/340542-john-oliver-roasts-sinclair- medias-conservative-slant.
Fessler, L. "John Oliver's Last Week Tonight Exposes the Conservative Media Takeover of Local News — Quartz." Quartz, 3 July 2017, qz.com/1020401/john-olivers- last-week-tonight-exposes-the-conservative-media-takeover-of-local-news/. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
Locker, M. "John Oliver: Dangers of Corporations Taking Over Local News | Time.com." TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates, 2 July 2017, time.com/4843463/john-oliver-local-news-last-week-tonight/. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
National Memo. "#EndorseThis: John Oliver Reveals Invasive Idiocy Of Sinclair Broadcast Group." The National Memo, 5 July 2017, www.nationalmemo.com/john-oliver-reveals-invasive-idiocy-sinclair-broadcast/. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.
Smith, K. "John Oliver & Sinclair Broadcast Group: Calm Down, John." National Review, 6 July 2017, www.nationalreview.com/article/449260/john-oliver- sinclair-broadcast-group. Accessed 28 Sept. 2017.