Forum Thread

Sinclair Broadcasting

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 31 - 37 of 37 Prev 1 2 3
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Schmidt Wrote:

    her words were taken out of context to imply she was a Goldwater supporter in the 1990s.

    I didn't read the passages that way, but I guess someone might. However, they would also have to think that Martin Luther King---whom schoolchildren know was shot dead in the 60s---disapproved of Barry Goldwater's 90s campaign.

    There's no need to make the misleading implication, in any case. It's surely bad enough that, though she was no longer a Goldwater supporter in the 90s, she was proud of having been one.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    As a 16 year old high school girl in 1964, I doubt very much that Hillary Rodham [Clinton] was a scholar of libertarian economic philosophy. Could it be then that maybe she liked Goldwater because he was very much "pro-choice" on women's issues, and that he was also very much a proponent of the separation of church and state?

    Remember that the Roe v Wade ruling of the Supreme Court wasn't made until 1973, and until then "back ally abortions".

    Huffington Post: The Bad Old Days: Abortion in America Before Roe v. Wade

    Hillary is just one year younger than me, and the 1960s were tumultuous times. The criminalization of abortions was on the minds of young women, but it didn't make the daily headlines of the war in Vietnam. Here's a chant from my time: "Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?" I have classmates who died in that war. It kind of changes your perspective. I hated LBJ at the time.

    "Make love, not war" was another chant from those days.

    For teenagers like Hillary Rodham in 1964, the Goldwater's stand on being pro-choice is perhaps no different than the Parkland High school kids identifying with candidates and politicians who are anti-NRA.

    For me, I love that Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency but that doesn't make me "Nixonian" any more than being a "Goldwater Girl" made Hillary a libertarian.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    That Hillary Rodham was a Goldwater girl at 17 is understandable and entirely forgivable. She was young. No reasonable person should judge the adult for things she did before she even came of age.

    What people object to is that she said, in the 90s, that she was "proud" to have been a Goldwater girl three decades earlier. Given that Goldwater is primarily remembered as having run against civil rights, that's an odd thing for a 90s Democrat to say. Unless, as her critics allege, she was intending to dog whistle the racist element.

    In the context of the Clintons' good ol' campaign strategies, that's not a crazy suggestion. Recall that one of the most notorious moments in the '92 Clinton campaign was when, as part of a staged photo op, Bill and several other white dignitaries stood in front of rows of subjugated black prisoners at Stone Mountain, the birthplace of the KKK.

    If that was not an attempt to dog whistle racists, then I ain't ever seen one. Can you even imagine if Trump posed for that photograph?

    The white bigot was clearly seen by Mr Clinton as a winnable vote. It's not outlandish to imagine that his wife's references to her "proud" Goldwater past were part of the same strategy.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Tribune Media, nixed a buyout plan proposed by Sinclair yesterday, a good thing because right wing hardliners were going to turn the stations they would have acquired into their type of media, (hard right)

    The Tribune is considered itself to be right wing or right leaning, at least their newspaper is. Maybe Sinclair wasn't the "right" type of organization they wished to be owned by?

    But Sinclair will still be trying to buy up other television and radio stations when opportunity knocks, all stations need to show is that they're in dire financial trouble, and Sinclair will gobble those up easily.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    In a victory for "the good guys", the FCC just levied a fine of $48 million against Sinclair due to its ill-fated acquisition attempt of Tribune Media stations in 2018. That deal — valued at $3.9 billion — was scrutinized at the time by FCC commission chair Ajit Pai, and the agency formally referred the proposed acquisition to an administrative judge hearing. They also called into question whether some of Sinclair's divestments in the deal were a "sham."

    The FCC indicated the previous record civil penalty for a broadcaster was in 2007 — a $24 million penalty paid by Univision.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Well see, you're better connected than I. But, I did discover 9 or 10 NEW channels over the air, all are Christian operated, yay. One of those channels aired this movie a few days ago. A damn good flick, who knows why those chose to air it???

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Yes, the Trump mafia works in strange ways; now the election is on the horizon, of course he wants more propaganda.

    Even better if you can do such via the "evangelical channels" then your lies "sounds" more "convincing" because "Jesus" approved it.