Wednesday, April 4, 2018

Sinclair Broadcasting is a threat to Democracy

Image result for Sinclair broadcasting

"Sinclair Broadcast Group — a conservative, Trump-friendly television empire — is poised to become one of the most powerful players in the mainstream media. The relatively unknown company, whose stations have mixed conservative commentary with local news, is now on the verge of a deal that would allow it to reach nearly three-quarters of American households." [1]
Trump cleared the way for this propaganda coup by relaxing regulations broadcast ownership.  This was on May 8,2017 after that Sinclair bought Tribune media company giving them 42 stations upon which to broadcast Trump propaganda. [2]

This move was only thought about when Guo's article was published lat year,  since that time it has came to pass and Sinclair is now the nations largest fleet of tv news outlets.[3] The empire is now 200 stations. [4] "So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased. Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke," Trump tweeted. [5]

Sinclair has been criticized for the propagandist tone of it;s "news." The broadcast terrorist alert, right wing commentary,  "classic propaganda and will reach three quarters of US households."Epshteyn’s softball interviews with administration officials and brusque commentaries are slavishly pro-Trump; a Baltimore Sun columnist wrote that the segments are “as close to classic propaganda as anything I have seen in broadcast television in the last 30 years.”[6] The terrorism alerts serve no purpose other than to create a climate of fear. Pam Vogel of Media matters for America watched 200 such spots only to find:

Conservative TV news giant Sinclair Broadcast Group wants its local viewers to be constantly petrified of an impending terror attack by Muslim immigrants and refugee...Terrorism Alert Desk segments actively reinforce far-right, xenophobic narratives about terrorism by almost exclusively focusing on stories involving Islam in some way, baselessly suggesting ISIS connections to breaking-news incidents, and providing vague soundbites with little information that nonetheless suggest that a “foreign” (brown, Muslim) terrorist lurks around every corner. They also cheer on law enforcement activity indiscriminately, hyping arrests even when suspects were later released without charges and obsessing over preventative security measures like bulletproof walls around the Eiffel Tower. In the absence of anything of quasi-substance to report, the segments resort to generalized fearmongering about things like ISIS graffiti being found in a New York subway station or even isolated, scary incidents that the reporters admit aren’t believed to be terrorism-related at all. After watching the more than 200 Terrorism Alert Desk segments that aired last year, I’m now sure these segments aren’t just the result of journalistic malpractice or sloppiness. They’re a tool strategically designed to make people feel constantly scared -- [7]
Sinclair had all the anchors on all it;s stations read the same statement of propaganda, these have been collected and played at the same time so one can hear them all in uinision:[8]

John Oliver made an hilarious video demonstrating the  propagandist aspects, [9]

This move of Sinclair's is an extreme is an extreme threat to our democracy. If one thinks "fake news" can't swing an election a new study shows it did, The 2016 election was swung to Trump because of his own fake news. While he is labeling real news media as "fake" he is dishing out propaganda garbage which of course is really fake news.
Researchers at Ohio State University, finds that fake news probably played a significant role in depressing Hillary Clinton's support on Election Day. The study, which has not been peer-reviewed but which may be the first look at how fake news affected voter choices, suggests that about 4 percent of President Barack Obama's 2012 supporters were dissuaded from voting for Clinton in 2016 by belief in fake news stories.[10]
Richard Gunther, Paul A. Beck and Erik C. Nisbet used three stories from  the 2016 campaign and administered a huge questionnaire to 585 Obama supporters 23% of whom did not vote for Hilary, a quarter of the Obama supporters beloved at least one of the stories. Of those who believed the stories 45% voted for Clinton, for those who did not believe the stories 79% voted for her.[11] Now I can see the methodological flaw in that there is no way to control for the chicken or the egg; did they believe the stories because their support was soft,or did they fail to vote for her because they believed the stories? But if we don't assume the stories bare some of the blame why do we we bother to campaign?

Local news is the most trusted source of information,according to Pew Research. [12]
Trump has been going after the media all the way, it's all fake, only he can be believed.  The only valid sources of information are those that back him, Even when the facts are obliviously against him he is the only one to believe,This is just like every major dictator, the ministry of information is the propaganda arm of any dictatorship and Sinclair is setting up the Trump's ministry of information.This is a clear and present danger to our democracy:

The right reason to oppose this deal [media merger] is that Sinclair’s size and market dominance already threatens the open marketplace of ideas upon which our democracy depends. Allowing Sinclair to combine with another media giant would only make the threat worse.
Sinclair is so large that it would have been illegal throughout most of the 20th century. Into the 1980s, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) enforced strict limits on the number of broadcast stations that one company could own. The so-called “rule of seven” blocked any company from owning more than seven AM, seven FM, and seven TV stations.
The merger that allowed Sinclair to buy the other stations is a dune deal. The only thing we can do now to block the effectiveness of Trump propaganda is to boycott Sinclair's stations, contact any group like Idivisable, or daily action or any resistance group and urge them to organize a boycott.see FN 7.


[1] Jeff Guo "The Immanent Conservative Takeover of Local tv News,Explained" Vox, (May 15,2017)
(accessed 4/3/18)

[2] Ibid.

[3] Andy Kroll, "Ready for Trump TV? Inside Sinclair Broadcasting's Plot to take Over Your Local News." Mother Jones (Nov.December 2017).
(accessed 4/3/18)

[4] Meghan Keneally, "Trump Defends Sinclair as Media Company Takes Fire for False news Scripts." ABC news (April 3, 2018).
(accessed 4/3/18)

[5] Andy Kroll. Mother Jones, Op cit.

[6] Ibid

[7] Pam Vogel, "Sinclair's Terrriosm Alert Desk Segments are Designed to Gin Up Xenaphobia Via local news," Media Matters for Ameirca, blog (March 1, 2018 ). (accessed 4/3/18)
(accessed 4/3/18)

Vogel is education program director at Media matters, She has an MA in Sociology from Columbia University and BA in urban studies from Vassar. "Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation - news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda - every day, in real time."

Media Matters for America
PO Box 52155
Washington, DC 20091
(202) 756-4100

[8] "Sinclair's Script for Stations." Video, (March 31, 2018).
(accessed 4/3/18)

[9] John Oliver, "Sinclair Broadcast Group,last Week Tonight." Video You tube, pbsliohed July 2017
(accessed 4/3/18)

[10] Aaran Blake, "A New Study Suggests Fake News May have won Donald trump the 2016 Election," Washington Post (May 3,2018)
(accessed 4/3/18)

[11] Ibid

Here are the false stories, along with the percentages of Obama supporters who believed they were at least “probably” true (in parenthesis):
  1. Clinton was in “very poor health due to a serious illness” (12 percent)
  2. Pope Francis endorsed Trump (8 percent)
  3. Clinton approved weapons sales to Islamic jihadists, “including ISIS” (20 percent)
[12]AMY MITCHELLJEFFREY GOTTFRIEDMICHAEL BARTHEL AND ELISA SHEARER, "The Modern News Consumer." Pew Research Center, Study, (Feb 2017).
(accessed 4/3/18)

(accessed 4/3/18)

Tuesday, April 3, 2018

We have to win the mid terms. The really dark times are coming will be here soon.Trump is preparing to go into dictator mode. We have to win the mid terms it may be our last chance, Freedom may no longer be possible if we don't.

Trump is already been accepted as president.He's accepted as the norm, His outrage don't outrage anymore. You are a real crack pot if you still hold out, as I do, for the idea that he should not be in the office. There will be no impeachment we can't rely on Muller, Because the reps have control over that process, Political battle is now seen as disunity. it's perpetuating the conflict. Now I agree we have to have principles in the way we oppose Trump,We can;t hate,we can't express unreasoning hatred against those who disagree with us politically.

Please go all out to win the mid terms. Do all that you possibly can. Volunteer, work in a campaign, talk to your friends, make phone calls argue on face book. Do all you can. Be sure and get yourself to the polls. Vote early, share this a lot.

Sunday, April 1, 2018

The President's First Duty

this is by a friendofmine who teaches philosophy at a University, This was from his blog Dagerous Idea,


The President's FIRST duty is to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States. That comes before nominating pro-life justices, or cutting taxes, or supporting Israel, etc. Unless you have been looking at him through Fox-colored glasses, I think the answer concerning Trump is overwhelmingly NO. It was bad enough that many Christian leaders supported him at election time, but I think I can understand it up to a point. At that time there was the contrast with Hillary. With respect to his extramarital relationships, I think we have the right to ask him to just come clean, and either tell the country that he doesn't think he has a duty to be a faithful husband because he has considers that requirement to be an outdated religiously-based prudish moral rule, or to say that he is deeply repentant for the disrespect for marriage, in word and deed, that he has shown in the past and that he has amended his behavior in the meantime. This is especially true for Christians who look to a Republican President to support traditional marriage and who find same-sex marriage to be a treat to that institution. Don't such Christians have a right to know if the President they are supporting respects the institution of marriage as they understand it? And shouldn't such Christians demand such answers from the President they support? 

Someone willing to make a payment of amount a few times my annual salary to keep someone silent is someone who is liable to be blackmailed by a foreign government to keep other improprieties quiet. His ability to put the American people first and uphold the Constitution has to therefore be questioned. 

Evangelical leaders are getting up on TV and giving Trump a whole bunch of breaks that they wouldn't give Clinton or any other previous President. Worse yet they focus on the actual affair, when the attempt, in violation of campaign finance laws, to keep someone from talking about the affair is far more serious. And if he has people out making threats of physical violence, this is worse. 

I am tired of hearing that the public policy bottom line is all that matters. A President who can't uphold the rule of law, who is so compromised that we can expect nothing but scandal after scandal, is someone who the American people will sooner or later turn against. I liked a lot of John Edwards' public policy proposals. But his character was so compromised that I would be far more comfortable with Mitt Romney in the White House than him. I think those who voted for Trump should have seen the handwriting on the wall when they voted for him back in 2016, but this constant talk of "mulligans" and "we believe in forgiveness" is nauseating and with a lot of people yes, it damages the credibility of Christianity. The Franklin Grahams and Tony Perkinses, not to mention Paula White, who says its a sin to oppose our President since God raises up kings, (How come we didn't hear that when Obama was in office), yes, they do give opponents of Christianity ammunition. 

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

The Truth About Guns and American Values

Feature Image

There is some deep pathology in this country, People need to feel the power of gun ownership and they are parred to slow children to die and disease to run rampant before they will give up any guns of any kind. This is why we lack a knowledge of basic solutions to gun problems because we are not permitted to seek solutions, We live in an unfree society because gun ownership is more important to Americans than children's lives, or is it that it's more important to the values of those with the money, those who own the means of production those who own congress?

American society is unfree, we are Prohibited by law from seeking solutions!

Erin Dooley, "Here's Why The Federal Government Can't Study Gun Violence.ABC News, (Oct 6, 2017, 2:17)
(accessed 2/27/18)

Passed in 1997 with the strong backing of the NRA, the so-called "Dickey Amendment" effectively bars the national Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from studying firearm violence -- an epidemic the American Medical Association has since dubbed "a public health crisis."
The amendment, which was first tucked into an appropriations bill signed into law by President Bill Clinton, stipulates that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." A similar provision was included in the Appropriations Act of 2012.
NRA" on The Hill -- the Dickey amendment does not explicitly ban CDC research on gun violence. But along with the gun control line came a $2.6 million budget cut -- the exact amount that the agency had spent on firearm research the year prior -- and a quiet wariness.
As one doctor put it, "Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear ... but no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out.

Studies prove Gun availability does not reduce crime and does ensure killing.

Melinda Wenner Moyer, "More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows.." Scientific
American (Oct 1, 2017) 
(accessed 2/27/18)

  • The claim that gun ownership stops crime is common in the U.S., and that belief drives laws that make it easy to own and keep firearms.
  • But about 30 careful studies show more guns are linked to more crimes: murders, rapes, and others. Far less research shows that guns help.
  • Interviews with people in heavily gun-owning towns show they are not as wedded to the crime defense idea as the gun lobby claims.
Guns took more than 36,000 U.S. lives in 2015, and this and other alarming statistics have led many to ask whether our nation would be better off with firearms in fewer hands. Yet gun advocates argue exactly the opposite: that murders, crimes and mass shootings happen because there aren't enough guns in enough places. Arming more people will make our country safer and more peaceful, they say, because criminals won't cause trouble if they know they are surrounded by gun-toting good guys.

Studies were Langley by Arthr Kellermann and associates the 80s ad 90s.

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not [read More]

The article includes a huge amount of really important statistics and information on studies,

Psychology of Gun Ownership offers insight into the value System That Chooses Death Over Children

Society for Personality and Social Psychology, "U.S. Handgun Ownership Motivated by Two Main Factors," (June 8, 2017)
(accessed 2/27/18)
The motivation to own a handgun for self-protection is not just about fear of crime, according to the model proposed by Wolfgang Stroebe and Pontus Leander (University of Groningen, The Netherlands), and Arie W. Kruglanski (University of Maryland), it is also about a more general sense of threat emanating from “the belief that the world is an unpredictable and dangerous place and that society is at the brink of collapse.” These dual layers of threat also predict beliefs that people have the right to shoot and kill in self-defense and that people should have broad 2nd Amendment rights. [Read More]
From a fairly unbiased source we can see racism is mixed up in the issue of gun ownership. A lot of whites want guns because they fear blacks having guns.

Kelly O'Brian, et al. "Racism Gun Ownership and Gun Control, Biased Attitudes in U.S. Whites..."
PLOS one, open access peer reviewed journal NCBI--PMC, US National Library of Medicine /National Institutes of Health
(accessed 2/27/18)

Originally . 2013; 8(10): e77552.
Published online 2013 Oct 31. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0077552
After accounting for all explanatory variables, logistic regressions found that for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home. After also accounting for having a gun in the home, there was still a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns, for each one point increase in symbolic racism. The relationship between symbolic racism and opposition to banning handguns in the home (OR1.27 CI 1.03,1.58) was reduced to non-significant after accounting for having a gun in the home (OR1.17 CI.94,1.46), which likely represents self-interest in retaining property (guns).[more]

The Article points out that after the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s began advocating that blacks arm themselves and white conservatives began glamouring for stricter gun laws, resulting in The Mulford Act in California (1967). collision : "Symbolic racism was related to having a gun in the home and opposition to gun control policies in US whites."

Republican Senators* at (844) 241-1141 

Friday, February 23, 2018

Trump's Attitudes

On BS this morning this morning they were talking about the things Trump said in the listening session with the survivor kids. One thing I noticed is that he made many excuses why such shootings are grog more commonplace but none of them involved the availability of guns,I think there is a serious pathology in this country with those who need to keep buying guns,
A lot of Trump's excesses revolved around blaming the mentally ill, He showed lots of old fashioned prejudices agaisnt the mentally ill. He has the really stupid idea that there aren't enough mental institutions, Those are an antiquated concept there aren't enough services for the mentally ill but institutions are not among them. Trump amuses metal illness is like the old man jokes one is just possessed with irrational violence and madness. The vast majority of mentally ill people are not violet and the availability of guns is an obvious factor.

Monday, January 29, 2018

Open letter to the resistance and to anyone who care about democracy,

There is a massive Republican counter attack going on. This consists of two major moves: (1) undermine Muller and FBI; (2) massive propaganda campaign around the Trump economy,
They are attacking the fact definers, building implications of the "deep state" (conspiracy theory) trying to undermine the FBI. In the propaganda battle there is a huge influx of Trupies
on face book chopping away at all the economic statesmen against Trump trying the focus on the rise in the stock market and the supposed reinvestment of business in U,S. due to the tax cut.
We have to challenge these. We can;t let them undermine the move tum for the mid terms. Trump has come up a couple points in approval. Their ploys are working, Two tings to do.
(1) Call congressman and demand that they support Muller. Support the investigation om Russia, (2) Don;t respond to them on face book with stuff like "your brains are farting out your butt" give factual rebuttals and stick to the point until they go away, You can find all the facts you need to argue with on my site Resistance is not Futile.
this is very important please shire this will everyone you know please take this seriousness