Wikipedia

Talk:Sinclair Broadcast Group/Archive 1

< Talk:Sinclair Broadcast Group
Latest comment: 2 years ago by C933103 in topic "This is extremely dangerous to our democracy" listed at Redirects for discussion
Archive 1

Clear Channel's comparison to Sinclair

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's the point of this statement? "SBG has been compared to the radio conglomerate Clear Channel Communications (although it owns TV stations as well as radio stations)." Unless there is a reason offered, then it's a pointless comparison. One does TV and the other does TV and radio. In other words, that is about as comparable as any two media companies. Big deal. I'm deleting. Goeverywhere 23:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

TVX?

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does it seem like Sinclar owns most of the old TVX stations (such as WTVZ)? WAVY 10 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

SBGI's financial problems.

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While Sinclair Broadcast Group is in financial trouble and could file for bankruptcy protection, let's wait until the actual filing before saying they are in bankruptcy. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

News Operation/Website

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Whether or not a Sinclair station has a news operation adds a lot of information regarding that station's staff size and community involvement and is pertinent information under the Sinclair-Owned-Stations section.

Additionally, it is also useful to have links to the stations' websites on a Station Group page like this one.

Whoever deleted both these cells from the "Sinclair Owned Stations" table said the information was easily accessible via each individual stations' websites which was reason for "cleaning up the table". I'd argue that the benefit of this information being listed on the station group's Wikipedia page is in immediate access. Additionally, without providing a link to the websites, the information is much harder to come by. People come to Wikipedia for quick access to information. I've restored the cells to that table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.227.57 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That was me, and it is true. Those separate columns for "digital channel" and "virtual channel", as well as adding info for the stations' websites aren't needed here. The same goes for a column on whether or not the station has a news department. All of that information can be found in each of the stations' individual pages. It's too much for the main Sinclair article. It is always best to keep it simple. DreamMcQueen (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Split the station listing to a separate page?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was split. Jgera5 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Split. Although I would like to keep it all in one page, I wouldn't mind seeing the SBG one split. The station listing is getting bigger as acquisitions are being announced, and as they get approved/consummated the list will continue to grow. And if approved with the other pending deals, 18 more stations would be added to the list. So I think its best for that segment to be split. - Csworldwide1 (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The station is quite long now, so it is appropriately so to split it off. Spshu (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Support This discussion has been up long enough, I might work on it later this week when I have time. Jgera5 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sinclair Broadcast Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sinclair Broadcast Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of political programming section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

May an explanation be given regarding the deletion of the "Political programming" section? The whole section was deleted today (5/8/2017) by an unknown contributor who cited "politically motivated commentary." Has the section been moved to a separate article? Darrel M (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


David D. Smith

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Considering creating a separate article on David D. Smith. --Wikipietime (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Circa

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Where is the content regarding?

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-sinclair-circa-expansion-20170227-story.html

--Wikipietime (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I added--Wikipietime (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sinclair allegedly going to lose their Fox affiliation

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://deadline.com/2017/08/sinclair-broadcasting-shares-slip-report-fox-switch-affiliations-ion-media-1202141471/

Note this article suggests that if Fox signs a deal with ion for affiliation deals. Sinclair was named in this article specifically if Fox signs deal with ion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C400:775B:0:0:0:E5F6 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sinclair Broadcast Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sinclair Broadcast Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Split of Tribune buyout

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The subsection in itself is getting too big, and has attracted enough mainstream media attention that it warrants being expanded upon and split into its own article. A case could also be made on having Sinclair's history being split into its own article as well, but I want to focus on the Tribune deal. It's pretty much a done deal, but I still suggest adding "proposed" first since it hasn't been officially consummated yet.

Another reason for the split could be the FCC blatantly changing their regulations to favor Sinclair (although some could argue that the changes needing made are overdue anyways) and the changing media landscape as a whole, which could see more "Big Four" O&O's come out of it ultimately, if not the networks moving away from terrestrial television altogether. Thoughts? Jgera5 (talk) 15:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Haven't heard any comments and this posting was up for two weeks, so I went ahead and created a new article. Jgera5 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Parentheses

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came to this article after reading about Sinclair in the news. Pretty well researched and written. My main piece of feedback is that there are too many parentheticals, making it difficult to read. The parentheticals should be phased out and sentences should be broken up into smaller, more digestible pieces. I was thinking about tagging the article with {{copyedit}} but decided that might be overkill. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Sinclair Broadcast Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-sinclair-promo-20180405-story.html

https://www.dailynews.com/2017/05/08/why-a-sinclair-tribune-deal-could-be-bad-news-for-ktla5-employees-viewers-guest-commentary/

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/5/17202336/sinclair-broadcasting-promo-deadspin

Updates on the Sinclair issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:C4D3:BD4C:D118:1C18 (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Reason for notability

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think a prime aspect of Sinclair's notability is it being a threat to our democracy; this is well-referenced with numerous critics on both the left and right parts of the political spectrum (Dan Rather=mainstream; Joe Scarborough=>was GOP congressperson). The danger should be emphasized in the lede section; right now, it's buried near the bottom.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a WP:WEIGHT issue. The opinion that the Sinclair Broadcast Group is a threat to American democracy is held by some critics, but that's not why Sinclair is notable. Sinclair has been operating for 46 years and is a major force in local news operations across the country. I also don't think there's any argument to be made that Joe Scarborough represents either the GOP or conservatism in any capacity at all, although that's not all that relevant imho. The final sentence of the lede lays out the concerns of critics in direct reference to the journalistic responsibility promos, which is a sufficient summary. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"This is extremely dangerous to our Democracy."

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

All these local media outlets/channels becoming owned by one company? I wonder what this could mean. 2601:40D:4400:CE20:4147:B16D:78B8:DBF7 (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure of the origin of this video.

  • D (31 March 2018). "Sinclair's script for stations".

Here on 31 March a small YouTube account called D published this. I do not know if D made the video or if it came from elsewhere. Boing Boing linked to D's version on 1 April.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/112604/ksnvs-nd-defends-sinclairs-promo

Now a Las Vegas Sinclair News Director speaks up on the company video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:8394 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


https://deadspin.com/how-i-made-a-dumb-video-making-fun-of-sinclair-broadcas-1825106452

Now Deadspin staff member comes forward on why he made the Sinclair compilation video and supposedly initially for the dumbness of the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:54AE (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/112705/sinclair-stations-release-video-attacking-cnn

Update now Sinclair goes after CNN in a rant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.51.131.145 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@12.51.131.145: Could you please submit the content that you would like to put in the article? I don't think this is a place to leave various links with commentary. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sinclair on the Hot Seat over Jaime Allman's Rape threat on David Hogg

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/04/09/sinclair-commentator-resigns-after-threatening-to-sexually-assault-parkland-survivor-david-hogg/?utm_term=.fd305b99e8ef

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sinclair-host-resigns-threatening-assault-david-hogg-article-1.3924723

A new scandal has hit Sinclair over one of their pundits Jamie Allman calling for a rape threat on David Hogg according to the Washington Post and New york Daily news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.130.165 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


http://deadline.com/2018/04/sinclair-tv-host-quits-sexually-assault-david-hogg-parkland-activist-1202361411/


https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/09/david-hogg-sinclair-jamie-allman/501489002/


Update 4 Media outlets NY Daily News, Washington Post, Deadline and USA today specified that the Allman Report airs one one of Sinclairs stations out in St. Louis KNDL-TV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/columns/joe-holleman/jamie-allman-taken-off-his-kftk-talk-show-at-least/article_809ee913-14df-5fa0-9e84-f32e9cb243a0.html

https://radioinsight.com/headlines/167725/kftks-jaime-allman-creates-another-social-media-induced-headache-for-entercom/

Update now Jaime Allman's radio show is being affected by the David Hogg rant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)



My take here is the Fallout is going to escalate

http://www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/allman-report-canceled-after-tweet-about-school-shooting-survivor/63-536774826


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/04/09/sinclair-commentator-resigns-after-threatening-to-sexually-assault-parkland-survivor-david-hogg/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a8079f0e9f2d https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jamie-allman-sinclair-canceled-hot-poker-david-hogg/ https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/10/601117504/sinclair-tv-host-resigns-after-vulgar-tweet-threatening-parkland-survivor


More updates on the Jaime Allman scandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/a-conservative-commentator-has-resigned-after-tweeting?utm_term=.bp9l9led1l#.jxVpEpGzQp Update Buzzfeed is reporting that Jaime Allman radio show has terminated too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:B708 (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:B708: Could you please submit the content that you would like to put in the article? I don't think this is a place to leave various links with commentary. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sinclair Broadcast Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/382893-senators-ask-fcc-to-probe-sinclair-for-news-distortion-operation

http://deadline.com/2018/04/fcc-chairman-rejects-senators-request-review-sinclairs-broadcast-license-1202363588/

Update on the FCC review on Sinclair — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking to Amy Schumer twice in section

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I really don't think we need two links in the same section for Amy Schumer. --Malerooster (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

And do we really need to link to the word interview right after her name? Not sure that helps and I wouldn't link to it. --Malerooster (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Dual links are needed as per WP:IAR since some people read the text, while others only check out the images.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Huh. Needed? others only check out the images? Citing IAR over a trivial MOS duplicate link? This project is for grown ups. Please stop. Also, why was it necessary to link "interview"?--Malerooster (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Your statement above ("for grown ups") is a personal attack. So is calling another contributor dumb. I've given rational arguments for the wikilinks; all you've offered is ad hominem attacks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok fine, then see WP:CIR. Also what was the rational argument for this?--Malerooster (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE level of merge

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

An AFD discussion was held and consensus was to merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group. This does not mean that the entire contents of that article belong here. Reading through the comments of that AFD, it is clear that the consensus is that this boycott info needs to be stripped of POV and deserves only a proportional weight in comparison to the main story (the "integrity videos"). Probably not more than one paragraph. In addition, the inclusion of a certain external link for "Boycott Sinclair Broadcasting" is against WP:NPOV and WP:LINKSTOAVOID, being that it is primary an activist website, not an informational one. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, you put Boycott of Sinclair Broadcasting Group up for deletion. The decision by Szzuk was merge not delete. When I merged the content (removing duplications), you undid the merge, effectively deleting the boycott article. Come on. Please play by the rules and restore the merged content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I closed the AfD and I'm comfortable with the merge consensus - we're now into an editorial dispute in which I won't directly intervene. However I can see both points of view - having no merged content appears to be against the spirit of the close but having it all may appear Undue. My suggestion as a compromise is to have 2 paragraphs. Szzuk (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
All this talk of a boycott hit the press and died out within the span of about April 1-4. The only sources after that timeframe you added mentioning the boycott were "letters to the editor" from non-journalists - not reliable sources and not NPOV. That poor sourcing, overkill on length, and the external activism link, point toward more of a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS than to report on this subject with appropriate WP:WEIGHT and neutrality. -- Netoholic @ 22:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The 40% contract penalty by Sinclair

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sinclair-making-employees-sign-highly-problematic-contracts-legal-experts-say?source=articles&via=rss

http://www.dailyherald.com/business/20180403/sinclair-employees-say-contracts-make-it-too-expensive-to-quit

Here are 2 updates from Daily Herald and the Daily Beast These 2 outlets are reporting that the reason Sinclair employees can't speak up on the issues involving their leaders Scott Livingston, David D. Smith and their News Directors is because of the penalties written in their talent contracts.


https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/4/5/17202336/sinclair-broadcasting-promo-deadspin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:429F:87FF:FE0B:3663 (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


https://www.buzzfeed.com/stevenperlberg/sinclair-climate-change?utm_term=.qxEpLMx9PQ#.qig8pR7wXM

More employees come forward on Sinclair's business practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:0:0:0:8C2F (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Rumors that Sinclair will compete against Fox News

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sinclair-laying-groundwork-fox-news-competitor-1114176

An Article in the Hollywood Reporter is indicating that Sinclair Officials are attempting to Challenge Fox News for Right Wing audiences. and its being speculated due to the Tribune/Sinclair Deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:8270:90F7:1BFC:C8BA:43CE (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SBG (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Plandemic

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The article should include how this organization is pushing provably untrue conspiracy theories about the coronavirus: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/sinclair-fauci-conspiracy-bolling/index.html . Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. starship.paint (talk) 09:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It appears this interview never actually aired on television, despite being posted online.[1][2][3] Video of the segment was posted to local Sinclair websites last week before its planned airing over the weekend. The videos have since been pulled and people trying to access them on local Sinclair websites are met with error pages.[4] More importantly, does it actually warrant discussion in this article, let alone its own devoted subheading? WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROPORTIONATE and WP:VNOTSUFF should be studied. My opinion is that it warrants at most a brief mention, if at all, in this article, and not its own subheading. Many sources reported on plans to air the interview on TV, but breaking news stories are considered primary sources and may be unreliable, even if many outlets report on it (see WP:RSBREAKING), especially when they report on what people or companies plan or hope to do, and should be replaced by subsequent sources more removed from the event that verify and contextualize what actually happened (WP:AGE MATTERS). This section misleadingly ends with "Sinclair delaying the television release of the interview by around a week" and implies it would go ahead with airing the segment with "additional context", based largely on breaking news. I also question the logic of nesting the subsection under "Political views". I recognize the COVID-19 pandemic personally affects virtually everyone in the world (including, especially, Wikipedians) which makes evaluating recentism and relevance difficult. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Michor, Max (3 August 2020). "Disgraced Nevada researcher behind Fauci COVID-19 conspiracy theory". Las Vegas Review-Journal.
  2. ^ Klepper, David (30 July 2020). "How a vocal minority is keeping coronavirus hoaxes alive". Christian Science Monitor. Associated Press.
  3. ^ Johnson, Ted (27 January 2021). "Sinclair Broadcast Group Ending Eric Bolling's Show 'America This Week'". Deadline.
  4. ^ Darcy, Oliver (27 July 2020). "Sinclair drops segment featuring conspiracy theory about Fauci". CNN.

Cuts in and out

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why can't I get you channel in in Bremen it cuts in and out and I am only 20 miles from south bend cuts out on a clear day 174.240.251.39 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"This is extremely dangerous to our democracy" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect This is extremely dangerous to our democracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#This is extremely dangerous to our democracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. C933103 (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinclair_Broadcast_Group/Archive_1&oldid=1247257615"