I don’t think you understand the significance of the Sinclair bit, or why it’s worrisome. Comparing this to the Valentine’s Day compilation, for example, exposes your ignorance. Obviously large corporations own news stations; this is not surprising. It’s also not surprising that they will sometimes use the same pre-written verbiage or the same packages; that is also common.

What’s different about the Sinclar thing is that it was politically-related (its goal was to denigrate mainstream reporting/journalism) and there was seemingly a lot of pressure to air them.

I don’t know how you can compare such a thing to the other clips you’ve used in this piece; those are fluff pieces, not political pieces, and there was probably not pressure to air them; the decision to use boilerplate copy that the network recommended was probably just a decision to save time/effort.

Your attempt to equate these things makes me assume you have a hidden bias/agenda, and are trying your best to make it seem that this Sinclar thing is no big deal. Your use of ‘disturbing’ to describe the Christmas compilation adds to the evidence that you are clearly trying to create a false equivalency between silly (probably voluntarily run) content and politicized, highly-pressured-to-run content.

Have psych podcast “People Who Read People.” My research into online deception featured in NYT, WaPo, more. Wrote books on poker tells (translated 8 languages).

Have psych podcast “People Who Read People.” My research into online deception featured in NYT, WaPo, more. Wrote books on poker tells (translated 8 languages).