I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pro-slavery". But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b...
Sinclair also used their size and connections to the conservative movement to get FCC commissioners who would repeal rules on concentrated ownership of local TV stations.
Ownership of media outlets used to be a big topic of concern in the US. Who owns media outlets is going to be one of the defining issues of our future.
> But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans.
That is an oversimplification.
What happened is that overtly racist policies fell out of favor. People talk about structural racism today, but nobody can say with a straight face that it's the same now as it was in the days of Jim Crow laws.
By the 1960s the Democrats saw the writing on the wall. The political winds were changing and they adjusted their sail. But supporting Jim Crow had been how Democrats got elected in the south. By voting with the Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act, they alienated all the old racists who voted for them specifically to prevent that from happening.
The south was ready to skin them and eat them at that point. The Republicans weren't too stupid to realize that. All they had to do to take the south was to show up and be Not The Democrats.
Some racists (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties, but in general the Republicans were never as racist as the Democrats historically were. They didn't have to be. Popular support for racism has been on the decline for more than a hundred years, and the remaining racists no longer trusted the Dems so the Republicans never had to give them anything or even really promise to give them anything to get their votes.
It's not so much that the Republicans flipped as that the racists lost and that redrew the electoral map.
Some racists (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties, but in general the Republicans were never as racist as the Democrats historically were. They didn't have to be. Popular support for racism has been on the decline for more than a hundred years, and the remaining racists no longer trusted the Dems so the Republicans never had to give them anything or even really promise to give them anything to get their votes.
This is kinda sorta true, but it neglects to mention that the "Southern Strategy"[1] was a real thing:
In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.... Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
Senator Robert Byrd was a Democrat and a KKK member. Although, when it become a bad move politically to be a KKK member he left and started saying he regretted it.
I don't think all the Democratic politicians who were originally racist suddenly had a change of heart. It's my personal opinion that politicians are generally sociopaths, so it isn't a strange thing to me that most of the Democratic politicians suddenly started singing a different tune when they saw the writing on the wall.
Lee Atwater, former chairman of the Republican National Party ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater ) literally said that the key to republicans winning in the south was couching racism in more palatable euphemisms.
People can be former racists, hell, the prior pope was in the Hitler Youth!
That said, if you want to argue Robert Byrd presence in the party, who has a 100% rating from the NAACP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd ) somehow indicates that the Democrats are institutionally racist, you are operating with some substantially motivated reasoning.
(edited because it's likely SOME Democrats are racist, but not the political party itself as an institution, unlike the GOP)
> Lee Atwater, former chairman of the Republican National Party ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater ) literally said that the key to republicans winning in the south was couching racism in more palatable euphemisms.
What he literally said was this:
> You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
But think about what that is. It's a strategy for destroying racism by abstracting it into non-existence.
You have these racists who hate black people because they think they're inferior subhumans, and then a bunch of regular middle class people who don't care about race at all and just want their tax dollars to pay for their own kid's school instead of some stranger's kid, but they end up together in a majority coalition.
If you strip off the second group of people and give them what they want directly without any racial component then the first group loses all their political power. They go from 60% of people you can't ignore to 0.2% of people you can ignore.
And you can't pretend the outcome is the same either. A person can't change their skin color the same ways they can change their finances.
> Do you really believe that? Not many do - most think it is a deliberately racist strategy, and most see that quote as an explanation of it.
How is it racist to remove the racist component from a policy?
It's literally the exact opposite of that. That's what optimizing to reduce the amount of racism looks like -- you find things that are partly desired and partly racist and replace them with something to achieve the desired objective without discriminating based on race.
Wow. I genuinely never realised people could think this.
You understand that they didn’t remove the racist component at all, right? He literally explained how to implement racist policies without making it explicit.
Like you said: replace them with something to achieve the desired objective without discriminating based on race.
But note that the desired objective is to discriminate on race, and it is only an attempt to hide the appearance.
> But note that the desired objective is to discriminate on race, and it is only an attempt to hide the appearance.
No it isn't, that's the whole point. Most people have no real interest in discriminating based on race. They just want their tax dollars to go to their own interests instead of to somebody else. They don't care if the somebody else is black, white or polka dot. They want to pay $5000 in taxes and get back >=$5000 in government services, not pay $6000 and get back $3000.
Listen to more of the interview. It isn't that most people want to discriminate based on race and economic policies are a way to do it, it's that people want particular economic policies and direct racial discrimination was historically a way to do that. The point isn't to use economics as a proxy for race, it's to stop using race as a proxy for economics.
The two things have some similar effects, because "affects poor people" and "affects black people" are similar when poor and black correlate, but they're not actually the same and the exact difference is what makes it racism or not.
It isn't that most people want to discriminate based on race and economic policies are a way to do it, it's that people want particular economic policies and direct racial discrimination was historically a way to do that.
Late 60s South, the voters who used to vote for racist Democrats switched to racist Republicans even though the economic policies were complete opposites.
> literally said that the key to republicans winning in the south was couching racism in more palatable euphemisms
Where did he literally say that? I read it as part of an argument that political racism was going to fade away as the ties between policy positions and race became more and more diffuse or abstract. Notably, the following portion was omitted from the pull quote on that The Nation page:
> But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.
> This is kinda sorta true, but it neglects to mention that the "Southern Strategy"[1] was a real thing
Sure it was a thing. The Democrats gave their base a swift kick in the teeth and the Republicans saw a bunch of easy votes. Realpolitik in action.
The whole dog whistle thing gives it away. If your base is actually full of racists then you just go out and say overtly racist things and never take it back, because your voters are racists so that gains you more votes than it costs.
It's only the marks you have to wink at and convince that you're saying something you're not. Because if you can't even say the thing out loud then you obviously can't actually do it and still get reelected.
True enough, but your point is merely a digression. Nothing you say seems to refute the argument that characterizing the modern Democratic party as the one most motivated by racial resentment is... yeah.
Come on. Republican bang the drum for the culturally scared white vote, and they've done it consistently for over half a century regardless of the fidelity with which one explains civil rights legislation.
> True enough, but your point is merely a digression. Nothing you say seems to refute the argument that characterizing the modern Democratic party as the one most motivated by racial resentment is... yeah.
They've changed their colors but not their tune. Historically the Republicans said that everyone should be treated equally under the law and the Democrats claimed equal treatment was bad. Today it's the same thing but they're targeting a different demographic, so they still oppose equality under the law but it's a different set of exceptions.
Democrats need black votes much more than Republicans need racist votes, because there are a lot more black people than racists in the swing states. Which means Democrats need the narrative that Republicans are all racists to stick, so they spend a lot of time telling everybody that and publicizing every little instance they can find.
The Democrats would be in serious trouble if black people started believing that entrepreneurship is the best way for their communities to get out of poverty and voting for politicians who made it easier for them to start a business.
But if entrepreneurship really is the best way for a community to get out of poverty...
> Come on. Republican bang the drum for the culturally scared white vote, and they've done it consistently for over half a century regardless of the fidelity with which one explains civil rights legislation.
Don't conflate race and culture. The difference is really important. Because the difference is that a black man willing to work two jobs to go to college so he can get a middle class paycheck and live in a middle class neighborhood with middle class schools, can actually do that. That wasn't the case a century ago. And it's important to notice that nobody of consequence is asking for that to go back to the way it was.
The problem is that Democrats are now trying to pin their mess on Republicans and pay lip service to solving it. Even when they've had a legislative majority (e.g. Obama's first term), they still don't actually fix the criminal justice system, or gang violence, or a dozen other things that are actively making life hard for poor communities.
And when they claim to have done something like the ACA, it ends up being a huge taxpayer subsidy to corporations that donate to their campaigns and an arduous bureaucracy to the people it's supposed to help.
Well said. I’m amazed by how blind history is to LBJ’s racist roots. LBJ was a life-long cold blooded political operative. His “courage” was strategic. And it worked.
That’s a good start to understanding LBJ, but also falls short just by dint of its brevity. To really understand him you’d also have to delve into his own lowly birth and social shame, his time as a school teacher, and much more. If you’re really interested I’d recommend Caro’s first book on LBJ, he really captured the context and character of Johnson in his early years.
Ah. So do you think I’m wrong about his assessment as a cold blooded operative who only supported Civil Rights because it was good political strategy that would give him more power?
Like all other politicians, I think his personal ambitions dovetailed with his ideology and the direction of his era. I think his detractors often confuse his attitudes towards class with those towards race, and his character. He grew up brutally poor and struggled in his professional class closely with issues of class, especially given his position as the ‘dumb’ southerner in Kennedy’s pedigreed cabinet. He was a voracious advocate of the poor Mexican children he taught, pushed them to succeed relentlessly, and tutored the school janitor in English for free because he was convinced his inability to speak English was hindering him. I think his entire career often struggled with issues of class and inequality, and his personal instinct to the lesser was typically compassionate and generous. He was known to have a temper and a flare for knowing how to touch people’s insecurities and nerves, and also for his ability to find and build emotional coherence in those positions he found politically advantageous. He also loved jokes, and didn’t care much about who they were at the expense of.
But ultimately he could have found a more natural path to power in racial demagoguery that was so rampant in the south, and the political cohesion behind the southern democrats at that time gave him a natural base of power to launch a presidential bid. But he chose the more arduous work of breaking down the south’s racial hierarchy at great cost to his professional relationships.
I think Caro said it best, that power ultimately doesn’t corrupt, but rather reveal someone’s true nature - and LBJ used his shot at power to write compassion and mercy into the federal statutes. He fought ferociously to give the civil rights and voting acts real power, and handed minorities the greatest legislative weapon they had since Thaddeus Russell outlawed slavery.
The Sinclair outlet in my area is a cesspool of right-wing conservative blowhards and biased news. Very sad..
I'm sure they're glad to pay $13 million in return for the appearance that the FCC cares about broadcast standards. They're making billions - they can afford it.
While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard.
Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this:
House: Democrats: 63% yea.
House: Republicans: 80% yea.
Senate: Democrats: 69% yea.
Senate: Republicans: 82% yea.
In short, a much larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill than Democrats. Educated Americans can look this up.
I believe the post is not referring to a sudden exchange of political identities, but rather to the Southern Strategy. This definitely had its roots in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but was a long, deliberate process by the Republican Party to exploit racial divisions for political gain. The RNC chairman formally apologized to the NAACP for this specifically in 2005.
1) Do you think the modern Democratic Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals?
2) Do you think the modern Republican Party has more or less conservatives then it did in the ‘60’s? Do you think there are more or fewer liberals?
3) Do you think conservatives voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think conservative ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights?
4) Do you think liberals voted for or against the civil rights bill? Do you think liberal ideology has distinct preferences against civil rights?
I find a lot of people are able to get away with a lot of political sophistry because they can skillfully abuse peoples lack of historical and political knowledge. I find this problem is especially pernicious regarding the civil rights act, because this was right around the time that the political parties were undergoing major changes in their makeup, so people concern trolling are often able to ambiguate ideology, political affiliation and the structures of political parties in such a way as to push the deceptive and deceitful lie that liberals are or were pro-slavery.
I find a lot of those tactics being used in your arguments, so as an exercise I like to help people disambiguate facts from cleverly positioned lies and see if their claims still hold up. I suspect your argument is weak and based on conflating political ideology with political affiliation.
You appear to be reading things into my argument that aren't there, I suspect as a result of ideological blindness.
Might I suggest you broaden your perspective just a bit beyond simple "liberal" and "conservative"? Because the real world is much more complex and so is my take on it.
I object to mythological re-interpretations of events, that's all. No attempt to equate modern Democrats with slavery or segregationists is made. It doesn't matter what old Democrats did, the platform is what it is now. I don't believe, nor do I suggest otherwise.
Please don't fall into the trap of thinking "this person doesn't agree 100% with X therefore they are by default Y". It leads to long posts which boil down to "ya, well you are a liar and a troll". Which isn't accurate and it's offensive.
The antidote is perspective and nuance. Something unfortunately political ideologies tend to discourage.
I’m sorry but I can’t discuss politics with people that refuse to answer basic questions about the past and what they believe regarding it without ducking and obfuscation. To me it’s always a sign of concern trolling, especially when the argument then devolves into arguments that really just center around calling others ideologically blinded and calls for perspective and nuance - which you are curiously advocating for by dumping out of context figures and refusing to give context about.
For others that are interested, the liberal and conservative blocs were the predominant factions of both parties that played pivotal roles in civil rights era legislation. Specifically, the ‘64 bill was passed by factions of mainly northern democratic liberals and liberal republicans - many republicans actually played crucial roles in captaining the legislation through congress and surviving quorum calls organized by the opposing conservative southern and midwestern factions. Looking at the civil rights issue through the perspectives of liberal v conservative is also interesting for other reasons as well. LBJ in many ways was a pseudo-conservative, who by dint of his firmly conservative credentials was able to position himself to be mentored by and ultimately betray his mentor, the leader of the conservative faction and the strongest force for segregation in America - the senator Richard Russell. In the larger tapestry of American history, Russell was also a new dealer, which in many ways was a deal in which conservatives accepted the progressive safety net in exchange for entrenching the socioeconomic subjugation of minorities through carve-outs to their eligibility to receive aforementioned benefits. This is the thesis behind Ira Katznelson’s ‘Fear Itself’.
Additionally, America has been undergoing a political realignment in which party and ideology are increasingly correlated - there are fewer liberal Republicans and fewer conservative Democrats, which in turn has led to greater political polarization and the greater political paralysis we see today. Understanding the drivers of the realignment between conservatives and liberals is crucial to understanding American politics today.
This is absolutely true, and the Republicans rightly deserves to be applauded for this.
But the OP was referring to the Southern Strategy[1] which had its roots in (Republican) Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign where he campaigned against the civil right act and picked up Democrat voters in the South:
Goldwater decided to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He believed that this act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose, even if the choice is based on racial discrimination.
Goldwater's position appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican presidential candidate since Reconstruction to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina).[2]
My guess is the parent is referring specifically to the Republican Southern Strategy—whether the top-down or bottom-up variant is mostly immaterial—that notably did not display too much public opposition to racial integration on the national stage, but instead supported de facto racial segregation while appealing to entrenched racism and conservatism in the South as the Democratic Party realigned its platform and positions.
The somewhat snide-sounding remark was rather unnecessary. I’m sure the same educated Americans who can look this stuff up also find it improbable to believe 80 years of Jim Crow suddenly vanished with the signing of the Civil Rights Act. (Edit: appears the parent edited out the remark about educated Americans looking this up)
You can infer (or retrofit), but then there is the smug, pro-political non-factual content of the post.
I don't consider echoing smugness necessarily snide. Don't insinuate to me all that all educated Americans share your political views and then proceed to back it up with half (or non) facts.
Are you seriously arguing that bringing up the Democratic party's pro-slavery attitude during the Civil War has some relevance to current day political dynamics?
But I have to know, why in the world would you bother posting such a blatant straw-man on a site frequented by smart people? Cmmon man, you are better than that.
I just don't approve of smug ideological loyalty when it leads to promulgating mythology as fact. That's all.
I understand the frustration. In the interest of constructively combating such, I'd encourage you to raise the level of discourse. One option is to steelman, as opposed to tear down a straw man, and discuss in good faith. What do you think they were referring to? What were they trying to convey? I find Rapoport's rules particularly useful, at least as a starting point.
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “N@%#$r, n@%#$r, n@%#$r.” By 1968 you can’t say “n@%#$r”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N@%#$r, n@%#$r.”"
“Sinclair proudly supports the Cancer Foundation and its educational mission. Any absence of sponsorship identification in these public service segments was unintended and a result of simple human error."
I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist.
I don't think the size of Sinclair is the relevant benchmark. The profitability and prevalence of the practice is the important part.
How much did that sponsorship earn them?
How many other sponsored stories are they running?
What's the probability of a new sponsored story generating a new fine?
Make it so that they lost significantly more than they got doing this, and so that they expect to lose money if they do it again.
> I hope a 13 million dollar fine will inspire them to prevent this type of human error again. But given the size of Sinclair it's more a slap on the wrist.
Hell, the cut in corporate tax rates they helped get should save them at least that much - every quarter.
// “[Project Baltimore] are building a case to privatize schools,” Diamonte Brown, a Baltimore school teacher and an advocate for reforming the school system told The Real News. //
This is like 5% of their net income, so a slap on the wrist. They control more than 40% of the local news market. The FTC needs to break them up, not keep approving their continued growth.
I rarely point out grammar (or spelling) mistakes. "Alot" is one of those run-together phrases that people need to be told isn't a word in order to stop using; clearly nobody has with you, so I thought I'd do you a favor. :)
"[They] deliberately runs shows that will earn them huge fines they can then funnel through the FCC straight to the Republican Party. Everybody in the media knows it but no one has the guts to say it." Simpsons Season 18 Episode 22
How much was Sinclair paid to air the content? I mean... how could you possibly write an article without including this sort of information? It is impossible to know whether the fine levied was at all reasonable without knowing how much Sinclair profited from breaking the law. If they were paid $13.4 million + $1 or more, then the FCC has guaranteed that airing such content will become standard business practice. Only if they were paid less than $13.4 million is there even the slightest hope that their actions will be modified in the future.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
Generally, free speech is NOT absolute,. Reasonable restrictions on "time, place, and manner" are generally upheld by the Supreme Court. They are not fined because they aired an ad for the Cancer Center, they are fined because they aired an ad for the Cancer Center that pretended to be a news segment. This is a manner restriction, and generally fine.
The specific statutes allowing the FCC to govern broadcasters and fine them in this manner is the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
That post is almost entirely about a debate over viewpoint-based regulation. Regulations that are viewpoint-neutral, especially when it comes to commercial speech and broadcast radio/TV stations (and especially the combination of the two), are generally on much stronger 1A footing.
"The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest."
(National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).)
It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.
Falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre incites behavior that is knowingly contrary to the well-being of the patrons. (Also, some defenders of the first amendment argue that this is protected speech, but let's ignore that for now.)
Imagine I pay a news station to run a story about a hospital (for example) which I believe to have saved many lives and I expect will continue to do so. Arguably my advertisement is in the public interest, because it brings attention to a potential health benefit.
What then, hypothetically? Is "public interest" still a justification for the fine?
The "shouting fire in a theater" example is a poor comparison, because it likely is allowed under the first amendment[0][1]. It may not be in the public interest, but as far as I know, the FCC does not regulate theaters.
That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up.
People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not referencing the case in question, and common sense would tell you that shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
> There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up.
Would you mind showing me one of those examples? I just did a bit of google searching, and was unable to find one. Even the original case (Schenck v. United States) had nothing to do with fires or theaters.
> shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
The "imminent lawless action" test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio requires more than just a damaging end-result. Intent, imminence, and likelihood must all be demonstrated in order for speech to be considered illegal. Maybe that test also applies to false fire alarms in theaters, but it certainly takes more than simply causing a bad end-result to happen.
No law can override the first amendment. The only question is if the first amendment protects it. If it does, then that law is unconstitutional along with any other law that attempts to infringe on it.
To say that a law supersedes the constitution would make the constitution a worthless document.
It's not like that at all. If shouting fire in a crowded theater is constitutionally prohibitable, it's not because it's not in the public interest, it's because it's dangerous.
In general, the government is NOT allowed to prohibit any speech that "is not in the public interest" under the constitution. In general. The FCC and broadcasting is a special case justified by limited spectrum (although one that the Supreme Court has extensively limited further since 1943), but not because it's like shouting fire in a crowded theater.
Sinclair also used their size and connections to the conservative movement to get FCC commissioners who would repeal rules on concentrated ownership of local TV stations.
Ownership of media outlets used to be a big topic of concern in the US. Who owns media outlets is going to be one of the defining issues of our future.