Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Hits Sinclair With $13 Million Fine Over Ads (axios.com)

Posted by msmash on from the paying-the-price dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The FCC plans to fine Sinclair Broadcasting group more than $13 million for failing to make the required disclosures related to programming sponsored by a third party. It's the largest fine the FCC has ever proposed for violation of its ad disclosure rules, which require broadcasters to disclose who is paying for sponsored programming.

41 comments

  1. I work for Sinclair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm hourly and I hope this doesn't affect my bonus.

    1. Re:I work for Sinclair. by Kenja · · Score: 2

      I'm hourly and I hope this doesn't affect my bonus.

      Well... if tax breaks create jobs, it's only logical that fines destroy them. So you'll be fired.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:I work for Sinclair. by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Ah, but deregulation creates jobs, and Sinclair managed the herculean task of convincing Ajit Pai to not do his job in regulating them to keep them from taking over a majority of television sets of old voters.

      Naturally, Sinclair lying to the FCC about this matter won't cause the deregulation decision to continue. It was surely an honest mistake and Sinclair is going to be more forthright about who is paying for the right-wing propaganda they will run in the middle of your uncle's local news program.

    3. Re:I work for Sinclair. by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      What is "Sinclair"?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    4. Re:I work for Sinclair. by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have to worry at all. Sinclair is a right wing religious broadcasting company and they are not going to have to pay the fine. It will be quietly reduced to nothing later. They are a part of team "Shit Show" ruining the country right now. Sorry, meant to say "Running"... Or did I?

    5. Re:I work for Sinclair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but deregulation creates jobs, and Sinclair managed the herculean task of convincing Ajit Pai to not do his job in regulating them to keep them from taking over a majority of television sets of old voters.

      The problem is talking points like deregulation creates jobs are too pervasive, that they become accepted, even though it is utter crap.

      Things should be regulated if the cost to society of not regulating them is higher than the cost to society of regulating them. For instance enforcing net neutrality would stop Internet providers from messing with their customers by taking advantage of their near monopoly position.

      Not regulating the ISP might create some jobs, but it could potentially destroy more.

      Not regulating environmental emissions might allow more jobs, at the expense of poisoning the environment. In short the talking point is crap, which was more or less what the parent pointed out.

      Modern politics seems to be about lying so frequently and so often by so many people that eventually people start to believe the bullshit. Every single time a lie is made politically we have to fight it, no matter who says it. Every time without fail. That is our new cost of freedom.

    6. Re:I work for Sinclair. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honest mistake?
      Really?

    7. Re:I work for Sinclair. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      No, not really, that was sarcasm. Ajit Pai is guilty of bribery on top of cult-like devotion to licking the boots of big corporations screwing over the country. Pai and the executive board of Sinclair and others should be jailed for this.

  2. Ah I remember these ads. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to ingest them into the system. Pretty boring stuff, truthfully.

  3. Native ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we file complaints against all the local news that no native ads? âoeStoriesâ like itâ(TM)s tax time so letâ(TM)s talk to a preparer in front of an hrblock sign about why you shouldnâ(TM)t attempt to do a basic 1040 alone.

    1. Re:Native ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about, you Apple monkey?

  4. I really liked the ZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was tiny and underpowered even for the time but it had a quirky British charm. Why is the FCC worried about them?

  5. FCC Does Its Damn Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a sign of the times that this is news.

    1. Re:FCC Does Its Damn Job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it doing the job of the FTC? One would think that an ad should fall under the FTC, especially since Net Neutrality apparently falls under the FTC. /sarcasm

  6. A blow against fake news by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the linked article:

    The FCC's Enforcement Bureau found that Sinclair aired stories paid for by the Huntsman Cancer Foundation without disclosing that they were paid programming. The programming was made to look like independent news coverage.

    This is a blow against "fake" news.

    On a related note, Facebook is dumping it's fake news flagging system (the "disputed" flag), because studies show that flagging something as fake makes people more likely to share it!

    (Snicker.... snort... chuckle... BWA HA HA HAH HAH!)

    1. Re:A blow against fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why the quotes around "fake?"

    2. Re:A blow against fake news by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Because it's not REAL fake news. Duh.

      Everyone knows it's not bona fide fake news unless it is news that is unfavorable to the GOP's political agenda.

  7. Misleading headline by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As this is a site of "news for nerds", most readers will probably assume the headline refers to computer maker Sinclair Research, which is completely unrelated to media company Sinclair Broadcast Group.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
    1. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the FCC...

    2. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait.. I thought this site was news for Bitcoin enthusiasts...

    3. Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know that I did.

    4. Re:Misleading headline by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      The only confusion I have is in how this relates to Apple or a blockchain.

  8. That'll.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That'll teach em to be honest. /sarc

  9. SInclair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    is a rightwing outfit. How long before Trump makes that fine go away?

    1. Re: SInclair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's planning on giving them the Trump Super-presidential Medal of Mega-Honor. Once the check clears.

  10. That's greaaaat by easyTree · · Score: 2

    PopQuiz: How do we hit the FCC with a fine for ruining the internet for the whole world?

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
    1. Re:That's greaaaat by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, the first step is to get the government's permission to sue it. It's perfectly alright to sue the federal government, but you need their permission.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:That's greaaaat by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Well for a start three of them voted for it, how about name and shame them all, not just the only idiot who was willing to promote that scam. Just looking at that guy and the idiocy he comes up with and you know, you just know he was the only one stupid enough to destroy his public image for the rest of his life, all the others chickened out and with good reason. There are at least two others skulking in the background https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead..., wish them a merry fucking christmas.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:That's greaaaat by tepples · · Score: 1

      There are a few ways to go about it. The Congress has agreed to allow suits pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946 (28 USC 1346(b), 2671 et seq). For others, particularly cases involving an unconstitutional statute, the common legal fiction is to sue the Attorney General for an injunction against asserting the statute.

    4. Re:That's greaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for a start three of them voted for it, how about name and shame them all, not just the only idiot who was willing to promote that scam. Just looking at that guy and the idiocy he comes up with and you know, you just know he was the only one stupid enough to destroy his public image for the rest of his life, all the others chickened out and with good reason. There are at least two others skulking in the background https://www.fcc.gov/about/lead... [fcc.gov], wish them a merry fucking christmas.

      Oh for sanity's sake, stop the whining!

      One of the rarest things ever just happened, almost as rare as bottled unicorn farts, a federal government agency actually gave back some of the scope-creep it was handed and chose to forego increasing their fiefdom in favor of allowing Congress to write laws to address the issues like things are supposed to be done. It's a miracle on a scale that merits alerting the fucking Vatican! People should be dancing in the fucking streets and a national holiday declared!

      But all you can do is whine like a bitch on Slashdot because you're too low-info to understand the discussion and either too lazy or too stupid to educate yourself before you open your pie-hole.

    5. Re:That's greaaaat by cpurdy · · Score: 2
      Oh for sanity's sake, stop the whining!

      Ajit, is that you posting as AC again?

      One of the rarest things ever just happened, almost as rare as bottled unicorn farts, a federal government agency actually gave back some of the scope-creep it was handed and chose to forego increasing their fiefdom in favor of allowing Congress to write laws to address the issues like things are supposed to be done

      An agency doing its job does not prevent Congress from doing its job. Your statement makes no sense.

    6. Re:That's greaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does someone disagree with the misguided premice of this PopQuiz without getting death threats if they use their real name?
      while you chew on that. I trust my Cat 5 cables will be just fine without the FCC up in there regulating.

    7. Re:That's greaaaat by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      you just know he was the only one stupid enough to destroy his public image for the rest of his life

      In fairness, he didn't destroy so ,much as sell.

      So, less stupid, more evil.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:That's greaaaat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An agency doing its job does not prevent Congress from doing its job.

      And there's where you're wrong.

      The FCC does not have authority to unilaterally expand the agency's scope by reclassifying ISPs under Title II. That takes Congress. That's why the FCC is able to stop implementing NN in the first place. It's not law. The Democrats spent their time and political capital on other things when they held power rather than passing NN legislation. Too busy using the IRS as a political weapon and having inconvenient ambassadors, aides, and journalists who knew too much eliminated while allowing Russia to purchase US uranium mines and deny the US those nuclear resources.

      I guess just two terms is simply not enough time to corrupt everything. Sorry you missed the boat this time around on placing the internet under government regulation like the old POTS network, complete with mandatory CALEA compliance. Maybe next time you can sell the internet to the Russians, too.

  11. FCC ruining the whole world by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

    PopQuiz: How do we hit the FCC with a fine for ruining the internet for the whole world?

    I disagree. The USA's new operating policy is to be an example to the rest of the world. If the rest of the world can learn from your mistakes instead of f*#king things up in our own countries I for one am grateful.

  12. It's like an eclair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...except it's more sinful.

  13. Going on for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going on for decades. Newspapers are bombarded with ready-to-print news stories -- and broadcasters bombarded with ready-to-air clips.

  14. Smart move by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Get them now with a smaller fine so later they can't be hit with a huge one.
    Smart, FCC, since you're the ones helping them consolidate and grow.

    --
    -
  15. Obligatory Xkc... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean Obligatory John Oliver Sinclair Broadcast Group: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

  16. First things first... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC disregarded the wishes of the majority of Internet Users.
    Now they are trying to show their authority by issuing a big fine against Sinclair.
    Everybody in favor of net neutrality should sue the FCC.

    Any resulting legal battle between the FCC and Sinclair should be *postponed*
    until *after* all cases *against* the FCC have come to a conclusion.

  17. Well my fears were unfounded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Iâ(TM)ll be getting a $1000 bonus, on top of our performance bonus.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/22/sinclair-broadcast-tax-reform-bonus-will-pay-1000-to-almost-9000-employees.html