The article is about local newspapers, not TV stations

We’re allowed to have knowledge outside of the specific thing being discussed in an article.

Also, if two local newspapers close every week, then where else will people turn if not to their local Sinclair station?

> if two local newspapers close every week, then where else will people turn if not to their local Sinclair station?

This is a questionable substitution. Local TV news is heavily watched by 55+ Americans, with over a third of 18 to 34-year olds having never watched it [1].

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/742221/frequency-of-watc...

Could you link a screenshot as Statista are paywalling / registration-walling that content?

Thanks.

I can't share a screenshot of the statistics due to copyright restrictions, but I can confirm that what user JumpCrisscross said (about the statistics) is true.

Fair use / fair dealing.

Almost never applies to 100% of a work.

You're being both specious and incorrect.

The test is fourfold.

This thread is boring.

Clearly, you won't ask as requested. Thats' sufficient to know.

So replace Sinclair with Gannett, Same problem

Pretty sure "local news-ness" and ownership are separate qualities.

Are they though? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/business/media/sinclair-n...

Pretty sure they're not.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=xwA4k0E51Oo

They're not. I worked in a local news station's news room (and grew up working in them alongside my dad). I would pull stories off an Associated Press feed [1], copy the scripts verbatim, and throw them into the rundown. It's one gigantic feed trough. People deny it because they want to feel like they're in control, but they're not. They're cattle.

[1] https://www.ap.org/media-solutions/enps/