While I am a regular (almost daily) lurker, I don't normally participate on this site for a variety of reasons. However, this comment seemed too egregious to let lie unaddressed.
You entered a thread which was exclusively started to discuss a single phenomenon: a large media conglomerate (Sinclair) forcing its local stations to recite a canned statement about "media bias".
As succinctly explained in the first reply to this topic by both FJAG and his link to comedian John Oliver's segment, Sinclair uses local newscasters as well as explicit references to the local station and community's name in the segment to make viewers believe that this is a grassroots PSA by the local affiliate -a familiar source which many people across North America trust for their information- rather than a mandated initiative by their corporate ownership to force a specific message.
Given what's known of Sinclair from both comments in this thread as well as basic research, it is clear that this widely syndicated warning of bias is an attempt to lead the viewer to believe that the media by and large is untrustworthy, but your local, "independent" affiliate with its local anchors are here to guide one to the truth; they are definitely not just being forced to parrot US Conservative talking points (Sinclair has a well known
Right Bias).
You then entered this thread with a complete non-sequitur; you state that newspapers and written media organizations regularly reprint stories from other media outlets, and thus imply a conspiracy and that this is equivalent to Sinclair Broadcast Group's "Must-Run Segments" (again, see FJAG's initial post).
When Blackadder1916 provided a well-reasoned explanation refuting your accusation, stating that this is a completely mundane phenomenon that's been happening since the dawn of (modern?) journalism, you decided to reply with a patronizing one-liner response implying that he hadn't read the thread
(thank you for bolding this, the rest of us wouldn't have understood otherwise), and concluded your reply with a passive-aggressive " 'kay " to infantilize his argument. If your overall argument was stronger, one could reasonably accuse you of a
Whataboutism/
Tu quoque fallacy, yet here we are.
You
specifically called me out on a thread not too long ago for penalizing you with negative MilPoints for "trolling". I will note that this had nothing to do with the thread in which you called me out, but rather your decision to refer to Canada's Prime Minister as
"PM Blackie". While I do not consider myself to be either a proponent nor opponent of the current Canadian government, I deducted you MilPoints for choosing to introduce a schoolyard insult into the courteous, informed discussion that this website typically enjoys.
While I have not deducted you MilPoints for posts in this thread to date (namely because MilPoints are meaningless), and I have not searched your post history (I have only seen your posts in specific threads from the front page that I have chosen to read), I am concerned that you are bringing the all-too-common gutter-tier "Angry Veteran Facebook Group" drivel to this website. While I often disagree with the political and/or social positions taken by many of this site's regulars, I routinely read and appreciate their point of view, which in turn informs my own. In this vein, I typically only award or deduct MilPoints for posts which are especially well-reasoned or, alternatively, especially poorly reasoned.
*edited to make certain text items (Em-Dashes) conform to BBCode requirements