“I Don’t Feel It Has Any Place in a Local Newscast”

An anonymous Sinclair journalist sounds off on his employer’s pro-Trump segments.

selimaksan/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Stories about Sinclair Broadcast Group’s push to dominate local TV news and force pro-Trump viewpoints into its programming often lack the voices and opinions of journalists from Sinclair’s own stations. What do they think about Sinclair HQ ordering its stations to run Boris Epshteyn’s unabashedly pro-Trump commentaries? Or insisting on daily “Terrorism Alert Desk” segments (that sometimes have nothing to do with terrorism)?

As I reported my investigation of Sinclair, most employees I approached were afraid to speak for fear of retribution by company higher-ups. However, one veteran Sinclair journalist agreed to talk candidly and let me share an extended as-told-to version of those remarks on condition of anonymity.

I asked the journalist about Sinclair’s embrace of Trump, the company’s use of right-leaning “must-run” segments, and the wave of attention on Sinclair in light of its potential $3.9 billion merger with Tribune Media.

I enjoy what I’m doing. But I’m a local reporter. I don’t like what I’m reading [about Sinclair’s political tilt]. You probably saw the John Oliver piece. He said something about Fox News: with Fox News, you know what you get. Whether you like Fox or hate Fox, you know where they’re coming from 24/7. Oliver said what Sinclair is trying to do is more surreptitious.

It’s interesting to see the feedback from readers. One of them said they watch local news to get local news. They don’t watch local news to get a commentary on national issues from someone who quite frankly doesn’t have credentials journalistically. This hiring of Boris Epshteyn… have you seen some of his commentaries?

I’ve watched some of them. Regardless of what he’s saying, why would that be included in a local newscast? Pittsburgh? Cedar Rapids, Iowa? I don’t understand. Put him on a Sunday morning talk show, as one of many analysts. And the segments air pretty often. To me, I think that’s very troublesome. I don’t feel it has any place in a local newscast.

Reporters have complained that these commentaries by Boris Epshteyn are almost longer than the amount of time a local reporter has to tell a story about something going on locally in their community. To me, that’s problematic. But I’m assuming this would all go back to whatever motivated David Smith to bring this guy on, a former campaign aide to Trump and then briefly in the administration.

You’ve seen the commentaries by Mark Hyman? When I’ve watched other TV stations, you might have your general manager give a commentary at the end of the newscast. But it’s locally driven and it’s something about “We need to pitch in to help the victims in Texas.” It wouldn’t be about revising the NAFTA treaty that was brokered by Clinton in 1993.

A local news director at WJLA [in Washington, DC] or Columbus, they almost have no say in [the must-run segments]. If I were them and said, “This is a total waste of time,” they might say, “You may not be the guy we need to have in there.” They can’t call up David Smith and say a lot of people in Columbus, Ohio, don’t like this.

I go back to that one local viewer who said you watch local news to get local news—crime, weather, taxes, that kind of thing. In local and network news, everything is timed down to the second. You have consultants that say we need to pick up the pace. To have a quick, packed newscast and then have something like [an Epshteyn must-run] at 1 minute 30 seconds or 2 minutes, it would drag down the newscast.

Again, if it’s a local general manager, and they said, “We’ll give you a minute and, say, why don’t you harp on something that’s very local and of interest to your local audience,” I think that’d make better TV than Hyman. I think it still comes back to David Smith. I don’t think these guys are going to air anything unless he reviews it, signs off.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate