Former Anchor: Sinclair Anchors Should Have said No
/
It's easy to say when it is not your life and not your money.
A number of people think that the Anchors at local Sinclair stations should have stood up to the company and refused to read the script that corporate sent down the food chain and told them to read.
Dave Layman is a former Anchor in Providence at WJAR and he is one that thinks the Sinclair Anchors should have taken a harder stance. He penned an op-ed piece for the Providence Journal.
He passed along his take to us and we are sharing it with you:
The Sinclair Broadcast Group shouldn’t have required it. Local anchors shouldn’t have caved-in to it. The public shouldn’t stand for it.
The past couple of weeks have rocked the TV news industry.
Weeks ago, the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of WJAR-TV and nearly 200 stations across the country, made a shocking corporate move. Sinclair, the largest station owner in America, required its local news anchors in all their markets to read what has been described as an anti-news media statement, fronted by news anchors as if it were their personal commentary. Many anchors were outraged at being forced to mouth the mandatory corporate commentary, in a stunning break from journalistic tradition.
It was disgraceful that Sinclair forced this on its anchors under the phony banner of calling for fair and unbiased journalism. Yet, the anchors, fearing for their jobs, went along with it and the company prohibited them from discussing it with the media. So much for transparency and freedom of speech.
Having anchored the news in medium and major markets, it is unheard of for TV station owners to force news anchors to “front” commentaries — especially political commentaries. Clearly, it was political, if you view this repugnant move through a wider lens.
A year ago this month, Sinclair hired conservative political operative Boris Epshteyn as its front man to offer regular conservative-leaning political commentaries that Sinclair stations had to run in their local newscasts. Many critics say Epshteyn’s commentaries are largely a recitation of President Trump’s views and talking points. No surprise there: Epshteyn is a former special assistant to President Trump and helped run his presidential campaign.
Epshteyn’s commentaries run unchallenged without opposing opinions. Where is the fairness and balance that hypocritical Sinclair heralds as its corporate values? Nowhere.
Why didn’t Sinclair use its own in-house commentator, Epshteyn, to deliver the statement warning of “fake news” and the dangers of biased news coverage? For some pernicious reason Sinclair wanted to exploit its local anchors and the public trust’s in them.
Sinclair should have left the local anchors out of it. By forcing them to be political puppets, the company put them in a no-win situation. Cave in — or lose your job and a lot of money. As a result, Sinclair has riled its own newsrooms and damaged its reputation and that of its victimized anchors while undermining America’s news media. One has to wonder if this episode is a dry run for others that will follow? A scary thought.
Some reports say if the anchors had refused to deliver the commentaries and were fired, under their oppressive Sinclair contracts, many would have to pay Sinclair thousands of dollars in damages for not fulfilling their contracts. The job search would be a challenge since Sinclair owns so many stations (and is buying dozens more) that would never hire the fired anchors. What a reward for standing up for journalistic principles that the company claims to value.
So what should Sinclair’s local anchors have done? As a news reporter and anchor, I have been in several situations where I had to take a gut-wrenching stand with top management on ethical issues. I figured I would get fired. Fortunately, management backed down.
The practical argument is, just read the script, shut up, and keep the paychecks coming. The principled argument, I believe, would have been to tell management, in writing and respectfully, that the anchor’s personal journalistic ethics wouldn’t allow him or her to front a political commentary he or she did not believe in and did not write, being portrayed as their personal belief.
If they were fired, clearly they would have some heartbreaking times ahead but would be comforted, as I was, by the adage: “All that’s needed for evil to succeed is for the good people to stand by and do nothing.” Or, as some put it, “Silence is consent.”
