To Sinclair Employees: A Response to That Odd Memo You Received from the VP of News

July 19, 2017

To:                              Employees of Sinclair Broadcast Group’s Local News Stations

From:                        Karl Frisch, Allied Progress

Date:                         Wednesday, July 19, 2017

Re:                             Response to Memo from Sinclair VP of News Scott Livingston

---

You may have seen the recent memo from Sinclair Broadcast Group Vice President of News Scott Livingston to station management. In it, he attempts to defend the troubling practice of injecting partisan commentary into your programming and mandating that local news stations air “must-run” content produced at Sinclair’s headquarters.

In his memo, Livingston asserted that some groups have “an agenda to destroy [Sinclair’s] reputation,” and he lashes out at other outlets, calling them “biased,” “irresponsible” and “false.” It is ironic that Livingston is using the same rhetoric actual experts use to describe Sinclair’s national leadership’s severely slanted programming.

First, we at Allied Progress want to make clear that we have the utmost respect for local news – and the valuable role of local reporters, editors, and producers like yourselves. Our deeply held concerns come from what is happening at the top – in Sinclair’s corporate headquarters. That is one of the reasons that we are working to oppose Sinclair’s proposed merger with Tribune, which would concentrate too much power with one corporation and could result in layoffs and downsizing at stations around the country.

Below you find examples that fly in the face of Livingston’s assertions — all with proper documentation. Like the programming corporate headquarters requires you to air, Livingston’s arguments are one-sided and contrary to what is fact.

If you have anything you would like to share about the practices of Sinclair’s national leadership and its programming requirements, please email us at tips@alliedprogress.org. Thanks again to the many of you who wake up every morning with the goal of providing quality, local news to your community. We join you as an ally in the fight to save local news and protect it from this partisan, monopolistic takeover.

SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP FACTS:

• The night before the 2012 presidential election, Sinclair aired a half-hour news special in several battleground states that heavily criticized Barack Obama while barely examining Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Sinclair Broadcast Group aired a “half-hour special” the night before the 2012 presidential election “on six stations in Ohio, Iowa, Florida and South Carolina.” The special was “criticized as a partisan attack on President Barack Obama.” [Merrill Knox, “Sinclair’s Election Eve Special, Broadcast in Swing States, Criticized as Partisan,” TVSpy, 11/07/12]

“On the eve of the 2012 election between Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, for example, Sinclair stations in several battlegrounds states aired a corporate-produced half-hour news ‘special’ that criticized Obama’s handling of the economy, his signature health-care law and the administration’s management of the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Romney’s record received less scrutiny.” [Paul Farhi, “Under new ownership, WJLA-TV takes a slight turn to the right,” The Washington Post, 11/16/14]

• After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Sinclair executives ordered local news anchors to run editorials supporting the Bush administration’s response to the attacks, despite protests from local anchors who were concerned about objectivity.

“After the September 2001 attacks, Sinclair executives ordered news anchors at its local stations to run editorials announcing support for the Bush administration’s response. Some news staffers, such as those at Sinclair’s two Baltimore stations, WBFF and WNUV, objected, saying such statements could undermine public faith in their political objectivity. The editorials were read nonetheless, with language stating the support for Bush came from station management.” [David Folkenflik, “Sinclair’s TV program on Kerry is called illegal donation to Bush,” The Baltimore Sun, 08/12/04]

• In April 2004, Sinclair pulled an edition of ABC News’ Nightline from seven stations because they claimed a segment reading the names of troops killed in Iraq had a political agenda and “was intended to hurt President Bush.” War hero and Republican U.S. Senator John McCain called Sinclair’s move “deeply offensive.”

In April 2004, “Sinclair pulled an edition of ABC News’ Nightline from seven ABC stations because it was devoted to reading the names of troops killed in Iraq. In a statement, Sinclair officials said the show was intended to hurt President Bush. ‘The action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.'” [David Folkenflik, “Sinclair’s TV program on Kerry is called illegal donation to Bush,” The Baltimore Sun, 08/12/04]

“The decision by the Sinclair Broadcast Group to pre-empt a broadcast of ‘Nightline’ devoted to reciting the names of every member of the military killed in action in Iraq ran into a torrent of protest yesterday from viewers, media watchdog groups, and one prominent veteran of the Vietnam War, Sen. John McCain. Senator McCain made public a letter he had sent to the chief executive of Sinclair, one of the country’s largest owners of local television stations. He wrote that he found Sinclair’s removal of the ‘Nightline’ news program from the eight ABC affiliates it owns ‘deeply offensive.’”

In response, Sinclair CEO David Smith released a letter addressed to Senator McCain, writing “that ‘responsible journalism’ requires that a discussion of the cost of wars ‘must necessarily be accompanied by a description of the benefits of military action and the events that precipitated that action.’” The controversy came at a time when news media focused “increased attention on the cost of the war” and “highlighted that more members of the armed forces were killed in April than in any other month of the war.” On April 30, 2004, “at least two newspapers, USA Today and The Washington Post, displayed rows of photographs of the war dead.” [Bill Carter, “THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE MEDIA; Debate Over ‘Nightline’ Tribute to War Dead Grows, as McCain Weighs In,” The New York Times, 05/01/04]

• In the months leading up to the 2016 presidential election, Sinclair required its stations to run news stories favorable to Donald Trump and critical of Hillary Clinton.

“News stories and features favorable to Trump or that challenged Clinton were distributed to Sinclair stations on a ‘must-run’ basis — that is, the stations were required by managers in Washington to make room in their evening newscasts or morning programs for them. A ‘must-run’ email from Washington managers to stations on Sept. 13 read this way: ‘DESCRIPTION: Why did Hillary Clinton struggle with disclosing her medical diagnosis? She has been repeatedly faced with previous questions of trust. Can a president lead with so many questions of transparency and trust?’ Another, from Sept. 8: ‘DESCRIPTION: Hillary Clinton showed up to talk about the responsibilities of being a leader at the commander-in-chief forum and the first question she took from the audience was about the email/server debacle. Clinton has repeatedly admitted it was a mistake, but 18 months since the first story broke and she’s still in the mode of damage control.’ An October ‘must-run’ story was a report about conservative activist James O’Keefe’s ‘sting’ video in which two Democratic-affiliated contractors who were surreptitiously recorded discussed disrupting Republican events and mused about a voter-fraud scheme. Another, on Sept. 9, was titled ‘Donald Trump Reflections of 9/11,’ which also included a package in which Ivanka Trump discussed what she would do in a Trump administration. In early September, it pushed ‘Women for Trump,’ a feature about Trump’s daughter-in-law Lara and another woman who was campaigning for him. There were no equivalent ‘must-run’ stories examining Trump’s refusal to release his medical or tax records or about questions surrounding his charitable foundation. In addition, Sinclair offered no stories about Clinton’s views about 9/11, about what role Chelsea Clinton might play in her mother’s administration or about Bill Clinton’s campaign role.” [Paul Farhi, “How a giant TV company helped Trump’s campaign,” The Washington Post, 12/22/16]

• Sinclair fired its Washington bureau chief, Jon Leiberman, after he spoke out against the anti-John Kerry documentary, calling it “‘biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election.’”

Sinclair “fired its Washington bureau chief,” reporter Jon Leiberman, in October 2004, saying, in a statement, “‘We are disappointed that Jon’s political views caused him to violate company policy and speak to the press about company business.’” Leiberman made remarks, published by The Baltimore Sun, in which he called the anti-Kerry documentary “‘biased political propaganda, with clear intentions to sway this election.’” Leiberman “said Sinclair told him that he was fired for cause and would receive no severance.” [Kasey Jones, “Sinclair fires reporter who criticized plans for program on film about Kerry, discussed a staff meeting,” The Associated Press, 10/19/04]

• In his memo, Livingston attempts to distance Sinclair from the scandal surrounding GOP congressional candidate Greg Gianforte’s violent assault of a reporter. He fails to mention that Frederick Smith, the vice president and director of Sinclair, donated $1,000 to Gianforte’s campaign the day after the Montana Republican was charged for the assault.

“The vice president and director of Sinclair Broadcasting Group, which has often been criticized for its conservative slant, donated to Rep. Greg Gianforte’s campaign the day after the Montana Republican was charged with assaulting a reporter. The donation of $1,000 by Frederick G. Smith, a member of the family that owns the company, came on May 25, the day Gianforte was elected, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Smith also gave $1,000 to Gianforte’s campaign in March…Smith was not available for comment, but a Sinclair spokesperson said, ‘Campaign contributions made by our board members are personal to them and do not reflect company policy or support.'” [Hadas Gold, “Sinclair VP donated to Gianforte after ‘body-slam’ incident,” Politico, 06/27/17]