Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Trump said Sinclair ‘is far superior to CNN.’ What we know about the conservative media giant.

April 3, 2018 by  
Filed under Lingerie Events

Comments Off


Sinclair Broadcast Group is not as well-known a name in television as Fox News’ News Corp. or CNN’s Turner Broadcasting System, but its reach may rival that of a cable juggernaut.

The company is the largest owner of local television stations in the country, with 173 stations in 81 broadcast markets that stretch from coast to coast and just about everywhere in between, at a time when local news outpaces national news outlets both in overall viewership and trust. Some 85 percent of Americans trust local news outlets, higher than the 77 percent for family or friends, according to the Pew Research Center.

But a stunning video that showcased its anchors reading required scripts that seemed to parrot one of President Trump’s favorite themes, has drawn renewed scrutiny to what critics see as the media conglomerate’s years-long efforts to inject conservative-tinged coverage into local markets.

Here are some things you should know about the company and where it operates.

What is Sinclair and why have some people not heard of it before?

Based in suburban Maryland, Sinclair owns and operates local news stations around the country, in cities such as Bakersfield, Calif.; Amarillo, Tex.; Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Birmingham, Ala., though it does not currently own any stations in New York, Chicago, the San Francisco Bay area or Los Angeles.

Many of the stations it runs are affiliates of other national networks, like WKEF, an ABC affiliate in Dayton, Ohio, and KOKH, a Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City, and are therefore more widely known by those associations. Sinclair owns or operates 59 Fox affiliates, 41 ABC affiliates, 30 CBS affiliates, 25 NBC affiliates, nine Univision affiliates, and others, and also has its own network, Comet, according to its website.


Its stations are clustered in predominantly conservative areas of the country according to an analysis of the company’s markets by The Washington Post’s Philip Bump: The broadcast areas of Sinclair stations voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton by a 19-point margin, on average.

Why is Sinclair in the news now?

Interest in Sinclair picked up recently after reports exposed a seemingly Trump-friendly script the company ordered its anchors around the country to read, lambasting “irresponsible, one-sided,” and “fake” news stories.

The one-minute-long script, which appeared to echo Trump’s efforts to attack the reporting he has disagreed with as “fake news,” brought to the fore longstanding critiques about what many see as the company’s rightward tilt.

The fake stories promo, which was first reported by CNN in March, drew wide attention after Deadspin published a video on Saturday that layered dozens of the company’s anchors around the country reading the script over one another, creating a visceral portrait of corporate message control.

The video has been viewed more than 7.5 million times since it was published on Saturday afternoon. Trump added fuel to the fire by leaping to the network’s defense, writing that “Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.”

“So funny to watch Fake News Networks, among the most dishonest groups of people I have ever dealt with, criticize Sinclair Broadcasting for being biased,” he wrote on Twitter.

At least one Sinclair-owned station in Wisconsin signaled that it resisted the effort: “WMSN/FOX47 Madison did not air the Sinclair promotional announcement during our 9pm news this weekend,” the station said in a Twitter statement. “Rather, we stayed true to our commitment to provide our Madison area viewers local news, weather and sports of interest to them.”

Sinclair’s promo also renewed fears about the effects of greater consolidation in the news media world. The company, which has expanded the number of stations it owns by nearly threefold since 2010, is hoping to add another 42 stations as part of a potential buyout of Tribune Media, for which it needs federal permission.

Why do critics say that Sinclair is biased?

Sinclair has been spotlighted for injecting right-leaning coverage and commentary on national issues into its local broadcasts since well before its “fake stories” advisory became public, making it unique in the world of broadcast television, which is less encumbered by the partisanship that marks cable networks like Fox News and MSNBC.

While other station owners typically use “must-run” segments to push station promotions, Sinclair has used required programming to push conservative-leaning stances into its local broadcasts.

“The must-runs look like they are part of the news,” David Twedell, business manager of a local camera workers’ union in Seattle told The Washington Post. “And they’re clearly not.”

Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump White House official and campaign surrogate who was hired last year as the company’s “chief political analyst,” helms segments that often defend Trump and hammer on other Republican themes.

Epshteyn weighed in on Trump’s much-maligned commission to investigate supposed voter fraud — since disbanded after drawing bipartisan rebukes from many states — by urging states to “do everything within their power to cooperate.” After the white nationalist demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va., spun into violence last summer, he defended Trump’s infamous “both sides” news conference, saying that “the president correctly acknowledged that there is hate and violence coming from the left as well.”

Mark Hyman, a former Sinclair executive, also helms a commentary segment which can sound at times like a sounding board for the right.

“Listen up closely snowflake, yes I’m talking to you, you the social justice warrior who whines for trigger warnings and safe spaces,” he said in one widely cited segment about college campuses.“College isn’t a babysitter service.”

The company’s Terrorism Alert Desk produces segments that underscore the menace of terrorism around the globe. HBO comedy host John Oliver lambasted a news brief from the desk about efforts to ban burkinis in France, as part of a critical look at Sinclair last year.

“That is not about terrorism!” Oliver said incredulously. “It’s just about Muslims.”

During the presidential campaign, Sinclair stations around the country gave a disproportionate amount of neutral or favorable coverage to Donald Trump compared with coverage of Hillary Clinton, according to internal documents viewed by The Washington Post. Some “must-run” segments about Clinton included those about supposed health issues, as well as her handling of the controversial email server.

Politico reported that White House senior adviser and Trump-son-in-law Jared Kushner had told a group of business executives that Trump’s campaign had an agreement with Sinclair to give it access to Trump on the condition that its interviews be broadcast without commentary.

This kind of coverage dates back years. During the Obama presidency, the station group was criticized for running an infomercial from a Republican-aligned PAC that claimed that Obama may have raised campaign funds from the militant group Hamas, as well as a half-hour news segment critical of Obama for the economy and the attack on a U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, which ran before 2012 election.

In the midst of John F. Kerry’s challenge to President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, the station group was widely criticized for planning to run a documentary called “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal,” that cast a negative light on Kerry’s anti-Vietnam War activities. Though it backed off running the documentary in full, it aired parts of it in the days before the election.

Who is it owned by and what are their political views?

The company is owned by the family of founder Julian Sinclair Smith. According to the New York Times, the company’s chairman, Smith’s son, David Smith, and his brothers have given the majority of their political donations to Republican causes. During the 2016 election cycle, the brothers “donated tens of thousands of dollars to Republican causes, including at least $6,000 from Frederick Smith to a ‘super PAC’ supporting Mr. Trump and $20,000 from David Smith to the National Republican Congressional Committee,” the Times reported.

What are the details of Sinclair’s expansion plans?

The company is currently awaiting federal approval of a proposed $3.9 billion buyout of Tribune Media, which would add 42 more local television stations to its quiver, including those in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.

Current Federal Communications Commission rules limit single station owners from reaching 39 percent of the national television audience and prohibiting ownership of more than two stations in most TV markets. But the FCC under Republican Chairman Ajit Pai — who met with Sinclair executives in the days before he was named chairman — has been in the midst of a strong push for deregulation.

Pai has stated that he favors loosening ownership standards, and the FCC can offer exceptions and waivers to those rules. If allowed to go through, Sinclair’s stations could reach as much as 70 percent of the households in the country.

Paul Farhi and Todd C. Frankel contributed to this report. 

Read more:

‘The Snake’: How Trump appropriated a radical black singer’s lyrics for immigration fearmongering

‘The Big Lebowski’ is 20. We reached out to the critics who panned it to see what they think now.

‘The Shed at Dulwich’ was London’s top-rated restaurant. Just one problem: It didn’t exist.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

DOJ to Evaluate Immigration Judges on Speed and Volume of Cases Heard, Rolls Out Quotas

April 3, 2018 by  
Filed under Lingerie Events

Comments Off

The Department of Justice has announced it will evaluate immigration judges on how many cases they close and how fast they hear cases, a move that judges and advocates criticize as potentially jeopardizing the courts’ fairness and perhaps leading to far more deportations.

The policy has been in the works for months, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration have been working to assert more influence over the immigration courts, or the separate court system built just for hearing cases about whether people who are not U.S. citizen have a claim to stay in the country.

U.S. law gives the attorney general broad and substantial power to oversee and overrule these courts, as opposed to the civil and criminal U.S. justice system, which is an independent branch of government. In the immigration courts, judges are employees of the Department of Justice.

Sessions has been testing the limits of that authority in multiple ways, and in a memo Friday, the director of the immigration courts informed judges they would now be evaluated on a set of metrics including the speed and volume of cases heard.

The Justice Department says the move is designed to make the system more efficient. The immigration courts have a backlog of hundreds of thousands of cases, and it can take years for an immigrant’s case to work its way to completion. In that time, the individuals build lives in the U.S. , and critics point to the immigration courts’ backlog as a major factor in the number of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

“These performance metrics, which were agreed to by the immigration judge union that is now condemning them, are designed to increase productivity and efficiency in the system without compromising due process,” a Justice Department official said of the memo. The official added that any judges who fail to meet performance goals would be able to present extenuating circumstances to the Justice Department.

The memo was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Speeding up the courts and cutting down the backlog has been a priority for the department under Trump and Sessions. But advocates and the immigration judges union have opposed the changes, saying setting numerical caps on the amount of time judges can spend on cases and the number of cases they must close in a year could in fact jeopardize due process.

Critics argue that by making the process quicker, the courts could stack the decks against immigrants to deny them the time to prove they have a legitimate right to stay in the country. Asylum seekers, for example, are often traumatized, unfamiliar with English and with U.S. law, and may not have advanced education or the ability to quickly secure legal representation to help make their cases, let alone quickly produce evidence and witnesses. The immigration courts allow immigrants to have counsel, but there is no requirement that legal assistance is provided by the government, unlike in criminal courts.

“Creating an environment where the courts care more about the speed than the accuracy, and where judges are evaluated and even rewarded based on quantity rather than quality is unacceptable and a violation of due process,” said Laura Lynch, a senior policy counsel with the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Lynch added that the consequences of the decision are not trivial: In cases where the individual applying for asylum could be persecuted in their home country, the ruling could put someone’s life at risk.

“Our biggest concern about asylum seekers and vulnerable populations is that immigration judges are making these important decisions, often life-and-death decisions, every day,” Lynch said. “They must be afforded the time to properly make that decision.”

In the memo, obtained by CNN and sent to all immigration judges on Friday, the Justice Department lays out specific measures of performance for judges, including completing at least 700 cases per year — the equivalent of roughly three per day — and finishing cases where the immigrant is detained in three days from the hearing or in 10 days when the immigrant is not detained.

According to the Justice Department, the average immigration judge currently completes 678 cases per year.

If judges are not performing, they could be fired or potentially moved around the country — a tactic that could push judges out of the system.

Retired longtime immigration judge Paul Schmidt, a staunch critic of the administration, says immigration judges will get the message from the Justice Department.

“Evaluating somebody’s performance on the number of cases they close is obviously going to have some effect on the substance of the decisions,” Schmidt said, saying Sessions’ efforts to tighten immigration law speak volumes. “You know the boss wants removal orders, not grants — all those things have to have some sort of effect.”

The union that represents immigration judges has been fighting the move, which is now allowed in their collective bargaining agreement, according to the Justice Department. But in a January email from the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges obtained by CNN, Judge Ashley Tabaddor informed judges that “the agency had provided assurances to NAIJ that no individual IJ based quotas and deadlines will be imposed until they have fulfilled their obligation under labor law to bargain with us” and vowed that the group would oppose any such move.

“NAIJ is working diligently to fight the implementation of any ‘numeric based performance measures’ on judges, and ensure that any future standards that may be imposed on judges or the Immigration Courts are legally defensible, fair, and would not encroach on our independent decision making authority,” Tabaddor wrote in January.

Tabaddor did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS