Sinclair Hits Back on Liberal Media Criticizing Its Conservative 'Agenda'

August 9th, 2017 11:28 AM

Editor’s Note: This article includes quotes which contain foul language.

Liberal journalists hate to be proven wrong. So they’re going to despise the latest video from Sinclair’s Mark Hyman that bashes Politico and other lefty outlets for sloppy reporting.

“Donald Trump's campaign struck a deal with Sinclair Broadcast Group during the campaign to try and secure better media coverage,” claimed Politico. Turns out that wasn’t even close to the whole story. Sinclair offered to show Politico emails proving it offered the identical deal to the Clinton campaign, but Politico showed no interest.

“They’re either awfully incompetent or awfully dishonest,” said Hyman in a two-minute video. After the Politico story, Society of Professional Journalists ethics committee chair Andrew Seaman criticized Sinclair, Hyman explained. But after seeing all the facts, Seaman apologized. “I apologize to Sinclair for assuming the statements reported in Politico story, which was based off third-party reports, were accurate,” he wrote.

The Politico piece was one of many attempts by liberal media outlets to attack Sinclair after it announced it purchased Tribune Media Co. for $3.9 billion. If approved, the May 8 purchase will add 42 new local stations, according to Bloomberg. The FCC began reviewing the acquisition on July 7, which is contingent upon government approval. The public commenting period ended on August 7. Sinclair was already the largest owner of local stations, The New York Times reported.

Liberals in the media have reacted dramatically since May. Many attacked Sinclair’s “right-wing political agenda,” while others unleashed more profane hatred, calling Sinclair a “crooked, bullshit organization” and a “fucking garbage dump.” Katrina vandenHeuvel, publisher and editor of the Soros-funded Nation Magazine, warned there was “Danger ahead” because the purchase was “good for Trump.”

Media outlets like Vox, Salon and The New York Times also disparaged the media company.

Politico senior media writer Jack Shafer was one of the only media figures to defend Sinclair:

Media Take Their Cues From HBO Comedy Show

John Oliver renewed liberal fervor on July 2 when he spent 18 minutes protesting that more “unsuspecting audience members” would be subjected to viewing Sinclair’s right-leaning programing if the sale was approved.

Sinclair has multiple mandatory segments which air on its stations including a daily “Terror Alert Desk.” Former Trump White House official Boris Epshteyn hosts another segment, “Bottom Line with Boris,” which airs nine times per week -- up from three -- Politico reported on July 10. All “must run” segments are marked as sponsored content. Though the short segments are just a tiny portion of the broadcast time of each station.

Oliver’s criticism set the media attacks into high gear.

Variety ran a cover story under the ominous headline: “The Sinclair Scare.” Lefty Salon ran a, “A short history of the right-wing politics of Sinclair Broadcasting.” Slate claimed to show, “How Sinclair Broadcast Group and Boris Epshteyn took administration propaganda from the Oval Office to the local news.”

And Bloomberg’s Businessweek did a hit job on Sinclair with a professional slam: “The Sinclair Revolution Will Be Televised. It’ll Just Have Low Production Values.” Businessweek, operates in lockstep with its liberal ownership, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Somehow, the idea of conservative editorials upset Bloomberg. “Whatever a particular station’s network affiliation—ABC, CBS, CW, Fox, or NBC—Sinclair viewers get a steady dose of conservative political commentary.”

The former mayor announced in March, 2016, that he wouldn’t run for president because “there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz.”

Bloomberg has used his philanthropy as a way to “embolden government.” He has given nearly $235 million to wipe out the U.S. coal industry, funded abortions around the world, and backed gun control through both political donations and his foundation.

But to read one of his many self-named operations, it’s Sinclair that has a political problem.

Liberals Take A Stand Against Conservative Views

Unfortunately John Oliver and the many outlets that followed his rant were unable to see the irony in opposing what they saw as conservative bias in the media. Their opposition was hypocrisy at best, and censorship at worst.

CNN political commentator Hilary Rosen jumped straight to censorship:

Rosen is the former Huffington Post Washington editor and political director and was a contributor at MSNBC and CNBC.

Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor at City University of New York compared being bought by Sinclair to being sold into slavery:

Amy Goodman, anchor for left-wing Democracy Now!, ironically claimed Sinclair was exploiting the airwaves “to promote a right-wing agenda.” Democracy Now! Reports air daily on multiple radio stations and is part of the “largest public media collaboration in the U.S.”

Washington Post opinion writer Alyssa Rosenberg appeared on MSNBC May 14 to criticize conservative viewpoints being portrayed as “facially neutral” and “non-ideological.”

“We should all be very worried about the power of Sinclair,” Huffington Post editor in chief Lydia Polgreen declared, while the overnight editor Jade Walker smeared all of Sinclair’s content as “alt-right.”

Freelance writer Karen Dalton-Beninato, who was written for New Republic, Huffington Post and Forbes called Sinclair “Orwellian” and said Oliver’s segment was “chilling.”

Atlantic staff writer David Graham accused Sinclair of pushing “political activism” over journalism.

Others, like Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall and former journalist Scot Ross, took a more profane angle:

Television writers and producers have also weighed in against Sinclair.

Even singer John Legend told his followers to “Be wary of Sinclair:”

Perhaps most confusing are those like former Pentagon public affairs strategic planner and Huffington Post columnist Adam Blickenstein, who feared Sinclair was adding to a “deficit” of liberal ideas in the news.

Attacks against Sinclair didn’t come solely from Twitter. Media outlets from The New York Times to New York Magazine ran with the anti-Sinclair furor as well.

Sinclair’s acquisition has “stoked concern,” The New York Times wrote on May 8, because “Sinclair has shown a willingness to use its 173 stations to advance a conservative-leaning agenda.”

NY Magazine writer Eric Levitz also decried Sinclair’s purchase before denying the existence of a “liberal” media. “The greatest trick the ‘liberal’ media ever pulled was to convince the world that it exists,” he wrote.

Left-wing Vox media warned against Sinclair’s “efforts to inject conservative views into the news.” As evidence, Vox cited reports that were critical of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the federal government. Vox writer Jeff Guo failed to explain how that was any different (or worse) than the liberal spin Vox puts on its own reporting.

Many of those targeting Sinclair, including Vox, Salon and Oliver, cited the media company’s supposed “huge” size. But they blew Sinclair’s size out of proportion, New York Post writer Kyle Smith explained in a National Review op-ed.

“Oliver calculates that Sinclair will, after the merger, command the broadcasting power of 215 local stations whose most-watched evening newscasts, he says, reach a combined 2.2 million people. ‘And that is a lot!’ Oliver says, although it actually isn’t, unless you think six-tenths of 1 percent of the country is a lot of the country,” Smith wrote.

That’s not even considering that Sinclair’s broadcasting isn’t the only thing on everyone’s TV, Smith further pointed out.