• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Boris Epshteyn of Sinclair has been called our for a rant

Y2kTheNewOldies

Y2kTheNewOldies

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-segment-trump-migrants.html

The Rant involves migrants at the border that aired on Sinclair Owned stations.


https://tvnewscheck.com/article/top-news/226173/sinclair-distances-commentary/


NEW YORK (AP) — The Sinclair Broadcast Group is distancing itself from commentary by its chief political analyst Boris Epshteyn, who this week supported the Trump administration’s efforts to stop migrants at the U.S. border with Mexico.

The commentary has triggered protests, and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists said it is reconsidering allowing Sinclair representatives to attend its job recruitment events.




Sinclair tweeted that Epshteyn’s opinions “in this segment do not reflect the views of Sinclair Broadcast Group.” The company owns dozens of local television stations across the country.
Click to expand...
 
TheBigA said:
Here's a bit more detail. Apparently he defended the use of tear gas on women & children:

https://www.salon.com/2018/11/29/si...fense-of-the-use-of-tear-gas-on-migrant-kids/

What's interesting is to hear Sinclair's explanation of their relationship with him.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting take by Salon. Like so many news-mixed-with-opinion websites, they fail to make the distinction between opinion and news coverage.

The commentary in question was not labeled as news, and is quite clearly opinion. And many people understand that there are people who will hide behind women and children to achieve objectives, whether in Palestine, Tijuana or even in biblical times. Discussing the ethics of a defense against such actions is just another example of the exercise of free speech, whether we agree with the perspective, is part of our system.

I see a frightening situation where commentators from the left call conservatives Hitler, and those on the right call liberals Stalinist Commies. Both extremes endanger constructive discourse from each perspective.
 
Last edited:
DavidEduardo said:
The commentary in question was not labeled as news, and is quite clearly opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree, and that's the view Sinclair is taking. However, they (like many others) only presented one side, and the commentary was presented in the context of what was supposed to be a balanced news program.

I think we need to ask if that's the proper context for such things. Is it confusing to the viewer to watch a straight news show, and then diverge from fairness for a few minutes, to present a commentary or an editorial. As some commentators have learned, there is a risk and a cost to saying things that anger and alienate certain viewers. You can lose your sponsorship, or you can be targeted by certain advocacy groups. Then it paints a color on all of your news coverage, even if they're doing everything they can to keep it fair and locally focused. I think Fox has discovered that, and it's why they don't attempt to force conservative commentary on their local owned stations. It's also why most other ownership groups have stayed out of the editorial business completely.
 
TheBigA said:
It's also why most other ownership groups have stayed out of the editorial business completely.
Click to expand...

And it is why, historically, radio editorializing has mostly been about improving storm drainage and park beautification and other non-partisan issues.

I don't recall radio stations that did editorialize touching third-rail subjects like abortion or Social Security benefits. It would be interesting to know if local radio ever editorialized on the more controversial subjects.
 
DavidEduardo said:
It would be interesting to know if local radio ever editorialized on the more controversial subjects.
Click to expand...

They did and as you'd expect it often led to legal fights, some of which went to the Supreme Court.

I think given Sinclair's business interests, they may realize that green is more important than red or blue, and politics is a bad place for a publicly traded company to be. It's much better to be Switzerland.
 
Except that the Sinclair Broadcast Group is tightly controlled by the Smith family. The family controls around 76% of the voting power through a preferred class share structure, according to an SEC filing from this spring. The ordinary shareholders have very little say in the operation of Sinclair, so long as the Smith family remains unified.
 
The late Vern Kaspar, owner of WILO/WSHW and assorted translators in Frankfort, Indiana, and KWRE among others in Missouri, aired daily editorials for decades on his stations, mostly on national subjects. The editorials had a disgtinctly pro-Reagan conservative bent, and he tried to have his news reporters tilt news coverage to be more favorable to Republican office holders. There were times he would have to allow an editorial reply (and not from Floyd R. Turbo, Jr.)
 
RadioPatrol said:
Or get sued for their rants.
Click to expand...

How can a commentator (what we used to call an "editorialist") be sue for expressing their opinion.

Save for cases where an opinion constitutes a criminal act (the classic "yelling fire in a theater" example stands here), all we have here is an opinion some people disagree with.
 
Also, keep in mind Sinclair stations are forced to run Boris at least a few times a week. That includes KIMA. Even if the GM or anchors don't like it, too bad, so sad! Some stations throw him to the least-watched newscasts, I think KOMO was airing Boris, the Terrorism Alert Desk and Kristine Frazao in the 4:30am morning news. Last time I saw that commentary was on KEPR's Sunday 11pm news. AND THEY DON'T EVEN ANNOUNCE IT'S COMING ON, or have a disclaimer for said commentary. Liberal or conservative, they should have a disclaimer that it's someone's opinion and could be slanted/biased.
At least KNDU and KVEW are owned by regional corporations that don't require parent company 'must-runs'. The #1 golden rule to local news: report the news with no bias or slanting. Leave the conservative slant to Fox News, the liberal slant to MSNBC.
 
RadioPatrol said:
Or get sued for their rants.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't win a suit just because you disagree him politically.

Once Boris Epshteyn starts hurting stations rating and revenue Sinclair will get rid of him. Station groups are trying to find ways to get its ratings up and cut cost. Tenga and Scripps are filling there newscast with social media, Sinclair with a conservative commentator. There was a report out that said Sinclair is giving the stations GMs more leeway on the commentary segments, stations are able to put them on newscasts that have low viewership like at 4am or drop them altogether.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom