Sinclair’s editorial – and the Left’s response to it – is just annoying politics

The Sinclair Broadcast Group story is annoying on just about every level.

That includes Sinclair’s editorial about fake news, which it had uniformly transmitted to its stations’ local audiences.

It also includes the overriding criticism of Sinclair from the Left, which has been using language of cultural decay and propaganda – and more invocations of Orwell – to demonstrate “the real-life dystopian turn America has taken under Donald Trump.”

First of all, the refrain by some on the Right about fake news media is the most tired and unconvincing political argument of the past five years, primarily because it has never really been grounded in particulars.

I, for one, have never seen the president, nor his allies, nor anyone in the public sphere reiterating the “fake news media” label, target and debunk particular stories published by major news organizations, actually demonstrating their fakeness.

The Sinclair editorial at subject here doesn’t use any particulars either, speaking only broadly about “the sharing of biased and false news” by mainstream news organizations that “has become all too common on social media.”

We have an idea which organizations it’s referring to, considering that Sinclair’s chief political analyst, Boris Epshteyn, is a former Trump campaign staffer, and considering Sinclair’s other syndicated editorials. But we aren’t given a who or a what particularly.

This has been my problem with the Trumpist “fake news” argument all along. It has never been presented through the explication of particular stories, as examples of hit-pieces contrived by the media, and so it has never been a convincing argument. Its use has the desired effect upon a specific group, buttressing their opposition to the media, but it isn’t thoughtful argumentation.

Secondly, the response to Sinclair’s editorial from those on the political Left has entirely overstated its importance.

“It could be a scene in a dystopian fantasy: A chorus of news anchors warning viewers about the scourge of media bias, all reciting the same words in stations across the country,” Alex Shepard of the New Republic wrote.

“We must rediscover the term ‘public good,’ holding entities like Sinclair and Fox News to account for disseminating outlandish propaganda,” wrote Cliff Schecter, a former political analyst for Sinclair Broadcast Group, in the New York Times.

“Sinclair was rightfully called out for its hypocrisy and their publicity stunt only illuminated their blatant partisanship,” wrote Clete Wetli at AL.com.

Blatant partisanship, sure, but what hypocrisy?

It’s just not that big of a deal.

There are at least two things that frighten the above critics: the editorial itself and its uniform presentation.

As I’ve already argued, the editorial is a silly, unconvincing, right-wing refrain that everyone recognizes. Nothing very propaganda-ish there, if propaganda means anything that it used to.

As for the editorial’s uniform presentation, the above critics are treating Sinclair’s stations like state-run media. It isn’t state-run media. It’s just biased media with a large reach. We see that all the time. Just because it shares a political vision with the president, and owns 193 local news stations, doesn’t make the state media analogy work.

Further, the above critics are treating Sinclair’s viewers like they are unable to distinguish their local news broadcast from a right-wing opinion, an assumption I don’t share.

To sum up my argument: It’s annoying that Sinclair has its stations deliver right-wing talking points, but the response to the video montage of those talking points is also annoying.

It is a shame – as Alex Shepard argues – that local newscasts have been subjected to this kind of editorializing, because local news has historically been refreshingly voided of that. But the Sinclair story is just not all that revelatory.

@jeremywbeaman is a contributing writer for Yellowhammer News