4 ms·

Those news anchors were either OK with the contents of the script they were ordered to read, or they were gutless cowards for not resigning or allowing themselv

Those news anchors were either OK with the contents of the script they were ordered to read, or they were gutless cowards for not resigning or allowing themselves to be fired.

macintux 9y ago
The journalism job market ain't what it used to be. I find it hard to label people trying to keep their family fed and housed as "gutless cowards."
- ModernMech 9y ago
  The problem is your excuse is used to justify any action all the way down to killing Jews in a gas chamber. "I was just doing as I was told" Sure no one is being gassed here, bit this seems pretty subversive. I have a family to feed too, we all do, but I also chose my line of work so that I'm comfortable saying "No" to the boss (and have had to quit because of this in the past).
  - macintux 9y ago
    Slippery slope is not a compelling argument.
    - iambateman 9y ago
      At least ModernMech made an argument, which you have chosen not to do. Dismissiveness is not a compelling argument. Journalists have a social duty to tell the truth, as they understand it. This duty in particular extends to keeping a check on government. Participating in the deployment of propaganda is not a slippery slope, it is a violation of trust. If our journalists are willing to participate, then we have a problem.
      - macintux 9y ago
        > Participating in the deployment of propaganda is not a slippery slope, it is a violation of trust. If our journalists are willing to participate, then we have a problem. I agree, and my intent originally was not to downplay the core problem, but to point out that dismissing them as "gutless cowards" was not the ideal way to approach it.
  - jimbokun 9y ago
    Well that Godwinned quickly.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  That's true, but getting paid a lot so that the personal sacrifices would be that much greater isn't greater moral ill for the news anchors. They could go and get regular jobs (ie at median pay when starting a different career, but are over-leveraged, basically. That's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't make it OK to participate in further debasement of the system.
- makomk 9y ago
  Yeah, I think very few outlets are doing well these days, aside from the New York Times and maybe one or two others. (Which makes it a little ironic for the NYT to stir fear about one company having too much power over what people see, especially since they're no strangers to pushing narratives themselves...)
uptown 9y ago
Here's some context around the provisions of the contracts these anchors frequently work under: https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980800914423406592 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980800914423406592 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112 Essentially, if they were to chose to leave, they'd owe 40% of their base pay prorated by the remainder of their contract, as-well as the potential requirement to return some bonuses received. Vacation days are lost, and there are typically non-competes within the same region.
- elsonrodriguez 9y ago
  You have to almost admire the design of such a contract. The history behind how this spread throughout the local news industry has to be super interesting. The conspiracy theorist in me feels that the chilling effect this would have on the independence of news anchors was intentional.
- rhapsodic 9y ago
  >Essentially, if they were to chose to leave, they'd owe 40% of their base pay prorated by the remainder of their contract, as-well as the potential requirement to return some bonuses received. Vacation days are lost, and there are typically non-competes within the same region. That's entirely beside the point. They freely entered into those contracts. Now that push has come to shove, they chose money and personal well-being over their integrity and beliefs. (Or maybe they were OK with the message they were ordered to read, in which case their integrity is intact.)
logfromblammo 9y ago
You are insulting the wrong people. Please do not blame the victims for choosing not to walk willingly into homelessness and financial ruin. Blame those that allow such gross power imbalances to occur.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  How are we to know who they are when they have effective control of the media? homelessness and financial ruin News anchors in the Bay Area are paid about $4-500k. They may be operating under onerous contracts with clawbacks, but they could budget strategically or fight those contracts in court to expose how bad they are, either personally or via their union. Very few people have that kind of financial room to maneuver or the public following that would bring a sympathetic audience for a legal battle.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    SF is not a typical market. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-correspondents-and-broadcast-news-analysts.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-co... Median pay for on-screen television news talent is less than $40k/year. That encompasses everyone, not just the anchors (aka "broadcast news analysts"), but the number for them is about $57k/year. The typical career progression is for people to move to larger cities, with larger and richer media markets, to earn higher pay. The majority of Sinclair-owned stations are not in San Francisco. But you are otherwise correct, the union hasn't been earning its dues here, and the highly-paid anchors haven't assumed leadership roles against the Sinclair contracts, either. Most individual anchors are not in a position of power with respect to their own employers. They may have a position of power over other people's employers, but they emphatically cannot run a critical piece on their own bosses and expect to keep sitting behind that broadcast desk, or any other. Acting as anonymous source for a print news journalist (working for a different media conglomerate) is probably the best they can do.
- verylittlemeat 9y ago
  You're right that a power imbalance caused this but that doesn't let the news anchors off the hook. These anchors know what their talents are. They are trained to speak with confidence and to appear as an information authority to their communities. This isn't some cog in the machine tweaking a spreadsheet in an office building that leads to some guy losing a job 1,000 miles away. These anchors are allowing their faces and their voices and the direct trust vested in their personalities to be abused for propaganda. These anchors should be pushing back because when the shoe drops (like it is now) they will be taking the heat for being paid stooges. They will be disgraced in their community and just replaced by someone else willing to read whatever they're told until it happens again.
saturdaysaint 9y ago
Or maybe they had families and mortgages and student loans that they couldn't drop on a dime because they got asked to do something basically unheard of on the nightly news? Sinclair affiliates are primarily NOT located in the kind of metropolises where a journalist could expect to get a job the next week, either.
- braderhart 9y ago
  I know homeless people with better morals than these people, and some of them are homeless for that reason, but still chose the high road. These people are not struggling that much. They usually have new cars, homes that they own and take a lot of vacations... I guess I those things may be important enough to sacrifice morals, but it isn't like they are willing to step down to the level of people that have to go to pantrys, because they are too "good" for that.

Those news anchors were either OK with the contents of the script they were ordered to read, or they were gutless cowards for not resigning or allowing themselves to be fired.

macintux 9y ago

The journalism job market ain't what it used to be. I find it hard to label people trying to keep their family fed and housed as "gutless cowards."

ModernMech 9y ago
The problem is your excuse is used to justify any action all the way down to killing Jews in a gas chamber. "I was just doing as I was told" Sure no one is being gassed here, bit this seems pretty subversive. I have a family to feed too, we all do, but I also chose my line of work so that I'm comfortable saying "No" to the boss (and have had to quit because of this in the past).
- macintux 9y ago
  Slippery slope is not a compelling argument.
  - iambateman 9y ago
    At least ModernMech made an argument, which you have chosen not to do. Dismissiveness is not a compelling argument. Journalists have a social duty to tell the truth, as they understand it. This duty in particular extends to keeping a check on government. Participating in the deployment of propaganda is not a slippery slope, it is a violation of trust. If our journalists are willing to participate, then we have a problem.
    - macintux 9y ago
      > Participating in the deployment of propaganda is not a slippery slope, it is a violation of trust. If our journalists are willing to participate, then we have a problem. I agree, and my intent originally was not to downplay the core problem, but to point out that dismissing them as "gutless cowards" was not the ideal way to approach it.
- jimbokun 9y ago
  Well that Godwinned quickly.
anigbrowl 9y ago
That's true, but getting paid a lot so that the personal sacrifices would be that much greater isn't greater moral ill for the news anchors. They could go and get regular jobs (ie at median pay when starting a different career, but are over-leveraged, basically. That's a tough spot to be in, but it doesn't make it OK to participate in further debasement of the system.
makomk 9y ago
Yeah, I think very few outlets are doing well these days, aside from the New York Times and maybe one or two others. (Which makes it a little ironic for the NYT to stir fear about one company having too much power over what people see, especially since they're no strangers to pushing narratives themselves...)

uptown 9y ago

Here's some context around the provisions of the contracts these anchors frequently work under: https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980800914423406592 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980800914423406592 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112 https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/980811757726810112 Essentially, if they were to chose to leave, they'd owe 40% of their base pay prorated by the remainder of their contract, as-well as the potential requirement to return some bonuses received. Vacation days are lost, and there are typically non-competes within the same region.

elsonrodriguez 9y ago
You have to almost admire the design of such a contract. The history behind how this spread throughout the local news industry has to be super interesting. The conspiracy theorist in me feels that the chilling effect this would have on the independence of news anchors was intentional.
rhapsodic 9y ago
>Essentially, if they were to chose to leave, they'd owe 40% of their base pay prorated by the remainder of their contract, as-well as the potential requirement to return some bonuses received. Vacation days are lost, and there are typically non-competes within the same region. That's entirely beside the point. They freely entered into those contracts. Now that push has come to shove, they chose money and personal well-being over their integrity and beliefs. (Or maybe they were OK with the message they were ordered to read, in which case their integrity is intact.)

logfromblammo 9y ago

You are insulting the wrong people. Please do not blame the victims for choosing not to walk willingly into homelessness and financial ruin. Blame those that allow such gross power imbalances to occur.

anigbrowl 9y ago
How are we to know who they are when they have effective control of the media? homelessness and financial ruin News anchors in the Bay Area are paid about $4-500k. They may be operating under onerous contracts with clawbacks, but they could budget strategically or fight those contracts in court to expose how bad they are, either personally or via their union. Very few people have that kind of financial room to maneuver or the public following that would bring a sympathetic audience for a legal battle.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  SF is not a typical market. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-correspondents-and-broadcast-news-analysts.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/media-and-communication/reporters-co... Median pay for on-screen television news talent is less than $40k/year. That encompasses everyone, not just the anchors (aka "broadcast news analysts"), but the number for them is about $57k/year. The typical career progression is for people to move to larger cities, with larger and richer media markets, to earn higher pay. The majority of Sinclair-owned stations are not in San Francisco. But you are otherwise correct, the union hasn't been earning its dues here, and the highly-paid anchors haven't assumed leadership roles against the Sinclair contracts, either. Most individual anchors are not in a position of power with respect to their own employers. They may have a position of power over other people's employers, but they emphatically cannot run a critical piece on their own bosses and expect to keep sitting behind that broadcast desk, or any other. Acting as anonymous source for a print news journalist (working for a different media conglomerate) is probably the best they can do.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
You're right that a power imbalance caused this but that doesn't let the news anchors off the hook. These anchors know what their talents are. They are trained to speak with confidence and to appear as an information authority to their communities. This isn't some cog in the machine tweaking a spreadsheet in an office building that leads to some guy losing a job 1,000 miles away. These anchors are allowing their faces and their voices and the direct trust vested in their personalities to be abused for propaganda. These anchors should be pushing back because when the shoe drops (like it is now) they will be taking the heat for being paid stooges. They will be disgraced in their community and just replaced by someone else willing to read whatever they're told until it happens again.

saturdaysaint 9y ago

Or maybe they had families and mortgages and student loans that they couldn't drop on a dime because they got asked to do something basically unheard of on the nightly news? Sinclair affiliates are primarily NOT located in the kind of metropolises where a journalist could expect to get a job the next week, either.

braderhart 9y ago
I know homeless people with better morals than these people, and some of them are homeless for that reason, but still chose the high road. These people are not struggling that much. They usually have new cars, homes that they own and take a lot of vacations... I guess I those things may be important enough to sacrifice morals, but it isn't like they are willing to step down to the level of people that have to go to pantrys, because they are too "good" for that.