Just to be clear, in the case of a television station, just like a newspaper or magazine, the relevant first amendment rights belong to the owner of the company.
Unfortunately we don’t have laws protecting employees from political pressure of their employers.
As stated upthread, Sinclair group is a private company. They can have their employees do whatever. They are soon to be even larger, by merging with Tribune.
But, my original OP question overstated whether the 1st amendment was trampled on. It still has a bad smell.IMO.
Thank-you so much for explaining that to me. You are so very helpful.
But I do believe it might be illustrative of the type of activity that the OP is complaining about in case some people are unfamiliar. And, I suspect, it may even have been what prompted the post, although I’m sure you will soon helpfully point out that we have no way of knowing that.
I dunno, IANAL, but I think it might be a first Amendment issue. It is if the livelihood of these individuals was threatened in order to get them to do it. This was not a news piece, it was clearly an opinion piece. And the statement does not say “It is the opinion of our management. . .” but rather reads as if the individual reading it declaring a personal opinion. The freedom of expression of that individual is surely violated as much if they are coerced into expressing a false opinion as if they are prevented from expressing their true opinion.
The public air waves belong to the citizens as a whole, and there are only so many frequencies upon which a station can be transmitted. As such, the right to transmit at a given frequency is licensed by the FCC to a few individuals. There being more applications than frequencies, it has been determined that broadcasting time must be provided to those with opposing views, as in the “equal time” arguments one always hears around election years.
The Government having granted so many broadcast licenses to a group, and then allowing them to be used to support coerced expression, may constitute a violation.
Let me ask a question: Suppose you hired a person to read your statements out loud, in public, on the courthouse steps (or in the public square or similar place), you paid them, and they refused to read the statements because they disagreed with them. Do you have to keep paying them? Have you violated their rights by demanding that they read them?
Why doesn’t the same apply to the owner of a TV station?
If the staff of a TV station wanted to spend 24 hours a day reading Mein Kampf on the air, is the owner of the station obligated to keep them employed at his station?
Fake news and it’s spread on Facebook has had National attention ever since the election.
I see nothing political in local stations taking a stand to verify news stories. It’s basic journalism 101. Sinclair and it’s affliated stations are trying to reassure the public that the commitment to fair and honest journalism hasn’t changed.
The Facebook data scandel just broke a couple weeks ago. They’re largely responsible for spreading the misleading and unvarified news during the election.
The public needs reassurance that the news they see locally isn’t the same as the crap showing up in their Facebook feed.
There’s a big difference in real journalism and a computer bot directing random news stories into your feed.
My local ABC afflilate was owned by Allbritton.
Allbritton sold all it’s stations to Sinclair in 2013.
It’s routine business. My station has the same anchors. They didn’t run out and hire a bunch of conservative commentators. They offer the same local news and weather as before.
The airwaves belong to the public and the FCC, under competent leadership, could regulate his issue away. Make a rule forbidding station owners from using their stations to broadcast unchallenged political views. If they choose to air political opinion, equal time must be presented to opposing views. Make a second rule prohibiting owners from coercing local broadcasters from reciting political manifestos. Two rules, problem solved.
What’s odd about the Sinclair statement is that it is just vague enough that it could actually be criticizing actual fake news, as opposed to what Trump labels as fake news.
An employee of a private company does not have a First Amendment right against his or her employer. In fact, the employer has a First Amendment right to make its employees make political statements of the employer’s choice.
An FCC license holder has a First Amendment right to do this. The equal time rule was abolished in the 1980s, but even if it could be revived (it’s arguably a violation of the First Amendment itself), it would not protect Sinclair’s employees.
I don’t see the equal time rule as a violation of the first amendment. The broadcast frequencies are finite and belong to the public. Public resources should not be used to promote a particular viewpoint to the exclusion of others. Bring back the equal time rule and you’ve solved most of the problem.
Just for the record, the Equal Time Rule only applied to candidates for political office.
The now-defunct Fairness Doctrine required radio/TV stations to provide time for opposing views on controversial topics.
I understand the dog-whistle nature of the recent announcement. But is somebody really going to demand equal time to argue that news outlets should not investigate stories before publishing them? That’s kind of what makes the whole thing so frustrating.