Behind "Behind the Headlines": What's the Point?

This blog’s purpose is to serve as an ongoing rhetorical critique of Sinclair Broadcasting’s editorial segments, most particularly “Behind the Headlines with Mark Hyman.”  This does not mean that I am simply offering a “pro” to Hyman’s “con.”  Rather, the main purpose is to critique the way Hyman makes his arguments, showing how they are, content aside, poorly done.  In the process, the content of his assertions will often be shown to be in error and/or countered, but the primary goal is to shine a light on how bad a rhetorician Hyman is (and, by synecdoche, what a poor contributor to the public sphere Sinclair Media is).

This is not new territory for me.

For a few years, I wrote a blog titled “The Counterpoint”which served as a critique of “The Point,” the Hyman-hosted precursor to “Behind the Headlines.” During that time, I was personally attacked by Hyman (an attack he was forced to retract and apologize for on air), was interviewed on Air America radio, got called all kinds of names by irate commentators, and turned the whole experience into a paper (as we academics are wont to do).  Good times.

Eventually, however, Hyman faded.  Shortly after implying that George Soros was a Nazi collaborator during World War II (in fact, he was an adolescent Jewish boy in hiding) and then having to retract that slander, he took an extended leave of absence.  Since then, Sinclair has repackaged his commentaries under a new label, “Behind the Headlines”, that appears less regularly than “The Point” did.  When he did resurface, however, it seemed pointless (pardon the pun) to continue.  I couldn’t muster the energy to go through the motions of critiquing his occasional pieces on a consistent basis.  For one, I no longer lived in a Sinclair market, so the local connection was not there.  And secondly, Hyman’s presence was a shadow of its former self.

Now, however, with Trump in the White House, Sinclair is making a play at expanding its control over formerly local news stations, subjecting larger audiences to canned, pre-fabricated news stories created at corporate headquarters and fed to local anchors to read, Ron Burgundy-like,from teleprompters from sea to shining sea.  And, I now live within a Sinclair market again, so this is once more a local, personal issue for me.  Hence, my second wind.

From the outset, I’d like to make sure one thing is clear. The primary problem with Hyman’s commentaries is not—and has never been— their conservatism.  True, as a liberal progressive, I tend to disagree with much of the substance of what he (and his Sinclair stablemates) say. But that’s true of lots of professional prattlers, none of whom I’ve bothered to publicly critique.

There are two far more salient issues.  The first is the tenor of Hyman’s commentaries.  Hyman makes Rush Limbaugh sound like Edmund Burke—his “arguments”, such as they are, rarely rise to the level of even the most dismal talk radio blathering.  Name calling, innuendo, fallacious reasoning, and flat-out dishonesty are par for the course.  As someone who feels a healthy public sphere is essential to a democracy, I think this is dangerous.  Content aside, the way in which Hyman attempt to make his points is poisonous to civil discourse.

The second issue is that Hyman’s commentaries are foisted upon an increasingly large viewership with no say-so from the local stations Sinclair owns.  Once upon a time, local TV news would feature editorials (often from the news director) on truly local issues.  The centerpiece of Sinclair’s modus operandi, however, is the de-localization of local news, and mandated “must-run” segments such as Hyman’s are part of this.  His segments are a synecdoche of the larger threat of media consolidation, with fewer and fewer voices having a louder and louder megaphone with which to drown out others. 

This danger has recently been enhanced with the elevation of Trump to the presidency.  Sinclair is closely tied with Trump, and Trump has power over the FCC, the organization that can (and, of late, does) allow larger consolidation of media.

So, I’m back with my sling and stone, trying to do my bit in standing up to the rhetorical bully that is Sinclair.  Feel free to join in.