Trolling for Clicks at Sinclair

In a recent example of questionable editorial judgment, Sinclair Broadcast Group syndicated a crime story from its Charleston, South Carolina, station to its local news affiliates across the country. The story, centered on the arrest of a suspect with severe facial disfigurements, became a case study in both logistical laziness and a failure of journalistic responsibility.

The most immediate issue was the lack of localization. The story was essentially copied from the source affiliate and pasted onto the websites of stations nationwide. The only indication of its origin was the "SC" abbreviation in the dateline, leaving audiences from Seattle to Baltimore to wonder about the relevance of a South Carolina crime report to their own community. This "copy-and-paste" syndication model treats news as generic content rather than vital, localized information.

More troubling, however, was the decision to nationally circulate the suspect's shocking mugshot without providing any context for his condition. Viewers were confronted with a deeply unsettling image, raising immediate questions. Were the disfigurements the result of a fire or some other form of trauma? It did not appear to have occurred during the arrest, yet the article offered no explanation.

This omission points to a significant journalistic lapse. By choosing to publish such a visually arresting photograph, Sinclair's editorial teams—from the local reporters in Charleston to the national producers—incurred a responsibility to answer the very questions the image would provoke. A core function of journalism is to provide context, yet no one seemed to consider that the audience would want, and deserve, to know more. Even a simple statement acknowledging that the cause of his injuries was unknown or that authorities had not provided that information would have demonstrated due diligence.

The story was reportedly updated four days after it was first published, suggesting that the initial versions were even less complete. Ultimately, the incident serves as a stark reminder that publishing for shock value without providing substance is not journalism; it is merely content distribution that fails to serve the public interest.