The good, the bad, and the not-so-terrible: A comprehensive analysis of Sinclair’s effect on local television news quality

Abstract

Critics accuse the Sinclair television ownership group of slashing resources and producing biased news. However, few scholars have examined Sinclair’s news quality. Using an investment-based approach to quality, this study provides the first systematic human-coded examination of Sinclair’s local video news quality. Data from 2,300 stories in 40 U.S. markets indicated lower overall quality at Sinclair-owned stations compared to competitors. However, Sinclair outperformed competitors on some quality metrics, and evidence of political bias was minimal. Findings provide insights into how corporate ownership affects local TV, the most trusted source of news in the United States.

Conclusion

Because local TV is essentially the most common and most trusted news-media source for U.S. adults, Sinclair’s local coverage is a crucial part of America’s information diet (Newman et al., 2024; Shearer et al., 2024). This systematic analysis of local TV news content suggests that Sinclair affiliates are investing fewer resources in news, leaving stations less equipped to report on important issues. Sinclair’s dedication to quality even paled in comparison to other corporate news firms. This can hamper journalists’ ability to conduct news work, leaving audiences less informed about important events in their communities (Shoemaker & Reese, 2013). In particular, a greater emphasis on national news (as opposed to local news) at Sinclair stations is somewhat troubling given that Sinclair’s national coverage is often more politically slanted and sensational than national coverage at non-Sinclair stations (Hedding et al., 2019). It should be pointed out that because this was not a longitudinal study, it would be difficult to make claims about how a Sinclair takeover might specifically affect news quality. However, past research indicates that Sinclair takeovers coincide with a negative effect on local television and website content at those news stations and, in some cases, a negative effect on viewers’ knowledge (Blankenship & Vargo, 2021; Martin et al., 2024; Pierce, 2025). Present findings support such results and indicate that Sinclair could be cutting corners to save money on its news operations.

However, there were positive quality indicators at Sinclair stations, including greater use of reporter resources and similar diversity in news topics, compared to competitors. Furthermore, data showed that Sinclair-owned U.S. stations covered local politics in a fairly straightforward manner. This suggests that company executives are not attempting, or are not able, to bias such coverage and that local Sinclair affiliates are reporting on political matters largely without undue influence from above. Such findings might provide comfort to viewers and journalists worried that Sinclair might enforce a partisan ideology. Overall, the mixed results indicate that the company’s impact on news is complicated and thus requires more inquiry. Reconciling this dichotomy in quality might require qualitative research that uncovers Sinclair’s newsroom processes and practices. Future research could parse out how and where Sinclair’s “effect” is most impactful and how it influences the information that audiences receive.

The findings here have pressing ramifications for the role journalism plays in a liberal democracy. It highlights a trend that is two-fold: (1) media ownership does play a role in the quality–and quantity–of information audiences receive, and (2) journalism is changing, and this snapshot is just a moment in time for a media landscape facing increasing consolidation and intense scrutiny over truth claims. In many U.S. markets, one company controls all major stations and, therefore, all local TV news, a medium that faces less competition thanks to the decline of newspapers (Calfano et al., 2022). The present research shows, beyond Sinclair’s influence, there is room to question how ownership affects the marketplace of ideas and an informed electorate.