Andreatta: News anchors Doug Emblidge, Norma Holland held hostage by Sinclair Broadcast

A disturbing hostage video of WHAM-TV news anchors Doug Emblidge and Norma Holland being forced to recite words that were not their own has prompted an unprecedented social media backlash against the familiar Channel 13 pairing and their station.

The clip surfaced the other day as part of a terrifying montage of dozens of news anchors from television stations around the country delivering to their viewers the same message about journalistic integrity in unison like members of a brainwashed cult.

While all the anchors appeared healthy and unblemished, their wooden performances suggested they read their statements under duress at the instruction of their hostage takers — Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of their respective stations.

The anchors opened by declaring their “greatest responsibility” was serving their communities and concluded by inviting viewers to let their stations know if their reporting was ever biased or unfair.

In between, their script went like this:

“We’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one-sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media.

“More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories, stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first.

“Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

“At (WHAM), it’s our responsibility to pursue and report the truth. We understand truth is neither politically left nor right. Our commitment to factual reporting is the foundation of our credibility, now more than ever.”

More: RIT student will compete in 'Jeopardy!' college championship

More: Astacio among city court judges receiving $11,700 pay raise

There was nothing sinister about the message on its face. Social media is awash in biased and false news stories, and some media outlets and their personalities are perpetuating those narratives.

The problem, for viewers angry at the anchors and, judging by the robotic deliveries of the anchors, the anchors themselves, is the context in which they were made to read the message.

Sinclair has been using its local stations to advance the right-leaning agenda of its owner with daily programming directives that include what are known as “must-runs,” prepackaged segments centrally produced by the company.

Those must-runs include commentary by Boris Epshteyn, a Russian-born American Republican political strategist and senior adviser to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Sinclair is the country’s largest broadcaster with 193 stations, and will become bigger and more influential if its proposed acquisition of Tribune Media and its 42 stations is approved.

The $3.9 billion proposed merger is before the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department, where Trump appointees are reviewing it.

Lest one wonder how the president’s appointees are leaning, consider the tweet Trump posted Monday amid the backlash over the Sinclair anchors: “Sinclair is far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.”

Sinclair’s directive that local news anchors read the centrally issued warning about “fake news” appears to be an attempt to lend credibility to its “must-runs” and ward off critics of its impending merger.

Forcing Emblidge and Holland, and the pairing of Don Alhart and Ginny Ryan, who were also made to read the statement but whose recitation never made the widely circulated montage, was a corporate hostage-taking of good names and reputations by Sinclair.

"I felt like a P.O.W. recording a message," one anchor told CNN's Brian Stelter, who first reported the synchronized messages last month.

Now, Sinclair didn’t put a gun to the anchors' heads. But it held their paychecks, their benefits and the lifestyles to which they and their families have grown accustomed over their heads.

What would you have done? Ask yourself honestly, critics. Given my position in life — raising two young children, paying down a mortgage — I believe I would have read it and afterward promptly begun looking for new work.

Emblidge declined an interview but spoke Monday on The Brother Wease Show about the painful dilemma he faced, at one point choking up and having to stop speaking to regain his composure.

“I did put forth some resistance,” he said. “It came down to a choice of what hill do you want to die on? Did I want to end my 35-year career? ... I had a choice to make and I was not ready to give up on this television station to which I am devoted and to my colleagues to whom I am devoted.”

Holland took to Facebook to offer a candid rebuttal to critics, acknowledging on one hand that the statement she read may have damaged the trust viewers have placed in her for 22 years, and saying on the other that a career isn’t defined by a single moment.

“Here’s the truth: I could have chosen to quit, but who among us has an alternate career in their back pocket ready to go?” she asked. “I have a family to support. That’s not an excuse — that’s reality. Moreover, I have a career I love and worked hard for. Am I supposed to be bullied into giving it up? ... One bad day does not speak for a career filled with good.”

It’s easy for a critic to firebomb the anchors from a social media account on a whim without considering what he might have done differently if faced with the same choice.

Critics ought to reserve their vitriol for the hostage-takers — Sinclair.

David Andreatta is a Democrat and Chronicle columnist. He can be reached at dandreatta@gannett.com.