The biggest problem with Sinclair requiring their affiliates to recite propaganda is not the actual propaganda itself — it’s that it’s not clearly identified as political advertising. Here’s what should happen — local management runs a disclaimer before the reporters speak, something along the lines of:
“The following is a political advertisement sponsored by our parent company, Sinclair Broadcasting.”
Then, throughout the spot, have a banner along the bottom of the screen identifying it as political advertising sponsored by Sinclair. Or have the usual disclaimer at the end of the spot that every other PAC is required to display, including “Sinclair Broadcasting is solely responsible for the content of this advertisement”.
The core issue is that this is the same type of political ad that every other PAC runs — and it should be identified as such.
In addition, don’t either the local affiliate or the reporters themselves have their own free speech rights themselves? IANAL, but it seems to me that this pits the (warped, post-Citizens United) line of a corporation’s free speech rights versus the right of affiliates or journalists to broadcast what they believe to be the truth. If enough reporters and affiliates band together to protect their rights, they really might be able to force Sinclair to clearly identify their propaganda for what it actually is — political advertising.
And if Sinclair still refuses, this might be a case worth fighting even up to the Supreme Court.