CHRIS HAYES (HOST): There's a way in which it's propagandistic aesthetically, that feels extremely heavy-handed and throwback, but this is going out all over the place, right?
ANGELO CARUSONE: That's exactly right, and that's why I think everyone should beware of Sinclair, because of -- the reality is that most people still trust their local news, and so it's really insidious when they -- when they're out there running segments like that.
The consumers of it in particular are not assuming that Boris Epshteyn is somehow connected to the Trump campaign, and in many ways, that could actually be their first exposure to Scott Pruitt or their most significant exposure to Scott Pruitt's sort of long history of scandals, and that's why it's so insidious and damaging.
...
HAYES: A la Trump who has not given an interview at a non-friendly outlet since Lester Holt, Pruitt never has to answer a question on that because he will only go to friendly outlets.
CARUSONE: Exactly it, and that actually underscores not only how corrupt Scott Pruitt is but just how propagandistic this Sinclair segment was because to your point in his first year, Scott Pruitt did 16 interviews with Fox News, 16. Seven with, on all the other cable news channels and broadcast news combined, so more than twice as much as anywhere else. And then he did an interview at the beginning of April with Ed Henry and all Fox News did was ask him about the, in some of the 42 scandals and instances of ethical corruption that had him there and he didn’t do any news media for two months and then pops up on Sinclair because that’s the only place that’s actually willing to do the kinds of sanitizing for him. They’re the only ones that actually won’t even ask him the very basic questions about his scandals. He’s too toxic for even Fox.
