channel2

Didn't they actually remake some Sony-owned shows? Like Charlie's Angels?

Is it that, or is it that the networks people watch didn't want LIV Golf?

I mean, the creation of the WB and UPN was in large part driven by independents' fear of being outcompeted not only by network affiliates and the nascent Fox, but by cable networks... And considering how much bigger cable was in 2006 than it was in 1993, when those two networks officially threw down the gauntlet...

Somebody would probably want the spectrum... Also you've gotta love big corporations and their aversion to paying taxes. They'd rather be in a cash crunch than pay taxes!

Doesn't Paramount need money bad? Wouldn't selling off KSTW or WTOG for cash help with that?

They hold some minority interest in Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.

They own WKSY-LD in Rome, which is part of the Chattanooga market.

Oh she was at Young well before that, when Vincent still ran it.

I say this as someone with no ties to DFW, but my heart doesn't exactly flutter over the prospect of KXAS's star 5 being canned.

So was Ohio in 2019!

The political ad dollars Florida brings in? Their already strong presence in the state?

Aren't those LPs that don't count against the cap?

Oh jesus I keep forgetting that's what Standard General's logo looks like.

TEGNA has one class of stock, no controlling shareholder, and is much easier to push around. Gray is protected from a takeover by the way its stock is structured, Hearst is a huge private company and doesn't have to sell if they don't want to, and Nexstar is probably in too strong a position to be bullied into selling right now.

Paid for its operations, Paramount and WBD literally gave the 75% interest in the network itself away.

Wouldn't the profit participants have something to say about that?

CBS owns the "Eyewitness News" name.

KCNC has been calling itself "CBS 4" since 2003 (and switched from "News 4" to "CBS 4 News" in 2005), so it's not that big a leap. It wouldn't be the first time they had to adapt to a longstanding part of their identity being dropped (they had to drop the KOA calls because GE let Belo keep them for the radio station). But I do think trying to force the major affiliate groups to drop, in some cases, decades' worth of brand recognition and give up at least the appearance of an autonomous newsroom potentially problematic. There are a lot of people who are still, almost 20 years later, distrustful towards CBS News (rightly or not) over their handling of the Killian documents. Plus if CBS News gets into hot water again, why make it harder to distance yourself from the network? The O&Os have every reason to align themselves with the network, being owned by them and aggressively branded with the Eyemark and "CBS" visually or verbally. But if your newsroom is independent from the network, why act like it's not? Wasn't the longstanding "A CBS AFFILIATE" marker meant to indicate exactly that? Also, it sounds eerily similar to NBC's failed gambit to make Young sell KRON to them at a loss. "Call yourself 'NBC 4' and pay us $10 million a year or we're pulling our affiliation." The alignment of the O&Os with the network also serves another purpose I haven't seen theorized: It helps CBS News look like it's "in touch" with large swathes of the country. Over the last decade or so, the national news media seems to have retrenched into a handful of large metropolitan strongholds: New York, LA, San Francisco, Washington, maybe Chicago. Touting a presence in places like Detroit or Pittsburgh or Baltimore or Denver is huge, especially considering the national media's disinvestment in the Rust Belt and general ignorance of the Intermountain West.

It was pointed out that Universal Television wouldn't be happy with having fewer slots to sell shows to NBC in. I'm sure a lot of Hollywood types would need to be pacified as well... (Then again, none of them had any advance knowledge of The WB and UPN joining forces!)

When did people start mentioning WWE among the sporting leagues? It feels like a recent phenomenon...

Wouldn't CBS be unhappy about that? Much of the reason CBS even bothers with a morning show seems to be for the soft power that comes in having clips from interviews and such circulating. It makes the network look important, like Today and GMA make NBC and ABC look important. What might that do to Nexstar's relationship with CBS?

I take it TEGNA wasn't in any mood to add this jewel to KING's crown?

They own a bunch of non-commercial licenses that I can't imagine it would be easy to strip of the non-com designation to widen the pool of potential buyers...unless it's more advantageous to donate them instead of selling them as prime real estate.

Is Twitter so indispensable that businesses won't just go elsewhere? You'd think Elon would have learned from the boom-and-bust cycles of dot-com businesses...

Telemundo must be big business for them - or, at least, it has a ton of upside!