Jump to content

Sinclair, Tribune Close to Merger Deal


MidwestTV

Recommended Posts

The FCC has the authority to do this? Break up mega companies?

AFAIK, tightening ownership regulations is a principal way that the FCC can force a breakup of a big media company. I don't know if they could order a breakup posthaste outside of that or revoking licenses and forcing their sale to another company. The latter route has only been done a few times; the only big media outfit it has done that to was RKO General. Sinclair would have to have engaged in some pretty major corruption (such as the grafting [bribing] scenario I mentioned earlier) for it to reach the level of having all of their licenses revoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The FCC has the authority to do this? Break up mega companies?

The federal government forced a breakup of AT&T in 1984 and Standard Oil in 1913. And the FCC fought RKO General for 20 years before a seven-year forced liquidation of their assets took place.

 

Different federal agencies and different eras, of course, but there is precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sinclair is setting themselves up for a big time backlash from non-Republicans.

 

I find it hard to believe that there are enough Republicans to support agitprop on WPIX and WGN (look at the ratings for conservative talk radio stations in New York City and Chicago; they are all bottom-dwellers with audiences in the 55-dead demo). It may not be that big a deal for WPIX, but a mass audience and advertiser exodus from WGN could be catastrophic for a company with failing stock and significant debt.

 

The real problem is, through this merger, Sinclair is becoming too-big-to-fail. If they collapse financially, what happens then? Will the GOP be motivated to bail them out like Ford and GM? Wouldn’t put it against them.

 

Breaking up an unbreakable company (And how do you do that? Through forced liquidation? Seizure of assets?) may be the last thing to worry about.

 

I could see a scenario where WPIX becomes as irelevant as Fox has made WWOR. Especially if, as suspected, CBS moves the CW affiliation over to co-owned WLNY. I suspect the Sinclair takover of Tribune probably has hastened that decision. Without the CW, whats left? Endless news with Epshteyn (assuming he is not indicted by Mueller), and if the rumors are true Bill O'Reilly (until 20 Sinclair employees accuse him of sexual harassment). I would assume the same scenario is true in LA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see a scenario where WPIX becomes as irelevant as Fox has made WWOR. Especially if, as suspected, CBS moves the CW affiliation over to co-owned WLNY. I suspect the Sinclair takover of Tribune probably has hastened that decision. Without the CW, whats left? Endless news with Epshteyn (assuming he is not indicted by Mueller), and if the rumors are true Bill O'Reilly (until 20 Sinclair employees accuse him of sexual harassment). I would assume the same scenario is true in LA.

In LA, CBS and Fox could do the same "strange bedfellows" as in Chicago and turn KCOP into the CW13. News is too valuable a commodity on KCAL to lose.

 

But don’t think that CBS isn’t ready to tear the CW off of WPIX, WSFL and KDAF. With their radio properties soon to be out of the way, the door is wide open to turn WLNY into a NYC-market station. (CBS had to get a waiver to buy WLNY because of being at the market cap on purchase, arguing that WLNY didn’t need to be considered an NYC signal because its OTA coverage map was far enough from the metro.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not directly, but the FCC chief he/she would appoint could.

 

 

 

Two words: hostile takeover. That's the main way that Sinclair could conceivably be broken up.

 

BTW, maybe we should dial down the influence that an enlarged Sinclair would have. Few of the company's stations are top two outlets as it is; in fact, many of Tribune's stations are outside of the top two as well, and Sinclair's frugality runs the risk of dragging down the ratings of any top-four station they operate, especially in larger markets, if viewers dislike the quality of the broadcasts.

 

Plus, the type of conservative punditry that Sinclair endorses appeals mainly to older voters over the age of 40, and they and other conservative media only put out the red meat for one reason: so Republican voters don't realize the benefits that an egalitarian democracy would grant them, so the rich and big companies like Sinclair can reap in more money for the executives and stockholders while simultaneously bilking the regular Joe. The Republican Party revels in reverse Robin Hooding the working class; the Democratic Party has a similar issue with corruption, but not to the same thinly veiled extent. That's why candidates like Trump and Bernie Sanders resonated with voters during this election, because they weren't part of the "establishment". That's why you have Steve Bannon on the right, and grassroots orgs like Justice Democrats, Brand New Congress and Our Revolution putting in progressive challengers to establishment Dems on the left. Though, obviously, only one side still uses red meat for their base, rather than relying mainly on economic solvency for the working class.

 

But, it fails to realize that younger voters are turned off by the party's red meat rhetoric, especially that which is against gender and racial equality. The effect that Sinclair would have on whether Republicans maintain or retake Congress and the Presidency is about as much as that which Fox News Channel has, modest but a bit overblown when you consider the relatively narrow base of the voting electorate who pays the most attention. In addition to the fact that the audience for local news is getting increasingly older, Sinclair is taking advantage of that first fact. News consumption among younger viewers is increasingly shifting toward digital, even as younger viewers begin supplementing OTT content with traditional OTA television.

 

But Sinclair and the NAB's justification for wanting ownership rules relaxed blatantly ignores the fact that local media is fairly concentrated within any given area, and not every market has a independent local news organization online that is not connected to existing print and broadcast media. Their justification is based on greed and greed only, because local media's only major competitors on the digital side are national news sites. But most national news orgs don't provide localized content beyond weather. That's why having a diverse array of local media platforms makes sense, because people still and more often want to find out what's going on in their area.

 

The bigger effect will be felt by consumers who may see Sinclair stations gone from cable and satellite providers they get into retrans fights with, and incremental increases in their cable and satellite bills when Sinclair strongarms them into paying what they want (or approximately thereof). That would hasten the cord-cutting phenomenon already occurring in a trickling basis. Some advertisers would also pay group rates for buying ad time, which would cause station owners that don't (want to) run more than two stations in the same market to potentially lose a portion of the revenue they receive from advertising; but that runs the risk of pricing out small businesses who wish to use local TV to reach potential customers.

 

Among those 65 and older, Fox News is a ratings behemoth. But that is not even considered in ratings (only in raw numbers of viewers). Those are probably the viewers that Sinclair is aiming for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationwide, Fox News is a supposed "behemoth." It does not include breakdowns by market, just age, and those are already bad enough.

 

It's one thing to go after the 55-dead demo with the same warmed-over Republican agitprop Fox News is famous for. It's another thing to do it in markets when such a demo is a decided minority and will predictably fare horribly.

 

The only positive is that we'll finally see how decidedly unpopular Known Repeated Sexual Harrasser Bill O'Reilly really is, in markets that actually matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-17/sinclair-is-said-to-seek-tv-station-sales-worth-up-to-1-billion

 

Buyers have been found - but not identified - for 10 stations. (I'm not going to speculate, this isn't the place to do so).

I just hope one of those stations is KFOR/KAUT as I believe that they’re too good for Sinclair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Among those 65 and older, Fox News is a ratings behemoth. But that is not even considered in ratings (only in raw numbers of viewers). Those are probably the viewers that Sinclair is aiming for.

 

advertisers may not be interested in those geezers, but they do come out for every election unlike those liberal young whippersnappers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/fcc-takes-wraps-media-ownership-proposal/169673

 

As advertised, the FCC is releasing the proposed text of a deregulatory media ownership rule revamp that has broadcasters celebrating and Hill Democrats fuming, with some of the latter calling it a gift to the proposed merger of Sinclair and Tribune, which would not have to spin off as many stations (but I will not speculate on that part as this is not the place to do so).

 

The order allows dual station ownership in markets with fewer than eight independent voices after the duopoly, creating an opportunity for ownership of two of the top four stations in a market on a case-by-case basis (the FCC is not calling it a waiver); eliminates attribution of joint sales agreements as ownership; (yes the Newspaper ban will be eliminated but I didn't iclude it in the text as Sinclair and Tribune Media does not own newspapers)

 

But Sinclair would still be required to notify the FCC of joint services agreements and does not change the dual-network ownership prohibition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trib chairman Bruce Karsh is out. (He will not be replaced.)

The deal has confidence.

Laughing all the way to the bank, like the other criminals in this illegal and illegitimate transaction.

 

He should be in jail alongside the entire Smith family and Paid Off. But he never will because Republicans never punish their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Says the guy who wants KTLA to become Sinclair-ized.....

And who was correct? I can't wait for Sinclair to destroy Tribune's blatant bias. But Bill O'Reilly was never going to be part of Sinclair. Most laughable was the idea of a two hour show for him on local stations at 6 pm. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sinclair-oreilly-tribune-20171101-story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who was correct? I can't wait for Sinclair to destroy Tribune's blatant bias. But Bill O'Reilly was never going to be part of Sinclair. Most laughable was the idea of a two hour show for him on local stations at 6 pm. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sinclair-oreilly-tribune-20171101-story.html

 

You want a piece of me? I'll take you on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who was correct? I can't wait for Sinclair to destroy Tribune's blatant bias. But Bill O'Reilly was never going to be part of Sinclair. Most laughable was the idea of a two hour show for him on local stations at 6 pm. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sinclair-oreilly-tribune-20171101-story.html

 

But what Tribune bias?

 

I've never considered Tribune to have any sort of bias. There's a Tribune station in my home market (KC) and I've never seen any type of bias from them. I'd like examples.

 

And even if Tribune does have a bias. Sinclair isn't going to "destroy" it. They'll replace it. A "liberal" bias going away with a bias that fits more to ones political ideologies in its place isn't destroying the "liberal" bias, it's replacing it with a conservative one and creating a confirmation bias that others would consider to be the truth, again, because it fits with their ideologies, no matter how right or wrong the information provided might actually be.

 

And if you want to talk bias, honestly and objectively look at Sinclair with Boris. Tribune doesn't mandate their stations to run a conservative opinion piece multiple times a week, nor does Tribune require their stations to prove that they ran their must-runs. Sinclair does. If Sinclair really wanted to fix the image of being an outlet Conservative propaganda in the hands of the Trump administration, they'd hire an ultra-liberal to provide their own commentary, or get Boris and some ultra-liberal to sit down together and yell at each other ala the old Hannity & Colmes. They haven't. They aren't. They won't. They are however, the only station group (at least to my knowledge) that mandates their stations run a one-sided political commentary. Scripps, Hearst, TEGNA, Nexstar, etc, none of them do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f Sinclair really wanted to fix the image of being an outlet Conservative propaganda in the hands of the Trump administration, they'd hire an ultra-liberal to provide their own commentary, or get Boris and some ultra-liberal to sit down together and yell at each other ala the old Hannity & Colmes.

 

That could be interesting. Who was the Clinton campaign's equivalent of Boris?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nationwide, Fox News is a supposed "behemoth." It does not include breakdowns by market, just age, and those are already bad enough.

 

It's one thing to go after the 55-dead demo with the same warmed-over Republican agitprop Fox News is famous for. It's another thing to do it in markets when such a demo is a decided minority and will predictably fare horribly.

 

The only positive is that we'll finally see how decidedly unpopular Known Repeated Sexual Harrasser Bill O'Reilly really is, in markets that actually matter.

Well, you and I can both be relieved because not even Sinclair would dare hire Bill F***ing O'Reilly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-sinclair-oreilly-tribune-20171101-story.html

 

That said, he still did nothing wrong for that one time. Still hate the dickface though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what Tribune bias?

 

I've never considered Tribune to have any sort of bias. There's a Tribune station in my home market (KC) and I've never seen any type of bias from them. I'd like examples.

 

And even if Tribune does have a bias. Sinclair isn't going to "destroy" it. They'll replace it. A "liberal" bias going away with a bias that fits more to ones political ideologies in its place isn't destroying the "liberal" bias, it's replacing it with a conservative one and creating a confirmation bias that others would consider to be the truth, again, because it fits with their ideologies, no matter how right or wrong the information provided might actually be.

 

And if you want to talk bias, honestly and objectively look at Sinclair with Boris. Tribune doesn't mandate their stations to run a conservative opinion piece multiple times a week, nor does Tribune require their stations to prove that they ran their must-runs. Sinclair does. If Sinclair really wanted to fix the image of being an outlet Conservative propaganda in the hands of the Trump administration, they'd hire an ultra-liberal to provide their own commentary, or get Boris and some ultra-liberal to sit down together and yell at each other ala the old Hannity & Colmes. They haven't. They aren't. They won't. They are however, the only station group (at least to my knowledge) that mandates their stations run a one-sided political commentary. Scripps, Hearst, TEGNA, Nexstar, etc, none of them do.

 

If anything, the Chicago Tribune (now not related to the current Trib but still) was known to be a conservative stalwart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Sinclair, Tribune Broadcasting does not have a corporate political position. While the company line is impartiality, in reality each station mirrors its community's profile. WPIX would be perceived as more liberal because New Yorkers are more liberal. But KFOR would swing conservative because Oklahoma City is more conservative. While critics might not like either one, the company has allowed the stations to chart their own courses rather than cramming a political manifesto down everyone's throats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could be interesting. Who was the Clinton campaign's equivalent of Boris?

 

There is/was none. Or at least no one paid in rubles.

They'd be better off finding a Berniecrat, but I'm afraid if they did, Sinclair would just slap him or her around to make the conservative side look strong every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what Tribune bias?

 

I've never considered Tribune to have any sort of bias. There's a Tribune station in my home market (KC) and I've never seen any type of bias from them. I'd like examples..

 

 

I gather you have NOT been in a TV newsroom in the last 20 years.

 

Bias is everywhere....not just at Tribune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gather you have NOT been in a TV newsroom in the last 20 years.

 

Bias is everywhere....not just at Tribune.

Agreed. Even here in the TVNewsTalk newsroom, even though some are afraid to admit it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

State Attorneys General from four states (IL, MA, MD, & RI) have filed opposition of the deal. Illinois AG Lisa Madigan urged the FCC to hold off any consideration of the deal until the DC Circuit rules in the UHF loophole case.

 

Today was the last day to file comment, as the FCC extended its comment period a couple of weeks ago.

 

So Free Press has also filed additional comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'd be better off finding a Berniecrat, but I'm afraid if they did, Sinclair would just slap him or her around to make the conservative side look strong every time.

For a Bernie sympathizer a la the Young Turks? It wouldn't take that much effort on Sinclair's part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using TVNewsTalk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.