CircleSeven 1944 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 The advocacy groups will likely challenge the ruling in the Third Circuit in Philly, since they already have a pending case regarding the UHF loophole in the D.C. Circuit. And don't be surprised if they ask the court for an "emergency" stay, so the changes wouldn't go in effect (one month after the chaesng gets posted in the Federal Register). They tried to get the DC court to stay the UHF loophole rule while the case was pending, but the court denied their request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie56 3059 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Big news. [MEDIA=twitter]931231829159428096[/MEDIA] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSZNews 1046 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Aren't there one or two components of this Congress has final authority on? I thought I read somewhere that the cap is one of them (or at least it's the subject of one of the lawsuits related to this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColtFromGulfcoast 695 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Aren't there one or two components of this Congress has final authority on? I thought I read somewhere that the cap is one of them (or at least it's the subject of one of the lawsuits related to this.) You are correct. The authority concerning the cap does rest with Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 So the conflicts between top-4 and lower ranked stations is the only one that is eliminated here. Yes they can use shells, but that is going to court. The only market where the deal becomes clean is Portland, OR as a result. Everywhere else they must use shells, and in at least 5 markets there will likely be court-ordered divestments anyway. Plus they still have to get under the cap...since there is almost no chance the Senate will let that pass (surely at least 2 Republicans will take it down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB4TV 330 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 So the conflicts between top-4 and lower ranked stations is the only one that is eliminated here. Yes they can use shells, but that is going to court. The only market where the deal becomes clean is Portland, OR as a result. Everywhere else they must use shells, and in at least 5 markets there will likely be court-ordered divestments anyway. Plus they still have to get under the cap...since there is almost no chance the Senate will let that pass (surely at least 2 Republicans will take it down). TWO GOP Senators! It looks like that the Senior Senators from Alaska and Maine will once again have to use common sense and save America. Lisa Murkowski & Susan Collins, pissing off the GOP and Donnie, one nay at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennTV1983 742 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 So the conflicts between top-4 and lower ranked stations is the only one that is eliminated here. Yes they can use shells, but that is going to court. The only market where the deal becomes clean is Portland, OR as a result. Everywhere else they must use shells, and in at least 5 markets there will likely be court-ordered divestments anyway. Plus they still have to get under the cap...since there is almost no chance the Senate will let that pass (surely at least 2 Republicans will take it down). Even so, you're forgetting Vice President Pence has the power to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie, so you would need to convince one more Republican senator on board in voting against such a rule change (assuming no Dems cross over). And I'm willing to bet Sinclair would do all they can to buy up the votes they need to get their way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCB4TV 330 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Even so, you're forgetting Vice President Pence has the power to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie, so you would need to convince one more Republican senator on board in voting against such a rule change (assuming no Dems cross over). And I'm willing to bet Sinclair would do all they can to buy up the votes they need to get their way. America needs Alabama to elect Doug Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 America needs Alabama to elect Doug Jones. In more ways than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Even so, you're forgetting Vice President Pence has the power to cast the deciding vote in the event of a tie, so you would need to convince one more Republican senator on board in voting against such a rule change (assuming no Dems cross over). And I'm willing to bet Sinclair would do all they can to buy up the votes they need to get their way. Sinclair could easily buy the usual hard-right votes, but you also have a number of existing senators who are no longer running (Hatch, Flake) are, sadly, soon to depart this mortal coil (McCain) or have never bought fully into the hard-right agitprop and have no desire to start now (Collins, Murkowski). It’s why the GOP cannot concede the Alabama senate race, regardless of how absolutely toxic and disgusting their candidate turned out to be. They lose that seat, and the collateral damage is profound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T.L. Hughes 746 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Another potential obstacle could be the DOJ's Antitrust AAG Makan Delhahim. Sinclair may want to erode the antitrust part of the DOJ Antitrust Division, but Delrahim wants to reform it to address anticompetitive structural problems in corporate acquisitions, like those which Sinclair-Tribune raises. From the Washington Examiner: The head of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division on Thursday signaled a change in approach to antitrust under his leadership by asking companies to divest assets when necessary in order for major merger deals to be approved. That's a shift from the Obama administration, which leaned more heavily on consent decrees that asked merged companies to cease antitrust behavior, but without ensuring compliance through divestment. "I expect to cut back on the number of long-term consent decrees we have in place and to return to the preferred focus on structural relief to remedy mergers that violate the law and harm consumers," Makan Delrahim said Thursday to the American Bar Association’s fall conference in Washington. ---- He [...] cite[d] the Entercom-CBS merger, which employed a structural remedy, as an example of a successful merger. Entercom divested 13 radio stations as part of its deal with the Justice Department. The merger would give Entercom 235 stations nationwide, although it still has to be approved by the FCC. "Like any regulatory scheme, behavioral remedies require centralized decisions instead of a free market process," he said. "They also set static rules devoid of the dynamic realities of the market." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Another potential obstacle could be the DOJ's Antitrust AAG Makan Delhahim. Sinclair may want to erode the antitrust part of the DOJ Antitrust Division, but Delrahim wants to reform it to address anticompetitive structural problems in corporate acquisitions, like those which Sinclair-Tribune raises. From the Washington Examiner: That is why I don't think the change compared to the initial thoughts will be that great. In some of the conflict markets (Richmond, Norfolk-Hampton Roads, Greensboro-Triad, Des Moines and St. Louis where this only affects one news department, as well as Portland (OR) which becomes a legal purchase), they probably can get away with it with shells as there would be limited impact to the market as a whole. The big trouble is where it involves two news departments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4159 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Another potential obstacle could be the DOJ's Antitrust AAG Makan Delhahim. Sinclair may want to erode the antitrust part of the DOJ Antitrust Division, but Delrahim wants to reform it to address anticompetitive structural problems in corporate acquisitions, like those which Sinclair-Tribune raises. From the Washington Examiner: With Entercom-CBS, they tagged more stations for divestiture than they needed to. They were also incredibly upfront and honest with investors and regulators (from both the FCC and DOJ), and pretty much got the merger completed on schedule. A textbook example of how to properly conduct a merger of this size and scope. If AAG Delhahim wants to be honest about his position, he'll throw the book at Sinclair - and then some - for being as thoroughly dishonest as possible. But look at who his boss is. I'll believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NowBergen 485 Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 That is why I don't think the change compared to the initial thoughts will be that great. In some of the conflict markets (Richmond, Norfolk-Hampton Roads, Greensboro-Triad, Des Moines and St. Louis where this only affects one news department, as well as Portland (OR) which becomes a legal purchase), they probably can get away with it with shells as there would be limited impact to the market as a whole. The big trouble is where it involves two news departments. The fact that Sinclair does not have a news department for an ABC affiliate in itself speaks to some of the issues with Sinclair control of multiple stations. Don't forget, with the elimination of the home studio rule, you may see mega regional news operations covering dozens and dozens of stations. Still not sure how that supports the public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie 740 Posted November 18, 2017 Share Posted November 18, 2017 The one thing I'm not liking about this is it takes away from "Local" news. By hubbing everything and/or making it regional, makes it less personal and less focused. I'm thinking of the Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo MI market in particular... Kalamazoo is the red headed stephchild, as they are in-between 2 DMA's... WWMT (Sinclair) primarily focuses on Kalamzoo/Battle Creek with snippits of Grand Rapids, whereas WXMI (Tribune) covers Grand Rapids with snippits of Kalamzoo/Battle Creek news... with such a vast expanse now, I'm curious as to how they'll handle the news coverage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatron81 179 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 The one thing I'm not liking about this is it takes away from "Local" news. By hubbing everything and/or making it regional, makes it less personal and less focused. I'm thinking of the Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo MI market in particular... Kalamazoo is the red headed stephchild, as they are in-between 2 DMA's... WWMT (Sinclair) primarily focuses on Kalamzoo/Battle Creek with snippits of Grand Rapids, whereas WXMI (Tribune) covers Grand Rapids with snippits of Kalamzoo/Battle Creek news... with such a vast expanse now, I'm curious as to how they'll handle the news coverage... Same here it be odd to see WWMT News on Fox17 or Fox17 News on WWMT. Why I'm against same company owning 2 top 4 stations in the same market unless it's a very small market but at least their will still be 3 TV Station owners Nexstar & TEGNA and not just Sinclair owning all TV stations. But I think this is bad news for Kalamazoo/Battle Creek where the news will be GR centric which for me I don't mind I prefer Grand Rapids news over Kazoo/BC even know I'm from Kazoo only watch WWMT for weather and that is about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1944 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 So the House Dems have wrote a new letter, urging the FCC commissioners to comply with the statutory ownership cap. And it also says that any "future Commissions" would force to order a company to divest its stations that exceeds the cap, if those stations up for license renewals. And you see which company they've mentioned. We write to remind the commission that it is prohibited from allowing any single company to own broadcast stations that break the national ownership cap. To comply with the law, the commission is required to order divestitures in any transaction in which a company—including Sinclair Broadcast Group (Sinclair) — attempts to acquire stations that reach more than 39% of the national broadcast audience. If the commission fails to comply with the law now, future Commissions will be forced to order such divestitures when the company requests to renew licenses that exceed the statutory cap. Congress acted in 2004 to set the maximum national audience reach for entities owning TV stations at 39%. Congress passed this law on a bipartisan basis to protect consumers, encourage independent voices in their media market, and prevent one station group from serving more than 39% of the population. By explicitly excluding review of the cap from the congressionally-mandated quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules, we made clear that the FCC is not permitted to change or evade that national cap. Commissioner O’Rielly correctly testified at a recent FCC oversight hearing that only Congress can change the cap. As Commissioner O’Rielly also rightly noted, Congress did not intend to allow a company to circumvent the cap using outdated rules such as the UHF discount. His reading of the law is consistent with the position of at least two other sitting commissioners. We were therefore surprised when Commissioner O’Rielly refused to say whether he will allow a company to acquire licenses that would exceed the nationwide cap set by Congress. This is not a judgment call — no commissioner has the authority to ignore the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha 2876 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 The fact that Sinclair does not have a news department for an ABC affiliate in itself speaks to some of the issues with Sinclair control of multiple stations. Don't forget, with the elimination of the home studio rule, you may see mega regional news operations covering dozens and dozens of stations. Still not sure how that supports the public interest. This hasn't been an issue with recent acquisitions. Ironically these are the stations the company has owned for 15-20 years, or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frog 392 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 FTVLive is reporting that Fox and Sinclair are working on backroom sales and swaps: https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2017/11/27/exclusive-is-sinclair-and-fox-television-planning-a-backroom-deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Kissel 280 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 FTVLive is reporting that Fox and Sinclair are working on backroom sales and swaps: https://www.ftvlive.com/sqsp-test/2017/11/27/exclusive-is-sinclair-and-fox-television-planning-a-backroom-deal I hope (Since FOX is looking for NFL Markets), Sinclair will sell WPGH/WPNT (Steelers) and WJW (Browns). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTVNews 1366 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 What about KCPQ (Seahwaks)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrannical bastard 3442 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 It seems like the only markets this would make sense in would be the NFC ones (Los Angeles, Green Bay, New Orleans & Seattle). The rest are AFC markets where the teams air mainly on CBS aside from an occasional inter-conference matchup. Before I dive too deeply into speculation, this move has the potential of stripping FOX from WVUE and even sending WGN to Fox and WFLD being sacrificed to the Heathens of Hunt Valley... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Kissel 280 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 It seems like the only markets this would make sense in would be the NFC ones (Los Angeles, Green Bay, New Orleans & Seattle). The rest are AFC markets where the teams air mainly on CBS aside from an occasional inter-conference matchup. Before I dive too deeply into speculation, this move has the potential of stripping FOX from WVUE and even sending WGN to Fox and WFLD being sacrificed to the Heathens of Hunt Valley... Your probably right but Sinclair has destroyed the duopoly of WPGH and WPNT and i would love to see them become O&Os so they can get better shows instead of waste the main 3 doesn't pick up. Pittsburgh is the biggest market where the Fox Affiliate doesn't do its own newscast. Fox could also make a run against CBS O&Os KDKA and WPCW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 What about KCPQ (Seahwaks)? That seems the most likely acquisition. But any swaps would push Sinclair even farther over the cap... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsanchor26 107 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Any idea about WBFF? It's an NFL market but FOX recently sold WUTB (MyNetwork) to Sinclair, and Baltimore's the home market for SBG's headquarters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.