Jump to content

Sinclair and Tribune Part 2: The Redux


Weeters

Recommended Posts

The deal for Fox to acquire the stations from Sinclair may be dead, but Fox could still be able to reach a deal to acquire them directly from Tribune (and possibly with some stations not included in the original deal).

 

A-ha! That makes sense. Talking about

.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 868
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, there goes Fox's chance of buying the seven TMC-owned TV stations, including Seattle's KCPQ 13, but I am not giving up for hope for another Seattle TV station to become network-owned, as there may be a possibility of a different company buying TMC.

Not a chance. If anything, Fox stands to buy a lot more, and will be negotiating with Tribune directly, not Sinclair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AT&T is the landline operator in PBC, where does Mar A Lago get it's services from?

Alright, what in the hell does this have to do with the topic on hand, and more importantly, who gives a care? Seriously, do we really need a repeat of the last Sinclair thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, what in the hell does this have to do with the topic on hand, and more importantly, who gives a care? Seriously, do we really need a repeat of the last Sinclair thread?

Let's not get that locked thread again, let's focus on the facts and facts alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that we're in a bit of a stasis. Tribune's antsy investors, seeing the pitfalls looming, can't do anything right now but sit on their hands until the end date.

 

Luckily, August 8 isn't that far off now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm....

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-investigates-tv-station-owners-over-advertising-sales-1532633979

 

Given Pai's sudden about-face, I figured he knew something bad was coming down the mountain.

 

"The Justice Department is investigating whether television station owners violated antitrust law in ways that inflated local television advertising prices, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

The probe has examined whether Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., SBGI -1.66% Tribune Media Co. TRCO -1.15% and other independent TV station owners coordinated efforts when their ad sales teams communicated with each other about their performance, potentially leading to higher rates for TV commercials, one of the people said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't read the article because of course, the Wall Street Journal won't let us read the article without subscribing to the Journal (but that's another topic for another day)

 

Anyway, the way I can interpret that article is that the DOJ is targeting Sinclair-Tribune over whether they violated antitrust laws with regards to inflating local television advertising prices.

 

This is in the makings of another RKO General Ladies and Gentlemen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't read the article because of course, the Wall Street Journal won't let us read the article without subscribing to the Journal (but that's another topic for another day)

 

Anyway, the way I can interpret that article is that the DOJ is targeting Sinclair-Tribune over whether they violated antitrust laws with regards to inflating local television advertising prices.

 

This is in the makings of another RKO General Ladies and Gentlemen

 

Definitely ties in well to the claims that Sinclair tries to sell off stations to their sidecars at well-below market value rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely ties in well to the claims that Sinclair tries to sell off stations to their sidecars at well-below market value rates.

Even though one of Sinclair's spokespeople said that the DOJ was "focusing on the larger broadcast industry" Sorry but, I don't buy that one, I think the DOJ is targeting Sinclair on this one for advertising and if they are in fact targeting the others don't be surprised if Nexstar was involved in that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't read the article because of course, the Wall Street Journal won't let us read the article without subscribing to the Journal (but that's another topic for another day)

 

Anyway, the way I can interpret that article is that the DOJ is targeting Sinclair-Tribune over whether they violated antitrust laws with regards to inflating local television advertising prices.

 

This is in the makings of another RKO General Ladies and Gentlemen

Or it could spell the beginning of the end of Joint Sales (JSA) and Shared Services (SSA) agreements as we currently know them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or it could spell the beginning of the end of Joint Sales (JSA) and Shared Services (SSA) agreements as we currently know them.

Basically, they're targeting the shell companies (like Mission, Cunningham, Howard Stirk and Deerfield)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhhh... this is going BEYOND Sinclair and Tribune. Other companies are being investigated but no specifics. Yet.

 

If you’re trying to inflate market prices, you’re going to be coordinating with multiple parties in those markets. That’s called COLLUSION. If you can’t achieve collusion, other stations and license applicants will complain and justifyably raise a stink... that happened with KHJ-TV in 1965. That such objecting DIDN’T happen here, and only seemingly came to light in the review of the Sinclair-Tribune merger a few weeks ago (if that) should really be cause for concern.

 

I know there are some that really want Sinclair to go the way of RKO General, but this has the makings of a major scandal that could engulf the industry as a whole. Be careful what you wish for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhhh... this is going BEYOND Sinclair and Tribune. Other companies are being investigated but no specifics. Yet.

 

If you’re trying to inflate market prices, you’re going to be coordinating with multiple parties in those markets. That’s called COLLUSION. If you can’t achieve collusion, other stations and license applicants will complain and justifyably raise a stink... that happened with KHJ-TV in 1965. That such objecting DIDN’T happen here, and only seemingly came to light in the review of the Sinclair-Tribune merger a few weeks ago (if that) should really be cause for concern.

 

I know there are some that really want Sinclair to go the way of RKO General, but this has the makings of a major scandal that could engulf the industry as a whole. Be careful what you wish for.

 

Indeed. Even if it’s just Sinclair, they’ve become large enough that if they completely collapse on this, you’re looking at a bubble bursti not unlike 2008.

 

On top of local TV having its Clear Channel moment, the consequences will be profound across MANY industries if they find trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhhh... this is going BEYOND Sinclair and Tribune. Other companies are being investigated but no specifics. Yet.

 

If you’re trying to inflate market prices, you’re going to be coordinating with multiple parties in those markets. That’s called COLLUSION. If you can’t achieve collusion, other stations and license applicants will complain and justifyably raise a stink... that happened with KHJ-TV in 1965. That such objecting DIDN’T happen here, and only seemingly came to light in the review of the Sinclair-Tribune merger a few weeks ago (if that) should really be cause for concern.

 

I know there are some that really want Sinclair to go the way of RKO General, but this has the makings of a major scandal that could engulf the industry as a whole. Be careful what you wish for.

Is it possible for the DOJ to order the FCC to declare that both Sinclair and Tribune as unfit to hold broadcast licenses (if they find that they did collude with ads and stuff like that)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhhhh... this is going BEYOND Sinclair and Tribune. Other companies are being investigated but no specifics. Yet.

 

If you’re trying to inflate market prices, you’re going to be coordinating with multiple parties in those markets. That’s called COLLUSION. If you can’t achieve collusion, other stations and license applicants will complain and justifyably raise a stink... that happened with KHJ-TV in 1965. That such objecting DIDN’T happen here, and only seemingly came to light in the review of the Sinclair-Tribune merger a few weeks ago (if that) should really be cause for concern.

 

I know there are some that really want Sinclair to go the way of RKO General, but this has the makings of a major scandal that could engulf the industry as a whole. Be careful what you wish for.

 

There is no crime called Collusion...

 

That word may sound all sinister and sexy...but it is not a crime to "collude"...not even with a Russian.

 

Conspiracy is a whole other issue, and some conspiracy is considered a crime.

 

"Collusion" is a made-up "crime" made popular by the uninformed and lazy news media.

 

If somebody would like to prove me wrong by posting the USC section that mentions collusion I will gladly eat my words and surrender my tv law license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no crime called Collusion...

 

That word may sound all sinister and sexy...but it is not a crime to "collude"...not even with a Russian.

 

 

Collusion is illegal in the context of antitrust law, which this would almost certainly fall under.

 

The Sherman Act would be a good starting point of reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no crime called Collusion...

 

That word may sound all sinister and sexy...but it is not a crime to "collude"...not even with a Russian.

 

Conspiracy is a whole other issue, and some conspiracy is considered a crime.

 

"Collusion" is a made-up "crime" made popular by the uninformed and lazy news media.

 

If somebody would like to prove me wrong by posting the USC section that mentions collusion I will gladly eat my words and surrender my tv law license.

I think you meant surrendering your broadcast license Eat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collusion is illegal in the context of antitrust law, which this would almost certainly fall under.

 

The Sherman Act would be a good starting point of reference.

 

No.

 

Collusion is not a crime.

You can use that word all you want...but there is no USC section about Collusion.

Nothing...

Nada...

 

Cite a section... cite a charge?

Ask any attorney...there is NO crime called collusion.

 

Criminal Conspiracy is a real charge. But nobody has even been accused or charged with that.

 

Or just ask anyone at CNN....Or MSNBC to cite a USC section.

They can't,

 

"Collusion" is just a sinister word with NO legal meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you meant surrendering your broadcast license Eat

 

I meant to say...

Try tossing around the word "Collusion" in a real legal setting and a judge would laugh his ass off.

 

"Counselor....you have been watching way too much fake news...get the hell out of my courtroom and turn in your state bar card."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

 

Collusion is not a crime.

You can use that word all you want...but there is no USC section about Collusion.

Nothing...

Nada...

 

Cite a section... cite a charge?

Ask any attorney...there is NO crime called collusion.

 

Sherman Act, Sections 1 and 2:

 

1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, one hundered thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

 

2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, one hundred thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.

 

I suppose technically you're right in the sense that the word "collusion" is not coded into law outright, but any antitrust attorney worth his billing rate can put two and two together on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no crime called Collusion...

 

That word may sound all sinister and sexy...but it is not a crime to "collude"...not even with a Russian.

 

Conspiracy is a whole other issue, and some conspiracy is considered a crime.

 

"Collusion" is a made-up "crime" made popular by the uninformed and lazy news media.

 

If somebody would like to prove me wrong by posting the USC section that mentions collusion I will gladly eat my words and surrender my tv law license.

In all fairness, "collusion" was a poor word choice on my end, and there was no usage of that word in the WSJ story or elsewhere.

 

The DOJ has obviously seen something amiss, but it's up to them as to how to phrase it. Any attorney worth their weight won't do or say something stupid that's going to be a sure-fire loss in court, that's for darn sure.

 

We don't know the details, we don't know the timeline, we don't know really much beyond a brief overview in one singular story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is 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.