carolinanews4

NBC News Channel is still in Charlotte and still off Billy Graham Parkway. But WCNC and News Channel are in two separate buildings with separate addresses. They are on the same plot of land and are connected via a conduit tray that carries cables between the two structures. I doubt NBC would ever move it to DC or NY because the Charlotte operation is in a right to work state (meaning its a nonunion shop) which allows it to operate cheaper than if it were in NYC. But its long term financial viability could be shaky with Nexstar pulling out. The NBC Nexstar stations aren’t the huge loss, it’s the potential loss of TEGNA stations. If Gray were to also end their contract with News Channel, it isn’t hard to imagine it being shut down.

WCNC’s building was built by The Providence Journal Company. The station moved to its present day home in 1991. ProJo had purchased the station in 1998 and broke ground on two new buildings in 1990. One building for WCNC and the other for the NBC News Channel. The move brought WCNC into Charlotte’s core. Since its inception it had been located in a northwest section of the city. At the time this was a fairly rural area. So the move to Billy Graham Parkway put WCNC on a more equal geographic footing with WBTV, WSOC, and WCCB. WJZY was, and still is, located in the far west side of the county, separated from most the city’s population.

In this article about the NBC News Now expansion with Christine Romans, there is a mention of the news service upcoming move next door to 3A. Within that there’s a nugget that NBC Nightly News will “make use of the same facility.” I do wonder if this is legit reporting or if it is an assumption by the publication as a hook to link to a previously published article. The reason I question it is because Llamas currently pivots from Nightly to Top Story from studio 1A. So why would the NBC News Now studio shuffle impact Llamas and team? But I could also see it being legit, especially if the streamer’s 5-7 and 8-9 hours continue to be based in DC and LA studios. https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/christine-romans-two-hour-show-nbc-news-expands-streaming-1236722408/

Your timeline here is off. Comcast bought controlling interest of NBC in 2011. (A deal announced in 2009 back when media ownership reviews by the government took a long time.) Sam joined The Weather Channel in 2014 and left in 2016. NBC didn’t sell the channel to Allen until 2018. So your assertion that Comcast’s purchase of NBC and subsequent selling of The Weather Channel was in anyway connected to Sam’s departure from The Weather Channel doesn’t seem correct

It isn’t the act of traveling that Peter was referencing; it was being away from his family, especially his young daughters. Once kids move into high school, Friday nights become about hanging out with their friends, not their parents. Peter sees the window of time with his kids closing and has decided to make a career move to keep him DC-based. He said as much on the air. If someone doesn’t like NBC News, that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But let’s not imply an on-air person has an ulterior motive that fits a personal perspective about how NBC reports on the government. It isn’t fair to the person who went on national television to publicly say he is prioritizing his kids.

HA! Now that’s good lawyering. What the heck was Nexstar thinking making a claim in front of a judge that your own SEC filing disputes. Begs the question, which audience were they lying to??

Divestitures won’t happen until Nexstar knows the final outcome of this deal. Why would they sell Nexstar owned stations now if the deal is later blocked on antitrust grounds? That’s like selling your house before you know you are going to get a new house. And they can’t sell Tegna owned stations because they technically don’t own them at the moment. So everything will be status quo until the state of limbo is resolved.

Yes. Well, not their impatience per se but the deal itself might be deemed illegal. But it is equally possible that the deal stands. There’s a process - and not usually a quick one - that has to play out. Anyone who tells you they know how this will end is just guessing.

You are right, Nexstar was not required to wait to close the deal. However, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. It is irresponsible to shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders to close on a deal when you had a heads up that litigation was coming. (It also exposes the company to lawsuits down the road from shareholders seeking damages should the deal get blocked, either in full or in part.) Just like Nexstar was not required to wait to accommodate pending litigation, the plaintiffs and court are not required to ignore a potentially antitrust violating deal just because Nexstar has a high interest bridge loan. The smart thing for Nexstar would have been to wait. Now they will have to explain what irreversible things they possibly could have done in the short period of time they were in control. Discovery on that may expose they were involved in decisions prior to closing, which is illegal. They will probably also have to answer why they didn’t respond to inquiries by state attorneys general prior to closing and, if those AGs are smart, that path may lead to questions on whether Nexstar had any heads up or coordination with the federal government. In short, could they close when they did? Sure. Should they have closed? Nope.

Coping directly from the article linked above: “A separate restraining order request was made in the state case, and was granted on Friday, with the same conditions imposed on Nexstar and TEGNA.”

So, putting aside my dislike of the actual merger itself for a moment. I am deeply disturbed (unfortunately, not surprised) by the 11-hour rush to consummate a deal that seemingly included government officials approving it before a pending lawsuit, of which all parties were aware. If what the NC AG and the CA AG state is true, the states reached out to Nexstar numerous times without a reply. The KUSI program guide, which included CW programming before government approval was announced, would indicate that Nexstar had knowledge well in advance that the DOJ was dropping its investigation and that the FCC was approving it. It would also indicate that Nexstar was working with Tegna on business matters prior to the official close of the deal. Just that alone is a no-no. Two entities that are separate but intend to merge must maintain a firewall of sorts until the deal is approved. This whole thing appears to be a bizarre coordination by a private company and governmental agencies to do an end run around the judiciary and due process.

In my opinion, it is pretty pathetic "reporting" for NewsNation. My guess is that Savannah's attention and energy are focused on her mother, and not on work. This "report" essentially reads like the opinion or theory of a NewsNation Senior Story Editor. (Not even a reporter) Is it possible that Savannah doesn't return? Sure. But many things are possible. I'm sure many people wondered if Katie Couric would return after the loss of her husband. It is gross for NewsNation to speculate on such things. To me, it is telling that not even Page Six picked up on this. And P6 is the outlet that recently published pictures of Savannah's husband and kids at an airport in Florida, along with descriptions of what the three of them were wearing, as if it were a fashion show. Note to NewsNation: when your gossip is too much for Page Six to cover, you might want to check yourself.

I believe it has to do with the Olympic rings. They probably needed the 12 to make the peacoc rings lockup work. The rings also can't appear anywhere near the ABC logo.

I agree entirely with TVLurker that the lack of consistent talent has hurt CBS News. Constant reimagining, rebranding, and relaunching morning and evening news products has been a disastrous approach. Why CBS blows up and relaunches "a new era" every few years, NBC and ABC make tweaks to evolve their shows. However, I think the 1995 affiliation switch gets overplayed. Indeed, it mattered then and in the immediate years that followed. But CBS primetime was able to ascend to the top of the network pile. Same for daytime. I believe the problem with CBS News is CBS News. The culture was set during Cronkite and never changed. There's no doubt that CBS News has an excellent pedigree. But NBC wasn't exactly asleep at the switch in the early days with Huntly and Brinkly, plus the Today Show. NBC News has continued to evolve as its audience has evolved. Heck, the early days of ABC News were a non-factor on the national stage. It wasn't until Roone Arledge envisioned newscasters as "stars" that they started to gain traction. In the 1980s and 1990s, NBC and ABC invested in their on-air presentation, including sets, music, graphics, etc.. Television is, after all, a visual medium. Meanwhile, the culture of CBS News seems perpetually stuck in the Cronkite days. "We don't need to invest in our on-air presentation because we are CBS. Walter Cronkite worked here, damnit! Our reporting is the star." That worked in the 50s, 60s, and 70s when the picture quality was poor and Americans had two or three choices for news. And when CBS does invest, it doesn't feel like they are being innovative. They seem to deploy technology as a means to cut costs. Take a look at the green screen studios they are installing at their local stations. To me, this is just a way to cut the costs of building physical sets. Other people are using these types of sets, but they are usually employed as a next-level storytelling tool. CBS is putting entire newscasts into a virtual environment, which doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to say "we are the first to have a virtual studio!" By the way, WCBS was the first to have a virtual studio. See what good it did them. They had it in the late 90s. If you don't remember, look it up. It was over-the-top ugly.

This is the problem I continually have with CBS News and most of the CBS O&O group. They seem to be in a never-ending rebranding mode. From the CBS News morning show to their streaming news product to their local stations, things are constantly changing. And the branding seems unnecessarily convoluted and confusing. Example: CBS News Mornings (the early am newscast) vs CBS Mornings (the 7-9 morning show), and putting KCAL branding on KCBS because people "like" KCAL better. They touted that the KCAL News brand was stronger than KCBS, and now both are gone in favor of CBS LA, or CBS News Los Angeles, or CBS News LA. Whatever the flavor of the moment is. The two products that haven't changed are 60 Minutes and CBS Sunday Morning. They also happen to be the highest-rated news products CBS has. Hmmm. On a local level WCCO's branding and product have remained consistent...until the suits in New York started tinkering with it...and they are also highly rated. Hmmm. Connection? Nah. Keep playing with the names CBS. The public follows the TV industry so closely that they will easily follow along.

So technically, the split starts on October 6, but MSNBC won't be its own company until January 1. However, editorially, MSNBC and CNBC will begin standing up their own news-gathering operations on October 6 for domestic and international news coverage. That's the date reporters will become exclusive to either NBC or MSNBC. DC-based reporters will continue to appear on both NBC and their cable cousins until October 20. Meanwhile, MSNBC shows will decamp from 30 Rock in November and trek six blocks south to begin airing from temporary digs on 43rd Street. https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/nbc-news-msnbc-split-starts-october-6-1236521887/

And now, per Deadline, the network has pulled Kimmel off the air "indefinitely" after Nexstar's move. The Hollywood Reporter advances the Deadline story a bit by reporting that ABC "had also heard from at least one other station group about the show." If true, that would undoubtedly make it more challenging to keep him on the air from purely a clearance perspective. Nexstar, by itself, isn't an ABC powerhouse in large markets, but if one of the other groups, Scripps, Hearst, or even Sinclair, were to be the one calling, then your clearance drops to a level where you can't sell advertising. That is to say nothing of the publicity around this situation, which would make advertisers run for the hills. https://deadline.com/2025/09/jimmy-kimmel-live-off-abc-charlie-kirk-comments-1236547397/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/abc-affiliate-nexstar-suspends-jimmy-kimmel-live-charlie-kirk-1236374150/

I don't usually comment on names and logos because it is so subjective. For everyone who loves something, there's a group of people who hate it. But this is downright bizarre. First of all, the name sounds like a non-profit dedicated to helping people who are living with MS. Then there's the logo, which I hope was rushed and doesn't represent the final product. But it looks very low rent. They made the announcement this morning during Morning Joe, complete with an animated logo (linked below). In watching the clip online, they talked about how this new name proudly declares their newfound independence. Many articles quote a recent podcast interview with Rachel Maddow about how this corporate divorce will make them stronger. If that's true, then why not truly rebrand?? Why take your current name (plus logo font!) and change BC to OW. It's as if they are half-heartedly holding onto their old brand. "We want a new brand...as long as it is not that new." From a business perspective, the most interesting piece was in published memos from Mark Lazarus and Rebecca Kutler. They both mentioned this was an NBC decision. Lazarus writes, "... and it [the NBC peacock] is a symbol they have decided to keep within the NBCU family." Kutler went further, "During this time of transition, NBCUniversal decided that our brand requires a new, separate identity." Several media outlets have reported that the decision was made recently. Usually, this type of detail would either not make the cut in the announcement or it would be spun to say something like, "Together, we agreed that our best path forward is with a new brand that we entirely own." The fact that both said it was an NBC decision stood out to me. It doesn't take a lot of guessing as to why NBCU might want MSNBC to have a separate identity, but that's a topic for a different day.

I like the local touch in the upcoming logo. The new branding is similar to the brand they used when they became an ABC affiliate and launched their news department back in 1994.

Never say never, but it would be very challenging for CBS to prevail over Gray in court. Cyber or domain squatting requires one party to prove that another party has acted in bad faith, which, on its face, is notoriously difficult to prove. Now, consider that Gray has had a legitimate business reason to own and promote cbsatlanta.com and domain squatting becomes almost a non-starter from a legal perspective. Gray could also argue that forcing them to sell the URL would harm their business, as it would eliminate their ability to redirect traffic to their new URL automatically. This would reduce traffic to their website, impairing their ability to sell advertising and thus harming their business. Meanwhile, CBS would have a strong copyright case against the use of its intellectual property. Is Gray participating in copyright infringement by owning, but not actively using or promoting, a domain with CBS in the name? Perhaps. But I suspect the devil is in the distinction between owning and promoting/using. Ultimately, I think you will see an agreement between the two parties where Gray retains ownership of the domain for a set period of time before having to sell to CBS at a fair market price. WCCB in Charlotte retained foxcharlotte.com after they lost their Fox affiliation, causing Fox O&O WJZY to use myfoxcarolinas.com. This grace period allowed consumers time to switch from foxcharlotte.com to wccbcharlotte.com. Later, WCCB would sell the domain to Fox, which still retains ownership of the domain today despite having sold WJZY years ago. Today, the URL redirects to Nexstar's qcnews.com. I suspect a similar delayed domain sale will play out in Atlanta.

This!! I firmly believe money was a factor. It is a 200-person staff, and it is costly to produce. Given that they have been in cost-cutting mode for a while, it is logical that they see a big financial upside in axing this show. But it can also be true that the timing is suspect. The claim in their press release that it was "purely" financial is dubious at best. This is a problem that CBS made. When you pay out a multimillion-dollar settlement to avoid a lawsuit that should be in your wheelhouse to fight against, all your future decisions are viewed through an entirely new lens. If they had defended themselves in open court, they would be on better ground when they claim that shuttering their late-night franchise was exclusively fiscally motivated. But after that settlement, they will never get that benefit of the doubt. Sure, it's a cost-cutting move, but very few people - including myself - will see it solely as a balance sheet decision.

According to a statement by CBS it is a financial decision. It is quite the surprise. But then again, it shouldn’t be surprising at all. CBS has big money problems, and undoubtedly they are under pressure to shore things up before Skydance takes over. Also, it is easier for an outgoing regime to make unpopular decisions before the new crew comes in. https://deadline.com/2025/07/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert-ending-next-year-cbs-1236461787/

WPLG being dropped from YouTubeTV, Hulu, etc. at the start isn't surprising. The network negotiates the retransmission consent rights for all the affiliates. So, WPLG was covered by the agreement ABC made with Google. No ABC. No agreement for Local 10. They will have to hammer out deals with all the vMVPDs. To be honest, not being on YouTubeTV isn't the end of the world. While it is the largest platform of its kind by far, it has about 9.4 million subs nationwide. There are 125 million TV households in America. So YouTubeTV has about 7% of the national population. Let's assume that a metropolitan area like Miami skews slightly higher than, say, a rural Midwest market where internet connectivity may be slower. Even if YouTubeTV has 8 or 9% of the Miami market, WPLG can survive. But it might be enough to shave off just enough viewers to cause some pain. On the flipside, WSVN's ABC feed is immediately covered by all ABC agreements once that feed is live. It will be interesting to see if it is up and running on day one. (It should be since they have had plenty of lead time)

And now the other shoe has dropped. Demarco is departing GMA3 and ABC News altogether. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/demarco-morgan-exits-gma3-abc-news-1236308249/

Over 17.1 million Americans watched a national evening newscast last week. In this fragmented media environment, that is a sizeable audience. What's your source on this? Have you spoken to his successor? Is he set on selling to Nexstar, or will he entertain offers from other groups?? I'll put my sarcasm aside to say, I don't understand this overly dramatic doomsday prediction for WPLG. Dropping a costly network affiliation is a "self-destructive" effort that is a"recipe for disaster" and "the biggest blotch" on Warren Buffett's career (as if he made the decision himself). The people who made this decision at Local 10 have a wealth of data to consider. They know what they are paying to ABC. They are aware of their news production costs, syndication programming costs, and so on. In short, they have made a business decision that leaving a 70-year partnership is the more financially beneficial path. Now, not all business decisions work out for the best. WPLG may very well come to regret this decision. But it may be a success. Remember, you don't have to be #1 to be a financial success - owning all of their inventory sure makes that revenue column balloon. I'm not trying to force anyone to root for WPLG's success or failure. I just think it is a bit extreme to make such a bold prediction of a catastrophic collapse without knowing the business factors and fiscal numbers that went into this decision.