Jump to content

Sinclair...Again


A3N

Recommended Posts

 

If JSAs do get outlawed or severely restricted, expect more of these transaction proposals (keeping the stronger intellectual units and more powerful transmitters) to take place. Especially if this WHP/WHTM proposal gets the green light.

 

That being said, S!nclair's divesture proposals in Birmingham and Charleston aren't deathly complicated.

 

I agree with you about Birmingham and Charleston, those should be easy to approve But I do think the Harrisburg one is going to be a very long and drawn out process, especially with this current proposal.

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

Let's hope and pray the FCC denies Sinclair's request and acquisition of Albritton.

 

While I would prefer this deal never happened, this is acceptable. I do not object to Sinclair getting into markets where it's never been, like Tulsa or Little Rock. This at least gets a third party into each market (though I have a hunch Sinclair will court Nexstar as the buyer for WHP).

 

 

If JSAs do get outlawed or severely restricted, expect more of these transaction proposals (keeping the stronger intellectual units and more powerful transmitters) to take place. Especially if this WHP/WHTM proposal gets the green light.

 

That being said, S!nclair's divesture proposals in Birmingham and Charleston aren't deathly complicated.

 

This is an important precedent, you're right. I would expect adequacy proposals out of several deals at this point. Quincy will almost certainly have to split the Granite shells to get the company; Meredith must decide the fate of KASW because that station is tying up its proposed KTVK acquisition; and Nexstar probably has to scrap significant portions of its long-languishing acquisition of ComCorp.

 

If JSAs do get outlawed or severely restricted, expect more of these transaction proposals (keeping the stronger intellectual units and more powerful transmitters) to take place. Especially if this WHP/WHTM proposal gets the green light.

 

That being said, S!nclair's divesture proposals in Birmingham and Charleston aren't deathly complicated.

 

There's no reason why it shouldn't get the green light. The FCC can only regulate the public airwaves, they cannot regulate the business aspects of these stations.

 

There's no reason why it shouldn't get the green light. The FCC can only regulate the public airwaves, they cannot regulate the business aspects of these stations.

 

Best comment I've read on this thread. Amen.

 

Which is why I don't understand why they want to curb JSAs/SSAs so badly or whether that's even constitutional for that matter. It's not like the license holder has zero control over their usage of the public airspace for their broadcast. All they are doing is outsourcing certain business functions to a much bigger firm. The license holder still has a say in how their station is run. Outsourcing is done all the time in every field and is not illegal.

 

Then again, the FCC acts like they can regulate newspapers...

 

While I would prefer this deal never happened, this is acceptable. I do not object to Sinclair getting into markets where it's never been, like Tulsa or Little Rock. This at least gets a third party into each market (though I have a hunch Sinclair will court Nexstar as the buyer for WHP).

 

FWIW, Tulsa actually has 4 owners already; Albritton (ABC), Scripps (NBC), Cox (FOX) & Griffin (CBS).

Remember this.....

I think Sinclair should give up on the Birmingham' date=' Charleston and Harrisburg deals. [b']I am pretty sure that they are going to attempt to keep the stations mentioned above together before Sinclair is forced to sell[/b] and remember they attempted to assign WSYT to Cunningham? That did not work out really well at all because Sinclair would have four stations to deal with.

 

Unless you want to see a bunch of cheerleaders in a song and dance routine, I don't think that the Allbritton sale wont go through the unless the conflicting stations are sold to different companies besides the plethora of side-car corporations that are controlled by Sinclair.

Now, after reading the Sinclair letter and getting the concept of the Birmingham, Charleston and Harrisburg stations that are involved in the allbrittion needed to be sold to different owners.

I do believe the Charleston deal is really easy rather than making it in a hostage situation that would last 5 to 10 hours or in this case, 15 to 25 years with an local marketing agreement.

They did exactly what you said.

 

They first proposed some changes to the structure of the JSAs and SSAs (notably, the option to buy WLYH would have been transferred to Howard Stirk). Then, after the developments of the last couple weeks where the FCC made clear that things were changing, this adequacy proposal was made.

They did exactly what you said.

 

They first proposed some changes to the structure of the JSAs and SSAs (notably, the option to buy WLYH would have been transferred to Howard Stirk). Then, after the developments of the last couple weeks where the FCC made clear that things were changing, this adequacy proposal was made.

Bravo! My words still stand still for the Charleston deal too.

 

Best comment I've read on this thread. Amen.

 

Which is why I don't understand why they want to curb JSAs/SSAs so badly or whether that's even constitutional for that matter. It's not like the license holder has zero control over their usage of the public airspace for their broadcast. All they are doing is outsourcing certain business functions to a much bigger firm. The license holder still has a say in how their station is run. Outsourcing is done all the time in every field and is not illegal.

 

Then again, the FCC acts like they can regulate newspapers...

 

I agree with you on this one, but I think it's the same reflex we have over and over again in America of not letting companies get too big. They tore down Standard Oil, US Steel. A&P, General Motors, Microsoft and to a certain extent Walmart for the same reasons. Sinclair found a better way to build a mousetrap, so the people who got caught flat-footed are complaining ad nauseum to the FCC.

 

Money talks, but make no mistake what's going on here. Sinclair and a few others are eating everybody's lunch and the companies caught flat-footed are trying to get the government to do what they weren't smart enough to do for themselves.

 

That said, I agree with your previous comments on the subject a while back. I don't care how many duopolies exist with independents, CW or MyNet stations. In fact, they are better off paired up with a "Big 4" station. But something about when they pair up the stations of two of the big networks (other than Fox, which I still don't consider a network) that doesn't sit well with me. I also think they should spread the wealth ... one duopoly per market. Let their competitors have a bite at the apple. In a market like Columbus, WWHO should go to someone else since Sinclair already has two signals.

 

In the old days, consolidation would have mattered because there was local programming. These days, it's all syndicated crap anyway, so who cares?

 

 

 

 

Remember this.....

 

Now, after reading the Sinclair letter and getting the concept of the Birmingham, Charleston and Harrisburg stations that are involved in the allbrittion needed to be sold to different owners.

I do believe the Charleston deal is really easy rather than making it in a hostage situation that would last 5 to 10 hours or in this case, 15 to 25 years with an local marketing agreement.

 

 

 

I initially misunderstood the Harrisburg deal. If I understand correctly, they are taking the old, decrepit WHP building, the WHP license, and signal, and moving WHTM's programming, call letters and ABC affilliation to that building. I would imagine Sinclair keeps its management, administrative, engineering and sales staff, but switches out news department personnel?

 

Then WHP and CBS moves across the street to the WHTM building and takes over the VHF-10 position.

 

I know this probably doesn't matter much these days, but I do have a soft spot for stations with three-letter calls. I can't believe there isn't some marketing value in those call letters, especially since they were usually among the first broadcasters in any given market.

 

I know this probably doesn't matter much these days, but I do have a soft spot for stations with three-letter calls. I can't believe there isn't some marketing value in those call letters, especially since they were usually among the first broadcasters in any given market.

 

I think the WGN calls have some degree of marketing value, don't they?

 

Not to derail the thread, but may I ask why you don't consider Fox to be a network?

 

What does Fox have, a two hour block at night and some sports? Where is their physical presence? Who are their personalities? Where is their morning and daytime programming? Where is their news?

 

That's why I don't consider them to be a network.

 

What does Fox have, a two hour block at night and some sports? Where is their physical presence? Who are their personalities? Where is their morning and daytime programming? Where is their news?

 

That's why I don't consider them to be a network.

 

That's was going to be what I was going to say. It's local news, some sports (not the best done IMO) and two hours of prime time. It seems like all the FOX O&O's at least go local with a "Good Day _______" show, Detroit is "The Nine". So that takes their mornings away. They seem more like My Network TV or the CW except better run. They should not be directly compared to ABC, CBS, NBC. That is not their modus opperendi.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/network

 

net·work [net-wurk] noun

 

1. any net-like combination of filaments, lines, veins, passages, or the like: a network of arteries; a network of sewers under the city.

 

2. Radio and Television.

a. a group of transmitting stations linked by wire or microwave relay so that the same program can be broadcast or telecast by all.

b. a company or organization that provides programs to be broadcast over these stations: She was hired by the network as program coordinator.

 

3. a system of interrelated buildings, offices, stations, etc., especially over a large area or throughout a country, territory, region, etc.: a network of supply depots.

 

4. Electricity . an arrangement of conducting elements, as resistors, capacitors, or inductors, connected by conducting wire.

 

5. a netting or net.

Fox IS a network.

I agree with you on this one, but I think it's the same reflex we have over and over again in America of not letting companies get too big. They tore down Standard Oil, US Steel. A&P, General Motors, Microsoft and to a certain extent Walmart for the same reasons. Sinclair found a better way to build a mousetrap, so the people who got caught flat-footed are complaining ad nauseum to the FCC.

 

Money talks, but make no mistake what's going on here. Sinclair and a few others are eating everybody's lunch and the companies caught flat-footed are trying to get the government to do what they weren't smart enough to do for themselves.

 

That said, I agree with your previous comments on the subject a while back. I don't care how many duopolies exist with independents, CW or MyNet stations. In fact, they are better off paired up with a "Big 4" station. But something about when they pair up the stations of two of the big networks (other than Fox, which I still don't consider a network) that doesn't sit well with me. I also think they should spread the wealth ... one duopoly per market. Let their competitors have a bite at the apple. In a market like Columbus, WWHO should go to someone else since Sinclair already has two signals.

 

In the old days, consolidation would have mattered because there was local programming. These days, it's all syndicated crap anyway, so who cares?

It's really not other companies, though. It's more special interest groups like the Free Press. Although some of their ideals sound nice they aren't grounded in reality. Their (and others) goal in beating the drum against JSAs/SSAs is to foster new diverse ownership and somehow turn back the clock return to having tons of independent voices. It sounds nice and something you could get behind. However, TV like every other mature industry is consolidating the only way to "grow" is through consolidation and better use of assets. They (and others) fail to take into account the ridiculous expense of attempting to enter the TV industry plus now days you need the scale of multiple outlets. It's not realistic or a sound business investment to build a TV business up from scratch now days. And, for some puzzling reason to me they are so "anti-sharing" to the point that they list point stations that are part of LNS and Helicopter Shares. Somehow LNS/Helicopter Shares = the exact same news on multiple stations. I will never understand that point. And, if they are up in arms over LNS someone should point out Network News Service to them...their heads might explode.

 

Anyway, I've said seemingly a million times JSAs/SSAs should have some defined rules. If only to reel in "bad actors" and make sure everyone is on board with what's ok and what's not instead of some arbitrary system. Instead we have groups trying to go nuclear on each other in an attempt to protect or further their interests instead of working with the FCC to craft new ownership rules that reflect the current environment.

 

I initially misunderstood the Harrisburg deal. If I understand correctly, they are taking the old, decrepit WHP building, the WHP license, and signal, and moving WHTM's programming, call letters and ABC affilliation to that building. I would imagine Sinclair keeps its management, administrative, engineering and sales staff, but switches out news department personnel?

 

Then WHP and CBS moves across the street to the WHTM building and takes over the VHF-10 position.

 

I know this probably doesn't matter much these days, but I do have a soft spot for stations with three-letter calls. I can't believe there isn't some marketing value in those call letters, especially since they were usually among the first broadcasters in any given market.

They are really only attempting to" swap" facilities with this deal. Since the facilities are tied to the license they are proposing to swap everything else but, the facilities/license. So, Sinclair would have WHTM's current programming, current building, etc. But, operate using WHP current facilities. And, a new owner would operate WHP with their current programming, current building, etc. from WHTM's current facilities. In other words everything stays the same except WHTM would be on RF-21 and WHP would be on RF-10. It's basically a copy of what happened with KFVE/KGMB.

Most of what I see out of JSA's and helicopter shares is the same shot on different stations at the same time or the same video for a story, so in that sense it's lazy by the owners. It's more competitive to have everybody doing their own work. Maybe this is where those folks get the idea, I always thought it sucked because I want to see all the stations in my and other towns at their best and not decimated because of agreements that lead to fewer personnel needed.

The only facilities being "swapped" in HBG are the transmitter locations. WHTM and Sinclair and current staff will be in Whtm current location and Whp and new owner will be in bldg where 21 is housed currently with their staff moving from Sinclair to the new owner. Pretty clearly spelled out this way in the amended filing.

 

Most of what I see out of JSA's and helicopter shares is the same shot on different stations at the same time or the same video for a story, so in that sense it's lazy by the owners. It's more competitive to have everybody doing their own work. Maybe this is where those folks get the idea, I always thought it sucked because I want to see all the stations in my and other towns at their best and not decimated because of agreements that lead to fewer personnel needed.

 

That's the thing though it's a nice ideal to have everybody shooting all there own footage and have their own choppers, etc. But, it's not based in reality. The owners have a fiduciary duty to protect their shareholders so, they aren't lazy per se. It's that they are being squeezed and new technologies (ie: Automation, hubbing, etc.) have made it easy for them to massively reduce personnel and maintain some level of profitability for their shareholders. Of course we can debate the merits of that and weather it's "fair" (I'd rather not) but, that's reality and the way things work. It's unlikely those positions will come back whether they exit (or enter into) pooling or not. So, as an ND (or GM) sometimes you have to do more (or just maintain status quo) with less.

 

That's where LNS and helicopter shares can come in handy. Footage of routine/scheduled events (ie: press conferences, fires, accidents, b-roll, etc.) can be pooled amongst participating stations. Do you really need to have 4-5 crews shooting video of an overnight fire? Do you need to have those same crews all covering a press conference? The average viewer would never notice this footage is the same as they are usually shot from similar angles anyway. And, In most cases this is what LNS is used for freeing up valuable personnel to cover other things. Although, I've seen some rare cases of interview footage being pooled as well. For example, The Denver stations did this with the Aurora shooting to limit the amount of time victims and their families were subjected to the media. You can be the judge but, they all presented their own unique stories using that pooled footage. Again, the average viewer would never notice that this was pooled footage. Pooling still allows you to compete and still create unique stories. So, why is this a "bad" thing?

 

That's why I think it's ridiculous to lump pooling and the like in with JSAs/SSAs. But, for whatever reason the Free Press (and others) want to treat these as equal. Outside of the general premise of "sharing" they are on very different levels. That's why I'd love to know what they (and others) think of NNS. It's basically the same thing, just on a national level. Getting rid of all "sharing" isn't going to result in a bunch of new photojournalists being hired (or, choppers being put in the air.) So, some stations would likely just go without video on some of their stories. Personally, I'd much rather have pooled footage than no footage. That's why it's shortsighted to say all sharing is "bad" and they should go it alone. Because, sometimes "sharing" can be "good" and beneficial...even for the public.

 

And, to try and tie this all back together and not totally derail the thread. The same thing can apply to JSAs/SSAs and other forms of "sharing". Not every instance is created equal. There are so many different types of JSAs/SSAs and "sharing" that painting them all with a broad brush isn't fair. Sure, there is abuse with groups attempting to use "shells" & JSAs/SSAs to skirt the rules. But, what about using JSAs/SSAs to allow new entities into the TV business? They are unlikely to be able to go it alone. Would you want to deter that? I could go on and on with examples but, I think I make my point. Sometimes sharing is "bad" but, sometimes it can be "good".

I agree with most everything there, sure I'm a bit nostalgic for an era when things were not as pooled and automated. The depressing thing about helicopter shares is it eliminates reporters from the copter. We had 3 layed off in Detroit when they went to a helicopter share. If there was one thing I hope they undo it's that, not that I think those reporters will come back or anything. One of the stations actually recently hired one of the local radio pilots and they use him in the mornings so even they aren't perfectly happy with the share agreement. It would be nice to see another for the afternoons like there was a few years ago.

Helicopter shares mean clearer airspace. We all know what damage that can cause.

 

I support helicopter shares in most cases because they can actually enhance stations' ability to report and also make them less prone to risky accidents like the Phoenix crash of 2007. That happened because five stations had five choppers. Now five stations have two choppers.

That's something I didn't think about, that's a very good point, I was thinking of situations they would be covering different things. Obviously on big news there are a bunch in close proximity, surely the pilots talk to each other though? I'll admit I don't know the full circumstances on the 2007 crash, I started paying close attention in 2011 while I was in school. I'm sure that crash influenced some of these agreements.

 

That's something I didn't think about, that's a very good point, I was thinking of situations they would be covering different things. Obviously on big news there are a bunch in close proximity, surely the pilots talk to each other though? I'll admit I don't know the full circumstances on the 2007 crash, I started paying close attention in 2011 while I was in school. I'm sure that crash influenced some of these agreements.

 

During a police chase two helicopters (one from KTVK, the other from KNXV) collided during coverage. The KNXV chopper hit the KTVK chopper, sending both to the ground over a park and killing four people. At the time KPHO, KSAZ and KPNX were all in the air as well.

 

This is what it looked like in the air. The KNXV chopper is on the right.

 

helicopter_crash.jpg

 

They did talk, but there were so many choppers covering one event. They were lucky to land in a park; the damage could have been worse.

 

The 3-5-12 chopper share did not start until March 2009, however, in the throes of the Great Recession. The 10-15 chopper share was not instituted until 2012 and built off a prior sharing relationship between the stations.

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 Local News Talk you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.