Sinclair...Again

bixpchiphead · April 17, 2013

I just know when NBC owned WCMH, they did actually give WBNS a true run for their money. There were times when WCMH and WBNS were neck-to-neck in many newscast overall ratings.

To be fair, 'CMH began their ascent when they were still owned by Outlet Co., NBC just continued to continue.

CircleSeven · April 17, 2013

TVNewsCheck got an article posted today about many station groups stock prices have gone up. The best performance since the financial meltdown five years ago. But the article put a heavy emphasis on both Sinclair & Nexstar.

ABC 7 Denver · April 18, 2013

Not on any previous subject mentioned (I think), but still related, I find it funny that Newport KMTR is being/has been sold to Fisher Comm because Sinclair is acquiring it anyways. Silly Newport, you should have just sold it directly to Fisher.

But this also begs the question: If Fisher had been intending to sell all of their stations, why did they purchase KMTR?

I have also been reading the Wikipedia pages of Mission Broadcasting and Cunningham Broadcasting. Mission was founded by David S. Smith (deceased) in 1998 and is controlled by Nancy Smith with obvious reverence for Nexstar. Cunningham was founded with initial capital provided "by Carolyn Smith, wife of Sinclair founder Julian Smith and mother of current Sinclair CEO David Smith" [ref. Wikipedia]

Gee! Could the founders of Mission and Cunningham be related? Could Nexstar and Sinclair be surreptitiously working together?

hathawaynson2 · April 19, 2013

Not on any previous subject mentioned (I think)' date=' but still related, I find it funny that Newport KMTR is being/has been sold to Fisher Comm because Sinclair is acquiring it anyways. Silly Newport, you should have just sold it directly to Fisher.[/font']

But this also begs the question: If Fisher had been intending to sell all of their stations, why did they purchase KMTR?

I have also been reading the Wikipedia pages of Mission Broadcasting and Cunningham Broadcasting. Mission was founded by David S. Smith (deceased) in 1998 and is controlled by Nancy Smith with obvious reverence for Nexstar. Cunningham was founded with initial capital provided "by Carolyn Smith, wife of Sinclair founder Julian Smith and mother of current Sinclair CEO David Smith" [ref. Wikipedia]

Gee! Could the founders of Mission and Cunningham be related? Could Nexstar and Sinclair be surreptitiously working together?

I think it has nothing to do with relationship with Nancie Smith (MIssion) and/or Carolyn Smith (Cunningham) however, I have wondered if those two could merge to make an conglomic broadcasting corporation. It would sound fishy, but however, I am going to quote an user "Speaking of Cunningham, it has recently filed an application to the FCC to Transfer the Control of the shell corporation to Michael Anderson. Cunningham was operated by him, and the trust of the late Carolyn Smith (wife of Sinclair's founder Julian Smith, and her maiden name is Cunningham). This reasoning of this application is to wind down that trust and to give all the Cunningham control to Michael Anderson."

And another thing about the KMTR sale, I would've said find another buyer besides Sinclair and or Nexstar.

jero23 · April 21, 2013

To be fair, 'CMH began their ascent when they were still owned by Outlet Co., NBC just continued to continue.

That is true, but NBC continued to invest in the station thus it continued to climb in ratings. I can only image how successful WCMH would have been if it remained an O&O under Comcast. WBNS could seriously have seen some major problems maintaining its #1 position considering their anchor changes against "NBC4" as of late...

News 9 Viewer · April 22, 2013

Not on any previous subject mentioned (I think)' date=' but still related, I find it funny that Newport KMTR is being/has been sold to Fisher Comm because Sinclair is acquiring it anyways. Silly Newport, you should have just sold it directly to Fisher.[/font']

But this also begs the question: If Fisher had been intending to sell all of their stations, why did they purchase KMTR?

I have also been reading the Wikipedia pages of Mission Broadcasting and Cunningham Broadcasting. Mission was founded by David S. Smith (deceased) in 1998 and is controlled by Nancy Smith with obvious reverence for Nexstar. Cunningham was founded with initial capital provided "by Carolyn Smith, wife of Sinclair founder Julian Smith and mother of current Sinclair CEO David Smith" [ref. Wikipedia]

Gee! Could the founders of Mission and Cunningham be related? Could Nexstar and Sinclair be surreptitiously working together?

I'm guessing that Fisher wasn't expecting Sinclair to make an offer for their stations as quickly as they did. Or maybe Sinclair entered into an informal agreement with Fisher that they would buy the Fisher stations if Fisher acquired KMTR.

I am inclined to doubt that Nancy Smith is related to the Smith family that runs Sinclair and its sister shell corporations. Smith is a ridiculously common name.

CircleSeven · April 23, 2013

It appears that Fisher's investors have filed a lawsuit against Fisher, in hopes to block them from selling its kingdom to Sinclair.

AaronQ · April 23, 2013

It appears that Fisher's investors have filed a lawsuit against Fisher, in hopes to block them from selling its kingdom to Sinclair.

Good, I hope Sinclair get instant karma on their asses.

News 9 Viewer · April 23, 2013

It appears that Fisher's investors have filed a lawsuit against Fisher, in hopes to block them from selling its kingdom to Sinclair.

Looks like some Fisher investors did research and discovered 1) Sinclair is in an absurd amount of debt and 2) how Sinclair would run flagship properties KOMO and KATU: on a shoestring budget and as a megaphone promoting extreme right wing viewpoints.

I'm rooting for Fisher's investors to win their suit and block the sale. If they do, other station groups will be exposed to the damage Sinclair is doing to local television and be more willing to wait for quality buyers to emerge for stations they want to sell. Sinclair's buying spree could be slowed signifcantly. Then maybe the Smiths would try to repair their reputation by severing ties with the shell corporations they've used to greatly reduce their competition and invest more in the stations they own outright.

Mrtraveler01 · April 23, 2013

Looks like some Fisher investors did research and discovered 1) Sinclair is in an absurd amount of debt and 2) how Sinclair would run flagship properties KOMO and KATU: on a shoestring budget and as a megaphone promoting extreme right wing viewpoints.

I'm rooting for Fisher's investors to win their suit and block the sale. If they do, other station groups will be exposed to the damage Sinclair is doing to local television and be more willing to wait for quality buyers to emerge for stations they want to sell. Sinclair's buying spree could be slowed signifcantly. Then maybe the Smiths would try to repair their reputation by severing ties with the shell corporations they've used to greatly reduce their competition and invest more in the stations they own outright.

As much as I would like to see all of the above happen and see this deal between Fishers and Sinclair stopped, I'm too much of a cynic with these things to believe that anything will happen as a result of this.

Jess · April 23, 2013

That is true, but NBC continued to invest in the station thus it continued to climb in ratings. I can only image how successful WCMH would have been if it remained an O&O under Comcast. WBNS could seriously have seen some major problems maintaining its #1 position considering their anchor changes against "NBC4" as of late...

WCMH would have had to endure the John Wallace/"NBC Local Media" years. Reporters and staff would be cut. There would be fewer live trucks out. Promos would have been outsourced, and the station would have nearly been debranded to "NBC Columbus".

Remember, they'd have had to survive the bad ownership before they got the good ownership. In many ways, the "Outlet Four" were lucky because they missed out on that.

hathawaynson2 · April 23, 2013

Looks like some Fisher investors did research and discovered 1) Sinclair is in an absurd amount of debt and 2) how Sinclair would run flagship properties KOMO and KATU: on a shoestring budget and as a megaphone promoting extreme right wing viewpoints.

I'm rooting for Fisher's investors to win their suit and block the sale. If they do, other station groups will be exposed to the damage Sinclair is doing to local television and be more willing to wait for quality buyers to emerge for stations they want to sell. Sinclair's buying spree could be slowed significantly Then maybe the Smith's would try to repair their reputation by severing ties with the shell corporations they've used to greatly reduce their competition and invest more in the stations they own outright.

Oh, yeaaahhh! I'm glad Fisher Broadcasting Group just recently popped the trunk on Sinclair finally! (rings bar bell cheerfully

) Anyways, I would like to see Sinclair (yes ladies and gentlemen) the incompetent broadcasting group severing ties with the shell corporations and right now their debt is about $3 billion, yep $3 billion dollars after reeling the Newport TV Group, Barrington Broadcasting and scooping up most of the Cox Media group stations that are smaller than Tulsa, Oklahoma. :agree: Meanwhile, I'll enjoy my wonderful popcorn and let the dramatic court room style situation evolve.

As much as I would like to see all of the above happen and see this deal between Fishers and Sinclair stopped, I'm too much of a cynic with these things to believe that anything will happen as a result of this.

:agree: its time to face the music here, but I have to agree with you about this particular merger that can create a lot more controversy if those two were to merge. Fisher Broadcasting did the right thing by investigating and checking out Sinclair Broadcasting Group and now its the FCC and the FTC's turn to investigate this mess and Sinclair!

bhratbrat · April 24, 2013

The shareholders are the ones that we should be celebrating. They did their own investigating into what is going on with the mess that is being presented. I had my doubts as well with them attempting to run KOMO and KATU plus the other properties. I seriously think that if KOMO and KATU were not up on the market, than this deal might have silently went through. So kudos to shareholders.

Jess · April 24, 2013

So, here's my take on this.

Let's put aside everything else that makes Sinclair so loathed. The non-investment in stations. The horrible graphics and music. The conservative tone that makes Fox News Channel look like MSNBC. The problem with this is something I'd make no matter the owner, whether it's Nexstar or a more competently managed group like Scripps, Belo, Gannett, and ABC. It all comes down to this.

Sinclair will own or control about 125 stations in 69 markets when all of these transactions finalize.

Lemme repeat that - 125 stations.

No single company can sustain that many stations. Nobody.

If you want a clear example of this, let's look at Clear Channel. Can anyone say that ANY of their stations are local anymore? They have made so many cuts that a majority of their stations are on auto-pilot. They're using "premium choice" programming that's beamed out of other markets. And this is all due to their massive station load - and consequently, their massive debt load.

I fear that Sinclair is going to be the television equivalent of Clear Channel.

Newscasts will be cut to the barest of bones. Most decisions will be made out of headquarters. Stations like KOMO, which are intensely local, will become cookie cutter. And, of course, stations will lose their news departments or see them combined. They will do this, not because that's their modus operandi - but because they HAVE to. The stations have to be extremely profitable to make this all worth it.

Moreover, let us remember that this station group is the one that did "News Central". In other words, doing most of the newscast out of corporate headquarters, including weather, and leaving only a small news staff at the locals. Yes, News Central failed. But I would be shocked if Sinclair didn't revive this model - at least in some, less obvious, form. The debt load will dictate this.

Now, maybe their strategies have changed. After all, they've gone from a mostly Fox/CW/My group to a mostly Big Four group. They're acquiring stations that are, in some markets, leaders, and almost all of them have heavier news departments. (The NBC affiliate agreements, in fact, state that they have to air a local news program prior to Today, Nightly News, and the Tonight Show.) If they're changing their model to reflect that, then good. I don't think they have, nor do I think they will.

This is a dangerous precedent. I fear it is going to negatively impact the state of local news in ways we can't imagine.

Nobody should control 125 stations - but it looks like we're going to see that, and that scares me to death.

MidwestTV · April 25, 2013

And that 125 stations will only continue to go up too! I wonder if they have this goal set in mind of 150?

hathawaynson2 · April 27, 2013

And that 125 stations will only continue to go up too! I wonder if they have this goal set in mind of 150?

Well, 125 stations seems like a large number of stations owned and or operated by Sinclair. Apparently, if the merger with Fisher Communications Group gets denied from the FCC; That would be the fine line for Sinclair and all of its shell corporations to be investigated indefinitely and I might I remind everyone else that Nexstar should be getting the same treatment from the FCC regarding The ComCorp and White Knight Station Group deal. I mean, its really really baddd enough to ask the FCC to investigate.

So, here's my take on this.

Let's put aside everything else that makes Sinclair so loathed. The non-investment in stations. The horrible graphics and music. The conservative tone that makes Fox News Channel look like MSNBC. The problem with this is something I'd make no matter the owner, whether it's Nexstar or a more competently managed group like Scripps, Belo, Gannett, and ABC. It all comes down to this.

Sinclair will own or control about 125 stations in 69 markets when all of these transactions finalize.

Lemme repeat that - 125 stations.

No single company can sustain that many stations. Nobody.

If you want a clear example of this, let's look at Clear Channel. Can anyone say that ANY of their stations are local anymore? They have made so many cuts that a majority of their stations are on auto-pilot. They're using "premium choice" programming that's beamed out of other markets. And this is all due to their massive station load - and consequently, their massive debt load.

I fear that Sinclair is going to be the television equivalent of Clear Channel.

Newscasts will be cut to the barest of bones. Most decisions will be made out of headquarters. Stations like KOMO, which are intensely local, will become cookie cutter. And, of course, stations will lose their news departments or see them combined. They will do this, not because that's their modus operandi - but because they HAVE to. The stations have to be extremely profitable to make this all worth it.

Moreover, let us remember that this station group is the one that did "News Central". In other words, doing most of the newscast out of corporate headquarters, including weather, and leaving only a small news staff at the locals. Yes, News Central failed. But I would be shocked if Sinclair didn't revive this model - at least in some, less obvious, form. The debt load will dictate this.

Now, maybe their strategies have changed. After all, they've gone from a mostly Fox/CW/My group to a mostly Big Four group. They're acquiring stations that are, in some markets, leaders, and almost all of them have heavier news departments. (The NBC affiliate agreements, in fact, state that they have to air a local news program prior to Today, Nightly News, and the Tonight Show.) If they're changing their model to reflect that, then good. I don't think they have, nor do I think they will.

This is a dangerous precedent. I fear it is going to negatively impact the state of local news in ways we can't imagine.

Nobody should control 125 stations - but it looks like we're going to see that, and that scares me to death.

Agreed with you on this one. News Central did FAIL in the first place; I was in Oklahoma City in 2006 or earlier and watched the News Central format being used on the FOX affliate in that market along with "the point" that was produced with Mark Hyman that all of the Sinclair stations were required to air until the series was discontinued and all local news returned after News Central was unsuccessful.

(As defined in my Broadcasting Group Dictionary: Sinclair Broadcasting Group, also see Sinclair Television Group plus Cunningham Broadcasting and Deerfield Media, Inc.: is an incompetent broadcasting group that causes all controversy with SSA/JSA agreements and running their political mouthpieces into the stations that they own and they own) in my overall opinion about the station and with $3 billion dollar debt load and will own 125 plus stations)

Ladies and Gentlemen, Sinclair in my overall opinion is a draw down broadcasting corporation that is going to be bankrupt before too long. I would imagine five or less years from now that they will be bankrupt like they almost did in 2009. As I said before and I'll say it again: Sinclair needs to dump more of the TV stations that are not making much money that have issues before they go bankrupt and also, if the license has Deerfield Media and or Cunningham Broadcasting, it has Sinclair written all over it.

and if you don't believe in what I said I'll quote again from a user regarding the Barrington Broadcasting sale: "I don't care what anyone say. I don't care if Anderson, or Mumblow, or Williams is calling all the shots on these shells. As long as there's a breath of David Smith and all three has dealings with Smith as he continue to call all the shots on his operating practices in Maryland, Cunningham is Sinclair. Deerfield is Sinclair. The NEW Chesapeake is Sinclair (not the old Chesapeake because that was Sinclair's old name). And if you don't know that by now, read between the lines everyone. "But based on the current agreements with the stations, it's hard to tell that it is not a shell corporation. And Anderson is going to be the sole controller of Cunningham, once the transfer of controls get approved by the FCC. When I said "read between the lines", I mean know about Sinclair and all of its shells or what they call it their "side-companies". Just like Stephen Mumblow with Deerfield. When you see anything from Cunningham or Deerfield, I see Sinclair written all over their foreheads." and then you will see what will happen with Sinclair.

Rusty Muck · April 29, 2013

So, here's my take on this.

Let's put aside everything else that makes Sinclair so loathed. The non-investment in stations. The horrible graphics and music. The conservative tone that makes Fox News Channel look like MSNBC. The problem with this is something I'd make no matter the owner, whether it's Nexstar or a more competently managed group like Scripps, Belo, Gannett, and ABC. It all comes down to this.

Sinclair will own or control about 125 stations in 69 markets when all of these transactions finalize.

Lemme repeat that - 125 stations.

No single company can sustain that many stations. Nobody.

If you want a clear example of this, let's look at Clear Channel. Can anyone say that ANY of their stations are local anymore? They have made so many cuts that a majority of their stations are on auto-pilot. They're using "premium choice" programming that's beamed out of other markets. And this is all due to their massive station load - and consequently, their massive debt load.

I fear that Sinclair is going to be the television equivalent of Clear Channel.

Newscasts will be cut to the barest of bones. Most decisions will be made out of headquarters. Stations like KOMO, which are intensely local, will become cookie cutter. And, of course, stations will lose their news departments or see them combined. They will do this, not because that's their modus operandi - but because they HAVE to. The stations have to be extremely profitable to make this all worth it.

Moreover, let us remember that this station group is the one that did "News Central". In other words, doing most of the newscast out of corporate headquarters, including weather, and leaving only a small news staff at the locals. Yes, News Central failed. But I would be shocked if Sinclair didn't revive this model - at least in some, less obvious, form. The debt load will dictate this.

Now, maybe their strategies have changed. After all, they've gone from a mostly Fox/CW/My group to a mostly Big Four group. They're acquiring stations that are, in some markets, leaders, and almost all of them have heavier news departments. (The NBC affiliate agreements, in fact, state that they have to air a local news program prior to Today, Nightly News, and the Tonight Show.) If they're changing their model to reflect that, then good. I don't think they have, nor do I think they will.

This is a dangerous precedent. I fear it is going to negatively impact the state of local news in ways we can't imagine.

Nobody should control 125 stations - but it looks like we're going to see that, and that scares me to death.

Not to say the state of local news was that great to begin with (news-resource sharing, helicopter outsourcing or sharing, on-air talent jumping from station to station with alarming frequency... see Cleveland in December 2011/January 2012). But it is going to get worse, much worse.

Outside of hurling cheap-shot names at the group, there really is nothing else that can be done to stop their buying up of stations left and right. Not as long as the stock market continues to spike up, up, and up, which in turn is fueling their need to buy, buy and buy with reckless abandon.

It's only when everything starts to crash down... that's when the [you-know-what] starts to hit the fan.

Look at Clear Channel today. They have hundreds of small-market and rural radio stations that they *should* sell off, but for a variety of reasons, they can't without writing off major losses -- even markets like Cleveland are purportedly available, but the price is WAAAAAAAAAAY too high for any buyer - even in the most profound of delusions - to consider. Bain Capital is still the majority owner, but is unable to sell off those assets without incurring major losses of their own. (Bain has had a stake in CC for seven years; the usual timeframe a private equity firm **wants** to invest in a company is, what... three years?)

Point being, Clear Channel is a toxic asset that's borderline worthless. Cumulus Radio is not far behind. The clock is ticking on when both companies complete their protracted implosions. When that happens, sure, radio stations - entire clusters even - will soon be auctioned off to groups or people who want to turn back the clock to how radio stations and clusters USED to be ran. But it's of small comfort, when considering the utter insanity of the merger-driven culture of the late 90s/early 2000s led us to this point.

It's a cautionary tale that Sinclair is refusing to look at. Maybe they feel that their shell holding companies will insulate them in some way. If that's the case, I'd like to know what they are smoking, so that it can not only be outlawed, but additionally eradicated from the face of the freaking Earth for all eternity.

As I stated earlier in the thread, there really is no tangible way that Sinclair can be stopped. Not when the FTC is averse to protesting or rejecting mergers and buyouts (AT&T's aborted merger of T-Mobile being the lone exception...). Petitions will do nothing. Neither will protests or the like. Not when you see a soulless number-crunching mega outfit ready and willing to slash all operating budgets in an attempt to justify their green-lit purchases with money they never had in the first place.

CircleSeven · April 29, 2013

Well the paperwork is up. And they filed a 315 Transfer of Control app (not a typical 314 Assignment Of License app). On the transaction description, they'd also mentioned the approved sale of KMTR which will have a JSA/SSA with CBS station KVAL. And here's the thorough agreement doc.

jero23 · April 29, 2013

WCMH would have had to endure the John Wallace/"NBC Local Media" years. Reporters and staff would be cut. There would be fewer live trucks out. Promos would have been outsourced, and the station would have nearly been debranded to "NBC Columbus".

Remember, they'd have had to survive the bad ownership before they got the good ownership. In many ways, the "Outlet Four" were lucky because they missed out on that.

True, but the look at the result of Comcast's investment on the remaining O&Os. Also let's not forget how crappy Media General has been to WVTM and WNCN, both of those stations staffs were slashed and cut left and right. Neither operation is recognizable as they were under NBC.

hathawaynson2 · April 29, 2013

Not to say the state of local news was that great to begin with (news-resource sharing, helicopter outsourcing or sharing, on-air talent jumping from station to station with alarming frequency... see Cleveland in December 2011/January 2012). But it is going to get worse, much worse.

Outside of hurling cheap-shot names at the group, there really is nothing else that can be done to stop their buying up of stations left and right. Not as long as the stock market continues to spike up, up, and up, which in turn is fueling their need to buy, buy and buy with reckless abandon.

It's only when everything starts to crash down... that's when the [you-know-what] starts to hit the fan.

Look at Clear Channel today. They have hundreds of small-market and rural radio stations that they *should* sell off, but for a variety of reasons, they can't without writing off major losses -- even markets like Cleveland are purportedly available, but the price is WAAAAAAAAAAY too high for any buyer - even in the most profound of delusions - to consider. Bain Capital is still the majority owner, but is unable to sell off those assets without incurring major losses of their own. (Bain has had a stake in CC for seven years; the usual timeframe a private equity firm **wants** to invest in a company is, what... three years?)

Point being, Clear Channel is a toxic asset that's borderline worthless. Cumulus Radio is not far behind. The clock is ticking on when both companies complete their protracted implosions. When that happens, sure, radio stations - entire clusters even - will soon be auctioned off to groups or people who want to turn back the clock to how radio stations and clusters USED to be ran. But it's of small comfort, when considering the utter insanity of the merger-driven culture of the late 90s/early 2000s led us to this point.

It's a cautionary tale that Sinclair is refusing to look at. Maybe they feel that their shell holding companies will insulate them in some way. If that's the case, I'd like to know what they are smoking, so that it can not only be outlawed, but additionally eradicated from the face of the freaking Earth for all eternity.

As I stated earlier in the thread, there really is no tangible way that Sinclair can be stopped. Not when the FTC is averse to protesting or rejecting mergers and buyouts (AT&T's aborted merger of T-Mobile being the lone exception...). Petitions will do nothing. Neither will protests or the like. Not when you see a soulless number-crunching mega outfit ready and willing to slash all operating budgets in an attempt to justify their green-lit purchases with money they never had in the first place.

As I said before and I'll say it again: Sinclair needs to dump more of the TV stations that are not making much money that have issues before they go bankrupt and also, if the license has Deerfield Media and or Cunningham Broadcasting, it has Sinclair written all over it.

and if you don't believe in what I said I'll quote again from a user regarding the Barrington Broadcasting sale: "I don't care what anyone say. I don't care if Anderson, or Mumblow, or Williams is calling all the shots on these shells. As long as there's a breath of David Smith and all three has dealings with Smith as he continue to call all the shots on his operating practices in Maryland, Cunningham is Sinclair. Deerfield is Sinclair. The NEW Chesapeake is Sinclair (not the old Chesapeake because that was Sinclair's old name). And if you don't know that by now, read between the lines everyone. "But based on the current agreements with the stations, it's hard to tell that it is not a shell corporation. And Anderson is going to be the sole controller of Cunningham, once the transfer of controls get approved by the FCC. When I said "read between the lines", I mean know about Sinclair and all of its shells or what they call it their "side-companies". Just like Stephen Mumblow with Deerfield. When you see anything from Cunningham or Deerfield, I see Sinclair written all over their foreheads." and then you will see what will happen with Sinclair. Just Because they invented News Central in 2002 to blow their wonderful political mouthpiece all over the stations that they own and or operate. During that particular time; Sinclair made all its news operations that they own and operate swich their graphics and music to their mandate so that they can be in line with their sister stations that sinclair owns.

As I said in this post as well, (and no one was paying attention to it) (As defined in my Broadcasting Group Dictionary: Sinclair Broadcasting Group, also see Sinclair Television Group plus Cunningham Broadcasting and Deerfield Media, Inc. and Manhan Media and all others that are involved with Sinclair: is an incompetent broadcasting group that causes all controversy with SSA/JSA agreements and running their political mouthpieces into the stations that they own and they own) in my overall opinion about the station and with $3 billion dollar debt load and will own 125 plus stations and ran News Central from their headquarters in Maryland and had its own little news package called "Sinclair News Music Package" and if you do not believe in me or have seen News Central from 2002-2006, have a listen: http://www.southernmedia-nmsa.com/#3,1,127 Maybe it will remind you on why Sinclair outsourced its newscasts from 2002-2006.

Folks, its not even funny to understand why Sinclair Broadcasting Group is an incompetent broadcasting corporation. Remember they almost filed for bankruptcy back in 2009 because of their massive, to the point, humongus and if Cunningham Broadcasting (yes ladies and gentlemen, the shell corporation that is controlled by trusts of the family that owns and founded SBGI) defaulted on its payments.

If the FCC would've forced Sinclair and Nexstar (and all shell corporations that function with those two) to be put on a restrictive diet, THEN SOO BE IT AND MAKE THEM SELL MOST OF THEIR STATIONS. ITS SIMPLE AS THAT!

Rusty Muck · April 29, 2013

As I said before and I'll say it again: Sinclair needs to dump more of the TV stations that are not making much money that have issues before they go bankrupt and also' date=' if the license has Deerfield Media and or Cunningham Broadcasting, it has Sinclair written all over it.[/font']
and if you don't believe in what I said I'll quote again from a user regarding the Barrington Broadcasting sale: "I don't care what anyone say. I don't care if Anderson, or Mumblow, or Williams is calling all the shots on these shells. As long as there's a breath of David Smith and all three has dealings with Smith as he continue to call all the shots on his operating practices in Maryland, Cunningham is Sinclair. Deerfield is Sinclair. The NEW Chesapeake is Sinclair (not the old Chesapeake because that was Sinclair's old name). And if you don't know that by now, read between the lines everyone. "But based on the current agreements with the stations, it's hard to tell that it is not a shell corporation. And Anderson is going to be the sole controller of Cunningham, once the transfer of controls get approved by the FCC. When I said "read between the lines", I mean know about Sinclair and all of its shells or what they call it their "side-companies". Just like Stephen Mumblow with Deerfield. When you see anything from Cunningham or Deerfield, I see Sinclair written all over their foreheads." and then you will see what will happen with Sinclair. Just Because they invented News Central in 2002 to blow their wonderful political mouthpiece all over the stations that they own and or operate. During that particular time; Sinclair made all its news operations that they own and operate swich their graphics and music to their mandate so that they can be in line with their sister stations that sinclair owns.

As I said in this post as well, (and no one was paying attention to it) (As defined in my Broadcasting Group Dictionary: Sinclair Broadcasting Group, also see Sinclair Television Group plus Cunningham Broadcasting and Deerfield Media, Inc. and Manhan Media and all others that are involved with Sinclair: is an incompetent broadcasting group that causes all controversy with SSA/JSA agreements and running their political mouthpieces into the stations that they own and they own) in my overall opinion about the station and with $3 billion dollar debt load and will own 125 plus stations and ran News Central from their headquarters in Maryland and had its own little news package called "Sinclair News Music Package" and if you do not believe in me or have seen News Central from 2002-2006, have a listen: http://www.southernmedia-nmsa.com/#3,1,127 Maybe it will remind you on why Sinclair outsourced its newscasts from 2002-2006.

Folks, its not even funny to understand why Sinclair Broadcasting Group is an incompetent broadcasting corporation. Remember they almost filed for bankruptcy back in 2009 because of their massive, to the point, humongus and if Cunningham Broadcasting (yes ladies and gentlemen, the shell corporation that is controlled by trusts of the family that owns and founded SBGI) defaulted on its payments.

If the FCC would've forced Sinclair and Nexstar (and all shell corporations that function with those two) to be put on a restrictive diet, THEN SOO BE IT AND MAKE THEM SELL MOST OF THEIR STATIONS. ITS SIMPLE AS THAT!

First off, I'm more than familiar with Sinclair and their practices. I just root my posts in reality (for the most part). And the reality is a very dark, bleak one.

Sinclair SHOULD sell off their underperforming stations, but they won't. Like Clear Channel with radio ten years ago, owning 1,200 radio stations was a point of prestige. Now they can't unload them without losing their entire wardrobes, let alone their shirts.

Regardless of how much is said, the FCC will not, I repeat, NOT, do anything to stop this. They are still operating under the laissez-faire era of the late 90s that enabled firms like Clear Channel and Cumulus to become toxic assts. And they will turn a blind eye and effectively rubber stamp Sinclair's purchase of Fisher. The film-flam shell companies will continue to be ignored, as always. They will not care until Sinclair goes belly-up, and why should they when the stock market is doing everything possible to PROP UP Sinclair?

And lest we forget, the FCC never does anything to stop major broadcast firms unless it's a case of grave mispractice. Last time they effectively destroyed a company, if I'm not mistaken, was the 20-year long licensing war with RKO General - and RKO committed REAL sins that deserved the punishment. Sinclair just takes advantage of a loophole in legislation that, quite frankly, will never be repealed. And even if legislators in DC tried to get rid of that loophole, it's automatic that Sinclair suits from Baltimore will travel down I95 to lobby them into submission.

It's a disturbing era in which we live in, with little to no accountability whatsoever.

Weeters · April 29, 2013

Quite frankly, the only time the FCC is concerned about TV anymore is when they're raiding the television band in order to get more space for Wireless Broadband. It would be in their best interest to let companies like Sinclair collect as many stations as possible and then go bankrupt, because the more that happens the more likely it is that stations will shut down and free up sweet, sweet bandwidth.

Duopolies and Triopolies also work well into the FCC's plans to shove stations onto a few physical channels and remap them via PSIP. Won't be any trouble when one company already owns all the stations in town!

Also keep in mind the current political landscape and how some groups respond to the word "regulations". Buying up station after station, gutting it, and moving on to the next? Why, that's some of that good ol' fashioned free market capitalism, dear boy! You're not some sort of socialist who thinks business needs silly "regulations", are you?

News 9 Viewer · April 29, 2013

Quite frankly, the only time the FCC is concerned about TV anymore is when they're raiding the television band in order to get more space for Wireless Broadband. It would be in their best interest to let companies like Sinclair collect as many stations as possible and then go bankrupt, because the more that happens the more likely it is that stations will shut down and free up sweet, sweet bandwidth.

Duopolies and Triopolies also work well into the FCC's plans to shove stations onto a few physical channels and remap them via PSIP. Won't be any trouble when one company already owns all the stations in town!

Also keep in mind the current political landscape and how some groups respond to the word "regulations". Buying up station after station, gutting it, and moving on to the next? Why, that's some of that good ol' fashioned free market capitalism, dear boy! You're not some sort of socialist who thinks business needs silly "regulations", are you?

To call Sinclair's business model an example of good capitalism is an insult to every true capitalist that's ever lived. The object of capitalism is more than mere market domination. It's to ultimately make a profit. No matter how much Sinclair slashes the operating budgets of their stations, they're in so much debt that they'll probably never pay back all the money they've borrowed. And yet they just keep borrowing money for the purpose of buying every station in sight. That's the scariest thing about Sinclair...It. Just. Won't. Die!

Rusty Muck · April 29, 2013

Also keep in mind the current political landscape and how some groups respond to the word "regulations". Buying up station after station' date=' gutting it, and moving on to the next? Why, that's some of that good ol' fashioned free market capitalism, dear boy![/b'] You're not some sort of socialist who thinks business needs silly "regulations", are you?

To call Sinclair's business model an example of good capitalism is an insult to every true capitalist that's ever lived. The object of capitalism is more than mere market domination. It's to ultimately make a profit. No matter how much Sinclair slashes the operating budgets of their stations, they're in so much debt that they'll probably never pay back all the money they've borrowed. And yet they just keep borrowing money for the purpose of buying every station in sight. That's the scariest thing about Sinclair...It. Just. Won't. Die!

I think Weeters was being sarcastic with that line. At least that's what I detected. But people do believe that way, that it is capitalism at work. Only it's of the Standard Oil/J.P. Morgan/Carnegie Steel mold, only less personable.

It's also why, again, nothing can be done to stop it except to just sit back and call them Sincrap et al.

hathawaynson2 · April 29, 2013

I am not a socialist or anything like that! I just physically wish that a broadcasting company would just own and or operate an station that they intentionally, instead of entering a Shared Services Agreements, Local Marketing Agreements and Local Sales Agreements and having to own another station that falls into those three as I write. I personally dislike Triopolies in the Television markets all over the United States and especially triopoly in the Topeka Kansas market. The affiliates in that particular market air the same identical newscasts at different times that drive me to the point that I don't even try to watch the newscasts.