broadcastfan9751 136 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 The American Cable Association has also filed a Petition to Deny the deal, saying the deal will give Sinclair more leverage in retransmission consent in Harrisburg and Charleston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breaking News 805 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Newsblues Headlines 9.16.13- Petitions filed against Sinclair-Allbritton purchase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVIntheDesert 183 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 And considering that Rainbow/PUSH is helmed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, I really am not surprised by that filing. The cynic in me says it is politcally motivated, as much as S!nclair's news coverage is politically motivated. And if you want to redress grievances, take it to the legislators who wrote the T-Com Act of 1996 and President Clinton, who signed it into law. But the genie left the bottle a long time ago on this one. The FCC has generally rubber-stamped M&As over the past decade +, and likely will still continue despite this recent spate of docketing. If the NBC Universal/Comcast M&A could be rubber stamped with little to no opposition, then anything can get through the FCC. The Rainbow/PUSH concerns about Sinclair go back to when Cunningham was called Glencairn, whose "owner" was a black man named Eddie Edwards. Could their new target be Armstrong Williams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hathawaynson2 38 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 The Rainbow/PUSH concerns about Sinclair go back to when Cunningham was called Glencairn, whose "owner" was a black man named Eddie Edwards. Could their new target be Armstrong Williams? l`m going to personally think that Armstrong Williams is not an target at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1945 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 The Rainbow/PUSH concerns about Sinclair go back to when Cunningham was called Glencairn, whose "owner" was a black man named Eddie Edwards. Could their new target be Armstrong Williams? His name was Edwin Edwards. He passed away in 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 His name was Edwin Edwards. He passed away in 2002. Edwin Edwards was Eddie Edwards' father. The younger Edwards was the one who owned Glencairn. Did you even read the article before you posted the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1945 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Edwin Edwards was Eddie Edwards' father. The younger Edwards was the one who owned Glencairn. Did you even read the article before you posted the link? On this Rainbow/Push petition of deny, and on this 2002 WPTT AOL application, you will see that it was Edwin L. Edwards, Sr., and not his sons Edwin Jr. or Eddie. The sons had nothing to do with Glencairn. You think I'm lying? Look at the WNUV app, it will say Edwin L. Edwards, Sr. The Father. Anywho, here's the Free Press, making noise as usual..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4243 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 The Rainbow/PUSH concerns about Sinclair go back to when Cunningham was called Glencairn, whose "owner" was a black man named Eddie Edwards. Could their new target be Armstrong Williams? That would be such a blatantly political move... the Rev. Jackson targeting an openly conservative African-American in Armstrong Williams... The mind reels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jero23 105 Posted September 17, 2013 Share Posted September 17, 2013 Hehe @ the petitions... I'm awaiting for the Free Press to petition this and it will be on... :watch: That would be such a blatantly political move... the Rev. Jackson targeting an openly conservative African-American in Armstrong Williams... The mind reels. You would like to know why Jackson is targeting Williams? It has a lot to do with this ideological leanings and the concept that journalism/media should be egalitarian, i.e. objective. If somebody that is black is rubber stamping political bias journalism (that Sinclair has clearly done for years) then that Jackson feels that they are more of a liability than asset. It's quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Muck 4243 Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 You would like to know why Jackson is targeting Williams? It has a lot to do with this ideological leanings and the concept that journalism/media should be egalitarian, i.e. objective. If somebody that is black is rubber stamping political bias journalism (that Sinclair has clearly done for years) then that Jackson feels that they are more of a liability than asset. It's quite simple. It goes both ways when the targeter is just as guilty as the targeted. Get a genuine non-partisan group to raise the complaint, not a blatantly liberal organization that makes the petition look like a cheap shot political attack. This is just as bad as S!nclair stations running "documentaries" against Obama days before the presidential election. All that the Rainbow/PUSH petition to deny will do is just simply galvanize support on opposing sides, with both supporters for Jackson and Williams attacking each other in verbal bluster. Nothing but a bunch of white noise will ensue, and no practical conclusion will be accomplished... but a whole bunch of lawyers will get rich off of this. And the Allbritton/S!nclair deal still has a high probability of going forward anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jero23 105 Posted September 18, 2013 Share Posted September 18, 2013 It goes both ways when the targeter is just as guilty as the targeted. Get a genuine non-partisan group to raise the complaint, not a blatantly liberal organization that makes the petition look like a cheap shot political attack. This is just as bad as S!nclair stations running "documentaries" against Obama days before the presidential election. All that the Rainbow/PUSH petition to deny will do is just simply galvanize support on opposing sides, with both supporters for Jackson and Williams attacking each other in verbal bluster. Nothing but a bunch of white noise will ensue, and no practical conclusion will be accomplished... but a whole bunch of lawyers will get rich off of this. And the Allbritton/S!nclair deal still has a high probability of going forward anyway. It does go both ways, but how many objective media operations are truly left in local television? It seems that more companies with history of habitual conservative bias are buying TV stations than without a bias at all these days. Honestly unless there are more station ownership groups (aside from CBS, Disney, and NBCU) like Gannett, Scripps, Hearst, etc., are buying stations again rather than the known conservative lot, i.e. SBG? Objectivity rather than subjectivity is key when it comes to news media operations. In other words, somebody needs to say something when it is clearly an err of concern for us all whom don't want bias all over perpetually limited number of local media options. The fact this deal has a probability of going forward would alarm anyone with a sense of true objective journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABC5EyewitnessNewsCenter 0 Posted September 24, 2013 Share Posted September 24, 2013 Is Belo in a buying mood? I wouldn't mind them buying more stations. They've done a great job running stations like KMOV and WWL and I imagine they will keep up the high quality newscasts that WJLA is known for. My other question is that will all the stations be sold to the same group at the same time or is it possible it'll be like Newport where 2 or 3 different buyers split up the station group? The last I heard, Belo is being bought out by Gannett. I don't know whether that deal has been confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterlingNorth 33 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 The last I heard, Belo is being bought out by Gannett. I don't know whether that deal has been confirmed. Subject to shareholder approval. The shareholder vote at Belo happens later this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CircleSeven 1945 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Subject to shareholder approval. The shareholder vote at Belo happens later this morning. And even if the shareholders approve in the deal, with those mountainous amount of petitions of deny, don't expect a quick approval from the FCC afterwards (just like the Fisher deal went). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 This could be the toughest deal of all for Sinclair (just as hard as the Gannett/Belo deal, which definitely needs work in itself). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ntropolis 593 Posted September 25, 2013 Share Posted September 25, 2013 Subject to shareholder approval. The shareholder vote at Belo happens later this morning. And it's approved... http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/25/belo-shareholder-vote/2868549/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 SBG responded to Raymie's petition to deny (and the others) today...calling for instant dismissal. Of course, the number of Sinclair stations proposed has grown since then from 151 to 162... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hathawaynson2 38 Posted September 28, 2013 Share Posted September 28, 2013 SBG responded to Raymie's petition to deny (and the others) today...calling for instant dismissal. Of course, the number of Sinclair stations proposed has grown since then from 151 to 162... is there really good evidence of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520945733 - SBG's response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520945733 - SBG's response It was hard to skim through some of that without cracking up. Especailly when they tried to deny that Deerfield and HSH are shell companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Sinclair's offended we've been calling Deerfield and HSH "shell" comapnies: The willingness of Free Press, without a shred of tangible evidence, to label Deerfield and HSH as "shell" companies is irresponsible and offensive, to say the least. Free Press makes the outrageous unsupported and speculative claim that Deerfield and HSH are mere "shell" companies, that the transactions "would be contrary to the public interest", and that approval of the pending applications would allow "broadcasters to evade the purpose of the local media ownership rules”. To the contrary, Deerfield and HSH are legitimate entities, each owned and managed by operators with years of experience in the broadcast industry. lmao :rofl!: Though honestly, these petitions mean nothing. FCC should just approve it. Sinclair is right with most of the arguments they make. The one I quoted was one of the more ridiculous ones. I also like how they say they've increased the amount of local news on their stations. KABB (one of the stations cited) hasn't expanded news since 2006 (when they added a morning newscast) and they added their daytime show in 2011 but that's about it. WOAI (another one cited) hasn't added news at all since Sinclair took over... hmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrtraveler01 737 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 Sinclair's offended we've been calling Deerfield and HSH "shell" comapnies: lmao :rofl!: Though honestly, these petitions mean nothing. FCC should just approve it. Sinclair is right with most of the arguments they make. The one I quoted was one of the more ridiculous ones. I also like how they say they've increased the amount of local news on their stations. KABB (one of the stations cited) hasn't expanded news since 2006 (when they added a morning newscast) and they added their daytime show in 2011 but that's about it. WOAI (another one cited) hasn't added news at all since Sinclair took over... hmm. This is why I could never be a lawyer. I can't type BS like that with a straight face. I wouldn't argue whether or not it's legal (it is). But for them to argue that Deerfield and HSH are independent of Sinclair is just absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hathawaynson2 38 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 This is why I could never be a lawyer. I can't type BS like that with a straight face. I wouldn't argue whether or not it's legal (it is). But for them to argue that Deerfield and HSH are independent of Sinclair is just absurd. agreed! already read the paperwork and still think that Deerfield and HSH are still shell corporations and part of the Sinclair rituals of operating as basic ssa/jsa partner for other stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoldenShine9 1509 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 If they were truly independent: * Why don't they have their own logos, websites, etc.? * Why are there no stations of theirs in markets with no assets owned by Sinclair proper? * Why are all their stations LMA'd by Sinclair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanewsguy 509 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 If they were truly independent: * Why don't they have their own logos, websites, etc.? * Why are there no stations of theirs in markets with no assets owned by Sinclair proper? * Why are all their stations LMA'd by Sinclair? * Why does Sinclair sell to them instead of other interested third parties? * And why does Sinclair never put the stations they need to divest up on the market first before announcing a buyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.