FCC To Vote To End Sharing Agreements

[Rusty Muck 4167]

And now NAB president Gordon Smith says that the proposed JSA ban has already cost broadcasters "millions". With six days to go until the voting, the NAB is turning up the criticism dial.

There is "some" truth to that as their stock values have fallen.

Even if Wheeler's proposal is defeated, he did cause their stocks to fall. Essentially, he shook them down.

 

So, mission accomplished, I guess.

[lugnuts6 89]

Wonder if its not too late for Joel Ferguson to repurchase WLAJ.

[Samantha 2878]

Commissioner Pai's WLOO example is not the usual. It's not often that there's a JSA where the brokered station still produces its own news content. Most are bundled with SSAs that do that.

 

There's also more at 1 hour 20 minutes, where Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) points out that minority media groups agree with Wheeler and say that JSAs (mistakenly "GSAs") cost them opportunities to buy stations. Pai counters with a JSA example of KWCH/KDCU permitting the only Spanish-language news in Kansas (his home state), while Wheeler replies that it could get a waiver under the new system. Pai talks about issues with access to capital for the broadcasters where otherwise things would go dark. The next example from Pai is Nexstar and Mission in Joplin, where the stations have saved $3.5 million in news programming. Pai even says that because part of that savings went toward doppler radar, the JSA saved several lives.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

I think that Tom Wheeler should allow a compromise on cracking down on JSAs/LMAs/SSAs. If I was him, I would allow no new JSAs/SSAs and also make to where the top 3 stations in any given market cannot share services under any circumstances. That means that a station like WYTV would have to be spun off to a new owner (hopefully not a spectrum speculator).

[GoldenShine9 1509]

That compromise is kinda what I think should happen as well, dependant on market size (in the top 50 markets, the top 4 should not be allowed to share or operate together, grading down to 3 then 2).

 

Markets 1-50: Top 4 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 8, or 3 of the top 12

 

Markets 51-125: Top 3 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 6, or 3 of the top 10

 

Markets 126+: Top 2 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 5

 

Non-commercial stations, such as PBS and religious stations, should NOT be counted as stations in the market towards totals (only commercial full-power stations).

[GoldenShine9 1509]

If those rules were in place, the following markets in the top 50 would have deals which much be broken (assuming the FCC approved all deals, excluding the Media General-LIN deal); involving SSAs/JSAs/LMAs only, not legally co-owned stations that moved up into the top 4:

 

* Phoenix? (does KASW rank 9th in the market or lower?) - Meredith

* Baltimore (top 4 OK, but would violate the 2/8 rule) - Sinclair

* Nashville (top 4 OK, but would violate the 2/8 rule) - Sinclair

* Columbus (2 in top 4 + also would violate the 2/8 rule) - Sinclair

* San Antonio? (2 in top 4 in English, but Spanish stations would likely rank higher - probably OK) - Sinclair

* West Palm Beach? (2 in top 4 in English, but Spanish stations would likely rank higher - probably OK) - Scripps/Raycom

* Harrisburg et al (2 in top 4 + also would violated the 2/8 rule if approved initially, final results depend on how the Sinclair-Allbritton deal is structured) - Sinclair

* Birmingham (top 4 OK, but would violate the 2/8 rule if approved initially, final results depend on how the Sinclair-Allbritton deal is structured) - Sinclair

* Jacksonville? (not sure the rankings of the Cox/Bayshore duo, may violate 2 in top 4) - Cox

 

There would likely be a fair amount as well in sub-50 markets.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

If those rules were in place, the following markets in the top 50 would have deals which much be broken (assuming the FCC approved all deals, excluding the Media General-LIN deal); involving SSAs/JSAs/LMAs only, not legally co-owned stations that moved up into the top 4:

 

* Phoenix? (does KASW rank 9th in the market or lower?) - Meredith

* Baltimore (top 4 OK, but would violate the 2/8 rule) - Sinclair

* Nashville (top 4 OK, but would violate the 2/8 rule) - Sinclair

* Columbus (2 in top 4 + also would violate the 2/8 rule) - Sinclair

* San Antonio? (2 in top 4 in English, but Spanish stations would likely rank higher - probably OK) - Sinclair

* West Palm Beach? (2 in top 4 in English, but Spanish stations would likely rank higher - probably OK) - Scripps/Raycom

* Harrisburg et al (2 in top 4 + also would violated the 2/8 rule if approved initially, final results depend on how the Sinclair-Allbritton deal is structured) - Sinclair

* Birmingham (top 4 OK, but would violate the 2/8 rule if approved initially, final results depend on how the Sinclair-Allbritton deal is structured) - Sinclair

* Jacksonville? (not sure the rankings of the Cox/Bayshore duo, may violate 2 in top 4) - Cox

 

There would likely be a fair amount as well in sub-50 markets.

Sounds like a good plan. However, what happens when a station such as WTTE is so interwoven into WSYX's operations for 18 years? How would you that station start from scratch? On the flip side, WYTV's operations have been folded into WKBN's but can be seperated and the studios can be dismantled. All the new owners would have to do if they are willing to take a chance is to remodel WYTV's old studios and rebuild its news department, whereas WTTE would have to get completely new studios, build its news operation from scratch (unless they plan on STILL using WSYX for news), and do advertising on its own. So I think that it would be a market-by-market basis for each SSA. Let's see what kind of decision the FCC decides first and every station can go from there.

[Rusty Muck 4167]

I think that Tom Wheeler should allow a compromise on cracking down on JSAs/LMAs/SSAs. If I was him, I would allow no new JSAs/SSAs and also make to where the top 3 stations in any given market cannot share services under any circumstances. That means that a station like WYTV would have to be spun off to a new owner (hopefully not a spectrum speculator).

WYTV was forever an also-ran in the market pre-2007, in one of - if not the - most economically depressed markets in Ohio.

 

If forced into such a situation, LIN/MG will most likely "move" WYTV over to WKBN 27.3, turn WYTV silent, and sell the license off to a spectrum speculator. Boom. Problem solved.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

WYTV was forever an also-ran in the market pre-2007, in one of - if not the - most economically depressed markets in Ohio.

 

If forced into such a situation, LIN/MG will most likely "move" WYTV over to WKBN 27.3, turn WYTV silent, and sell the license off to a spectrum speculator. Boom. Problem solved.

AFAIK, pre-2007 WYTV was either second or a close third to WKBN but neither station could compete with WFMJ since 1994. But back in those days in the early to mid-2000s, WYTV would put a lot of resources into its news department (ie. reporters going out of town, anchors doing interviews in the community, etc). IMO, WYTV was almost programmed like it was a mid-market station. Now, 33 has been gutted like a fish but not WYOU gutted. I would hate to see them go TBH without someont at least giving the station a chance.

[TVNewsLover 728]

That compromise is kinda what I think should happen as well, dependant on market size (in the top 50 markets, the top 4 should not be allowed to share or operate together, grading down to 3 then 2).

 

Markets 1-50: Top 4 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 8, or 3 of the top 12

 

Markets 51-125: Top 3 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 6, or 3 of the top 10

 

Markets 126+: Top 2 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 5

 

Non-commercial stations, such as PBS and religious stations, should NOT be counted as stations in the market towards totals (only commercial full-power stations).

I like this idea. But I wonder what happens when one market is in compliance but their ranking moves up to the next category making them non compliant. Also would like the rule to be for English stations only. Not a fan of stations in some cities (Miami, Phoenix come to mind) to be able to pair up only because they are ranked lower behind Spanish language stations.

[Samantha 2878]

 

I like this idea. But I wonder what happens when one market is in compliance but their ranking moves up to the next category making them non compliant. Also would like the rule to be for English stations only. Not a fan of stations in some cities (Miami, Phoenix come to mind) to be able to pair up only because they are ranked lower behind Spanish language stations.

 

With Phoenix I'm still not sure if KNXV was even outside the top four, though KTVK definitely was.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

I like this idea. But I wonder what happens when one market is in compliance but their ranking moves up to the next category making them non compliant. Also would like the rule to be for English stations only. Not a fan of stations in some cities (Miami, Phoenix come to mind) to be able to pair up only because they are ranked lower behind Spanish language stations.

If only English language stations count, it might work better perhaps? Hard to say. But one thing that might develop is one company holding 2 stations - one English and one Spanish - and maintaining both audiences out of the same operation. PBS stations would be excluded, as would religious and other non-commercial stations.

 

Those numbers were chosen based on the finding that top-50 markets seem to be able to support 4 news ops, while 51-100 can normally support 3, with 101-125 either 2 or 3 (depending on local factors), 126-175 normally supporting 2 and 176+ only capable of 1 in most cases. Triopolies would require the third station to rank 9th or lower in the top markets (7th or lower in mid-markets and 6th or lower in small markets), to avoid over-saturation and allow a third owner to at least get access to a small market before they can gain a third station. If there are fewer than that number of stations (9, 7 or 6), then full-power triopolies of any kind would be banned.

 

If a market moves up, existing station deals would be grandfathered at that date, but new acquisitions would be treated under the current rankings.

[Samantha 2878]

 

If only English language stations count, it might work better perhaps? Hard to say. But one thing that might develop is one company holding 2 stations - one English and one Spanish - and maintaining both audiences out of the same operation. PBS stations would be excluded, as would religious and other non-commercial stations.

 

Those numbers were chosen based on the finding that top-50 markets seem to be able to support 4 news ops, while 51-100 can normally support 3, with 101-125 either 2 or 3 (depending on local factors), 126-175 normally supporting 2 and 176+ only capable of 1 in most cases. Triopolies would require the third station to rank 9th or lower in the top markets (7th or lower in mid-markets and 6th or lower in small markets), to avoid over-saturation and allow a third owner to at least get access to a small market before they can gain a third station. If there are fewer than that number of stations (9, 7 or 6), then full-power triopolies of any kind would be banned.

 

If a market moves up, existing station deals would be grandfathered at that date, but new acquisitions would be treated under the current rankings.

 

I don't see many companies being effectively able to cross English and Spanish, outside of NBC/Telemundo. To do Spanish broadcasting effectively requires Hispanic people in your executive tree and an understanding of your audience. English broadcasters in many areas, excepting border/high-Hispanic markets (where these things may already exist) may not have the expertise to do that. The Entravision-Schurz JSA that formed KDCU exists because Entravision can offer the Hispanic expertise while Schurz already has infrastructure, both news and technical, in the market. (It's also a JSA I'd support on a waiver under the new plan.)

 

Univision owns one English station. It's a My outlet in Bakersfield, California. Entravision owns several: some border town Fox affiliates, its Tijuana My station, a Reno CW affiliate, and a family independent in Hagerstown, Maryland that cannot figure out what market it is in*. It also now is the JSA/SSA operator of KCBA in central California. That is small potatoes, and all but one of the Entravision operations are outgrowths of successful Spanish stations.

 

*It's got offices in Chambersburg, PA (Central PA market), a COL in the DC market, and it airs West Virginia Tonight Live from the WV Media Holdings stations.

[sanewsguy 509]

 

I think that Tom Wheeler should allow a compromise on cracking down on JSAs/LMAs/SSAs. If I was him, I would allow no new JSAs/SSAs and also make to where the top 3 stations in any given market cannot share services under any circumstances. That means that a station like WYTV would have to be spun off to a new owner (hopefully not a spectrum speculator).

 

Thing here, is that if a shell company doesn't want a station like WYTV, then it probably is speculator bait. Nobody wants a station like WYTV that has virtually no staff and whose building has been occupied for six years. It would require millions to get it back to where it was pre-New Vision. While it sounds nice, it is not economical from a business standpoint. Tom Wheeler does not know what he's about to get himself, and the broadcasting industry, into.

 

 

 

That compromise is kinda what I think should happen as well, dependant on market size (in the top 50 markets, the top 4 should not be allowed to share or operate together, grading down to 3 then 2).

 

Markets 1-50: Top 4 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 8, or 3 of the top 12

 

Markets 51-125: Top 3 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 6, or 3 of the top 10

 

Markets 126+: Top 2 cannot share or operate together, and they can only join up with 2 of the top 5

 

Non-commercial stations, such as PBS and religious stations, should NOT be counted as stations in the market towards totals (only commercial full-power stations).

 

Sounds great on paper but not viable from an economical standpoint.

 

 

* San Antonio? (2 in top 4 in English, but Spanish stations would likely rank higher - probably OK) - Sinclair

 

Telemundo (KVDA) is nowhere close to the top 4, so they don't count. Univision (KWEX) on the other hand is, in fact they are sometimes #1 sign on/off. Then KSAT, KENS, and WOAI or KABB (fluctuates every sweeps period). So yes, the San Antonio one is safe and there is only a JSA/SSA for KMYS, which as I said before can easily be divested, or better yet, just moved to a subchannel of KABB or WOAI.

 

 

Sounds like a good plan. However, what happens when a station such as WTTE is so interwoven into WSYX's operations for 18 years? How would you that station start from scratch? On the flip side, WYTV's operations have been folded into WKBN's but can be seperated and the studios can be dismantled. All the new owners would have to do if they are willing to take a chance is to remodel WYTV's old studios and rebuild its news department, whereas WTTE would have to get completely new studios, build its news operation from scratch (unless they plan on STILL using WSYX for news), and do advertising on its own. So I think that it would be a market-by-market basis for each SSA. Let's see what kind of decision the FCC decides first and every station can go from there.

 

Again sounds great but millions would have to be put in to separate WYTV from WKBN. So it probably won't happen. Better chance of WYTV going dark than of them separating from WKBN.

 

The WTTE situation is the exact same, it's not different from WYTV like you're trying to make it sound. WYTV would have to renovate the building again so it's suitable for occupying. Then they would have to rehire a brand new news team, buy new equipment, etc.

 

 

If forced into such a situation, LIN/MG will most likely "move" WYTV over to WKBN 27.3, turn WYTV silent, and sell the license off to a spectrum speculator. Boom. Problem solved.

 

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. This will probably be happening for most stations currently in a shared type agreement. And I'll blame Tom Wheeler for that. I also don't have a lot confidence in him either, nor do I admire him much.

 

 

I like this idea. But I wonder what happens when one market is in compliance but their ranking moves up to the next category making them non compliant. Also would like the rule to be for English stations only. Not a fan of stations in some cities (Miami, Phoenix come to mind) to be able to pair up only because they are ranked lower behind Spanish language stations.

 

That wouldn't be fair to the Spanish stations now would it?

 

 

I don't see many companies being effectively able to cross English and Spanish, outside of NBC/Telemundo. To do Spanish broadcasting effectively requires Hispanic people in your executive tree and an understanding of your audience. English broadcasters in many areas, excepting border/high-Hispanic markets (where these things may already exist) may not have the expertise to do that. The Entravision-Schurz JSA that formed KDCU exists because Entravision can offer the Hispanic expertise while Schurz already has infrastructure, both news and technical, in the market. (It's also a JSA I'd support on a waiver under the new plan.)

 

Univision owns one English station. It's a My outlet in Bakersfield, California. Entravision owns several: some border town Fox affiliates, its Tijuana My station, a Reno CW affiliate, and a family independent in Hagerstown, Maryland that cannot figure out what market it is in*. It also now is the JSA/SSA operator of KCBA in central California. That is small potatoes, and all but one of the Entravision operations are outgrowths of successful Spanish stations.

 

*It's got offices in Chambersburg, PA (Central PA market), a COL in the DC market, and it airs West Virginia Tonight Live from the WV Media Holdings stations.

 

Univision owns several English radio stations too though.

 

I honestly don't see what's wrong with monopolies. Look at the newspaper industry. There used to be competing newspapers in most markets, but now it's just down to one. They compete with the TV newsrooms now. What's wrong with a television newsroom competing with a print one? The type of news you are getting is not being limited, because you still have newspapers and the radio station as an alternative. Or the so-called "new media" like social media and web news sources.

 

Monday could be the saving of the television or the downfall of it. Oh boy I can't wait (sarcasm)...

[CircleSeven 1944]

On this week editorial by Harry Jessell, he states that Wheeler claims that this JSA attribution proposal that will boost ownership towards females and minorities, is a fantasy; And states that TV Broadcasting is for the "behemoths with dozens of stations..." and it's "no longer a business for small operators, regardless of gender or color". I love how he once again defends the "Heathens of Hunt Valley" to get his point across. And did he call the incentive spectrum auctions "a pet project"?

 

If the broadcasters care so much for keeping the current JSAs a status quo, should the JSA proposal goes through Monday morning, why don't they pursue legal action and take the FCC to court. Yeah they're probably going to lose more money if they pursue this, but what other avenue they have at this point? They'd basically spent alot bringing groups executives to lobbying at the FCC to keep their JSA/SSA throughout the last three weeks. Since Commissioner Clyburn is likely is "the swing vote", the broadcasters better hope that she sides against the proposal, which I think that the chances are slim to zilch.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

And yet the Time Warner-Comcast merger will go through without many problems. Nice going, Wheeler, ye hypocrite.

[TVNewsLover 728]

That wouldn't be fair to the Spanish stations now would it?

 

 

Sorry, what I meant was, in determining what the top four stations, etc. in a market are, to look at English stations separately. For example, the failed P-N purchase of WTVJ was okay because I believe one of the two stations in Miami was not in the top tier of stations in rankings, mainly because the Spanish stations there garner a big audience. I just don't like the idea of one company owning affiliates of two of the original big 3 networks in a large DMA like Miami.

[NEOMatrix 1295]

On this week editorial by Harry Jessell, he states that Wheeler claims that this JSA attribution proposal that will boost ownership towards females and minorities, is a fantasy; And states that TV Broadcasting is for the "behemoths with dozens of stations..." and it's "no longer a business for small operators, regardless of gender or color". I love how he once again defends the "Heathens of Hunt Valley" to get his point across. And did he call the incentive spectrum auctions "a pet project"?

 

If the broadcasters care so much for keeping the current JSAs a status quo, should the JSA proposal goes through Monday morning, why don't they pursue legal action and take the FCC to court. Yeah they're probably going to lose more money if they pursue this, but what other avenue they have at this point? They'd basically spent alot bringing groups executives to lobbying at the FCC to keep their JSA/SSA throughout the last three weeks. Since Commissioner Clyburn is likely is "the swing vote", the broadcasters better hope that she sides against the proposal, which I think that the chances are slim to zilch.

This is exactly the hypocritical crap that Tom Wheeler is pulling. You mean to tell me that he wants to outlaw JSAs and eliminate voices but when Time Warner and Comcast merge, they will probably have almost no problems because of Tommy's connections at Kabletown? I did vote for Obama in 2012 but I'm going to say these two words, "THANKS, OBAMA!!!!!!"

[CircleSeven 1944]

 

This is exactly the hypocritical crap that Tom Wheeler is pulling. You mean to tell me that he wants to outlaw JSAs and eliminate voices but when Time Warner and Comcast merge, they will probably have almost no problems because of Tommy's connections at Kabletown? I did vote for Obama in 2012 but I'm going to say these two words, "THANKS, OBAMA!!!!!!"

 

We will see if he does follow through on the Comcast/TWC merger, should it goes through. And let's not forget where Wheeler is coming from. He was a longtime cable lobbyist before sitting in that chair at the FCC. So should that deal does go through, while many broadcasters would no longer band together in small markets in retransmission consent agreements, broadcasters would no doubt would say that Wheeler is pulling a "double standard".

[TVIntheDesert 183]

 

We will see if he does follow through on the Comcast/TWC merger, should it goes through. And let's not forget where Wheeler is coming from. He was a longtime cable lobbyist before sitting in that chair at the FCC. So should that deal does go through, while many broadcasters would no longer band together in small markets in retransmission consent agreements, broadcasters would no doubt would say that Wheeler is pulling a "double standard".

 

I think you hit it on the head. As much as I dislike Sinclair's JSA arrangements, I think approving Comcast/TWC would have a bigger negative effect as a whole.

[compubit 670]

I'm not defending either way, but the Comcast/TIme Warner merge isn't quite equal:

 

Comcast and Time Warner don't compete against each other in cable - most, if not all, there is no overlap: for example, in Texas, Comcast is in the Houston market, and TWC is in Dallas, Austin and San Antonio (and others). Folks don't have an option of TWC or Comcast (where merging results in no cable competition and only one vendor). In general, there is usually only one cable vendor in place.

 

(Making a hard left turn...)

 

Outside the big 4 networks (or even the classic big 3), how many of the channels merging owners or disappearing from the airwaves would result in a true loss of a "voice" in the local media market? Outside of news (and an occasional local talk show) there's truly not much difference between an NBC station in any market - yes Jeopardy! may appear on an ABC station in one market and a CBS station in another - but it's the same Jeopardy! episode across the country and if someone wants to watch Jeopardy!, then they'll find the channel.

 

Outside the top markets, what unique programming do most CW, MNT, Pax (yes, I know it's ion) air? None.

 

I look at it as "Local Voice in the Market" - and there's not much left there to lose. There's so much syndicated are out there, that stations don't even need a studio with cameras - it's fed via satellite, loaded into a computer and someone builds a giant play list with programs and commercials and the computer spits it out to the transmitter.

 

Enough from me.

 

J

[Thundershock MN 169]

WYTV was forever an also-ran in the market pre-2007, in one of - if not the - most economically depressed markets in Ohio.

 

If forced into such a situation, LIN/MG will most likely "move" WYTV over to WKBN 27.3, turn WYTV silent, and sell the license off to a spectrum speculator. Boom. Problem solved.

You could swap out LIN/MG and WYTV in that example with any number of ownership groups and stations.

 

Some people/groups seem to think there are tons of individuals lining up just waiting to get into the TV business.

 

Thing here, is that if a shell company doesn't want a station like WYTV, then it probably is speculator bait. Nobody wants a station like WYTV that has virtually no staff and whose building has been occupied for six years. It would require millions to get it back to where it was pre-New Vision. While it sounds nice, it is not economical from a business standpoint. Tom Wheeler does not know what he's about to get himself, and the broadcasting industry, into.

I have yet to totally buy into the theories. But, man sometimes it's hard not to think that Wheeler isn't purposely trying to knock broadcasters down a peg. Especially in advance of the incentive auctions.

 

I honestly don't see what's wrong with monopolies. Look at the newspaper industry. There used to be competing newspapers in most markets, but now it's just down to one. They compete with the TV newsrooms now. What's wrong with a television newsroom competing with a print one? The type of news you are getting is not being limited, because you still have newspapers and the radio station as an alternative. Or the so-called "new media" like social media and web news sources.

 

Monday could be the saving of the television or the downfall of it. Oh boy I can't wait (sarcasm)...

I disagree with your first sentence. But, I understand what you are getting at. Some of these groups act like the media operates in a vacuum and nothing will ever fill the void. For example, Minnpost.com was founded by journalists after the rash of layoffs the Twin Cities newspapers went though in the late 00's. It was even funded upon start-up by the Cowles family (original StarTribune owners) and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (of Knight-Ridder and former Pioneer Press owner fame.) A similar startup bringmethenews.com was started around the same time. And, both are now viewed as highly respectable news outlets.

 

On this week editorial by Harry Jessell, he states that Wheeler claims that this JSA attribution proposal that will boost ownership towards females and minorities, is a fantasy; And states that TV Broadcasting is for the "behemoths with dozens of stations..." and it's "no longer a business for small operators, regardless of gender or color". I love how he once again defends the "Heathens of Hunt Valley" to get his point across. And did he call the incentive spectrum auctions "a pet project"?

 

If the broadcasters care so much for keeping the current JSAs a status quo, should the JSA proposal goes through Monday morning, why don't they pursue legal action and take the FCC to court. Yeah they're probably going to lose more money if they pursue this, but what other avenue they have at this point? They'd basically spent alot bringing groups executives to lobbying at the FCC to keep their JSA/SSA throughout the last three weeks. Since Commissioner Clyburn is likely is "the swing vote", the broadcasters better hope that she sides against the proposal, which I think that the chances are slim to zilch.

I get annoyed by Jessell's "bent" in his editorials. But, I think he is pretty much spot on this one.

 

I am hopeful some "common sense" will prevail. It seems like Commissioner Clyburn is the only one willing to actually listen to and debate the merits of each sides points. Hopefully, she can talk some sense into the other commissioners so a fair resolution can be reached for all parties and the public. But, I think the rest of the bunch have dug in their heels refusing to hear the other side. I'm still puzzled as to why this can't be addressed as part of a review of the ownership rules as a whole. But, considering they are still "working" on the 2010 review 48 months later I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

 

 

I am too lazy to re-type my views on the whole "sharing" thing but, we had a decent discussion surrounding it in the Sinclair thread last week. If you want to know my thoughts you can read them here, here and here.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

Who would be willing to buy a standalone low-ranked station though? That would be nothing more than a money pit. Trying to start an upstart news operation would be especially difficult.

 

The problems are with the triopolies and quadropolies more than anything. Having 2 stations allow more newscast options (i.e. 9/10 pm, extended morning shows, noon if committed to network programming), but what purposes other than cheap programming does a third station have?

[TVIntheDesert 183]

 

Who would be willing to buy a standalone low-ranked station though? That would be nothing more than a money pit. Trying to start an upstart news operation would be especially difficult.

 

The problems are with the triopolies and quadropolies more than anything. Having 2 stations allow more newscast options (i.e. 9/10 pm, extended morning shows, noon if committed to network programming), but what purposes other than cheap programming does a third station have?

 

I can see these stations as valuable in a market with a large Hispanic population but only two full-powered Spanish-language stations. In Phoenix, only the "Spanish Big Two" (Univision and Telemundo) have full-powers (that is, if you don't count the SD-downconverted UniMas on the subchannel of KTVW). If the FCC doesn't approve the KASW SSA/JSA attached to Meredith's acquisition of KTVK, I can see that license going to someone like Liberman/Estrella TV. Maybe they can allow JSA's/SSA's on a station-to-station basis, like a "failing station waiver."

 

However, as the saying goes, "one bad apple spoils the bunch." I still see through the whole "Armstrong Williams is black, so that promotes diversity in ownership" argument. Mr. Williams is still an employee (or "subcontractor for hire") of Sinclair Broadcast Group.

[Samantha 2878]

 

However, as the saying goes, "one bad apple spoils the bunch." I still see through the whole "Armstrong Williams is black, so that promotes diversity in ownership" argument. Mr. Williams is still an employee (or "subcontractor for hire") of Sinclair Broadcast Group.

 

Exactly. Saying a station is diverse when a minority group owns but does not OPERATE the station is a complete pack of lies.