Sinclair, Tribune Close to Merger Deal

[MidwestTV 1173]

Why is it ok to get a liberal bent but not a conservative bent? Just wondering why liberalism must be heard of every news outlet but not conservatism? Aren't you about "tolerance"? Aren't you about "fairness" and "freedom of speech"? Or does it only apply to liberals?

 

As far as Sinclair purchasing Tribune, what concerns me is the slashing of news operation budgets.

 

I'm not aware of any local media company being as overtly liberal in their required station-broadcasts of corporate editorials (or whatever it is Sinclair does) as Sinclair is with their overt conservatism. Either way, a conservative or liberal bent isn't "fair" or "freedom of speech," it's propaganda, especially if you're forcing your stations to take on said bend.

[padrechuck 25]

So now the question is which stations overlap and where will they have to sell-off or trade?

[mre29 1340]

This CNN article focuses almost entirely on Sinclair being politically conservative, only briefly touching on the sheer number of stations they own or how cheap they run them. Not helping, Stelter.

[ColtFromGulfcoast 695]

The only hope of some of the stations being swooped out of Sinclair's hands, is if their word that they might sell off some conflict properties, results in groups like Nexstar, Cox, Meredith, Hearst and the like decide to cut deals with Sinclair to buy some of the stations piecemeal. I'm not sure if anyone will pull from Nexstar's playbook and buy all of the Tribune properties wholesale.

 

BTW, I'm not sure if anyone has linked this yet, but this New York Times article from last week shows the potential conflict that could arise between Fox and Sinclair now that this deal happened. It also interestingly notes that while the Smith brothers usually donate to Republican causes, they also donate to Democratic campaigns, too (mainly state and local races).

 

This may be a far fetched idea, but if that doesn't happen, or even if it does, I'm fully prepared for network switches happening, not just with Fox but with the CW too, because Sinclair would also have some type of influence over them. There would be a number of possibilities in several markets involving both networks, but I can't imagine either network tolerating someone from Maryland wanting more control over their network than they're supposed to have. If The CW decides they want to pull though, I can't see KCAL in Los Angeles affiliating though because they're happy with their newscast ratings. Why mess with a good thing?

[GoldenShine9 1509]

This may be a far fetched idea, but if that doesn't happen, or even if it does, I'm fully prepared for network switches happening, not just with Fox but with the CW too, because Sinclair would also have some type of influence over them. There would be a number of possibilities in several markets involving both networks, but I can't imagine either network tolerating someone from Maryland wanting more control over their network than they're supposed to have. If The CW decides they want to pull though, I can't see KCAL in Los Angeles affiliating though because they're happy with their newscast ratings. Why mess with a good thing?

 

I know some at *current* Sinclair stations are worried too. They may be shoved aside for the current Tribune stations, or sold in themselves (if cap overage makes them decide to sell some of their existing stations), and while we slam Sinclair, they have tenure there and pensions and other issues may come into play.

[T.L. Hughes 751]

I'm not aware of any local media company being as overtly liberal in their required station-broadcasts of corporate editorials (or whatever it is Sinclair does) as Sinclair is with their overt conservatism. Either way, a conservative or liberal bent isn't "fair" or "freedom of speech," it's propaganda, especially if you're forcing your stations to take on said bend.

There really aren't any broadcasting companies that have a left lean in their commentary. Left-leaning content is moreso found in digital media (The Young Turks, which I started watching last year, for example) and satellite radio. MSNBC has apparently lurched centrist recently, Current TV no longer exists, and liberal talk shows are in needle-in-a-haystack territory on syndicated radio.

 

Sinclair, however, is the only over-the-air broadcaster that implements a political slant in its coverage; every other broadcaster tries to stay non-partisan, although as a statement on our political climate these days, whenever a news commentary/editorial segment by an anchor or a station manager features a topic that one side of the aisle disagrees with in its opinion, some viewers criticize the anchor/manager's opinion as identifying with the opposite side of the aisle; it's happened a lot with Kelly Ogle's "My Two Cents" segments on KWTV and even his brother, Kevin's "The Rant" on KFOR (even though Kevin never offers his opinion on the topic).

 

And to comment on HulkieD's statement that "the quote-unquote "non partisan" media ended with the dawn of Fox News Channel," it actually kinda started going by the wayside a little earlier than that. Remember, the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, under the Reagan administration, giving way to conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh (the language behind it wasn't taken out until 2011). Fox News just chose to emulate the Limbaugh style with its political commentary programs.

 

This may be a far fetched idea, but if that doesn't happen, or even if it does, I'm fully prepared for network switches happening, not just with Fox but with the CW too, because Sinclair would also have some type of influence over them. There would be a number of possibilities in several markets involving both networks, but I can't imagine either network tolerating someone from Maryland wanting more control over their network than they're supposed to have. If The CW decides they want to pull though, I can't see KCAL in Los Angeles affiliating though because they're happy with their newscast ratings. Why mess with a good thing?

Yeah, but that could pose a high risk of affiliate downgrades. During the affiliation switches caused by the New World and SF Broadcasting agreements and other related affiliation deals in the mid-'90s, the FCC didn't allow duopolies, giving networks their pick of new affiliates, even if the ones they would up on weren't so desirable.

 

Today, since most markets that allow duopolies have station ownership concentrated between four and five companies, if either network decided to bolt from the Sinclair outlet, Fox could find itself ending up on the subordinate station of a duopoly, if it can't get a primary affiliation on the lead station that has a news operation, and Fox and The CW could even risk being put on a subchannel (like what is about to happen to The CW in San Diego, once it moves off of XETV). Not very good prospects for replacements.

[ColtFromGulfcoast 695]

I know some at *current* Sinclair stations are worried too. They may be shoved aside for the current Tribune stations, or sold in themselves (if cap overage makes them decide to sell some of their existing stations), and while we slam Sinclair, they have tenure there and pensions and other issues may come into play.

 

I'm gonna go to the Speculatron with a few of these things.

[tw-804 190]

Back in 2008, Sinclair announced that it was intending to purchase WTVR from then-owner Raycom Media and sell WRLH to a shell corporation. Fast-forward to 2017, WRLH gets a sister station meaning WWBT will end their news share agreement with the station and will finally get the current graphics and theme music. CBS 6 (News This Morning/News at 10) on FOX Richmond, anyone?

 

Meanwhile down I-64, Sinclair has a decision to make: spin-off WTKR/WGNT or WTVZ?

[The Frog 393]

I posted about this in Speculatron, but I think the next step in Sinclair's agenda is running a network as a platform to bid for NFL rights.

 

Is CBS willing to depart The CW for the right price? Hello WBN...

[atlnews2 557]

Back in 2008, Sinclair announced that it was intending to purchase WTVR from then-owner Raycom Media and sell WRLH to a shell corporation. Fast-forward to 2017, WRLH gets a sister station meaning WWBT will end their news share agreement with the station and will finally get the current graphics and theme music. CBS 6 (News This Morning/News at 10) on FOX Richmond, anyone?

 

Meanwhile down I-64, Sinclair has a decision to make: spin-off WTKR/WGNT or WTVZ?

 

Here's what they'll do. WTNZ programming gets put on WKTR .2 and WTVZ goes to Howard Stirk

[CircleSeven 1944]

Back in 2008, Sinclair announced that it was intending to purchase WTVR from then-owner Raycom Media and sell WRLH to a shell corporation.

 

You would never believe the name of the shell. I would never forget it. Carma. DOJ shot that down though.

[Kenneth Kissel 280]

Back in 2008, Sinclair announced that it was intending to purchase WTVR from then-owner Raycom Media and sell WRLH to a shell corporation. Fast-forward to 2017, WRLH gets a sister station meaning WWBT will end their news share agreement with the station and will finally get the current graphics and theme music. CBS 6 (News This Morning/News at 10) on FOX Richmond, anyone?

 

Meanwhile down I-64, Sinclair has a decision to make: spin-off WTKR/WGNT or WTVZ?

 

I hope WTKR/WGNT gets sold to Hearst. Many great People over there i know very well and very heartbroken indeed. If Hearst buys them, Less of a pain for that surging news operation.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

I hope WTKR/WGNT gets sold to Hearst. Many great People over there i know very well and very heartbroken indeed. If Hearst buys them, Less of a pain for that surging news operation.

 

The conflicts in those markets are minor and easy to shell away, so it would be a matter of if they need to sell that to clear cap space (and depart the market entirely). The legal issues of WTVR in 2008 (under a GOP administration!) could weigh on things though.

[Big Country News 435]

The legal issues of WTVR in 2008 (under a GOP administration!) could weigh on things though.

 

This ain't no ordinary GOP administration.

[DirtyHarry 719]

Guys.

 

But you're right on the real concern - Sinclair's methods of operation. Never, ever forget that this was the company that attempted to farm out weather to their headquarters. Never, ever forget News Central and the damage it did to the stations they tried it on. If they tried it once, I can't put it past them to try it twice.

 

Complete and total BS. NewsCentral was a way to give news and a local presence to Sinclair's CW, MyTV and Independent stations that did not have news operations. NewsCentral had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, NULL impact on their legacy news operations in cities where they had a Big-3 affiliate.

 

Congratulations, Sinclair! I'm glad you got all these stations if for no other reason than to watch all these people squeal like little pigs.

[mre29 1340]

The conflicts in those markets are minor and easy to shell away, so it would be a matter of if they need to sell that to clear cap space (and depart the market entirely). The legal issues of WTVR in 2008 (under a GOP administration!) could weigh on things though.

 

How so?

[tw-804 190]

You would never believe the name of the shell. I would never forget it. Carma. DOJ shot that down though.

 

I know. I didn't mention the name...

[Rusty Muck 4167]

This ain't no ordinary GOP administration.

One can easily make the argument that this is what the GOP is... what they believe in... distilled to the purest form.

 

If you think it's hyperpartisan now, just wait when the pendulum inevitably swings back to the Democrats.

[ColDayNews 437]

610 WTVN, radio partner of WSYX/WTTE, is reporting that the deal is closed. Hoping the reports aren't true.

[broadcastfan9751 136]

610 WTVN, radio partner of WSYX/WTTE, is reporting that the deal is closed. Hoping the reports aren't true.

 

It still has to go through the FCC and the DOJ.

[Kenneth Kissel 280]

610 WTVN, radio partner of WSYX/WTTE, is reporting that the deal is closed. Hoping the reports aren't true.

It can't Be closed because Markets like Norfolk where Sinclair owns 3 stations(WTKR,WGNT,WTVZ) need to divest one of those stations before the deal is closed.

[Georgie56 3066]

One can easily make the argument that this is what the GOP is... what they believe in... distilled to the purest form.

 

If you think it's hyperpartisan now, just wait when the pendulum inevitably swings back to the Democrats.

 

Conservatism has become a thing of the past in the GOP. Both sides are full of Democrats.

[AdamTheJ 87]

Am I the only one on this newsgroup feeling Deeply Heartbroken for the people of Chicago? I grew up in Boston, but If I grew up in Chicago, instead, I Would NOT be looking Forward to watching WGN anymore! This is blasphemous, and it is why typed in an N followed by dozens of O's, then "! >". Chicagoland, I feel your pain. I also feel the pain of SoCal viewers who grew up with KTLA, who are not looking forward to this change either. I feared this dictatorship from the very beginning and wish someone else could've purchased the big three.

[ThatSowislander 52]

My only concern for the next year would be jobs/budget. In my tenure, we have added 10.5 hours of news and cut 50 employees. How much farther can we go before the quality suffers? What about WGN, WJW, WXIN and other stations that have added huge-- HUGE-- amounts of news in just the last few years? My biggest worry is plenty of good people will lose jobs because of years of service, salary, or both. If you work in the wrong department (graphics, master control, traffic), you're probably toast too. Although if FOX had made the deal, the same thing would have happened.

 

Sinclair is taking on $2.7 billion debt for this deal-- but considering the amount of revenue they expect to generate, this seems somewhat manageable.

 

Any ethical concerns about Sinclair content are secondary at this point.

 

Seconded. As a life long radio geek, I have seen what has happened with IHeart/Cumulus and it's not pretty. Might be time for most in the industry to jump ship and find new careers.

[TSSZNews 1046]

Time to read the tea leaves. Sinclair will ALREADY start cuts, beginning with WGN America:

 

The effort to make WGN America a platform for pricey original programming is over, Sinclair Broadcast CEO Chris Ripley told analysts today in a call to discuss his company’s $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media.

 

...But the ratings don’t “justify the type of spending that they do on the original programming side,” he says. ” We believe quite firmly that that channel could be run much more profitably just racking a fraction of what they spend on programming and return that to station profitability.”

 

And FOX isn't the only one who needs to worry about leverage:

 

If the Sinclair-Tribune deal passes muster with the FCC and antitrust officials, which the companies expect by year end, then Sinclair would be the largest owner of ABC, Fox, CW and MyTV affiliates, No, 2 for CBS, and No. 3 for NBC. It also would have either the most, or second most, watched stations in 26 of the top 75 markets.

 

Oh, and they're definitely not getting rid of anything sans CareerBuilder, appropriately enough:

 

Ripley says he doesn’t believe Sinclair should have to divest any stations in the 14 markets where the two companies each own at least one outlet in order to steer clear of an antitrust problem.

 

“They really have no impact on overall competition,” he says. “We hope regulators will agree with us.”

 

(Source: http://deadline.com/2017/05/wgn-america-focus-cost-effective-originals-reruns-sinclair-ceo-1202086763/)

 

Gulp.