Sinclair, Tribune Close to Merger Deal

[GoldenShine9 1509]

Here's their reply comment in full.

 

That didn't stop Newsmax and the Coalition for firing back on its rebuttal.

 

I like how Newsmax admitted that what sounds good (for conservatives) could backfire, if some left-leaning group decided to match or exceed Sinclair by pooling together...

[compubit 670]

They won't torpedo it for a year or two after the sale closes. They have an extra 40-some stations to Borg, so KFOR should be last on the totem pole.

 

IIRC, when Sinclair centralized weather as part of the NewsCentral phase, did not KOKH keep their local meteorologists, while most other stations went with a centralized met.? Being smack dab in the middle of Tornado Alley, if you cut your weather, you will be skewered by the media and the community. In OKC, tornadoes sell...

 

J

[Mrtraveler01 737]

IIRC, when Sinclair centralized weather as part of the NewsCentral phase, did not KOKH keep their local meteorologists, while most other stations went with a centralized met.? Being smack dab in the middle of Tornado Alley, if you cut your weather, you will be skewered by the media and the community. In OKC, tornadoes sell...

 

J

 

Nope, KOKH phased out their weather and sports departments during the NewsCentral phase.

 

http://newsok.com/article/1919500

 

http://newsok.com/article/1921644

[CircleSeven 1944]

Chicago Tribune columnist Robert Reed wrote a column this morning about Sinclair, and why the deal doesn't "smell" right to him.

[Mrtraveler01 737]

Sinclair DOES have a point about the complaints re: content. There is nothing within the law that prohibits running a far-right network (and I don't use that lightly as ponying up with Breitbart warrants such, since Fox News doesn't warrant that description, and neither do any of Newsmax, the Blaze or OANN), and the First Amendment explicitly protects such. Any backlash would be the free market in action. The comparable outlets on the left would be Occupy Democrats and some authors at DailyKos.

 

That said, the deal is still illegal on station reach, and there is no push in Congress to change such.

 

A better way to approach this is to look at how Sinclair runs some of its less successful stations.

 

For example:

 

It should really be brought into scrutiny how a station group wants to buy 2 stations in St. Louis (KTVI and KPLR) when it can't even run the 1 station that it already owns in the market to the point that it's one of the lowest performing ABC affiliates in the nation (KDNL).

 

Of course they'll want to tout about stations like WJLA, WKRC, KOMO, and KUTV but they have owned those stations for a lot shorter period of time compared to some of their more legacy stations like KDNL, WPGH, WXLV, etc.

[Rusty Muck 4167]

I like how Newsmax admitted that what sounds good (for conservatives) could backfire, if some left-leaning group decided to match or exceed Sinclair by pooling together...

 

I'm not sure how that can happen when the playing field is already as entrenched as it is.

 

I mean, I'd be shocked if Perry Sook were to announce that Nexstar established such an alliance just to go after Sinclair...

[oklahomanewsman 210]

IIRC, when Sinclair centralized weather as part of the NewsCentral phase, did not KOKH keep their local meteorologists, while most other stations went with a centralized met.? Being smack dab in the middle of Tornado Alley, if you cut your weather, you will be skewered by the media and the community. In OKC, tornadoes sell...

 

J

That's exactly why KOKH isn't taken seriously when it comes to Tornado Coverage when compared to the other major stations in the Oklahoma City market (KWTV, KFOR, KOCO) however, their tornado coverage (same with KOCO's tornado coverage) is actually far superior compared to KFOR/KWTV.

 

It's not about how much technology you add to your arsenal (and I'm looking at you KFOR/KWTV) it's about accuracy with the tools you have and being able to track where the storms are heading and telling people where to go in case a tornado is heading to their location, yes technology and equipment DOES matter but, accuracy and being able to save lives matters more than promoting a new radar, etc.

[The Frog 393]

Sinclair and Fox have renewed affiliation agreements for five stations.

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/106870/sinclair-renews-five-fox-affiliations

[Rusty Muck 4167]

Sinclair and Fox have renewed affiliation agreements for five stations.

 

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/106870/sinclair-renews-five-fox-affiliations

Understandable with WSBT, as it was recently inherited from WSJV's de facto shutdown. I'm trying to remember how many of those other stations were recent pickups.

[Samantha 2878]

Understandable with WSBT, as it was recently inherited from WSJV's de facto shutdown. I'm trying to remember how many of those other stations were recent pickups.

 

Barrington, Cox, Cox, Barrington, Schurz via Gray.

[Megatron81 181]

I don't get why Sinclair didn't try to renew the Fox stations that are up at the end of year with 5 already renewed with Fox.

[Rusty Muck 4167]

Barrington, Cox, Cox, Barrington, Schurz via Gray.

Makes sense.

 

I wouldn't confuse this with Fox's threat to Sinclair with ION. Those aforementioned stations had to be renewed in order to remain affiliates, and to their credit, both parties actually acted professional.

[CircleSeven 1944]

So Free Press, and the other groups have filed opposition replies to Sinclair's reply comment of those petitions to deny the transaction. One group even wanted to put conditions in the deal.

 

Also, an editorial posted in the Boston Globe yesterday suggested that their respective state's attorney general should be involved to stop the sale, should the FCC/DOJ doesn't do so (yeah good luck with that one).

 

But a director of one of the advocacy groups was surprised of the DOJ's act of issuing a second request of this deal.

 

From the Baltimore Sun last week:

Todd O’Boyle, program director at Common Cause, which joined other groups in an FCC petition to stop the merger, said he was heartened by a recent justice department request for additional information, a sign, he believes, that the deal may get extra scrutiny.

 

“It is telling that there’s such diverse opposition to this merger, from voices on the left and right and the center,” he said. “It’s not every day that you see this much ideological diversity for any issue. It attests to the fact this merger is bad for everyone other than Sinclair and Tribune. I think a lot of folks assumed this merger was going to get rubber stamped.”

[T.L. Hughes 751]

So Free Press, and the other groups have filed opposition replies to Sinclair's reply comment of those petitions to deny the transaction. One group even wanted to put conditions in the deal.

 

Also, an editorial posted in the Boston Globe yesterday suggested that their respective state's attorney general should be involved to stop the sale, should the FCC/DOJ doesn't do so (yeah good luck with that one).

 

But a director of one of the advocacy groups was surprised of the DOJ's act of issuing a second request of this deal.

 

From the Baltimore Sun last week:

In addition to those comments, the Communications Workers of America, the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA and the NewsGuild-CWA have filed comments asking to deny the merger. One of their main concerns is one that many of us already know, Sinclair's end-runs of ownership rules could result in job losses. They even cited the 2013 consolidation of KMTR and KVAL as an example, though they referred to the integration of KMTR's intellectual assets into KVAL's as a news department shutdown (a la what happened with WLVI when Tribune sold it to Sunbeam), when it was more accurately a consolidation of the two news operations... but tomato, tom-ah-to, it had the same effect.

[Megatron81 181]

I don't think I have ever seen s State AG try and kill a merger which I thought this would be just DOJ & FCC only to deny the merger this is a feds matter not a state's matter just my opinion. That isn't going to happen and the Boston Globe has to know that as well.

[CircleSeven 1944]

A little tidbit to mention. Six years ago today (9/8/11), the one that would eventually begin this prolonged M&A craze (that feels like it would never end), was their announcement of its acquisition of Four Points Media.

[CircleSeven 1944]

So Dielectric came up with their own statement regarding the opponent's claims that it would delay the spectrum repack, should this merger goes through.

[broadcastfan9751 136]

The FCC has sent Sinclair a request for additional information about the merger, including how it intends to comply with the ownership rules and the claimed benefits of the merger.

[oklahomanewsman 210]

That comes on the heels of Sinclair CEO Christopher Ripley saying yesterday "Sinclair shouldn't have to sell off any conflict markets."

[GoldenShine9 1509]

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/107340/details-on-sinclairtribune-merger-overdue

 

Sinclair thinks it can get out of conflicts through swapping in other big markets they still would not be in (most notably Detroit, San Francisco Bay Area, Phoenix, Boston, Atlanta and Tampa Bay). They are dreaming if they think that is possible since they would be even farther over the cap. They'd pretty much have to sell ALL their small and medium sized market stations to get into all of the top 50 or so.

[Rusty Muck 4167]

It's very telling that Sinclair has been absolutely quiet on heeding the ownership "limits."

 

I don't think they intend to do any sort of deal making beyond using their shells as a middle finger aimed at everyone. But of course they can't come out and say that.

 

As a result, the left is pillorying Sinclair (and justifiably so) while Sinclair offers radio silence ... aside from Osama bin Epshteyn offering a pitiful churlish insult at John Oliver that was a must-run throughout the whole chain.

 

I'm also skeptical on how much teeth that FCC document holds, what with Aljti I. M. Paid Off proudly colluding with the Smith Clan. Paid Off could easily kill that request off and face zero punishment, because he's a Republican.

[CircleSeven 1944]

I believe this letter wouldn't have came into fruition, if it wasn't for the Democratic lawmakers grilling Pai about "possibly" giving Sinclair any preferential treatment. Also, Pai is seeking reconfirmation in the Senate to continue to his Chairmanship. So I'm thinking this is the reason of the change. They could've been slick and not post this letter. Even if the Sinclair-Tribune deal goes through, the letter wouldn't be like that Pai didn't scrutinize the deal in any way.

 

The Heathens of Hunt Valley was heavily banking on Pai to change the rules while their deal is pending, including tweaking with the local ownership rule (specifically the duopoly rules), and even possibly ask for a waiver (yeah, that's not going to happen). Now with this letter, they have no other choice but to say which stations they have to divest. Even if they do tweak with the duopoly rules in market, they still have to divest 6% to come into compliance of the national ownership cap.

 

So this is all for certain that they would have to divest not just the 6% to comply with the cap, but in-market as well even if Pai does change the duopoly rules later. And even if they assign it to one of their shells, they still can't form new JSAs because the attribution rule is still in effect. So they can't form new JSAs that's more than 15% of the revenue from the brokered station.

 

And one more time, its Congress that has to act on tweaking with the national ownership cap. And I don't think they would raise the cap anytime soon. There's already a bill to eliminate the UHF discount, but I don't think that's going to pass either. They'll probably have to wait for that court case to proceed.

[GoldenShine9 1509]

I believe this letter wouldn't have came into fruition, if it wasn't for the Democratic lawmakers grilling Pai about "possibly" giving Sinclair any preferential treatment. Also, Pai is seeking reconfirmation in the Senate to continue to his Chairmanship. So I'm thinking this is the reason of the change They could've been slick and not posted this letter. Even if the Sinclair-Tribune deal goes through, the letter wouldn't be like that Pai didn't scrutinize the deal in any way.

 

The Heathens of Hunt Valley was heavily banking on Pai to change the rules while their deal is pending, including tweaking with the local ownership rule (specifically the duopoly rules), and even possibly ask for a waiver (yeah, that's not going to happen). Now with this letter, they have no other choice but to say which stations they have to divest. Even if they do tweak with the duopoly rules in market, they still have to divest 6% to come into compliance of the national ownership cap.

 

So this is all for certain that they would have to divest not just the 6% to comply with the cap, but in-market as well even if Pai does change the duopoly rules later. And even if they assign it to one of their shells, they still can't form new JSAs because the attribution rule is still in effect. So they can't form new JSAs that's more than 15% of the revenue from the brokered station.

 

And one more time, its Congress that has to act on tweaking with the national ownership cap. And I don't think they would raise the cap anytime soon. There's already a bill to eliminate the UHF discount, but I don't think that's going to pass either. They'll probably have to wait for that court case to proceed.

 

If they want the deal to close in 4Q 2017 as they want, they definitely have to divest everything they can to get into national and market caps. If they fight it, this could drag well into 2018, and perhaps become an election issue.

[Eat News 4738]

If they want the deal to close in 4Q 2017 as they want, they definitely have to divest everything they can to get into national and market caps. If they fight it, this could drag well into 2018, and perhaps become an election issue.

 

It could drag on but don't expect it to become an election issue. Congress doesn't seem to care right now, and in 2018 there will be much bigger fish to fry (shark foodie joke) like the rebuilding of San Francisco (vote no) after the nuke hits it..

 

The is no organized opposition to this deal. Sure some fellow programmers and fringe networks have objected on various grounds...

 

Those objecting based on political slant won't even be considered...because that's the law. The gubmnt can't interfere with free speech...period. Sinclair has the right to free speech..just like CNN , Washington Post and MSNBC do. Just like every other TV station group and owner has a right to.

 

I'm sure we all agree free speech is good.

 

Sinclair paid a "K" street lobbying firm millions of dollars to LOBBY the FCC for a deal.

The exact same way thousands of other companies LOBBY the goverment for legislation and administrative changes on a daily basis.

 

To imply that the FCC commish took a kickback or bribe is just childish, and shows a lack of understanding on how lobbying works for BOTH parties.

 

Jamie Oliver, Newsmax and all the others can bitch all they want about the right wing BS...but if they REALLY cared (the dems) then they would spend millions LOBBYING the FCC and Congress to change the rules in their favor...just like they do every day that the house is in session.

 

Washington is "Pay 4 Play" ...sure lots of money has changed hands in the Sinclair proposed deal. It could fail at any time. Sinclair could take a giant bath and lose millions on a bad strategy.

 

But if you really don't like the whole Idea of the Sinclair deal then do this...

Donate $250 to your congressman's re-election fund and tell him/her that you hate the Sinclair deal...and you will vote them out if they don't try to stop it.

 

Follow-up with your vote.

 

Put your money where your mouth is,..

...cuz that's how the big boys do it.

 

Note...

I used Goldenshine's post as a jumping off point...nothing more. I don't want anyone to think the post is directed at him.

[Rusty Muck 4167]

If they want the deal to close in 4Q 2017 as they want, they definitely have to divest everything they can to get into national and market caps. If they fight it, this could drag well into 2018, and perhaps become an election issue.

Will it really become an election issue? I highly doubt that. No one is seriously talking about the illegitimacy of this merger beyond the cliff notes John Oliver said a few months ago.

 

If this merger falls apart - and if it does, Tribune will have a nine-digit fee to pay Sinclair as a result - it will be because Sinclair was counting on Altji I. M. Paid Off and the DOJ to ignore the rules outright, and didn't have a Plan B in place.

 

Would Sinclair be that brazen and reckless? Possibly.

 

Will they get their just desserts and have this merger rejected? Highly unlikely. There's no serious opposition to this deal that would realistically pry through what is an obvious opening by Sinclair's current radio silence. The chances of this going through are all but certain.