Nexstar to acquire Tegna

[mer764KCTV5 213]

On 3/19/2026 at 6:38 PM, Archiva said:

Nexstar is going to divest WTHR, WAVY, KTVD, WUPL, KNWA and WCTX, per the FCC document. 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-267A1.pdf

 

 

...wait, why are they selling KNWA instead of KFSM? Didn't KNWA (as KFAA) signed on as a satellite of the-now KFTA-TV? (Formerly KPOM-TV)

[TVLurker 389]

1 hour ago, JRyan said:

Technically speaking, the transaction itself is not unlawful.  What makes this questionable at best is the entire company being bought without immediate and absolute divestures.

 

In my opinion, it's only lawful because of people who have absolute power and bypass law and order just to ram through a deal without due process. I'm appalled at how people managed to vote their approval for this.

[GoldenShine_10 263]

4 minutes ago, TVLurker said:

 

In my opinion, it's only lawful because of people who have absolute power and bypass law and order just to ram through a deal without due process. I'm appalled at how people managed to vote their approval for this.

 

It's a 3-branch government though. The FCC and DOJ are in only one of the branches. It's up to interpretation by the judicial of what the legislative branch wrote in 2004 (and Clayton Act previously).

[carolinanews4 455]

So, putting aside my dislike of the actual merger itself for a moment. I am deeply disturbed (unfortunately, not surprised) by the 11-hour rush to consummate a deal that seemingly included government officials approving it before a pending lawsuit, of which all parties were aware. If what the NC AG and the CA AG state is true, the states reached out to Nexstar numerous times without a reply.

 

The KUSI program guide, which included CW programming before government approval was announced, would indicate that Nexstar had knowledge well in advance that the DOJ was dropping its investigation and that the FCC was approving it.  It would also indicate that Nexstar was working with Tegna on business matters prior to the official close of the deal. Just that alone is a no-no. Two entities that are separate but intend to merge must maintain a firewall of sorts until the deal is approved. 

 

This whole thing appears to be a bizarre coordination by a private company and governmental agencies to do an end run around the judiciary and due process. 

[ABC 7 Denver 1889]

3 hours ago, GoldenShine_10 said:

 

It's a 3-branch government though. The FCC and DOJ are in only one of the branches. It's up to interpretation by the judicial of what the legislative branch wrote in 2004 (and Clayton Act previously).

 

The whole “three branches” thing is doing basically nothing here. The FCC and DOJ are both in the executive branch, and they just chose to waive the ownership cap and bless a merger that reaches the overwhelming majority of U.S. households. Courts almost never blow up a deal like this ab initio; at best they force targeted divestitures in a few conflicted markets, which still leaves one giant broadcaster with massive leverage. Calling that “lawful” mostly means the people in charge of enforcing the law decided not to use the tools Congress gave them under the Clayton Act and the media ownership rules.

 

And yeah, that’s before you even get into party politics. When the president’s party leadership is aligned with the same deregulatory agenda, there’s zero internal pressure to challenge this stuff, so the “checks and balances” are basically a formality while media power gets concentrated.

[l_miro 245]

42 minutes ago, carolinanews4 said:

So, putting aside my dislike of the actual merger itself for a moment. I am deeply disturbed (unfortunately, not surprised) by the 11-hour rush to consummate a deal that seemingly included government officials approving it before a pending lawsuit, of which all parties were aware. If what the NC AG and the CA AG state is true, the states reached out to Nexstar numerous times without a reply.

 

This whole thing appears to be a bizarre coordination by a private company and governmental agencies to do an end run around the judiciary and due process. 

 

that is false. 

 

- the Bonta lawsuit was merely filed on 3/18, nothing more

- His TRO plead is from 3/20/2026, after the decision (https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2026.03.20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO TRO.pdf)

- there is no requirement to stay the approval of a merger due to pending lawsuits - unless a federal judge in those lawsuits invoked a TRO or preliminary injuction

- the FCC used their administrative waiver power, given to them in the Communications Act of 1934, to pass the merger:

Section 309(a) (47 U.S.C. § 309(a)), 

Quote

 

Considerations in granting application

Subject to the provisions of this section, the Commission shall determine, in the case of each application filed with it to which section 308 of this title applies, whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by the granting of such application, and, if the Commission, upon examination of such application and upon consideration of such other matters as the Commission may officially notice, shall find that public interest, convenience, and necessity would be served by the granting thereof, it shall grant such application.

 

 

Section 303(r) (47 U.S.C.§ 303(r)) 

Quote

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall—

Make such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, or any international radio or wire communications treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto, including any treaty or convention insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party.

 

the Yale Journal on Regulation is even more clear:

 

Quote

Start with the origin of the cap: The Communications Act does not set a limit of any sort on broadcast ownership. Instead, the FCC created the cap in 1941 under the statute’s flexible “public interest” standard. And the FCC has repeatedly revised that cap since its inception.

So why is there any doubt? Two statutes are most pertinent. First, in section 202(c)(1)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress directed the FCC to “modify its rules . . . by increasing the national audience reach limitation for television stations to 35 percent.” Then, in section 629 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (the “CAA”), Congress struck out “35 percent” from the Telecommunications Act and replaced it with “39 percent.”

By the face of the statute, it is clear that Congress was merely instructing the Commission to adjust an existing regulatory framework, not to freeze it in place indefinitely. --- Yale Journal on Regulation

 

The bipartisan act of congress in 2004 set the ownership cap at 39% and created a legal vacuum. It fails to define: what 'national audience reach' means in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, what the UHF discount is and how it's calculated; how the FCC discretionary (waiver) power applies to the 39% cap, whether it's a one-time adjustment, among many other things. Shortly after it passed the FCC asked congress if the UHF discount can be clarified, congress ignored them, and left the courts to guess what congress meant, for 22 years.

 

Congress could have chosen clarity in 2004. Instead they chose violence and now we're here.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22 by l_miro

[Weeters 2173]

2 hours ago, l_miro said:

 

that is false. 

 

- the Bonta lawsuit was merely filed on 3/18, nothing more

- His TRO plead is from 3/20/2026, after the decision (https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/2026.03.20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO TRO.pdf)

- there is no requirement to stay the approval of a merger due to pending lawsuits - unless a federal judge in those lawsuits invoked a TRO or preliminary injuction

- the FCC used their administrative waiver power, given to them in the Communications Act of 1934, to pass the merger:

Section 309(a) (47 U.S.C. § 309(a)), 

 

Section 303(r) (47 U.S.C.§ 303(r)) 

 

the Yale Journal on Regulation is even more clear:

 

 

The bipartisan act of congress in 2004 set the ownership cap at 39% and created a legal vacuum. It fails to define: what 'national audience reach' means in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, what the UHF discount is and how it's calculated; how the FCC discretionary (waiver) power applies to the 39% cap, whether it's a one-time adjustment, among many other things. Shortly after it passed the FCC asked congress if the UHF discount can be clarified, congress ignored them, and left the courts to guess what congress meant, for 22 years.

 

Congress could have chosen clarity in 2004. Instead they chose violence and now we're here.

This. When you stop to read how Congress went about "setting" the cap, it becomes as clear as mud. This will end up in front of SCOTUS, and they'll go "we have to assume that 'national audience reach' assumed everyone watched broadcast television, but now less than 25% of the population watches broadcast television. There's no way for any owner to reach 39% of the population, because that many people don't watch."

It won't matter if people are watching on streaming services or cable, because those aren't regulated by the FCC.

[TVLurker 389]

they really seem very intent in causing the demise of broadcast television, saying nobody watches it even though they put out product that nobody really liked or admired, several television markets don't even have the luxury of having quality product like LA DMA 2, NY DMA 1, CHI DMA 3, PA DMA 5 and SF DMA 10 which are owned mostly by their respective networks and I say mostly because of Nexstar owning a station in each of those markets.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the networks either shuts down or cuts back. This is the consequence of a capitalist industry that only seeks to suppress information and squeeze every penny out of the consumer. I wouldn't be surprised if Scripps and Sinclair reconsider their merger due to FCC and DOJ bullshit.

Edited March 22 by TVLurker

[newsteam13 417]

HALF of the Mile High City TV news market will be under one company. Same corporate umbrella.

 

Meanwhile, ABC7 KMGH (Scripps) and KCNC CBS4 (CBS owned stations) are standing on their own.

 

 

[l_miro 245]

3 hours ago, Weeters said:

This. When you stop to read how Congress went about "setting" the cap, it becomes as clear as mud. This will end up in front of SCOTUS, and they'll go "we have to assume that 'national audience reach' assumed everyone watched broadcast television, but now less than 25% of the population watches broadcast television. There's no way for any owner to reach 39% of the population, because that many people don't watch."

It won't matter if people are watching on streaming services or cable, because those aren't regulated by the FCC.

 

Aside: The fcc has a formula for the audience reach - 

{Reach} = (DMA % of U.S. Households} x {Technical Discount})

 

It looks like Nexstar got around the cap by divesting the stations to be at  39% + uhf discount

 

WTHR, WCTX, are VHF so their reach will be a 100% deduction. The other stations will be 50% deductible from cap. Multiple stations in the same market are counted as one. 

Edited March 22 by l_miro

[ABC 7 Denver 1889]

2 hours ago, l_miro said:

 

Aside: The fcc has a formula for the audience reach - 

{Reach} = (DMA % of U.S. Households} x {Technical Discount})

 

It looks like Nexstar got around the cap by divesting the stations to be at  39% + uhf discount

 

WTHR, WCTX, are VHF so their reach will be a 100% deduction. The other stations will be 50% deductible from cap. Multiple stations in the same market are counted as one. 

 

They will "divest" to Mission, retaining 95% of the profits. Even with divestitures, that's still 80% coverage, in flagrant violation, more than doubling the maximum coverage.

[NowBergen 924]

6 hours ago, newsteam13 said:

HALF of the Mile High City TV news market will be under one company. Same corporate umbrella.

 

Meanwhile, ABC7 KMGH (Scripps) and KCNC CBS4 (CBS owned stations) are standing on their own.

 

 

Consider yourself lucky. There are now markets where all commercial stations are owned by either Nexstar or Sinclair.  Sinclair has also pulled their trick of moving the ABC affiliate to a sub channel of one of the other stations they own.  This is what trump and Barr's decision is bringing. Limited local competition, just two newsrooms and limited alternative voices.

[MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie 1158]

Something I'm wondering about.... Now that there are a bunch of duopolies/etc in many markets... Is Nexstar going to merge websites?? i.e. In Indy, they merged WXIN & WTTG into Fox 59's domain... Would it be easier (and maybe somewhat cost effective) to merge websites??

 

Also I was thinking... If Nexstar doesn't want/wishes to sell WTHR... I'm wondering if it would be wise if Hearst would grab WTHR?? It would kinda make sense.. They would have a nice regional network of stations in IN, OH, KY

Edited March 22 by MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie

[Recovering Producer 410]

20 minutes ago, MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie said:

Also I was thinking... If Nexstar doesn't want/wishes to sell WTHR... I'm wondering if it would be wise if Hearst would grab WTHR?? It would kinda make sense.. They would have a nice regional network of stations in IN, OH, KY

 

Good faith divestures to another broadcaster that operates network-affiliated stations are a thing of the past. Nexstar is a retransmission revenue company with advertising sales as a side hustle. They want every penny of restransmission cash from 3-4 channels per market, and a consolidated operation with the lowest possible cost.

 

The two year timeline gives time for rules to be rewritten to avoid these stations being divested, or strictly selling the license/transmitter only to a godcaster/spectrum squatter, while keeping the affiliation and programming for a subchannel of a retained station. Or in an absolute worst case (for Nexstar) scenario, Mission gets six additional stations with network affiliations. 

Edited March 22 by Recovering Producer

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

21 hours ago, GoldenShine_10 said:

 

That is correct. This may end up in the Supreme Court. One possibility is that a Hold Separate order is given until the courts sort it out.

A possible outcome could be that the former Tegna stations be separated into a separate holding company and if any consolidation has taken place, it would be up to Nexstar to restore these stations to operational independence. 

If companies like AT&T can be broken up, so should Nexstar when their market share has gotten too big.

[ABC 7 Denver 1889]

On 3/22/2026 at 9:37 AM, MichiganNewsGraphicsJunkie said:

Something I'm wondering about.... Now that there are a bunch of duopolies/etc in many markets... Is Nexstar going to merge websites?? i.e. In Indy, they merged WXIN & WTTG into Fox 59's domain... Would it be easier (and maybe somewhat cost effective) to merge websites??

 

Also I was thinking... If Nexstar doesn't want/wishes to sell WTHR... I'm wondering if it would be wise if Hearst would grab WTHR?? It would kinda make sense.. They would have a nice regional network of stations in IN, OH, KY

 

Yes. All on one website. 9News.com will redirect to KDVR.com. Unified branding and one slogan too. The stations will all look and feel the same.

 

WTHR will be with Mission. At this point, I think Hearst will either be one of the last mid-size groups standing or will exit the business entirely selling to Sinclair.

Edited March 23 by ABC 7 Denver

[mre29 1967]

5 hours ago, ABC 7 Denver said:

WTHR will be with Mission. At this point, I think Hearst will either be one of the last mid-side groups standing or will exit the business entirely selling to Sinclair.

 

I'd rather see Hearst sell to Gray. Or Graham. Or Morgan Murphy. Or anyone besides Sinclair or Nexstar.

 

 

[channel2 1042]

Could Morgan Murphy even afford to buy Hearst Television? Does Graham even want to own that many stations?

 

Sinclair and Nexstar should have been stopped in their tracks years ago. We've been sounding the alarm about them for years and by the time anybody but us noticed it was too late.

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

A temporary reprieve...sort of....
https://thedesk.net/2026/03/nexstar-operating-tegna-as-subsidiary/

Nexstar better not change a damn thing to these stations, or they'll likely have to reverse it should the lawsuits prevail...

[TennTV1983 870]

13 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

A temporary reprieve...sort of....
https://thedesk.net/2026/03/nexstar-operating-tegna-as-subsidiary/

Nexstar better not change a damn thing to these stations, or they'll likely have to reverse it should the lawsuits prevail...

 

Probably for the best until all of the legal stuff is settled, though it's only a matter of when (not if) they are allowed to fully absorb the former TEGNA stations into their fold.

[tyrannical bastard 4676]

6 hours ago, channel2 said:

Could Morgan Murphy even afford to buy Hearst Television? Does Graham even want to own that many stations?

 

Sinclair and Nexstar should have been stopped in their tracks years ago. We've been sounding the alarm about them for years and by the time anybody but us noticed it was too late.

 

Nexstar should have never gotten Media General (through their hostile takeover when Meredith was to merge with them)...
 

[NowBergen 924]

23 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

A temporary reprieve...sort of....
https://thedesk.net/2026/03/nexstar-operating-tegna-as-subsidiary/

Nexstar better not change a damn thing to these stations, or they'll likely have to reverse it should the lawsuits prevail...

Hopefully that will prevent, for now, moving network affiliations to sub channels as well. 

[mre29 1967]

4 hours ago, channel2 said:

Could Morgan Murphy even afford to buy Hearst Television? Does Graham even want to own that many stations?

 

Good questions. Morgan Murphy's more of a small-market company; the largest market they're in, I think, is Madison, WI. Graham, meanwhile, hasn't shown even a hint of interest in buying any stations since it acquired WCWJ and WSLS almost exactly a decade ago.

 

51 minutes ago, tyrannical bastard said:

A temporary reprieve...sort of....
https://thedesk.net/2026/03/nexstar-operating-tegna-as-subsidiary/

 

Goooooooood.

 

[TheRolyPoly 3510]

7 hours ago, channel2 said:

Could Morgan Murphy even afford to buy Hearst Television? Does Graham even want to own that many stations?

 

Hearst should buy Morgan Murphy, not the other way around.

 

However, I know that won't happen as Hearst is strategic as to what, where, and when to buy.

[norcalTVfan 58]

1 hour ago, mre29 said:

 

Good questions. Morgan Murphy's more of a small-market company; the largest market they're in, I think, is Madison, WI. Graham, meanwhile, hasn't shown even a hint of interest in buying any stations since it acquired WCWJ and WSLS almost exactly a decade ago.

 

 

Goooooooood.

 

Morgan Murphy’s largest market is Spokane at 66, Madison is at 77.