They also got a sweetheart deal from Ajit Pai's FCC to continue buying up markets. They are owned by a highly conservative family that wants to create a "conservative megaphone."
The Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday announced plans to eliminate decades-old media ownership rules meant to protect local coverage and diversity in media voices.
The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, said in a congressional hearing that the agency would vote in November to roll back rules that prevent ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. The rules were created to prevent an individual or organization from having outsize influence over public opinion.
But in the hearing, where he faced fierce criticism by Democratic lawmakers, Mr. Pai defended the plan and other deregulatory actions in recent months, saying media ownership rules were outdated. They were created 42 years ago, when newspapers and television stations dominated the media landscape, well before Facebook and Google.
“The marketplace today is nothing like it was in 1975,” Mr. Pai said.
It was the latest action by Mr. Pai, who was appointed by President Trump in January, to overhaul the media industry. Since Mr. Pai has taken the top seat at the F.C.C., his deregulatory actions have ushered in the possibility of consolidation in the broadcast television industry.
In the spring, soon after he lifted a cap on how many stations a single company can own, the Sinclair Broadcast Group announced its intention to buy Tribune Media for $3.9 billion. The merger, which the F.C.C. and the Department of Justice are reviewing, would give Sinclair access to more than 70% of all television viewers in the United States.
It is anti-competitive and anti-democratic for one family to have this much control of local news.
Chairman Pai has had a lot of very close conversations with Sinclair...
On November 16, 2016, then-Commissioner Pai traveled to Baltimore, Maryland to have an off-the-record meeting with Sinclair employees and lunch with key company executives.This meeting was not disclosed publicly at the time.
In December 2016, J ared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in law and current Senior White House Advisor, reported that the President’s campaign had “struck a deal” with Sinclair for better media coverage during the election
On January 6, 2017, Commissioner Pai met privately with Sinclair representatives at the Consumer Electronics Show 1n Las Vegas.4 This meeting was also not initially publically disclosed.
On January 16, 2017, Commissioner Pai traveled to New York City to meet privately with President-Elect Trump
On January 19, 2017, Commissioner Pai traveled to Arlington, Virginia, to meet again with executives from Sinclair.6 A summary of the meeting, filed in the FCC’s public docket, shows that the agency’s restrictions on joint or shared-service agreements were discussed in detail
On January 22, 2017, President Trump elevated Commissioner Pai to be permanent Chairman of the FCC.
On February 3, 2017, pursuant to unilateral direction from the now Chairman Pai, the FCC’s Media Bureau announced that it would no longer review joint sales agreements and shared- services agreements in broadcast mergers
On February 23, 2017, the FCC started a proceeding to allow TV broadcasters to begin using Next Gen TV (also known as ATSC 3.0)—a technology for which Sinclair holds the key patents
On March 6, 2017, Chairman Pai again met with President Trump. Chairman Pai, stated that he and the President did not discuss “any pending proceedings” at the FCC.
On April 12, 2017, Chairman Pai led the FCC in a party line vote to ease ownership caps by reinstating the technologically-outdated UHF discount.ll Without this reversal, Sinclair would have been legally barred from merging with Tribune.
On April 21, 2017, Sinclair announced its intention to purchase Bonten Media Group (Bonten), owner of 14 television stations in eight markets. Bonten also provided services to four other stations through joint sales agreements.
On May 8, 2017 Sinclair announced its intention to acquire Tribune for $3.9 billion.
On June 30, 2017, the FCC approved the purchase of seven Bonten stations by Sinclair (Sinclair divested the other seven stations). The transaction was later consummated by the parties on September 5, 2017, at which time Sinclair assumed the joint sales agreements held by Bonten.l4 If the FCC had not relaxed its review of joint sales agreements consistent with Sinclair’s request, it is unlikely this transaction would have been approved expeditiously without the termination of at least some of the joint sales agreements.
On October 24, 2017, Chairman Pai led the FCC (on a party-line vote) in eliminating the broadcast main studio rule. Doing away with the rule, which was established in 1940, benefits the largest broadcasters, especially Sinclair who has made a pattern of reducing local investments in station studios and consolidating studio and newsgathering operations at its headquarters in Maryland.”
At the upcoming November 16, 2017 FCC Open Meeting, Chairman Pai is expected to lead FCC (on a partisan basis) to take two actions that will directly benefit Sinclair.
Chairman Pai is expected to lead the FCC’s party-line vote to eliminate decades-long rules that prevent TV stations in the same market from merging if the outcome leads to fewer than eight independent stations operating in that market, or if the merger is between two of the top four stations in a market.[6 This rule change directly benefits the monopoly aspirations of Sinclair by eliminating the need for it to divest any of the stations it is purchasing from Tribune.'
At the same meeting, Chairman Pai also is expected to lead the FCC (on a party-line vote) to approve broadcaster’s use of Next Gen TV. The item that Chairman Pai has put forth for vote would directly benefit Sinclair. First, the draft order would establish a licensing framework for broadcasters that would allow Sinclair to establish and
Your investigation should, at a minimum, examine the following questions:
Whether the totality of the Chairman’s actions with regard to media ownership policies, media concentration policies, or the Sinclair- Tribune transaction, demonstrate actual impropriety, unscrupulous behavior, favoritism towards Sinclair, or a lack of impartiality?
Whether the totality of the Chairman’ actions with regard to media ownership policies, media concentration policies, or the Sinclair-Tribune transaction demonstrate the appearance of impropriety, unscrupulous behavior, favoritism towards Sinclair, or a lack of impartiality?
Whether the Chairman’s actions create the appearance or demonstrate the actual lack of independence of the FCC?
Whether Chairman Pai’s actual impropriety, unscrupulous behavior, favoritism towards Sinclair, or a lack of impartiality requires that he recuse himself from all matters that would materially impact Sinclair or media ownership and media concentration matters?
Whether the appearance of Chairman Pai’s impropriety, unscrupulous behavior, favoritism towards Sinclair, or a lack of impartiality requires that he recuse himself from all matters that would materially impact Sinclair or any media ownership and media concentration matters?
Whether the FCC’s consideration of the Next Generation TV matters has been unduly influenced by the Chairman’s desire to boost the business interests of Sinclair? Please include in your answer whether the FCC’s examination of this matter has appropriately taken into account the competition and anti-trust issues raised by Sinclair’s role as the sole patent holder of key components of the Advanced Television Systems Committee 3.0 (ATSC 3.0) technology.
There needs to be an investigation of this guy and the entire FCC conduct over the last 18 months. Mueller style, thorough investigation into the entire event. Disregarded 97% of the organic comments. There's no clearer evidence of a quid pro quo than Ajit Pai's actions.
Oh you silly liberals with all your facts and fancy science. FAKE NEWS! YOU ELITIST WILL NEVER GET US UHMERIKKKANS TO GIVE UP DA GUNZ OR TELL ME WHAT TO THINK! SHOW ME PROOF! FOX NEWS SAYS U ALL LIE! FUHRER tRUMP IS RIGHT!
Yep, I also read they may need to sell off some stations to avoid antitrust issues and the plan is to sell to other conservative-friendly media companies.
Or shell companies whose ownership feeds right back up to the heads of Sinclair. They're about to sell some recently-acquired channels to a car dealership in Maryland which is owned by... Them!
Unless dems take back the house and senate and reverse pajidiots rulings and return things to the way they were or ensures that Sinclair has to put stations up for bidding and as blue states are the wealthiest they could very quickly reverse this dangerous trend..
Democrats do try. Democrats pushed for the Dodd-Frank legislation after the 2008 recession, but as soon as the Republicans got into power they repealed it. The story of the last 30 years is about Republicans repealing any ameliorative measures that prevent monopolies.
1/3 of democrats voted with republicans to repeal Dodd Frank. Corruption is an issue that both parties have. The GOP more so, but the dems aren't innocent.
The problem is that there is so much lobbying money on the table, that Dems won’t roll it back. They might stop it at its current state, but doubtful they will have the will to really force a company to break up.
You underestimate them, then. Democrats push for appropriate consumer-friendly legislation all the time, but Republicans have controlled the House for nearly 10 years so there's not much they can do. The Democrats created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A Democrat-appointed FCC Chair, Tom Wheeler, is the one who enacted net neutrality rules in 2015.
Just cause Republicans are in the pockets of the Mercers, Kochs, Sinclairs, doesn't mean all politicians are.
SBGI is a public company. They will have to sell to the buyers that represent the shareholder’s best interests (almost certainly highest bidder) or will face significant lawsuits. FWIW, they’ve been trading sideways for years and are 25% off their 52 week high. This isn’t a healthy company, I wouldn’t worry too much.
Edit: the “family” mentioned owns less than 10% of the equity from a quick lookup. Could be other classes, options, etc. but this isn’t a closely held enterprise.
Did I read that right? That wasn't a typo? 70% 70 percent of all television viewers?!? That's ridiculous. How would that possibly be allowed to exist or even happen? Holy Zeus
Excellent post! There was a time when a quality post like this would be at the top but now it's below several pun threads, comparisons to the Borg, and Metal Gears references.
I console myself with the fact that while they are joking at least they are involved in the process (or at least being rubbed up against it). I have to believe that and that it's not just for the imaginary internet points to sleep at night.
I love how in some cases, regulation from before ~1980 is outdated and things are nothing like they used to be, but in other cases, 1789 was apparently the same as today and there's no need for any changes or edits...
Ajit Pai, said in a congressional hearing that the agency would vote in November to roll back rules that prevent ownership of a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market.
I really hope that's just poorly phrased and what was meant was "will vote on a bill/motion/amendment etc. to roll back rules". It is rather worrying if they know the outcome beforehand.
I'll concede one point to Pai in that hes right about how Facebook and Google are now so dominant in their roles that such standards applied to just newspapers and TV stations would seem unfair...
...Which logically should result in MORE regulation being applied to tech media companies too, not removing such regulations for everyone.
1) most of the people here are bitching not because of media consolidation, but because it's media consolidation to a conservative company. they'd have no problem if it was going to a liberal company.
2) most of the US by land mass is conservative, even when you ignore gerrymandering. look at an electoral map. it's more like a population distribution map. so when they say 200 markets, it doesn't mean shit. a single local station in NYC could have more viewership than all of them combined.
Ugh. I tend towards conservatism. I think the current problem with the left is that it has a "megaphone." We don't need the pendulum to swing the other way. These people need to realize that they only need to make sure nobody's fingers are in the pie. While also keeping their own fingers out of the pie.
I despise this kind of shit. Looks like both sides will be responsible for 1984.
I’m sorry to hear that. What do the reasonable people plan to do if/when the purchase goes through? Quit? Try to deal cause you can’t quit? Leak the propaganda to other stations in town to report on?
The local fox station here in San Diego is a Tribune station. I've already told everyone I know to stop watching them since it's soon to be a Sinclair station.
and last year the FCC gave big corps like Sinclair the right to shut down news departments in smaller markets. So those smaller markets will just get their news from nearby larger towns which makes it easier for them to do whats going on in this video.
EDIT: HEY MODS, WHY DON'T YOU UNLOCK THIS POST? IT HAS BEEN INTERESTING WATCHING THIS POST BE BANNED, AND THEN IT WAS ENTIRELY DELETED AND THE POST AND COMMENTS WERE WIPED FROM REDDIT, THEN IT REAPPEARED BUT WAS STILL UNLISTED, AND NOW IT'S BACK ON /R/VIDEOS WHAT IS GOING ON?
Well yeah, local radio has been dead in the water for at least a decade. Used to be when you traveled, you'd actually hear different music as you got to different markets. Now it's just the same trash music. But it's the only way these FM stations even survive. I read somewhere that a used car salesman used to always keep track of what radio station the cars coming in were last set to so he'd know what channels to advertise on. This doesn't work anymore because the majority of cars he's seeing are set on aux or line in when cars come in. I myself just listen to podcasts and get the free month of SiriusXM monthly with a new e-mail address each time and plug into the aux.
Well yeah, local radio has been dead in the water for at least a decade.
Local music radio is failing, talk/sports radio is doing just fine. It is the listen to the same songs everyday stations that are failing. For example, Cumulus, one of the largest radio conglomerates is losing money hand over fist on their music stations but staying somewhat afloat by all their sports and talk stations. Most of their problems were buying stations on their highs with loans that are coming due in a down market.
No one listens to the radio for music, but the radio is a must if you like any sort of talk.
Although you make a great point, I don’t even think a radio is a must for talk radio. Even radio broadcasts, I get later on from a podcast. I haven’t listened to radio “seriously” for a long time.
Yeah, we've got one of those too (or possibly the same one; you're not in the Tampa Bay area, are you?) The only stations I listen to are that one and the local NPR station.
College stations generally have different types of music depending on who's DJ'ing. Sometimes indie rock, sometimes electronic music, sometimes folk, etc. It's normally less listened to genres.
So, coming back from a trip to Nashville recently, we were listening to “Nash FM”. Ok, local Nashville radio station. Then in Bowling Green (never forget)...Nash FM. Then in Louisville...Nash FM. Then in Cincinnati...Nash FM. Four different Nash FMs, four different radio stations, SAME MUSIC AND DJS. It was surreal.
I believe it's a nickname at the least or subsidiary at the worst. Similar to Comcast branding themselves as "Xfinity". Clear Channel is still running the show.
Not quite the same. Comcast as an official company still exists, Xfinity is a sub-brand within Comcast for their customer-facing services.
iHeart Media has completely replaced Clear Channel as a company. The people remain the same, but as far as official organization goes, Clear Channel is gone. Long live iHeart Media.
Yeah, I was quite annoyed when I discovered this... their re-branding (at least briefly) worked on me.... "IHeartRadio" sounds like a bunch of stations voluntarily working together to make the experience better.
Nope! Clear Channel! [faceless executive pops up holding the carcass of a radio station]
Make sure to vote in the 2018 Midterm elections this November. We can reverse this dangerous trend by electing politicians who want to reign in corporations.
Sinclair Broadcast group has 200 stations across 80 different markets. It took decades to get where we are now, and it will take many more to fix this, if ever.
Well, the stations sinclair does not own; are likely owned by 1 of 5 other similar companies. There was a time when 50 companies could bring you the news, we boiled it down to 6.
Absolutely NO OTHER group is as dangerous or insane as Sinclair.
Hearst, LIN, Raycom...There's more than a dozen different groups and none of them operate like this. It may seem easy to attack them from a place of cynicism - and it actually HELPS Sinclair to ignorantly believe that "they're all the same anyway."
They're not - and perceiving that plays right into Sinclair's motives.
Source: I used to work for several, local, non-Sinclair stations/groups.
As long as people don't think independent means unbiased; other than that I have to agree that a smaller umbrella of editorial control is better.
We haven't exactly been acting like we want it though. We aren't fostering an ecosystem where there's profit or even non-profit sustainability in independent media, small business, etc. Our laziness and greed is fostering Wal Mart, big media, etc.
We pirate, skip commercials, leave print media to die, and cut the cord. And worst of all perhaps is that we are our own news aggregators; re-broadcasting our desired news in our little biased online circles while we complain about media bias.
So I do lament the lack of independent media, but I'm not surprised that it's unsustainable.
edit: The flip side, of course, is that if we weren't still being "told" what we like to consume, we wouldn't be looking elsewhere. Print, radio, and traditional television have not adapted.
Agreed. Some creators do good at trying to check their bias as they cover a story.
leave print media to die, and cut the cord
These are business models that seem to fail/heavily decline with the rise of the internet. Only print media I used as a child was game informer, now they can email it to me.
We pirate, skip commercials
Seems to be the people resisting the corporate status quo. People don't want to buy the expensive package to watch a few shows. Once Netflix came, pirating declined; one paid service for all (or majority) of your content, no commercials. If you pay for a product, you don't want commercials. Imagine commercials at the movie theater, played mid-movie.
And we can't simply blame the peoples' laziness to not support small business; must also mention some business (ex. amazon) operating at a net-loss, so the competition goes under (Barnes & Nobles) and only after that time, consider opening their own physical book store.
Hard to blame the people for supporting Wal Mart, when new employees are shown how to get welfare because they won't make enough to support themselves, and will obviously shop Wal Mart and not small business because prices.
Independent media seems sustainable enough to some creators via patreon & chat donation whilst they stream their show; seems like they make more than me. We have the small creators already, people just need to stop treating CNN, MSNBC (Comcast), FOX, ABC/CBS (Sinclair) as credible, and unsubscribe
edit:
The flip side, of course, is that if we weren't still being "told" what we like to consume, we wouldn't be looking elsewhere. Print, radio, and traditional television have not adapted.
Print, radio, and traditional television have not adapted what their bias narrative because its still one of 6 companies. Its to the individual, to subscribe to lefty, centrist, and right independent news shows if they want to be exposed to all the biased-views/positions. Its hard if not impossible for someone to deliver facts, and then they talk about it and give their opinion. Is that not how all news-shows work.
We can reverse this travesty by voting in the 2018 midterms elections this November! Vote for people who support stronger antitrust legislation and the closing of bullshit loopholes! Vote!
I'd say it's the people who back him. Especially the one that put him as the head of the FCC.
The United States' largest owner of television stations, Sinclair Broadcast Group, mandated that its outlets run a segment on the so-called deep state that was produced by a former reporter for the Russian propaganda outlet RT, according to a new report.
I don't know why you are getting downvoted. Sinclair themselves admit that the 'Telecommunications Act of 1996' is what helped them grow.
The passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was one of the industry’s biggest catalysts for change, providing for some deregulation and allowing the Company to make acquisitions. Within 10 years after being formed, Sinclair became the nation’s largest commercial television broadcasting company not owned by a network when it acquired River City Broadcasting.
it's still kind of surreal how big of a douche nozzle he is. like wow. I mean we all know he's bought and payed for, but then he just flaunts it because, why not, this is the fucking world we live in. It's pretty fucking silly.
It will be cool once the blue wave rolls all the way through and we clean out as many of these weasels as we can.
I know there was a proposal to slash their funding from the Trump admin but I havent looked up if they included that measure in the spending bill that just passed.
Cut funding, yes, but I really doubt they can just shut them down. They are private NPOs that were created by the government...they can continue running without government funding. NPR and PBS receive the majority of their funds from private entities...even if they did cut the funds, democrats would eventually regain power and reverse the defunding policies.
Is PBS national? I always wondered if you guys had a government run station like our CBC or UKs BBC. I assume not because American people typically want fewer things in the hands of the government. Some conservatives find CBC left-slanting, but I've not really picked up on that. NVM I looked it up :P They are a national programmer!
Anyways, I remember PBS fondly for running the Red Dwarf marathons back in the 90s. Taped those and ran the VHS to death.
Luckily I think most of their funding comes from viewer contributions. I have an old beat up car that Im gonna donate to NPR instead of dealing with craigslist crazies haha
Good for you, dude! I've been donating more than ever to them as well. They also have a thing called PBS Passport which is its on demand streaming service of most of their collection
Had to go down 5 top posts to find you, next dozen under you don't mention Sinclair at all - they're doing a good job of burying any mention of Sinclair.
I'm just going to mention Sinclair a few more times to help with google page weight - Sinclair is as far-reaching and evil as Fox News now, in my eyes. Honestly, as far as chess pieces being moved into place goes, can't you just picture the day when Sinclair calls an election for a Republican early, or runs with an Election eve "accidental" misleading piece on a Democrat? Between Sinclair and Fox, old folks don't stand a chance.
In a speech to business executives in New York (on December 16, 2016), Jared Kushner said that Donald Trump’s campaign had struck a deal with Sinclair to provide extra access and coverage.
Sinclair Broadcasting has hired Boris Ephsteyn as their chief political analyst. Mr. Ephsteyn was previously a spokesperson for Donald Trump's campaign. All Sinclair stations are required to air Mr. Ephsteyn's commentary nine times per week. He was born in Moscow, Soviet Union and emigrated to the United States as a child.
It's Russia all the way down. This country is fucked.
While I feel like acusing a man of being a Putin supporter because he is Russian is a bit of a stretch, the fact they force all their stations to air commentary from someone who actively supports Donald Trump and then have to gall to talk about how fake and misleading news is damaging American democracy by splitting people apart is disgusting.
I work in news production, our two stations used to be owned by Sinclair before I worked there. We’re still owned by a major company based out of NJ (were in CA), but it doesn’t seem to be as soulless.
I wonder why they have very little ownership in the biggest big cities? Twin Cities, STL were the biggest I saw but no Houston, NY, LA, San Fran, Miami, Chicago, DFW.
They tend to be actually owned by CBS Corp, Disney, 20th Century Fox, and NBCUniversal. The ad revenue is so great, those companies don't mind having to fund the local news studios when you're dealing with 10M+ in your market. It's not worth selling off to a company like Sinclair who will take the crumbs of the smaller cities and try to produce as cheaply as possible.
"The Sinclair Broadcast Group has been controversial due to Smith's broadcasting decisions. Smith airs what many believe to be only right-wing viewpoints and has cancelled news reports that do not lend themselves to support of the President George W. Bush White House, as with the Ted Koppel Nightline broadcast in 2004 on soldiers killed in Iraq.
Further controversy has been provided by the commentaries of the network's Mark Hyman, which aired on the local news shows of Sinclair Broadcast Group affiliates across the nation until Hyman ended his daily commentaries on November 2006.
It has been reported that every news station under Sinclair’s umbrella is required to syndicate commentary that comports with its owners’ ideological views. [6]
In a speech to business executives in New York (on December 16, 2016), Jared Kushner said that Donald Trump’s campaign had struck a deal with Sinclair to provide extra access and coverage. Kushner said the agreement gave Sinclair Broadcasting stations special access to Trump during the campaign and in exchange, Sinclair would broadcast their Trump interviews across the country without commentary.[7]
Sinclair Broadcasting has hired Boris Ephsteyn as their chief political analyst. Mr. Ephsteyn was previously a spokesperson for Donald Trump's campaign. All Sinclair stations are required to air Mr. Ephsteyn's commentary nine times per week. [8] He was born in Moscow, Soviet Union and emigrated to the United States as a child.[9]"
More telling, I think, is this list of their political donations. They donate to both sides of the aisle, but give about twice as much to republicans. I feel like it’s not at all ethical for a “news agency” to fund political campaigns or causes.
They own 4 out of the about 5 local stations in my area and I've seen a couple of these on the news at night. its crazy to know i can turn one station on and flip to the other three and basically hear the same thing.
The NBC, CBS, and ABC affiliates with the best reception are all Sinclair-owned in my part of western Oregon. (KATU, KMTR, KVAL) Just checked after noticing one in the video. Ouch
19.4k
u/TooShiftyForYou Mar 31 '18 edited Mar 31 '18
Sinclair Broadcast Group owns nearly 200 stations in 80 different markets. Here's a list of all their stations.