-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FCC to possibly crack down on dual affiliations
- Thread starter crackedscreen
- Start date
That'll result in a sale of WTTV right there, and possibly in other markets (that includes stations owned by Sinclair, managed by Sinclar, owned by Nexstar/Mission, or managed by Nexstar/Mission) I'll just use KFOR/KAUT for an example if KAUT were to take Fox away from KOKH (reverting KOKH to independent status) under (potentially) new FCC rules that bans this, KAUT would have to be sold, also with KOKH/KOCB, if KOCB were to take CBS away from KWTV (with KWTV becoming the CW affiliate) then there again KOCB would have to be sold. So I really don't blame it on the FCC for doing this, gotta have competition, and if station groups like Nexstar/Mission, and Sinclair and their dozen station groups continue to own 2 stations that are affiliates with 2 of the big four major networks, then that takes away competition. With that new rule, you'll have competition in programming, sales, and (of course) news. If Gannett were to buy KDNL, and turn them into an indie or a CW affiliate (swapping with KPLR) then they'll be just fine, whereas Tribune under this new potential law, they would have to sell KPLR because they also own Fox affiliate KTVI in that market.
That'll result in a sale of WTTV right there, and possibly in other markets
I think the days of broadcasting companies cowering when the FCC says something are over. Unless the Justice Department agrees, and brings up the "m" word, I see the FCC issuing waivers.
I think the days of broadcasting companies cowering when the FCC says something are over. Unless the Justice Department agrees, and brings up the "m" word, I see the FCC issuing waivers.
I doubt that The DOJ will agree TheBigA, if that law passes, Tribune will have to sell one of the 2 stations. I'd say sell WXIN somewhere else, and keep WTTV.
I don't see it happening.
You never know, what the FCC will do. They might force tribune to sell 1 of the 2 stations they own in Indianapolis.
I would love to see them do it.
Look at San Antonio: Sinclair owns the NBC and Fox stations there, and runs the CW station under a local marketing agreement. While San Antonio is one of the ten biggest cities in the USA, it is only in the top 40 metro areas, because more people live in the city.
There you go, if that law takes affect, and the DOJ doesn't say anything about that law, then 1 of the 2 stations (either KABB, or WOAI) would have to be sold, I think WOAI would be sold to Hearst, because they own The San Antonio Express-News, and they can do the same things that Gannett did when they purchased The Arizona Republic, put the 2 together under common ownership, same thing up there in Indianapolis (had Gannett not splitted up the newspapers from its tv stations) with that potential law, there again you could place WTTV under common ownership with The Indianapolis Star, all that Gannett would have to do is to apply for a pernament waiver to keep WTTV, and The Indianapolis Star.
There you go, if that law takes affect, and the DOJ doesn't say anything about that law, then 1 of the 2 stations (either KABB, or WOAI) would have to be sold,
Assuming the company doesn't challenge the rule, and Congress doesn't rescind it. Regulatory agencies only make rules, not laws. Congress is the only body that can make a law. The last time the FCC changed ownership rules, Congress rescinded them.
Exactly if those 2 things don't happen, then who's going to buy WOAI? Graham can't buy them (they own KSAT) Gannett can't buy them either (they own KENS) I think it's either Hearst or Scripps that buys WOAI, however Hearst owns The San Antonio Express-News but if Hearst can apply and get a permanent waiver to keep both The San Antonio Express-News and WOAI, that wouldn't be too much of a problem, Scripps, I'm not sure if they're even interested in that station, maybe Meredith, if that law where to be in effect right now, you don't have Sinclair repealing it, and congress doesn't rescind it, who will buy WOAI? Hearst, Scripps, or Meredith? Or even Tribune? I forgot about them too.Assuming the company doesn't challenge the rule, and Congress doesn't rescind it. Regulatory agencies only make rules, not laws. Congress is the only body that can make a law. The last time the FCC changed ownership rules, Congress rescinded them.
Exactly if those 2 things don't happen, then who's going to buy WOAI?
You're getting way ahead of the facts.
You're getting way ahead of the facts.
Nah, I'm good, I'm not getting ahead of the facts, the facts is this if this law is in effect right now, Sinclair would be forced to have to sell one of the 2 stations in San Antonio (either Fox affiliate KABB or NBC affiliate WOAI).
Nah, I'm good, I'm not getting ahead of the facts, the facts is this if this law is in effect right now, Sinclair would be forced to have to sell one of the 2 stations in San Antonio (either Fox affiliate KABB or NBC affiliate WOAI).
That's not a fact. That's a hypothetical.
That's not a fact. That's a hypothetical.
Wait a minute, how is it not a fact? If the government tells Sinclair they have to sell either KABB or WOAI, THEY MUST SELL IT? Got it?
Wait a minute, how is it not a fact? If the government tells Sinclair they have to sell either KABB or WOAI, THEY MUST SELL IT? Got it?
The "IF" part of your sentence makes it hypothetical. AFAIK, there has been no rule change. Until that happens, anything is conjecture.
The "IF" part of your sentence makes it hypothetical. AFAIK, there has been no rule change. Until that happens, anything is conjecture.
They have too, if the law where to be in effect right now, Sinclair cannot own Fox affiliate KABB and NBC affiliate WOAI, one of the 2 will have to be sold
They have too, if the law where to be in effect right now, Sinclair cannot own Fox affiliate KABB and NBC affiliate WOAI, one of the 2 will have to be sold
What "law" are you talking about? If you say it "were to be in effect," that means it's not a law, and this is just conjecture.
What "law" are you talking about? If you say it "were to be in effect," that means it's not a law, and this is just conjecture.
Smh, out comes my hair, I'm going bald
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.