-
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
ABC Pulls Jimmy Kimmel Live
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
- Status
You are forgetting that the ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates in the major markets have the largest, and often the only, news operations which are critical to supporting a network affiliate.
And, if you look at the Nextar/Tegna/Sinclair station lists, in many of their markets they own multiple "channels" and are no more likely to take an angry ABC on one of them, either.
And the biggest issue is that any further controversy involving Disney will affect the parent. Disney already took about a 2% hit in the last few days, and is off even more in post-closing hours today. That is minor, but they are likely to be thinking of how to put this behind them while moving on.
Okay. So, assuming the Trump FCC and/or the Republican-led Congress do in fact hold hearings on Disney's fitness as a licensee, putting those eight owned stations at risk), at the same time, ABC should tell its two largest affiliate groups, with stations in 68 American cities to just f**k off?
That starts an epic set of legal battles, which maybe ABC wins, maybe it doesn't. Meantime, it has to find 68 stations owned by other people to take those affiliations while the company is under attack from the U.S. government.
And if that works, Sinclair and Nexstar most likely take whichever affiliation got ditched by the stations that became the new ABC affiliates.
Can you see why Disney, its lawyers and stockholders, might not have much of an appetite for that?
Look at their station lists. They have a variety of stations with all the English language networks, even that lowly "5th network"
That isn’t going to happen. There’s reality and there’s fantasy. Disney would immediately lose a s—t ton of revenue on one side fighting with them and be buried under the government litigation on the other. It’s textbook mafia extortion.
The 8 owned stations are flagships where I’m sure a lot of the network content comes from. If ABC is forced to sell their own affiliates why would they want to keep feeding the others. They can just stream direct and avoid all the affiliates.
What’s stopping CBS NBC ABC FOX from going it alone at this point.
How long are the affiliate contracts. When they run out do they have to be renewed.
And, if you look at the station lists of Sinclair and Nexstar, you see a lot of stations in Red states and markets. The Big 3 webs own stations in the largest markets, most of which are Blue. But when you get down to Topeka and San Antonio, there are more Red zones. In those markets, viewer reaction is not going to favor confusing station affiliate swaps.
And, of course, if ABC went to an independent, that station would have to cancel a lot of syndicated shows at a penalty, build a news department and change its entire focus. And... Sinclair and Nexstar own more than one "channel" in many of their markets.
My guess is that Disney, at the corporate level, hopes this dies down fast before it has serious affects on the stock price and on market tracking sources that rate those strong buy - buy - hold - sell - strong sell levels on company shares. Interestingly, this came up this morning (PST) on my investment bank's regular monthly conference call; an investor questioned whether Disney specifically and "entertainment" shares were being reevaluated (the bank said "no" but that it was on their daily checklist should the situation "change".)
No ABC network content that I am aware of is generated at the owned-station level.
Given the way this administration plays, I expect ABC would be looking at a license forfeiture, not an order to divest.
For revenue.
There are contracts. And given that Disney already owns streaming, there's no new revenue to be generated---just the loss of advertising, affiliation and retransmission fees, which are huge.
Everything I just cited above.
They're usually five-ish years. They vary. And they aren't all renewed at once. In any given year, some are up for renewal. Gotta remember, these are contract cycles that began in 1948.
Such contracts are for multiple year periods. Each may be a little different, particularly in cases where stations must pay for some programming and in web compensation f
Google AI says: "TV network affiliate contracts typically last for three to five years, though some can be as short as one year or as long as ten. These contracts are not fixed, and the length can vary depending on the specific network and affiliate, the terms of the original agreement, and whether a particular station's affiliation has been renewed."
Go to Google search and enter "how long are tv network affiliate contracts" and read all about it.
We're at 21 pages. Is there any way I can help you grasp this?
The FCC can n ot "shut down" ABC as the FCC does not regulate networks. It can investigate the affiliate stations, including those owned by ABC, for having carried a false news item.
Technically, I believe, Live originates from WABC, more a distinction without a difference since it’s the syndication unit. But no, no actual network content comes from those stations.
There’s a reason none of the networks has “just moved to streaming.” Not saying they by won’t reach that point, but do you really think you have more financial data to rely on than people whose actual jobs are to project such things? They know the economic landscape forward and backward. Of course it changes over time, but we aren’t at the point they can make that work financially. Yet.
There’s a reason none of the networks has “just moved to streaming.” Not saying they by won’t reach that point, but do you really think you have more financial data to rely on than people whose actual jobs are to project such things? They know the economic landscape forward and backward. Of course it changes over time, but we aren’t at the point they can make that work financially. Yet.
Which it did not do.
At worst, a comedian mischaracterized the categorization of a self-confessed murder suspect on a comedy talk show.
Some of us disagree on several and various aspects of this particular subject and the causal on-air comment. This is part of why this board exists.
For those who don't know yet, I will state the obvious: Michael and I have very opposite or opposing political viewpoints. But we exchange perspectives on how these subjects are handled on radio and TV. I like and respect Michael, particularly since he added the picture of himself on the Sturgeon!
But there are many posts where folks have not even grasped that the FCC does not license networks. I just posted one response to show that, instead of cluttering this board with irrelevancies, users can not get rather / reasonably / approximately accurate answers by typing a few words into Google's AI assisted search bar.
I did not do my stupid friends' homework for them in school, and I am getting tired of doing the same here.
Or, in pseudo-Latin, "illegitimi non carborundum".
Let me just make one addition to David's note above.
Even if I held the same political viewpoint as David, I would be all over him if he posted erroneous or misleading stuff. I do it to people with whom I share a political viewpoint.
Part of it is journalism training, a deep respect for facts and the truth.
Another part of it is having been the victim of gaslighting in a longterm personal relationship. The details aren't important, but understand that if I believe anyone here is deliberately attempting to mislead, I go medieval really fast, I prove my points and I don't regret it for a single second.
"Leave 'em moanin'...a friend of mine used to say that."
----The Real Don Steele
Even if I held the same political viewpoint as David, I would be all over him if he posted erroneous or misleading stuff. I do it to people with whom I share a political viewpoint.
Part of it is journalism training, a deep respect for facts and the truth.
Another part of it is having been the victim of gaslighting in a longterm personal relationship. The details aren't important, but understand that if I believe anyone here is deliberately attempting to mislead, I go medieval really fast, I prove my points and I don't regret it for a single second.
"Leave 'em moanin'...a friend of mine used to say that."
----The Real Don Steele
- Status