• 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

Don’t lift the broadcast tv caps?

Umm wait what does he mean here and how is Comcast and Disney expanding exactly? If anything they are currently protecting their apps like Peacock, Hulu/Disney+ apps. Also how are Disney and Comcast left wing exactly?

Also Comcast is in the process of getting the Versant spinoff approved and finalized.

It’s all about the president controlling the Pentagon and White House press pools with ones that agree with him. Isn’t the lift the ownership caps ones Chairman Carr in the process of doing to get the Nexstar/Tegna deal and the Sinclair/EW Scripps deal approved in the name of boosting attention to ATSC 3.0?
 
Once again, he doesn't understand the difference between networks and stations. The ownership caps have nothing to do with networks. The FCC doesn't license or regulate networks. He keeps thinking they do. The networks aren't interested in buying more TV stations. Conservative-leaning groups such as Sinclair want to buy more stations. Sinclair & Nexstar are kissing Carr's butt so he'll approve their station deals.

For 35 years, the dems have fought to retain the current caps. For 35 years conservative repubs from Kevin Martin to Agit Pai have sought to loosen ownership caps. The president simply doesn't understand the subject at all. As my mama once said, it's better to be silent and thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Before he sends these tweets he needs to talk to his own people. Ask Carr first. Don't just repeat what Ruddy says.
 
while the idea of maintaining the cap limits is good idea, but this president want to do it in his own "extremist ways" to stop the "Liberal Left" from owning more media when in reality, it's "conservative right" media companies like Sinclair & Nexstar that wants it gone so they can buy out many TV stations in many areas.
 
Once again, he doesn't understand the difference between networks and stations. The ownership caps have nothing to do with networks. The FCC doesn't license or regulate networks. He keeps thinking they do. The networks aren't interested in buying more TV stations. Conservative-leaning groups such as Sinclair want to buy more stations. Sinclair & Nexstar are kissing Carr's butt so he'll approve their station deals.

For 35 years, the dems have fought to retain the current caps. For 35 years conservative repubs from Kevin Martin to Agit Pai have sought to loosen ownership caps. The president simply doesn't understand the subject at all. As my mama once said, it's better to be silent and thought a fool than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Before he sends these tweets he needs to talk to his own people. Ask Carr first. Don't just repeat what Ruddy says.
True and every time we hear about this we end up wondering where this is going.


Every time we hear the White House say "The Left" in the middle of a rant it has to be news articles Trump does not want seen and yes it even includes articles from Fox News when they have reports the White House don't want to here.
 
Once again, he doesn't understand the difference between networks and stations. The ownership caps have nothing to do with networks. The FCC doesn't license or regulate networks. He keeps thinking they do. The networks aren't interested in buying more TV stations. Conservative-leaning groups such as Sinclair want to buy more stations. Sinclair & Nexstar are kissing Carr's butt so he'll approve their station deals.
My interpretation is different. Rather than trying to explain the difference between a network and its affiliates, the administration is simply "going after the networks" with the understanding that the networks themselves know what is threatened. The average American does not know what is and what is not regulated by the FCC, but both the current administration and the webs themselves know what is being threatened.
 
Every time we hear the White House say "The Left" in the middle of a rant it has to be news articles Trump does not want seen and yes it even includes articles from Fox News when they have reports the White House don't want to here.

And that is something that even his supporters need to be educated about.

The first thing any dictatorship government does is seize control of the media. History proves that. It happens every single time.

And even those who may agree with the dictator will have opinions and views that are silenced in favor of their leader. The only difference between a dictatorship and the authoritarian government George Orwell depicted in 1984 is the rewriting of history and purging of inconvenient facts that stand in the way of what they want the people to believe. We have already seen hints of that with the current administration but (thank god) they do not have the ability to erase everything they do not agree with.

Trump and those members of his party who hold office are under the delusion that if only they can control the media they can get away with whatever they want. What they fail to understand is that their opponents both outnumber them and are visible and vocal.

Rather than trying to explain the difference between a network and its affiliates, the administration is simply "going after the networks" with the understanding that the networks themselves know what is threatened. The average American does not know what is and what is not regulated by the FCC, but both the current administration and the webs themselves know what is being threatened.

And that is why the simplistic thought process of the idiot-in-chief sort of works. There are very, very few people outside of our industry who know what the actual structure is, and I believe that more than half of them do think the networks own all of the affiliates. The display of the Nexstar or Sinclair logo at the end of the evening news is meaningless to them (or they think it's some kind of commercial).

In Albuquerque, where it is common knowledge that I consult a station group which owns radio stations throughout the state (and program at least one of the stations in the ABQ cluster), the owner has taken to running a 60-second ad several times a day reminding people that freedom of speech is a constitutional right and not just "the law of the land". You would never see Sinclair running such an ad.
 
My interpretation is different. Rather than trying to explain the difference between a network and its affiliates, the administration is simply "going after the networks" with the understanding that the networks themselves know what is threatened. The average American does not know what is and what is not regulated by the FCC, but both the current administration and the webs themselves know what is being threatened.

The president is supporting Chris Ruddy. Ruddy doesn't know what he's talking about. Read what Ruddy says:


"And it's not just the big networks," Ruddy said to host Shaun Kraisman. "Nexstar, a very liberal station group, they're looking for a merger that would give them 80% reach.” Ruddy noted that Nexstar operates liberal cable news channel NewsNation.

Nexstar isn't liberal. Neither is NewsNation. But they are a competitor to Newsmax. That's why Ruddy opposes them. So this is about Ruddy's selfish self interest.


Nexstar is the company that dropped Jimmy Kimmel. They are NOT liberal. Ruddy is smoking crack. Read Variety's take:


But the elimination or raising of the 39% would not expand the reach of ABC News or NBC News - which are already available in every U.S. TV household already. Instead, it would give more power to TV station group owners. And supporters of the move argue it would strengthen local TV journalism, amid the growing influence of tech giants on the news landscape.
 
Tegna shares dropped 5% after the president's tweet.



Nexstar is now trying to explain who they are to the dumbest president since Harding:

 
And that is something that even his supporters need to be educated about.

The first thing any dictatorship government does is seize control of the media. History proves that. It happens every single time.

And even those who may agree with the dictator will have opinions and views that are silenced in favor of their leader. The only difference between a dictatorship and the authoritarian government George Orwell depicted in 1984 is the rewriting of history and purging of inconvenient facts that stand in the way of what they want the people to believe. We have already seen hints of that with the current administration but (thank god) they do not have the ability to erase everything they do not agree with.

Trump and those members of his party who hold office are under the delusion that if only they can control the media they can get away with whatever they want. What they fail to understand is that their opponents both outnumber them and are visible and vocal.



And that is why the simplistic thought process of the idiot-in-chief sort of works. There are very, very few people outside of our industry who know what the actual structure is, and I believe that more than half of them do think the networks own all of the affiliates. The display of the Nexstar or Sinclair logo at the end of the evening news is meaningless to them (or they think it's some kind of commercial).


True too even in the CPB recissions aka “Defund NPR and PBS” it’s tied to free speech one way or another. In this case we have to deal with the likelihood that WETA-TV and WGBH-TV would have their licenses questioned over PBS Newshour and Frontline segments the White House does not want to hear. It’s all about political interference with local affiliate licenses and the GM’s have to consult their organizations legal team over what to do when chairman Carr and White House questions their license for political reasons.

The idea that TV and radio networks could have their license revoked came from stories like this when the previous Philippine leader decided to revoke the network license of a TV and radio network in the Philippines.


 
The idea that TV and radio networks could have their license revoked came from stories like this when the previous Philippine leader decided to revoke the network license of a TV and radio network in the Philippines.

Yep. The doofus-in-chief doesn't get that different countries have different regulatory structures for media.
 
My interpretation is different. Rather than trying to explain the difference between a network and its affiliates, the administration is simply "going after the networks" with the understanding that the networks themselves know what is threatened. The average American does not know what is and what is not regulated by the FCC, but both the current administration and the webs themselves know what is being threatened.

I don't know about that. While this U.S. president is a definite dictator wannabe, it's very clear from reports dating back to his first administration that the CIA had to "dumb down" reports about international happening so that he could understand their significance. What this president usually does (and The BigA is correct here) is that he reads or hears some commentary that he agrees with and then tries to put that commentary into action. It is no accident that so many people who were formerly Fox News commentators are now part of this administration, and they are there for the same reason as in the previous sentence.
 
The NAB has responded to all this, pointing out why Newsmax is saying this:


Who benefits from keeping broadcasters artificially small? Not viewers. Not communities. Certainly not the future of local news. The only beneficiaries are competitors like Newsmax trying to protect their turf by kneecapping the one platform capable of challenging them at scale.
 
The NAB has responded to all this, pointing out why Newsmax is saying this:

Why does the NAB want this so bad? They’re not controlled by the government. Jobs are going to be lost by merger. I never understood the argument that local tv stations are “losing out” to big tech
 
Why does the NAB want this so bad? They’re not controlled by the government. Jobs are going to be lost by merger. I never understood the argument that local tv stations are “losing out” to big tech

The NAB represents Nexstar, Sinclair, and all the big station owners. That's really all you need to know.

 
Why does the NAB want this so bad? They’re not controlled by the government. Jobs are going to be lost by merger. I never understood the argument that local tv stations are “losing out” to big tech
I heard about ATSC 3.0 as the reason why groups like Nexstar and Sinclair lobby for lifting ownership caps. NAB had some discussions of ATSC 3.0 at one point. I get what you mean the O&Os of the networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox are protected by their respective networks app. For Nexstsr and Sinclair who knows where this is going. What could Sinclair and Nexstar have done to make their places the top destinations outside of local news was yet to be seen beyond the ATSC 3.0 discussions.
 


Back
Top Bottom