broadbandbreakfast.com
True and every time we hear about this we end up wondering where this is going.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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).
verafiles.org
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.
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.
It is no accident that so many people who were formerly Fox News commentators are now part of this administration
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.
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 techThe NAB has responded to all this, pointing out why Newsmax is saying this:
![]()
The Desperation of National Cap Objectors - NAB Blog
We’re now at the predictable moment in a Washington fight when the losing side abandons policy arguments and retreats to the last refuge of the desperate: “Well, it doesn’t matter anyway, the agency doesn’t have the authority to do this.” In fairness, it’s a classic, time-honored move. When...www.blog.nab.org
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.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
NAB is tricking people into supporting lifting the ownership cap under the ruse of it having something to do with "keeping football on free TV":