• 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

Gannett Buys Belo

W

WildcatGuy

Now that Gannett is buying Belo, I wonder what that means for the Louisville market? Will the Courier-Journal and WHAS-11 be reunited under the same ownership again?

They would need to get an FCC cross-ownership waiver for that, and I don't know how generous or tight-fisted the Commission is with those in this day and age.

It could shake up the radio market, if those two entities can join together to sell advertising against everyone else.

Two thirds of the old Bingham empire would be back together. Without a waiver, though, either the newspaper or the TV would need to be sold off to a third party.
 
WildcatGuy said:
Now that Gannett is buying Belo, I wonder what that means for the Louisville market? Will the Courier-Journal and WHAS-11 be reunited under the same ownership again?
Click to expand...

5. Will their entire operation fold into the broadcast division operation?

Gannett will be providing support services to stations in the Louisville, Phoenix, Portland, St. Louis and Tucson DMAs and these stations will be separately owned. In all of the remaining DMAs, the Belo stations will be fully integrated into the broadcast division’s operations, which will be led by Dave Lougee.

In other words, they'll be under a shadow company controlled by Gannett that will "own" those stations where there are duopoly issues.

Link: TVSpy
 
WildcatGuy said:
Now that Gannett is buying Belo, I wonder what that means for the Louisville market? Will the Courier-Journal and WHAS-11 be reunited under the same ownership again?

They would need to get an FCC cross-ownership waiver for that, and I don't know how generous or tight-fisted the Commission is with those in this day and age.
Click to expand...

Louisville may be a tough hurdle to clear. According to the FCC's website, "The FCC also presumes that a combination of a newspaper and a TV station is in the public interest if: (1) the TV station is not ranked among the top four stations in the DMA; and (2) at least eight independently owned major media voices (major newspapers and/or full-power TV stations) would remain in the market following the transaction." Does Louisville even have eight "independently owned major media voices"? Furthermore, "In DMAs ranked 21 and smaller, the FCC presumes that a proposed newspaper/broadcast combination is not in the public interest – meaning that proposed pairings in such markets face a heavy burden in attempting to win approval."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/review-broadcast-ownership-rules

So if Gannett has to divest one, which one do they get rid of? The newspaper, that has seen revenues constantly drop over the years and is a dying industry, or the TV station?
 
Bengalsfan said:
WildcatGuy said:
Now that Gannett is buying Belo, I wonder what that means for the Louisville market? Will the Courier-Journal and WHAS-11 be reunited under the same ownership again?

They would need to get an FCC cross-ownership waiver for that, and I don't know how generous or tight-fisted the Commission is with those in this day and age.
Click to expand...

Louisville may be a tough hurdle to clear. According to the FCC's website, "The FCC also presumes that a combination of a newspaper and a TV station is in the public interest if: (1) the TV station is not ranked among the top four stations in the DMA; and (2) at least eight independently owned major media voices (major newspapers and/or full-power TV stations) would remain in the market following the transaction." Does Louisville even have eight "independently owned major media voices"? Furthermore, "In DMAs ranked 21 and smaller, the FCC presumes that a proposed newspaper/broadcast combination is not in the public interest – meaning that proposed pairings in such markets face a heavy burden in attempting to win approval."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/review-broadcast-ownership-rules

So if Gannett has to divest one, which one do they get rid of? The newspaper, that has seen revenues constantly drop over the years and is a dying industry, or the TV station?
Click to expand...

I'm sure WHAS11 makes more money than the CJ. Right?
 
WHAS11 will be "owned" by a separate company, and Gannett will provide services under LMAs or SSAs, whichever acronym they feel works best, I suppose. The same will go for KMOV over in STL, as well as Belo's TV properties in Phoenix, Tucson and I believe Portland (have to check my notes). From what I understood yesterday, it gets them around the need for waivers and they can still claim the stations' results with the rest of the company. (Nexstar does the same with Mission, I believe.)

And now that I look back, this is all pretty much what Keith said above.
 
JDTVB said:
WHAS11 will be "owned" by a separate company, and Gannett will provide services under LMAs or SSAs, whichever acronym they feel works best, I suppose. The same will go for KMOV over in STL, as well as Belo's TV properties in Phoenix, Tucson and I believe Portland (have to check my notes). From what I understood yesterday, it gets them around the need for waivers and they can still claim the stations' results with the rest of the company. (Nexstar does the same with Mission, I believe.)

And now that I look back, this is all pretty much what Keith said above.
Click to expand...

You'd think the FCC would have caught onto this little loophole by now. I guess as long as the EAS works, public file is up to date and ASR numbers are visible, they could care less about the rest of it.
 
Bengalsfan said:
You'd think the FCC would have caught onto this little loophole by now. I guess as long as the EAS works, public file is up to date and ASR numbers are visible, they could care less about the rest of it.
Click to expand...

Every once in a while, there's a rumbling that they're going to fix it, and then the talk subsides. I'm waiting for someone to get caught for an EAS or public file violation and use the "Well, you're not enforcing the ownership rules, why is what I'm doing more important?" argument to get out of it.
 
JDTVB said:
WHAS11 will be "owned" by a separate company, and Gannett will provide services under LMAs or SSAs, whichever acronym they feel works best, I suppose. The same will go for KMOV over in STL, as well as Belo's TV properties in Phoenix, Tucson and I believe Portland (have to check my notes). From what I understood yesterday, it gets them around the need for waivers and they can still claim the stations' results with the rest of the company. (Nexstar does the same with Mission, I believe.)

And now that I look back, this is all pretty much what Keith said above.
Click to expand...

And this is why the lawyers make so much money. :)
 
Bengalsfan said:
You'd think the FCC would have caught onto this little loophole by now. I guess as long as the EAS works, public file is up to date and ASR numbers are visible, they could care less about the rest of it.
Click to expand...

The FCC created this loophole. It also gets copies of every SSA and can veto agreements, or portions of agreements, it objects to. It doesn't do so very often but has done so occasionally.
 
Kent said:
Bengalsfan said:
You'd think the FCC would have caught onto this little loophole by now. I guess as long as the EAS works, public file is up to date and ASR numbers are visible, they could care less about the rest of it.
Click to expand...

The FCC created this loophole. It also gets copies of every SSA and can veto agreements, or portions of agreements, it objects to. It doesn't do so very often but has done so occasionally.
Click to expand...

So why have the rule at all if they are going to create a loophole to get around it?
 
Simple. The loophole was created because smaller market stations were under increased pressure from networks, especially Fox, to air news with little or no additional advertising rates. The idea was that it was better to have an established operator run these news operations for the smaller guys than it was to force the smaller operators to sell to bigger broadcasters. Also, there are functions, like master control and traffic helicopters, that can easily be combined more efficiently without any adverse effects to competition and the market. So, stations could enter into these SSA's, and the bigger broadcasters could make a bit of extra money since adding these newscasts wouldn't be free. The FCC would then be able to review SSA's and make sure they were legal.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom