At least a couple who are objecting to the Univision deal were saying the complaints about the WSUA deal were unfounded.
-
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
At least a couple who are objecting to the Univision deal were saying the complaints about the WSUA deal were unfounded.
Correct, the one I remember was Rubio.
Two more Radio Mambi hosts have left the station, rather than work for LMN. Even though the change in ownership has not been approved yet by the FCC.
www.insideradio.com
More ‘Radio Mambi’ Hosts Decamp For Americano Media.
Two more hosts have exited conservative talk “Radio Mambi” WAQI Miami ahead of its pending sale to the newly formed Latino Media Network, which is purchasing 18 radio stations from
They were picked because of their party affiliation and militancy, not because they have any business or specific radio experience. They are figureheads.
But Mary had extensive experience in media with Reader's Digest and then the Association of Magazine Media. She understood using a defined audience attracted by a good product to sell advertising. And the Reader's Digest is in English, the AMM affiliates publish in English and Ms Berner speaks, reads and writes English.
If one is going to do "fair and balanced" Spanish language talk radio, it would seem totally and absolutely essential to be fluent in the language and immersed in the culture. The two women have neither quality.
They said in Spanish language declarations that they wanted to be with a growing organization and "ready" when Radio Mambí ceases to be the voice of the Hispanic political exile community.
It looks like Univision found a way to get rid of some problem employees without being cast as the bad guy.
So instead of the controversy scaring off the new investors, it's instead scaring off old employees.
As reported in the press, the key staff members were offered up to $120,000 in bonus money to stay on board until the sale and programming agreement were consummated. For Univision, these have been valued employees for many, many years.
... who were the core of the highest rated AM in the market.
What is the likelihood of what is Radio Mambi reforming on another station in the market? WURN, WWFE, etc.? Do any of the other Spanish spoken word stations in the market have a right-of-center/anti-totalitarianism point of view that would accommodate some of this programming/hosts as they leave WAQI?
I know Americano has what is like a public access channel on SiriusXM.
There are several.
All the Spanish language AMs are talk or sports. The talk stations with one exception are anti-Communist. 1260 WSUA is more centrist, but that is because it is focused on Colombians only (It's name, CARACOL Radio means "CAdena RAdial COLombiana" or "Colombian Radio Network") and covers lots of Colombian things like sports and news. All the rest are staunchly anti-Communist.
And it streams. If they wanted to, they could LMA one of the AMs in Miami that is not doing as well.
The only actual pro-socialist radio group I know of is Pacifica.
An Unusual LMA In Univision Sale Of 18 Radio Stations Contested In Petition To Deny Sale.
The highly controversial sale of 18 Spanish language radio stations from TelevisaUnivision to Latino Media Group is running into more opposition at the Federal Communications Commission. A petition to deny
Here is more on the Univision talks.
The petitioner is asking the FCC to make its decisions based on politics and programming, neither of which they do.
The "right to use" issue is no different from radio stations that turn over local programming to networks or syndicators. In this case, the petitioner will actually benefit, by continuing to hear the previous programming on the station after the sale. Isn't that what the petitioner wants? The fact that it's unusual isn't relevant.
No, they are asking for an inquiry into the "reverse LMA" where the seller retains content control and a majority position on programming decisions well after the closing. This is a unique situation that has never been done before and perhaps needs to be regulated by administrative law.
No, it's not. Of 8 "voices" on the proposed programming committee in place after the sale closes, 5 are controlled by the seller.
In the case of most stations, it makes no difference as, except for McAllen and Fresno, none of the stations except WAQI have any measurable audience. But the buyer has publicly stated that one station... one alone... will be adjusted for more balance. And that station is WAQI, the only AM in the package with a sizable measured audience.
In other words, "we won't change the programming on the stations nobody listens to, but the one station that has considerable audience and whose programming we violently disagree with will be altered".
The petitioner is also asking for further investigation of how the lead lender ends up with around a 50% equity position as well: are they a buyer or a lender. If they are a buyer, they need to pass muster for that position including analysis of foreign ownership'.
Last edited:
Then you're getting the FCC into regulating programming.
Correct, which means the programming on the station in question remains unchanged. Except for a couple of employees who quit.
It's pretty clear that they're a lender.
No, this is about the seller retaining control of program decisions after the sale is approved and closed. Never done before.
All the WAQI commentators quit. Since WAQI is the only station mentioned by the buyers as needing "change", and the other Miami AM a) has no audience and b) is networked non-local sports, this is all about WAQI.
No, they will have approximately 50% equity per the inquiry. Equity means ownership.
As you said, there's a committee. The buyer wants to retain continuity of programming for a set time. Then it reverts to the buyer. This is a temporary situation, not a long term plan. But it's to the benefit of the petitioner, because the format in Miami remains. There's nothing illegal about any of this. The seller is getting paid for the content. Everything is legal.
But any change is subject to the committee. At least for the short term. And the seller makes up the majority of the committee.
Is all of that in the sales document in such a way that the FCC knows it?
In the TV world this is what is holding up the sale of Tegna to Standard General. The involvement of Apollo Global Management as a lender is raising eyebrows as Apollo also has controlling interest in Cox Media Group, which is bring up questions about ownership caps in certain markets.
There is nothing in prior FCC administrative law or the rules about a seller retaining a majority voting position on future programming after the closing. This is a very new concept that has never been seen or examined before.
Yes, after the sale they retain a majority "vote" on content despite no longer being the owner or holding an LMA agreement. This is a new concept. It may well be "approvable" but needs to be reviewed.
Apparently the petitioner sees this in the sales agreement and finds it unusual enough to ask how an entity can be a 50% owner as well as the majority lender without the strange situation of lending money to itself. And that smells odd.
If the buyer approves, then where's the problem? The FCC doesn't regulate programming. The buyer is still legally responsible.
The petitioner objects to the politics of the lender, and therefore wants to make it an issue. The lender is a US citizen, never convicted of a crime, and is legally able to own US broadcasting. He may have some foreign interests, but so does Univision.
The FCC regulates control of the license. This is a situation where the petitioner believes that the seller is retaining operrating control of stations after a sale.
And he has a good one that needs definition going forward, as it has never been done before.
The issue is how a lender can also be an owner of the properties they are financing. This is like lending yourself money to buy your own house, but where the seller retains the control of painting, furnishing and decorating.
- Status