Sinclair pushing takeover of Scripps

[K.M. Richards]

I may have asked this before but why is there still a UHF discount when VHF signals perform more poorly with digital TV for most people?

Because despite calls for that to be rescinded now that digital reversed the UHF-VHF signal situation (as you correctly point out), the FCC is still acting as if we were still using analog transmission and has kept the discount in place.

Personally, I think they should just amend it to give VHF stations the discount instead, and grandfather in everyone who complies based on the existing rule. But my guess is that this is something to be dealt with if and when the ownership caps are changed or eliminated.

 

[TexasTom]

Recognizing and accepting the current regulatory landscape, and taking the appropriate actions on that basis, is a key responsibility of network and broadcast executives. Whether is was much ado about little or much, the stakes for Disney and ABC affiliate investors was at stake and that is more important than mollifying the ego of a low rated late night host.

This isn't the first time affiliates pre-empted ABC Programming. NYPD Blue was not carried in many markets because some affiliates found the content to be objectionable. Perhaps carriage agreements no longer allow this, I don't know, but the circumstance is similar.

There's a key difference between what happened over 30 years ago with "NYPD Blue" and what happened just a couple months ago with "Jimmy Kimmel". The difference is that the FCC did not pressure or threaten stations to get them to dump "NYPD Blue", but that's exactly what happened with Kimmel. So to treat these as remotely comparable is being dishonest.

 

[TheBigA]

the FCC did not pressure or threaten stations to get them to dump "NYPD Blue", but that's exactly what happened with Kimmel.

We should be careful about talking about the FCC, when in reality we're just talking about Brendan Carr. The FCC never did or said anything about KImmel. But Carr said a lot in interviews and tweets. Nothing with actual FCC letterhead. Nothing from any of the bureaus. Nothing brought to a vote. Nothing sent to licensees. It was discussed in the public meeting because Gomez brought it up. But it was quickly pushed aside. Carr can't take away licenses unless it goes through the process.

 

[K.M. Richards]

We should be careful about talking about the FCC, when in reality we're just talking about Brendan Carr.

As I just said a few minutes ago in the other thread, what everyone seems to forget when posting is that Carr has no power on his own as FCC chair. He cannot issue executive orders, he cannot force the other commissioners to follow his lead, and no matter how much Sinclair and Nexstar cozy up to him, when it comes to decision making, he only has his own vote to cast.

I think (as I also just said) the whole Kimmel situation has been resolved and further discussion of it is pointless. And I note that when I went back to that thread to copy the link, @Y2kTheNewOldies apparently agrees.

So perhaps @TheBigA's on-point comments in both threads should be the definitive last word.

 

[K.M. Richards]

And the Scripps board of directors has rejected the Sinclair offer:

Scripps Board To Sinclair: Take A Hike | Radio & Television Business Report

The E.W. Scripps Co. said late Tuesday that its board determined, "following a careful review and evaluation in consultation with its financial and legal advisors," that Sinclair’s offer for $7 per share in a mix of cash and stock is not in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

rbr.com

 

[Mediafrog+]

Here’s the official Scripps statement: The E.W. Scripps Company board determines the Sinclair proposal is not in the best interests of the company and its shareholders

Of course this could be a move in a much longer game, so I wouldn’t consider it to be a dead issue.