Graham Media Group is another one that might be gobbled up. I’m amazed they are still around with their tiny station portfolio.
-
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
Sinclair pushing takeover of Scripps
- Thread starter Mediafrog+
- Start date
Albittron is already gone; was purchased by Sinclair a while ago.
I feel like a lot of you forget that Graham is owned by a massive group with investments in multiple industries that could buy Nexstar out of they wanted to.
But they don't seem to be interested in growing their traditional media holdings. Which shouldn't be a surprise.
Or they care enough about their viewers to hold the network accountable when a host oversteps. Reasonable people could look at it that way.
You're upset because they did their viewers that favor?
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Delurking just long enough to rebut this on rational grounds.
Sinclair does not have an obligation -- or even a right, given their network affiliation contract -- to unilaterally decide for the viewers of its station whether or not they have a right to watch Kimmel ... or Grey's Anatomy, or the Rookie, or even America's Funniest Videos.
Any viewer who disagreed with Kimmel had the ability, on their own, to watch something else on another channel. Sinclair's stations are merely a conduit for ABC to be available to those viewers who want to watch their programming.
"Favor"? More like a disservice and not in the public interest as broadly defined.
Logging back out now.
reasonable people do not have to watch that show if they do not want to as well. there are lots of other channels to turn to if some people do not want to see that show. There are many channels even over the air now a days. so, that is a poor excuse.
Thanks.
As to the other point, they had rational grounds to pre-empt Kimmel when, and for the duration, they did. It was a tinderbox of an issue Kimmel made a poor choice to make light of. It shouldn't have required a affiliate revolt to get the network to act, but it did.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Logging back in for another rebuttal that I had hoped would not be necessary.
I will repeat: It was not Sinclair's right to decide for its viewers. It was their actions (and Nexstar's) that caused ABC to suspend Kimmel. Once that happened, Sinclair was not pre-empting "for the duration", the network was. Note that the network acted with caution ... they did not fire Kimmel, instead suspending the show while they engaged in discussions with him. I know that didn't make Trump happy, and it seems it didn't make you very happy either.
And the description of the situation as an "affiliate revolt" is laughable. Other than those two station groups, not a single affiliate refused to carry Kimmel the day after the remark (which, being a regular viewer of the show, I agree was blown completely out of proportion by Sinclair and Nexstar). After the very temporary and short-lived suspension, it was entirely a network decision to put him back on the air, and I suspect, given your choice of words, you disagree with that decision.
Therefore, I would give the same advice to you as I would to any other person who was offended (and thin-skinned, IMHO): Just watch another channel at 11:35pm.
Sinclair ramping up the pressure on Scripps (article not paywalled for me): Sinclair Sends Scripps Board An ‘Actionable’ Merger Proposal | Radio & Television Business Report
Non-paywalled article from the AP: AP Sinclair/Scripps story.
If you look at what they are offering per share compared to what Scripps is trading at they seem pretty eager to acquire Scripps.
With one uneducated tweet, the president just blew up Sinclair's attempted takeover of Scripps
thedesk.net
The president believes the company that dropped Jimmy Kimmel is a liberal company. He really should ask Carr before he tweets.
www.poynter.org
Broadcast TV stocks dip after Trump opines about ownership rules
November 24, 2025 - President Trump appeared to side against reforming broadcast ownership rules in a post on Truth Social on Sunday.
thedesk.net
The president believes the company that dropped Jimmy Kimmel is a liberal company. He really should ask Carr before he tweets.
‘We are the anti-fake news.’ Nexstar appeals to Trump while seeking a merger with Tegna - Poynter
The broadcaster is pressing the FCC to fast-track a $6.2B deal that would expand its reach to more than half of US households
www.poynter.org
Last edited:
Nexstar and Sinclair are accountable for THEIR licenses. When the network is airing irresponsible programming which could place the stations license at risk, they absolutely have the right to pre-empt that programming. After Kimmel, being chastened by his removal, returned and made clear he wasn't going off the rails, they returned him to the air.
I don't care if he's on the air or not. I don't watch. But to suggest that the station groups need to be lemmings and potentially follow a network off a cliff is genuinely laughable.
There was nothing "irresponsible" about it. Some people may not agree. That's not the same thing.
Everything he said was scripted and reviewed by lawyers. He said it on Monday, and there were no objections until two days later when brought in an interview up by Brendan Carr. Otherwise they wouldn't have known about it.
Apparently ABC thought there was or they wouldn't have pulled him from the air.
They wanted a "cooling off period." It wasn't a punishment for what he said. They only did it because of Brendan Carr.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
With as much due respect as I can muster, sir, you have a completely unrealistic idea of how this business works.
You keep saying much the same thing as a reply to every rebuttal we have made. What you are saying is not even close to being an accurate description of what happened. I could easily accuse you of not actually listening to our responses.
In terms that everyone will understand ... your posts read as "fake news" in my book.