• 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

Tribune to sell its Big Three???

R

Rollo-Smokes

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that the Tribune Co. has begun shopping its three largest-market television stations -- WPIX New York, KTLA Los Angeles, and WGN-TV Chicago -- to interested parties.

It's notable that each of these three stations are co-located with a Tribune-owned newspaper: KTLA with the aforementioned Times; WPIX with Newsday; and WGN-TV with the Chicago Tribune. And, with the broadcast licenses up for renewal in the near future, tt is these cross-ownership situations which may serve as the reason's behind cash-strapped Tribune's apparent decision to sell off these heritage stations.

WGN-TV and WPIX are Tribune's two original and oldest television properties, signing-on respectively in April and June of 1948. KTLA was purchased in 1985.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tribune10nov10,0,224258.story?coll=la-home-headlines
(registration may be required)
 
Re: Tribune to sell its Big Three???...and all the rest???

All the Trib stations will probably be sold off piecemeal. I started a thread on the Texas TV board dealing with KDAF in DFW and KHCW in Houston.

For those of you in Tribune markets across the country: Thoughts on who might wind up with your local station?
 
In researching this story, I was surprised that the Chicago Tribune, the company's flagship newspaper, hasn't reported it yet.

While I can wax poetic about WGN-TV and WPIX being among the oldest pairs of co-owned television stations operating, I have another question: why doesn't Tribune simply spin-off the whole broadcasting division -- including Tribune Entertainment -- into a separate company? That may help reduce the strain on the company's stock price, and it should generate enough cash to keep the newspapers in the black. Maybe that will quiet the Chandlers for a while.

As for the company's other holdings, there are parties interested in acquiring the Baltimore Sun (that whole Times-Mirror purchase really hit them hard, didn't it?), and I'm sure they can rid themselves of their ABC/CW duopoly in New Orleans, and their group of Fox affiliates. I'm also sure there are several Chicago Cubs fans out there who wouldn't mind seeing Tribune sell their team to someone who can commit to fielding a perennial contender, especially after this past 96-loss season.

I realize that WGN-TV, WPIX, and KTLA will bring in loads of cash from someone. Perhaps CBS, which would be most logical because of the CW affiliation, but they've got their own problems there. I'd really hate to see these stations become duopoly partners to someone who's going to downgrade the programming and news quality (but I will say that anything would be better than needless double-runs of Jerry Springer and Maury in daytime).
 
Re: Tribune to sell its Big Three???...and all the rest???

Mediafrog+ said:
All the Trib stations will probably be sold off piecemeal. I started a thread on the Texas TV board dealing with KDAF in DFW and KHCW in Houston.

For those of you in Tribune markets across the country: Thoughts on who might wind up with your local station?
Click to expand...

I think they'll have a hard time selling off WPHL. While Cox, Hearst, Gannett, Belo, Allbritton, Scripps, Sunbeam, Sinclair and these other companies that don't have top 3 market presence maybe looking for duopolies, the big 4 networks aren't buying stations. CBS possibly - but CBS owns KYW and WPSG already.The other stations besides WPHL here are mainly all O&O, or small independents, which rules out most duopoly strategies.

I think NBC would be a great owner for a duopoly (NBC10 & 17) though. It'd assure NBC10 News at 10PM on 17, and possibly some shows would move back and forth between the stations like : Maury, Montel, Megan Mullally, and Ellen DeGeneres. So instead of Jerry Springer running 3 times a day, it may reduce to 2 episodes, with Ellen running twice.

WWSI Telemundo's over the air signal reaches the Atlantic Ocean, not Philadelphia; NBC could use a digital subchannel of WPHL to relay Telemundo - maybe from WWSI.

If Fox bought 17, a competing 10pm news would be gone, though there would be probably be some weaker shows moving from 29 to 17, while 29 expands their news offerings.
 
I could see CBS attempting to purchase WGN and WPIX as duopolies with their existing stations in New York and Chicago. Though I don't know that the FCC or Dems in congress would support it. KTLA, on the other hand, there's no telling who that could go to. CBS already co-owns KCAL-9 in LA, so they're out. Fox is out, owning KTTV and KCOP. NBC out too, owning 3 stations in Los Angeles (KNBC and the two spanish-language stations that broadcast Telemundo). ABC, perhaps, but they own no-other duopolies so would they even want it?

I don't know that there are any other stations group with enough money or clout to even try to purchase the stations group. Heart-Argyle? Gannett? Cox? Most of the broadcast industry is over-leveraged as it is and these three stations alone could fetch hundreds of millions of dollars each.

As for the suggestion that Tribune spin the stations off to support the newspapers: The stations group isn't supporting the papers now, what makes it likely that a spin-off of the broadcast assets would do any better? Simply being able to sell their own stock?

The declining readership and advertising at the newspapers is the root cause of the problems at Tribune...and it pretty much all started with the purchase of Times-Mirror papers from the Chandler family in 2000.
 
Also dont forget they own the looser cubs. Always in last place. Since the sox won the world series the cubs havnt been able to fill the field so this has been a finacial strain. I live in chicago. I would like to see WGN go back to its roots and air locally produced shows again. the station has fallen apart since they took all that programing off at went national.
 
Mediafrog+ said:
For those of you in Tribune markets across the country: Thoughts on who might wind up with your local station?
Click to expand...

Here in Hartford/New Haven, Tribune owns WTIC-TV/DT (FOX) channel 61/D 31 of Hartford and operates "sister" station WTXX-TV/DT (CW) channel 20/D 12 of Waterbury. They managed to get around an FCC loophole, seeing as they also own "The Hartford Courant" newspaper.
 
Maybe Warner Bros will decide to start a real station division (not just WTBS).

Just think if UPN and the WB had remained separate assets a little while longer, or this had happened a little sooner? Take your pick:

  • This doesn't happen
  • Tribune sells these stations to another big station group which has to deal with the WB some more
  • Tribune sells to ABC, NBC or - to get REALLY juicy - CBS, putting WB in the same bad boat as UPN, having its top stations owned by a rival network - in both of these cases WB is probably screwed and starts tumbling down, along with UPN, to its demise without a replacement network
  • Tribune sells to Warner Bros., who at long last has true O&Os for its network (note: whoever Tribune sells to probably also gets what was its stake in the WB)
 
I really hate to see Tribune give up WGN seeing as it's been locally owned since sign-on. As for WPIX and KTLA, I wouldn't mind seeing it end up in local hands.
 
CBS cant buy any of the tribune 3, they would be over the ownership cap
FOX is in the same ownership cap boat

so, lets see who that leaves
GANNETT
A Limited Liability Company Partnership
Hearst-Argyle
Post-Newsweek
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CBS wouldn't be over the cap, since they already own stations in these markets. I thought that once you're in a market, the second station doesn't "cost" you anything coverage-wise...

Now, if CBS bought say KPLR in St. Louis (where the currently don't own a TV station), that could put them over the top...

Fox, OTOH, has duopolies in most of these markets - although buying WGN (and selling WPWR) would allow them to upgrade their signal from a UHF to a VHF (at least temporarily - I don't know what the final outcome of the DT stations is in Chicago). (Do UHF stations still count for half on the ownership caps now, and what about digital?)

Jim
 
Jim said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but CBS wouldn't be over the cap, since they already own stations in these markets. I thought that once you're in a market, the second station doesn't "cost" you anything coverage-wise...
Click to expand...

Correct. You can own a second station without the cap going up

Jim said:
Now, if CBS bought say KPLR in St. Louis (where the currently don't own a TV station), that could put them over the top...
Click to expand...

Perhaps but if they want a St Louis station bad enough they can always sell another off.

Jim said:
Fox, OTOH, has duopolies in most of these markets - although buying WGN (and selling WPWR) would allow them to upgrade their signal from a UHF to a VHF (at least temporarily - I don't know what the final outcome of the DT stations is in Chicago). (Do UHF stations still count for half on the ownership caps now, and what about digital?)
Click to expand...

Currently UHF count for half. After the transition to digital NBC, CBS, FOX and ABC will no longer receive the UHF discount. Several groups are pushing to eliminate the discount all together.

It would be intresting to see FOX buy WGN-TV. Although WGN and WFLD were fairly competitive before FOX. But WFLD has a weak UHF over the air signal compared to WCPX (38) and WCIU (26). Heck I live 15 mintues NW of downtown and low power WWME-CA comes in 10 times clearer than WFLD or WPWR.

The story to me though seems like Tribune has no intention of selling the stations unless it can't get a permenent waiver to own newspapers and TV stations in the same market. Seems like they are shopping now. Tribune has said as recently as two months ago they will not sell the Wrigley Building or the Cubs, for whatever that is worth.

It would be interesting to see FOX buy WGN as even though it's a VHF would they transfer FOX to it? Or would they transfer WFLD call letters and all to channel 9. Channel 32 is well branded and strong as FOX.

What about LA. Couldn't NBC easily buy KTLA and sell off their UHF station or stations if they had to. I think LA is one fo the few markets eligable for a triopoly. And then make the VHF signal a Telemundo? In a heavily hispanic market it seems to make sense.

Although with digital the VHF issue makes less sense now. That will really be the big factor. Does it make sense to buy a station for a VHF signal if it's going to go in two years or so.



Jim
 
Editor & Publisher has a no-registration-required roundup.

Tribune Co. has become a takeover target. David Geffen is leading an investment group that wants to purchase Tribune Co. and bring the L.A. Times back to local ownership.

Also, the L.A. Times has been in turmoil for some time. Its publisher was fired last month, its top editor was forced out last week and its newsroom will be subject to layoffs. The publisher and top editor were let go on orders from Chicago.
 
LA Times reports today Gannett is talking about buying the papers.

I'd wager Gannett buys the TV chain.
 
I just read an articel talking about a bidding war between two groups vieing for all of Tribunes assets, including all TV stations, Newspapers and the Cubs. This would allow either group to have control of the LA Times and sell the rest of the properties off. I agree with what some of you have said that Gannet would be a perfect buyer for a number the Tribune properties...however in some markets, like here in Denver, that would not be possiable, since Gannett just bought KTVD channel 20 to go along with KUSA-9. However, fox which owns channel 31, whcich is faced with the problem of being carried on channel 13 by Comcast here, I know would love to get on a stronger channel like Tribune owned KWGN channel 2. Plus remeber that KWGN is the third oldest TV station in the Tribune cluster. So while Gannett may be a good bet for most markets...it won't work in all - including Denver.
 
Morgan Wick said:
Maybe Warner Bros will decide to start a real station division (not just WTBS).
Click to expand...

Can't happen right now, since a rule still exists which prohibits common ownership of broadcast TV stations and cable systems in the same market. It's why Time Warner doesn't have any cable systems in Atlanta -- they would have been forced to sell off WTBS, which would have been a problem until recently, since WTBS used to be a Superstation that provided the TBS cable/satellite feed. Now, I think it is the other way around, with the TBS programming being rebroadcast on WTBS.

Repeal of the cable/broadcast TV crossownership rule was on the table in the FCC's ownership deregulation proceeding in 2003 -- and ended up in the ditch along with the rest of the proposed rules changes as a result of a massive public uproar. Between that and the recent Democratic takeover of the House and Senate, I doubt that rule will be going away.
 
I just saw on the WGN news tonight that the group led by David Geffen wants to buy only the LA Times and then spin off the remainder into a seperate company or failing that just buy the LA Times.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom