Opponents of Sinclair/Tribune Are 'Naive' or Self-Serving, the Companies Say
Petitions to deny Sinclair buying Tribune are either “naive” or transparently self-serving, the two companies said in a partially redacted opposition filing Tuesday. It punched back at accusations from opponents such as Dish Network, Newsmax and Free Press that the deal would slow the incentive auction repacking, hurt broadcast localism, squeeze out independent programmers or break FCC ownership regulations. “None of the petitioners provides a shred of evidence demonstrating that the post-merger company will violate any Commission rule,” Sinclair and Tribune said. “Each of the petitioners is either trying to use this proceeding to stifle competition for its own economic interests or is still living in a pre-cable, pre-internet, pre-smartphone world, untethered from the economic realities of the current media market.” Despite the diverse opposition, the deal is expected to be approved (see 1708150063).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
Though Tuesday was the deadline for oppositions to petitions to deny, Sinclair and Tribune’s joint filing was the only one filed, according to the electronic comment filing system. An opponent said the dearth of filings from groups like NAB shows a broad lack of enthusiasm for the deal. An NAB spokesman said the association doesn't weigh in on individual transactions, only policies. Comcast had numerous groups weigh in on its behalf during its unsuccessful deal to buy Time Warner Cable; Sinclair is facing an FCC chairman seen as favorably inclined to the deal, a broadcast attorney said. Some endorsed the deal (see 1708210049).
Opponents repeatedly said Sinclair and Tribune didn’t provide enough information about public interest benefits. Though Tuesday’s opposition filing described plans for a Washington news bureau that would funnel news to all Sinclair stations, increased access to Congress, and an improved rollout of ATSC 3.0, it wasn’t sufficient, the Coalition to Save Local Media said. The coalition was formed by Dish, Public Knowledge and others to fight the deal. Sinclair’s filing “leaves too many questions unanswered about the public interest harms caused by the proposed merger,” a group statement said. “There is no basis for the FCC to allow this merger to proceed." Sinclair and Tribune noted the FCC found the creation of a D.C. news bureau to be a benefit to the public interest in its approval of Nexstar/Media General.
The current transaction doesn’t violate rules even though it would create a company that without divestitures would exceed the national ownership cap by “approximately 6.5%,” Sinclair and Tribune said. The deal will be brought into compliance, and it’s not unusual to wait to name specific divestitures, they said. “The Transaction cannot be closed until the DOJ review is complete anyway.” Sinclair is believed to have proposed the deal with the expectation that ownership rules would be relaxed, and Sinclair and Tribune argued there’s nothing wrong with that. They aren't “asking the Commission to guess at what rule changes it will make and then apply those changes to a grant of the Applications now; they are simply asking the Commission to apply any rule changes it adopts prior to acting on the Applications,” the filing said.
The ownership restrictions that Sinclair is pushing against with the Tribune deal are the same rules that allowed it to buy smaller stations and grow in the first place, said merger opponent Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy in an interview. The country is “better served” without a large broadcaster exerting “centralized control” over local news, Ruddy said. Though Sinclair and Tribune said Newsmax opposes the combination because it fears competition, Ruddy said his company regularly cooperates with other conservative media and isn’t afraid of Sinclair. Conservatives have benefited from media diversity, he said. “Speaking to members of the Trump administration and members of Congress, I’m surprised by how little they know about this deal and the implications it has for Republicans.”
Criticisms based on Sinclair’s political leanings should be instantly rejected by the FCC, Sinclair and Tribune said. “None of the Petitioners have shown any evidence of news slanting by any Sinclair station, only that the commentators on some Sinclair stations (whose commentaries are clearly labeled as such) do not meet their taste.” Such commentaries account for 1 percent of Sinclair’s weekly news hours, the filing said. “Petitioners provide no evidence that national news coverage is not of interest to a station’s local community.”
Sinclair and Tribune criticized arguments they said boiled down to Sinclair being too big to grow. “Accepting Petitioners’ arguments, no company of any size could acquire Tribune or Sinclair or ION or Univision or FOX or any other large station group, despite whether the FCC ownership rules permitted such a transaction,” Sinclair and Tribune said. The filing was particularly critical of Free Press, which Sinclair said presented false information about the company’s ownership interests. Such petitions “are extremely short on facts supported by affidavits of personal knowledge, but long on speculation, surmise, and demonstrably false statements,” Sinclair said. “It's telling that Sinclair would rather quibble over the technical details of ownership and attribution for stations they seem quite clearly to program and control,” replied Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood in an email. “They have nothing else to say in defense of the illusory public interest benefits."
Organizations such as the Competitive Carriers Association arguing that the new company deliberately would slow the repacking process are basing that claim on no evidence, Sinclair and Tribune said. “The disruption of repacking will be costly for broadcasters and Sinclair has no interest in a process that takes any longer than necessary.” The broadcasters also rejected the argument that a slower repack would be good for 3.0: “The earlier the repack is complete, the earlier ATSC 3.0 service can be launched in earnest.”