It is important we tell our story en route to becoming a big league city, or whatever it is we are striving for.
Oklahoma City looks **TERRIBLE*** here. We shouldn't stand for this


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/13/sinclair-broadcasting-armstrong-williams-642997

Armstrong Williams got ‘sweetheart’ deal from Sinclair
Selling TV stations to select buyers for below-market prices could jeopardize FCC approval of Sinclair-Tribune merger.

By JASON SCHWARTZ 06/13/2018 05:05 AM EDTArmstrong Williams got ‘sweetheart’ deal from Sinclair
Selling TV stations to select buyers for below-market prices could jeopardize FCC approval of Sinclair-Tribune merger.

By JASON SCHWARTZ 06/13/2018 05:05 AM EDT

Armstrong Williams is acquiring three local television stations from Sinclair Broadcasting Group -- in Seattle, Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City – for $4.95 million. | Kirk Irwin/Getty Images for SiriusXM..........

Nevermind, I think. This pop'd up on my thread and it looks like the merger isn't going to be approved. Good news. We got lucky, I think?

Is this a political thread veiled as a non-political thread?

Is this a political thread veiled as a non-political thread?
Yes... just like Sinclair programming is veiled as journalism.

Ok?

He’s kinda right about that. Sinclair is notorious for pushing biased messages through their affiliates and threatening the jobs of producers and managers if scripted stories aren’t read and run verbatim.

I’ll link the Jon Oliver piece, because it’s humurous. The meat starts just after the 8 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc

Is this a political thread veiled as a non-political thread?

No. I've been on this issue for 15+ yrs, all about keeping ownership of our media local. Doesn't matter who is in what office. Pretty non-partisan issue.

No. I've been on this issue for 15+ yrs, all about keeping ownership of our media local. Doesn't matter who is in what office. Pretty non-partisan issue.

I’m on the same platform. Oliver in his segment claims their research show that Sinclair owns hundreds of stations that reach 2.2 million viewers a day (more than fox new, more than the other two cable news heavy hitters combined.) And if you, as a parent company, force your stations to deliver messages that have no basis in fact. It severely undermines the foundations of free press. Regardless of who’s “side” were on.

And I think it compounds the issue to fire people who refuse to air gobbledegook on their stations. Because, what are you going to do for a career then, when Sinclair owns ALL the stations?

Oklahoma City looks **TERRIBLE*** here. We shouldn't stand for this


how would Oklahoma city look terrible ???

that is a massive reach

and this thread is absolutely political

Given my history of holding the various media entities accountable for many, many years during the Clinton, Bush, Obama yrs I think it is safe to say
that this is not political. Not going to argue this with you.

OKC looks terrible because there is no reason for us to just sit back and allow this to happen, which we are. Really makes it look like we just don't
care what happens in our City...unless instructed to do so by the dear leaders in the Chamber of (some types of) Commerce


how would Oklahoma city look terrible ???

that is a massive reach

and this thread is absolutely political

No. I've been on this issue for 15+ yrs, all about keeping ownership of our media local. Doesn't matter who is in what office. Pretty non-partisan issue.

Here I'll make it partisan.

As a free market republican business' should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want. No current laws say that media has to be fair, free, local or non biased.

however, you will certainly find laws on ownership caps, which is the issue here. Also the topic I am addressing is giving Williams the station at a 90% discount...
so as to appease the caps, all the while still controlling the content and actions of the station. Nothing to do with the way these guys lean, I don't care with regards
to the issues of outsiders taking over our tv/radio stations solely to make a buck, with no regard to the good of the City.
That shouldn't be controversial.



Here I'll make it partisan.

As a free market republican business' should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want. No current laws say that media has to be fair, free, local or non biased.

however, you will certainly find laws on ownership caps, which is the issue here. Also the topic I am addressing is giving Williams the station at a 90% discount...
so as to appease the caps, all the while still controlling the content and actions of the station. Nothing to do with the way these guys lean, I don't care with regards
to the issues of outsiders taking over our tv/radio stations solely to make a buck, with no regard to the good of the City.
That shouldn't be controversial.

It isn't controversial. 90% of the public has no idea and couldn't care less.

truth

however, you will certainly find laws on ownership caps, which is the issue here. Also the topic I am addressing is giving Williams the station at a 90% discount...
so as to appease the caps, all the while still controlling the content and actions of the station. Nothing to do with the way these guys lean, I don't care with regards
to the issues of outsiders taking over our tv/radio stations solely to make a buck, with no regard to the good of the City.
That shouldn't be controversial.

actually per the article you linked they wouldn't' CONTROL the content they would get content that is not the same thing ...


also what would you like "oklahoma" to do about a FCC federal issue ??

They would get content from Sinclair. Anyway, this is not going to happen. There are a few reasons why....
What would I like Oklahoma to do? I would like it's inhabitants to voice their concerns. They can voice them
to their Congressmen and Senators, who represent the state. There are a number of things that can be done...
I filed against these idiots and it seems to have had an effect... I dunno maybe not... but there is a lot people can
do and pretending Oklahoma is irrelevant to federal matters is pretty odd... 14845



actually per the article you linked they wouldn't' CONTROL the content they would get content that is not the same thing ...


also what would you like "oklahoma" to do about a FCC federal issue ??

They would get content from Sinclair. Anyway, this is not going to happen. There are a few reasons why....
What would I like Oklahoma to do? I would like it's inhabitants to voice their concerns. They can voice them
to their Congressmen and Senators, who represent the state. There are a number of things that can be done...
I filed against these idiots and it seems to have had an effect... I dunno maybe not... but there is a lot people can
do and pretending Oklahoma is irrelevant to federal matters is pretty odd... 14845

calling the "idiots" makes this post pretty political .... and 2 having a independent station change hands (or not ) doesn't have any real impact on Oklahomans in any way

Itd be better if Taco Bell bought them.

Given today's news, I don't think I've seen "this is a huge nothing burger" better applied to anything, ever, nor will I.

Given my history of holding the various media entities accountable for many, many years during the Clinton, Bush, Obama yrs I think it is safe to say
that this is not political. Not going to argue this with you.

OKC looks terrible because there is no reason for us to just sit back and allow this to happen, which we are. Really makes it look like we just don't
care what happens in our City...unless instructed to do so by the dear leaders in the Chamber of (some types of) Commerce

You seem to think that ownership of the media providers in this market is local or that it serves anything other than its own bottom line and the wishes of its owners. What exactly do you suggest this city or our elected officials do about your complaints as to who owns our media outlets? Was Cornett supposed to have intervened to prevent Anschutz from purchasing The Oklahoman? What would that look like? How would that be remotely within the power of government? If you're asking that viewers stop watching NCIS Los Angeles (I have no idea what is on TV these days) because their station happens to be owned by Sinclair, I don't think that's realistic in any market for something like that to happen.


We'll have a different conversation if we're talking about the FCC regulation of what are essentially monopolies. It's a much more complex discussion today than it was 20 years ago because of the variety of media sources we have now. In short, if you don't like your local programming, read a higher quality source like the Lost Ogle.

So what's the tl:dr version? What stations are being sold and why is it a big deal?

He’s kinda right about that. Sinclair is notorious for pushing biased messages through their affiliates and threatening the jobs of producers and managers if scripted stories aren’t read and run verbatim.

I’ll link the Jon Oliver piece, because it’s humurous. The meat starts just after the 8 minute mark.
https://youtu.be/GvtNyOzGogc

Or is it because their programming is, (gasp!!!!!) conservative? Wade more deeply into several of the critical writings of Sinclair and its pretty reasonable to see the disgruntled former employee openly stated she didn't like Sinclair 's insistence certain news reports show both sides of an issue. Others complaints were some disagreements in viewpoint when an oulet changed to Sinclair. Since many of their TV outlets are other than Foxnews stations, it's pretty easy to see there will be incompatibilities in personnel. Other written concerns in articles was that Sinclair wanted both sides presented on gun control and environmental stories. Sinclair is openly conservative. That's the bulk of their crime.

That being said, I also have issues with individual companies owning too much media. But if thefe are going to be limits imposed, those limits need to be applied evenly. This means Comcast can't own all of cable. Disney can't control networks, sports, entertainment and movies, etc. There are multiple web writings calling Sinclair dangerous and Trump's pocket network. Well, funny, that pocket administration just shut down their proposed Tribune merger.

Personally, I agree there should be more local ownership but Todays economics doesn't make that possible. I'm still kind of happy the deal didn't go thru.

So what's the tl:dr version? What stations are being sold and why is it a big deal?

None. Variety of links so you can pick your favorite (or least-hated) news source.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tribune-media-terminates-merger-agreement-with-sinclair-broadcast-group-1533810907

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/9/17670228/sinclair-tribune-local-news-botch

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/after-tribune-merger-fails-sinclair-down-not-out-n899411

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/09/tribune-withdraws-sinclair-merger-saying-it-will-sue-breach-contract/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9f46626e665a

https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/sinclair-tribune-lawsuit-deal-scrapped-1202901461/

One wonders at the timing of creating this thread AFTER this was announced, and well after it was all over but the shouting when the FCC actually hamstringed the deal a week or two back.

There is always a lot that can be done. For example, in '08 I was working to try and get the city to work to give the Thunder radio broadcast rights to Perry or Tyler, and if need be subsidize them in making this happen. That wouldn't even be necessary if efforts to say to the ownership "hey, we gave you a lot of money to get the Thunder thing going, you need to do some things for OKC" but nothing like that happened, Nevada based Citadel got the rights, giving them a sweetheart deal where the ownership gets all the money for ads during the game (reason you hear chk, devon etc... ads, not ads for many local businesses during the games) ...Citadel knew this was a losing (financially) deal for them, but with markets of scale and big business belly-up style shenaniganry, they were able to make this deal.... and it hasn't really been good for OKC. Not some horrible thing, but the whole deal coulda been lots better...imagine Perry HQ being a hub of Thunder activity, players going there after games to do interviews, bla bla bla, really would have been great for the East side... anyway....

Along these lines, there are a lot of things that can be done. They have to be creative things and not ordinary every day boring governmental actions..makings statements against certain trends, demanding more types of coverage, holding town halls to educate people on how media ownership rules and whatnot occur....

gotta be something that can be done to benefit the people!!! Recall in '08 Cornett put forth a municipal action to make public access tv go away ..siding with Cox™, foolishly saying it is "unfair competition advantage to AT&T who doesn't have to provide it"..thus proving yes, so-called municipal leaders can do things to influence the way media is run....all the while continuing his mayors show on the city access channel.... not cool.



You seem to think that ownership of the media providers in this market is local or that it serves anything other than its own bottom line and the wishes of its owners. What exactly do you suggest this city or our elected officials do about your complaints as to who owns our media outlets? Was Cornett supposed to have intervened to prevent Anschutz from purchasing The Oklahoman? What would that look like? How would that be remotely within the power of government? If you're asking that viewers stop watching NCIS Los Angeles (I have no idea what is on TV these days) because their station happens to be owned by Sinclair, I don't think that's realistic in any market for something like that to happen.


We'll have a different conversation if we're talking about the FCC regulation of what are essentially monopolies. It's a much more complex discussion today than it was 20 years ago because of the variety of media sources we have now. In short, if you don't like your local programming, read a higher quality source like the Lost Ogle.

There is always a lot that can be done. For example, in '08 I was working to try and get the city to work to give the Thunder radio broadcast rights to Perry or Tyler, and if need be subsidize them in making this happen. That wouldn't even be necessary if efforts to say to the ownership "hey, we gave you a lot of money to get the Thunder thing going, you need to do some things for OKC" but nothing like that happened, Nevada based Citadel got the rights, giving them a sweetheart deal where the ownership gets all the money for ads during the game (reason you hear chk, devon etc... ads, not ads for many local businesses during the games) ...Citadel knew this was a losing (financially) deal for them, but with markets of scale and big business belly-up style shenaniganry, they were able to make this deal.... and it hasn't really been good for OKC. Not some horrible thing, but the whole deal coulda been lots better...imagine Perry HQ being a hub of Thunder activity, players going there after games to do interviews, bla bla bla, really would have been great for the East side... anyway....

Along these lines, there are a lot of things that can be done. They have to be creative things and not ordinary every day boring governmental actions..makings statements against certain trends, demanding more types of coverage, holding town halls to educate people on how media ownership rules and whatnot occur....

gotta be something that can be done to benefit the people!!! Recall in '08 Cornett put forth a municipal action to make public access tv go away ..siding with Cox™, foolishly saying it is "unfair competition advantage to AT&T who doesn't have to provide it"..thus proving yes, so-called municipal leaders can do things to influence the way media is run....all the while continuing his mayors show on the city access channel.... not cool.

this shows a total lack of understanding how the NBA operates and a lack of understanding of basic business

this shows a total lack of understanding how the NBA operates and a lack of understanding of basic business

Please explain yourself.

Good grief...THIS has to be the thread that gets the weird condition where it won't disappear once clicked upon?

Please explain yourself.

Please explain how 'civic issues' is the place for this.

Please explain how 'civic issues' is the place for this.

origin was an outsider taking over a local tv station...under very shady circumstances.

origin was an outsider taking over a local tv station...under very shady circumstances.

You can stand down. As you know (knew before posting), it isn't happening.

The fact that it almost did, and no one cared is pretty alarming. ok. I'll HOP on over to important threads like how to get a Senor frogs here in okc.

So OP wants the city to spend taxpayer dollars to ensure a local company gets a profitable contract to provide coverage and access to another private entity to the detriment of an out-of-state company which according to OP has an unprofitable/lopsidedly bad contract with our local private entity. This access being sold is not the property of OKC, so we're definitely talking about the city spending taxpayer dollars to subsidize a deal between two for-profit entities.

If this is the Steve Hunt who ran for mayor a few years back, I seem to recall he very much thought that our local government was rife with corruption and so I'm confused.

OP seems to be advocating for what many outside interests would claim is a pretty corrupt deal which would possibly be illegal.

local government is quite corrupt....recall them Running the big league city campaign out of the tax payer subsidized chamber of commerce ... not cool.

Trying to get them to do something a little more ethical should make sense, since in theory the public is at least supposed to have some
influence on what they do, or at least the illusion of that -- thus the suggestion.

would it be illegal for them to do this? How is it different than subsidizing the thunder to the detriment of...

...and when I say "them running..." I refer to this document that shows Cornett (the mayor) as the Chairman of the campaign... 14846

local government is quite corrupt....recall them Running the big league city campaign out of the tax payer subsidized chamber of commerce ... not cool.

Trying to get them to do something a little more ethical should make sense, since in theory the public is at least supposed to have some
influence on what they do, or at least the illusion of that -- thus the suggestion.

would it be illegal for them to do this? How is it different than subsidizing the thunder to the detriment of...

the chamber is not tax payer subsidized stop posting things that are not true

Hotel Motel tax goes to them. Sorry. It is true. Couch admits to it here. Look at his face!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YVC53VPKfc



the chamber is not tax payer subsidized stop posting things that are not true
.

Broken link.

Broken link.

Works for me, wish the document in it was paused/more readable, though.

The motive has become clear. I'm popping some corn if anyone would like some.

Oh come on.

Not popcorn. Nacho fries.

Works for me, wish the document in it was paused/more readable, though.

I was on courthouse wifi at the time, so that would probably explain why it didn't work. Oklahoma County has a clear motive to hide the truth!!!!

Sinclair has clearly gotten to Oklahoma County!

Or Tribune has. I dunno. My tinfoil hat is in the shop.

Not popcorn. Nacho fries.

I don't want your Taco Bell jokes to go unrecognized, but good job

So OP wants the city to spend taxpayer dollars to ensure a local company gets a profitable contract to provide coverage and access to another private entity to the detriment of an out-of-state company which according to OP has an unprofitable/lopsidedly bad contract with our local private entity. This access being sold is not the property of OKC, so we're definitely talking about the city spending taxpayer dollars to subsidize a deal between two for-profit entities.

If this is the Steve Hunt who ran for mayor a few years back, I seem to recall he very much thought that our local government was rife with corruption and so I'm confused.

OP seems to be advocating for what many outside interests would claim is a pretty corrupt deal which would possibly be illegal.

Funneling govt money into media has never bite anyone in the a** in the history of the world ever

Wow, God forbid that a person sell his or her property to the highest bidder.

I would be f’ing pissed if my tax dollars helped a locally owned media outfit secure a below market deal. And I’m pretty sure that such a scheme would open the city to equal protection claims from out-of-state companies.

Once again the chamber is not subsidized by the city

Wow, God forbid that a person sell his or her property to the highest bidder.

I would be f’ing pissed if my tax dollars helped a locally owned media outfit secure a below market deal. And I’m pretty sure that such a scheme would open the city to equal protection claims from out-of-state companies.

A govt owned media is like the literal opposite of a free and fair press. So this entire thread and rant is just nonsensical

You might call this thread crunchy. Or even... Loco.

Nacho funniest joke. Pretty cheesy, actually.

Mas puns! Mas!

OK, what do you want to taco bout?

I...I don't know what to say. I'm feeling a bit guacward at the moment.

Not chipped? Or cheesed off?

Well, I'm mildy hot, but not on fire yet.

Ralph Nader cracked up when I told him how Cornett was trying to get people to eat there to lose weight.....pretty terrible.

Ralph Nader cracked up when I told him how Cornett was trying to get people to eat there to lose weight.....pretty terrible.

A nothing politician who hasn't been relevant in quite awhile. Who cares what he thinks? Cornett has done an outstanding job as OKC mayor and that weight loss campaign was successful. Quit being such a whiny little bitch about getting destroyed in your campaign.

A nothing politician who hasn't been relevant in quite awhile. Who cares what he thinks?

Ralph or Steve?

This thread has become a shell of its former self. Lettuce get back to the puns forthwith!

Ralph or Steve?

Ralph did some good work with his consumer activism in the 70s. Republicans would thank him for delivering Bush II to the presidency, so in that sense, Ralph has an impressive list of accomplishments. There's nothing so Supreme about Hunt.