Ajit Pai Rushes To Weaken Media Ownership Cap To Aid Sinclair... While Under Investigation For Being Too Cozy With Sinclair
from the ill-communication dept
We've discussed for a while now how FCC boss Ajit Pai is busy gutting decades old media consolidation rules simply to help Sinclair Broadcast Group complete its $4 billion acquisition of Tribune. Many of these rules traditionally enjoy bipartisan support, since they protect local news organizations and free speech from being crushed by any one, major broadcaster. And Sinclair's merger, which would allow it to reach nearly 72% of the country with its facts-optional and monolithic programming (as that recent viral Deadspin video attests), has been routinely under fire by groups on both sides of the partisan aisle.
As Sinclair moved to acquire Tribune, it kept running into FCC rules. Rules Ajit Pai was more than happy to systematically remove at every step in perfect synchronicity with Sinclair's ambition. And while Pai's allies on the commission claim this timing is all just quirky happenstance, the allegations have resulted in the FCC's nonpartisan inspector general launching an investigation into possible corruption and coordination between the FCC and the broadcaster. Pai's fellow Commissioners like Jessica Rosenworcel have publicly stated the Trump FCC is little more than a rubber stamp for Sinclair:
As I have said before, the @FCC’s big media policy decisions all seem custom built for the business plans of Sinclair Broadcasting.
This is not right. https://t.co/Pt4np64bIe
— Jessica Rosenworcel (@JRosenworcel) June 14, 2018
To specifically help Sinclair's merger squeeze in under the media ownership cap, Pai's FCC restored an irrelevant bit of 1980's regulatory guidance known as the UHF Discount. Built in the 1980's as a mechanism to adjust for the lesser quality and reach of UHF stations, the rule was eliminated a few years ago for being the sort of outdated regulatory red tape Pai's FCC routinely pretends to be waging war against. But Pai's FCC suddenly and quickly restored the rule just a few weeks before Sinclair announced its merger, conveniently allowing Sinclair to under-state the company's real ownership reach.
That, in turn, has resulted in a looming legal challenge driven largely by consumer groups (but again enjoying bipartisan support from Conservatives like Newsmax CEO and Trump ally Chris Ruddy):
"A panel of appellate judges questioned why the FCC reinstated a rule that allows media companies to amass a greater number of stations and still fall within ownership limits...The three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel raised some concerns about the rationale behind the FCC’s decision in April, 2017, to reinstate the UHF discount after abolishing it a year earlier...
Chris Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax, who has been highly critical of the FCC’s action, as well as of the Sinclair-Tribune merger, said in a statement that “the judges on the DC Circuit reviewing the FCC’s UHF discount were left scratching their heads wondering why the rule was re-instated when everyone — Republicans and Democrats alike — agree that the discount is an analog relic and makes no sense in a digital world.
Undaunted by an ongoing corruption investigation, Pai is rushing forward with a July 12 vote to further erode a rule prohibiting any one broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of the national audience. The hope, clearly, is to formalize a higher overall ownership cap before the courts can challenge the FCC's previous rule changes. However, there's ample question as to whether the FCC has the authority to modify this cap (even some of Pai's allied Commissioners have acknowledged they may not), and such a ruling will absolutely be quickly appealed.
Sinclair, meanwhile, is busy trying to burrow over and under what media ownership rules remain, in part by promising to offload some stations to shell companies or companies that still have a relationship with Sinclair.
All told, it's just another example of how Trump's "populist" rhetoric is about as deep as a mud-puddle and authentic as a wild west movie set. Between efforts to hamstring competition, neuter regulatory oversight, and gut net neutrality and rubber stamp major media mergers (from Sinclair to the looming tie up between Sprint and T-Mobile), Ajit Pai's FCC is pursuing a very specific idea of what they want the future of the internet and media to look like, with healthy competition, consumers and small business welfare being a very, very distant afterthought.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ajit pai, fcc, investigations, media ownership
Companies: sinclair
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Does this whole thing seem a bit strange to anyone else, just on general principle? I mean, if one broadcaster can't reach more than 39% of the national audience, this means that if John Q. Public were to get a new job in another state and have to move across the country, there's a greater than 60% odds that he won't have his favorite broadcaster available to watch on local TV.
Sinclair is awful, I won't deny that, but aren't we kind of going about it in exactly the wrong way? Under the principles of free speech, freedom of the press, and "the best counter to bad speech is not to suppress speech but to encourage even more speech," why not throw out that rule entirely, and make it so every broadcaster has the right to reach 100% of the audience? Then Sinclair could reach everyone, sure, but so could all the alternatives to Sinclair who are broadcasting more sane messages. Doesn't that sound like a better state of affairs overall?
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
They'd do this by paid-off senators, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The danger Sinclair could do to our nation long term with a bigger reach is scary. A number of countries that once had democracies that were hijacked by dictators first had what were essentially propaganda networks backing up said dictator's party before they took control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pais end-game
Sinclair is now hiring expanding the "must run"-segment with former Trump adviser Epsteyn to attack the stupid liberals for not letting Trump use children as leverage to turn people away. "Don't the liberal propagandists understand that it is a war on immigration and everyone deported person counts?".
Welcome to demagoguery and the slippery slope away from democracy Turkey is on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trust
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Does this whole thing seem a bit strange to anyone else, just on general principle? I mean, if one broadcaster can't reach more than 39% of the national audience, this means that if John Q. Public were to get a new job in another state and have to move across the country, there's a greater than 60% odds that he won't have his favorite broadcaster available to watch on local TV.
Sinclair is awful, I won't deny that, but aren't we kind of going about it in exactly the wrong way? Under the principles of free speech, freedom of the press, and "the best counter to bad speech is not to suppress speech but to encourage even more speech," why not throw out that rule entirely, and make it so every broadcaster has the right to reach 100% of the audience? Then Sinclair could reach everyone, sure, but so could all the alternatives to Sinclair who are broadcasting more sane messages. Doesn't that sound like a better state of affairs overall?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The easiest way for Sinclair to get to 100% would be to buy those "alternatives to Sinclair". Then what? There's not necessarily an unused TV channel sitting around in each market, even if someone else does obtain the money to get the FCC license and run the station. I agree with your premise but don't have a solution to this problem.
Pai was born in 1973, so probably remembers having to assume Fox viewing positions. ("Alluding to the fact that Fox was on UHF and UHF channels were sometimes hard to tune in with antenna.")
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bennett's putting some work in, it seems. Somebody must be supplying him with kneepads...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IF you were consistent, you'd apply same worries to GOOGLE!
FOUR BILLION IS A MINOR PLAYER THESE DAYS! SHOULD be helped! -- YES, I think that a serious point. Compared to Google and Facebook, Techdirt is as usual worrying about one Orc Chief while at best actively ignoring Sauron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: as a British serf, you're must "Sir" him; to me he's "Clive"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Trust -- Define "monopoly": Techdirt says GOOGLE isn't!
I still firmly believe that one of these days, you're going to notice that your impression of Techdirt is just simply not accurate.
Masnick talks up corporatism every day, isn't worried about the vast mega-corporations, only slants writing enough to fit onto the edges of your assumptions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Trust -- Define "monopoly"
What, praytell, is my impression of TD? And how does my opinion of free-market fallacies reflect on Mike?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Then antitrust.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here's What It Looks Like
Looked it up, 9 stations in the area are Sinclair. Bleedover from other localities do impact what they receive so include Portland and other larger stations for the region.
This has to end.
Now that Fox Entertainment is moving into Disney entertainment that means changed rules under Michael Powell that allowed Rupert Murdoch his media empire are way way outdated.
The supreme court now allows all states to Tax internet sales, the rules on Powell and these new slackened rules should be next on the supreme court docket and reversed.
We need local news, local stations, local ownership over the air. This national or even regional stuff is good for the big players but stifles innovation and actual local discourse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
How many television stations should be owned by one player in one media market? My answer - ONE!
How many newspapers can be owned by one player? My answer - ONE!
We need new laws for this era of technology and social investment that break up the relationship between holding companies and the lower level businesses, that are 100% transparent and publicly list ALL investors - then tear apart the relationships between the merger and acquisition investors who hide behind the scenes.
It's not just about Sinclair's editorials, that's a symptom of bigger issues.
How many national ads do we see every election cycle? Those need to go away... Local politics should be local and international corporations should NOT have a larger say because they can pay more. One vote, one voice in elections and advertising/marketing needs to be held liable for taking in more voices (aka more money) than local voices can compete with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IF you were consistent, you'd apply same worries to GOOGLE!
Stop trying to be hip and cool, you obviously don't understand the culture and as such have completely failed at using it in an analogy.
You fail much in the same way Pai failed in his garbage skit video and subsequently had his ass handed to him by Mark Hamill about his wielding a lightsaber. Gondor was one of, if not the, richest kingdom in Middle Earth, with multiple sea trading ports, trading partners, merchant businesses, etc... Meanwhile, Sauron wasn't interested in wealth at all, he just wanted to watch the world burn.
Finally, your English and grammar sucks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Publicly listing all investors could get very tricky depending on how you define "all investors."
For example, if it's a company large enough to be listed on the S&P 500, and I own shares of a S&P 500 index fund, (this is an incredibly common thing BTW, for those unfamiliar with modern investing practices,) that technically makes me an investor in that company. Should I be on the list? Or what if the company that my employer engaged to manage my 401K purchased that company's stock (or an index fund that contains it) on behalf of my retirement fund?
I do agree that transparency is important, but unless you're very careful with your definitions, you'll end up with a "solution" where the signal-to-noise ratio is so low as to be useless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'You were VERY good for us in office, now it's our turn.'
You have to be wondering what Pais end-game is.
Ensuring that his 'resume' is sterling enough for certain companies that he'll have no problem whatsoever finding a job after he leaves the FCC. At this point I imagine he could walk into any of the major ISP's offices and be (officially) 'hired' on the spot, given how blatantly he's been favoring them.
He probably figures that worst case scenario he'd be forced to resign from his position, wait a few months, then land in a cushy do-nothing job where the ISP's throw money at him for all he did for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely not. You can justify limiting ownership of broadcast TV stations because there's a finite number of frequencies (and some stations are only allowed to broadcast at reduced power to avoid interference, so the number of good stations are even more limited.) You can't justify doing the same thing with newspapers - literally anyone can start a newspaper if they wish; there's no government-granted monopoly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Fuck me, then what the hell has the RIAA been doing all these years? If four billion is minor, they're going after citizens for subatomic particles at best.
out_of_the_blue's heroes, ladies and gentlemen! Bending over backwards just to appear quasi-legit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The right man for the job.
But of course, as all Americans know, that sort of thing simply can't happen here in the land of Milk and Honey.
So... never mind. :)
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Wouldn't be the first time Sinclair was on the wrong end of a politicians suspicious death investigation.
or the tenth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: as a British serf, you're must "Sir" him; to me he's "Clive"
So you're saying Bentleys, Rolls Royce, Rover, Aston Martin etc were crap?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Good for you. Most people didn't, and Sinclair was a great influence on many. Especially once the 48K ZX Spectrum came along to supersede it. With the Spectrum, that was the basis for a huge number of the people currently working in the industry to gain an interest in the subject. For some, it was the most important device in their lives, and thus hugely important for the industry as a whole ever since.
But, you don't come across as someone with enough intelligence to have operated the ZX81 back in 1981 - after all, that would place you at least in your early 40s and you still act like an ignorant child. Imagine how you must have been when you were actually one! My guess is that either you couldn't work out how to use it because you lacked the required intellect, or you're lying, yet again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Trust -- Define "monopoly"
Whatever he wants to imagine it is, in order to most vehemently attack you. It doesn't have to be true, only something that makes him imagine he's right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]