Is The Tribune Pulling A Sinclair??

[KharmaTrain]

One of the major reasons Sinclair donates 97% of it's money to Repugnicans and is so desperate to get the manchild re-elected is simple dollars and sense. Last spring the FCC attempted to ramrod another round of broadcast deregulation which would have allowed companies like Sinclair to legally purchase two or more television stations in any broadcast market, including the ones they were currently located in.

Despite objections from such diverse groups as the ACLU, People For The American Way and the National Rifle Association, Michael Powell (Colin's son) pushed through the dereg bill with few open hearings and above the objections of other commissioners. Fortunately the act was stopped before it could be enacted by Congress and then that stay was upheld in a court awaiting appeal.

At stake is billions as Sinclair, in anticipation this deregulation would go through, jumped the gun and began to purchase stations. Under a Limited Management Agreement or LMA, Sinclair could buy and operate additional stations and the only thing they didn't own was the station's actual license. That was held by a third party pending the passage of the bill which would enable Sinclair then to purchase those stations and others outright. It also would greatly increase both Sinclair's revenues and stock value.

Lawrence O'Donnell noted on the last Friday's "Scarborough Country" that Sinclair has delayed their third quarter earnings report until November 4th. Hmmm.

If Kerry is elected, expect this deregulation bill will die and there will be strong pressure to investigate previous deregulation bills that are long overdue for mandatory review. Not only won't Sinclair be able to hold on to many stations they've acquired over the past couple years, they will be forced to sell them.

This is also a pickle for the Tribune. While not smaller, with far greater assets and more diversified, the Tribune is another big player in the television duopoly game. They currenly own two television stations in Boston and several other markets and would also be forced to sell these properties as well. Plus Tribune is very closely allied with the WB Network, owned by Time/Warner who owns CNNservative. Tribune is the WB's largest affiliate group.

Thus, while I view today's Chicago Tribune endorsement as Repugnican as usual (the last Democrat they endorsed was Horace Greeley in 1872), I ask that others take a close look here and see if they see a pattern that may explain some of the major mountains we, and the Kerry campaign have to climb to take back our country.

Cheers!

[TrueAmerican]

1. So is the LA Times next?

They are part of the Tribune company?

[waldnorm]

2. The LA Times Was One of the Few Papers Critical Of Invading Iraq

I'd say they endorse Kerry . . . easily!

[Cocoa]

3. no, because they keep news separate from editorials

the Trib actually published a major story contradicting the Smearvets. One of their editors actually served with Kerry and gave a firsthand account that supported Kerry, and the Trib published it on page 1 on a Sunday right in the middle of the controversy.

It didn't get enough attention. The guy's name was Bill Rood.

[KharmaTrain]

4. I Know Of The Rood Story

I wrote this in light of hearing Bruce Dold, the editor who wrote the thing. I've seen him many times and he's as corporate as they come. He's talking from on high, where Rood's article was on his own and outside of his role as a Tribune editorial writer. I also thought this story didn't get enough play, but then with this media so determined to shove this regime down our throats, is that a surprise?

From what I've learned, the LA Times and other Tribune papers have their own independent editorial boards...or at least that's what they have said.