Transcripts For CSPAN3 Future Of Media Ownership In The U.S. 20171127

Local content and media diversity. This is an hour and 40 minutes. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome. I am so excited to see this crowd to talk about the media ownership. Im gigi sohn, fellow at the georgetown university. I want to thank the institute for Technology Law and policy. The institute for public representation, which is will part of Georgetown Law Center. Fenton foundation and mozilla. I want to thank senator blumenthal from connecticut who well hopefully being hearing from soon for reserving this room and a Research Fellow and personal law clerk, doing a fabulous job, alexander gibbons, head of the institute, who some of you may have heard pro her leg when she and her son or daughter were shopping at h m were shoopping and a shoplifter knocked her over. I was there the day before. If people send well wishes to alex, shes done a great job running the institute. I want to thank other georgetown students gathered by Andy Schwartzman, our panelist, helping today with various and sundry logistics. So let me set the stage what are we talking about today. So in may of this year Sinclair Broadcast Group announces broadcast licenses of Tribune Media company. Its seeking approval both from the federal Communications Commission and the department of justice for the merger, which if consummated will result in sinclair owning 233 stations covering 72 of american viewers. The next largest tv broadcaster next star would have 78 fewer stations. At the same time the fcc will vote tomorrow to eliminate or loosen several of the media ownership rules including newspaper broadcast ownership rule, the tv radio crossownership rule and the local tv ownership rule. The fcc reinstate add rule that counts ultrahigh frequency or uhf stations as half a station for purposes of the ownership rule. Ill just ask, take a pause, how many of you know what a uhf station is . Anybody under the age of 40 know what a uhf station here. I saw three hands. Thats pretty good. Well have an opportunity to talk about that a little later and whether that was a rule that should have been reinstated or whether chairman engaged in reregulation which really hasnt been his forte since hes been at the fcc. Another thing in the last couple of weeks, month or so, was eliminate studio rule which allows local broadcaster to maintain a studio in his community of license. It sounds like a really kind of old and crickety and unimportant rule. I think when you combine consolidation with the getting rid of the need to have a presence in the local community, i think its meaningful. So maybe well get to that today. These issues are obviously extremely timely with the vote coming tomorrow. So were going to talk about whether this merger is in the Public Interest and whether media ownership rules make sense in this day and age where you have many media outlets, 500 cables, chock a block information do they make sense. Let me talk about how today is going to go. Senator blumenthal is not here yet, so as everybody knows, when he comes well let him speak, regardless of what were doing. So i think what well do is start off with a debate. The debate is going to focus largely on the ownership rules, not so much on the merger. Then well follow with the panel, then well have audience questionandanswer. There are cards on your seats. Im not going to do the thing where i call on people. Thats bad. If you have a question, please write it down. Jamie, are you going to be the one collecting them . Okay. Raise your hand and walk around and show people who you are. Raise your hand. Okay. Thank you. Dont be shy. Be like me. Good. Show people. They will be collecting the cards. Jamie will go through them and select we wont have a whole lot of time for audience q a but hope any folks will stay afterwards and answer more questions. So lets start with the debate. Were very, very lucky. I think it was 9 30 morning i got an email from john hayne from pillsbury law arguing in favor of loosening ownership rules that he was too ill to come. I was, i think, still in my pajamas. I was not happy. But thankfully he brought in his place a fantastic substitute who ive known for years, jerry fritz, executive Vice President for Strategic Legal Affairs for one media, a joint venture controlled by sinclair. So jerry literally at the last minute has agreed to debate. Very excellent good friend and some may know from his appearances on msnbc. Hes the principle of good friend group and adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center. So without further ado, each debater will have seven minutes to debate. Then whoever goes first, which i believe will be david, will have another two minutes to respond. David, the floor is all yours. Thank you, gigi. I have to say, again, gigi is not the only one who is grateful here that jerry showed up. I am, too. I literally got lastminute notice of this and has stepped in. I think that deserves all our thanks. Now, with that, i would like to take him on. Were going to hear a lot today and tomorrow at the fcc about how the world has changed. The world has changed. The world has changed since the ownership rules were first promulgated by fcc back when jerry worked at the fcc. That was a little bit ago. The world has changed. Theres the internet. The world has changed, theres cable tv. The world has changed. Look at all the Different Social Media platforms today. The world has changed. Therefore these antiquated, oldfashioned broadcast rules have got to go because t, the theory continues, thats the only way we can have free, over the air, broadcast tv. Thats the only way to survive in the modern world. Now, if thats where the story ended, i would have to concede, you win, jerry. Thank you. Everybody goes. Fortunately for me and the rest of us, thats not where the story ends, because thats not where the story began. The story began when broadcasters in this country got a great, great deal. It was a trade. We are going to give you we, the American People, the american taxpayers are going to give you free spectrum licenses. The best that there is, in every single market. And not only that, these spectrum licenses that are worth billions of dollars today, under todays law, you can sell them if you want and get billions of dollars more. Free. From the United States taxpayer. It doesnt stop there. The laws passed in this institution give broadcasters even more value. You the broadcaster are guaranteed distribution on cable and satellite tv. Show me a business person who would not love that deal, guaranteed distribution of your product in law. You, the broadcaster, are given a legal monopoly. Thats right. A monopoly, under the copy right law, you are the only one permed to do so. If i want to buy a newspaper from another city, i can go to a bookstore and find a newspaper from another city. If i want to go on the internet and find content from anywhere in the world i can, but not when it comes to the content on broadcast tv. No. We the American People, give broadcasters monopoly for Network Affiliated content. And we also from time to time when were worried about the budget and taxes and where revenue is going to come from, like we are now during tax reform, is there any possible way to get additional revenue from these licenses . What if we charged a fee for using this public property. No, say the broadcasters. No fees. We want it for free as weve always had it. Now, we are supposed to get something in return. The American People are supposed to get something in return. The bargain went Something Like this. Number one, we get free over the air programming. Advertiser supported, available to 100 of the households in the United States, for free. Number two, we get low news, weather, and, yes, sports, because thats important. Local is. We get that as a Public Service from the broadcaster. And the other thing were supposed to get, and this is where we get to our conversation today, were supposed to get a wide variety of perspectives. Diversity of viewpoint, diversity of perspectives. We all know this country is filled with different viewpoints. We also know that the owner is boss. If the owner as boss says i want the viewpoint to be this, guess what, thats what the viewpoint is going to be. We the American People say to the broadcasters take it, take it all, for free on us, provided we get those things back. Its actually played out that way even in the midst of this vast market with all these different choices and all these different forms of technology, according to the Charitable Trust 82 of americans, across all age groups, trust local broadcast the most or local news. Local broadcast is trusted the most for local news. By the way, that survey also found people trust their local broadcast news more than they trust their own family for whats going on locally. Now, in my view, if you want all the freebies, its got to come with the favors in return that weve asked for. You have to provide local news, and you have to provide a variety of voices. If you want to take away those restrictions, thats fine, just give back all the goodies youve got in return. Steve scalise on the house side, Republican Leadership member introduced a bill, well get rid of broadcast but youre not going to vm copy right exclusivity anymore. Guess what, broadcasters, fight it. In the world of broadcaster, what we want is what matters. Not what you want, the public. Now were going to talk about a specific transaction and specific broadcaster, sinclair. They are represented today. Were going to ask ourselves what happens when big broadcasters get bigger. Ill give you a preview. Sinclair when it buys a station fires local reporters, local sports casters, local staff, and sends those function toss baltimo functions to baltimore, its headquarters. The tribune, attempted to buy in this transaction, happens to have a better track record. In fact, we did a study of local news at both companies and found that the top three stations that provide local news at both companies, tribune provides twice as much. Sinclair must prove to you today that by them getting bigger, the local news tribune provides is either going to be just as good or even better after the transaction. If past is prologue and you ask people in Oklahoma City or rochester, new york, or seattle where sinclair bought stations, it aint going to get better, its going to get worse, which begs the question, what are we the American People getting for this bargain, freebies for broadcasters. Why should these ownership limits be lifted so they can get even bigger . The past is prologue and behavior of the nations largest broadcaster tells us anything, it doesnt work out well for the American People. Jerry. Thanks, david, and thanks, gigi, for the invitation. I thought about shaving my head to emulate my friend but i dont think i could pull it off. I apologize if i have not read all the pleadings in this proceedings but i have been part of these rules since i first worked for chairman wiley and commissioner lee back in 1975 through my first through my fcc staff time reviewing station sales in the mid70s to my time with chairman fowler during Reagan Administration deregulating some of these rules in the 80s and trying to cope with them and advising station owners for the past 30 years. So i bring a little bit of perspective that might be enlightening. The question today, as david suggests, is whether we need fcc rules limiting broadcast ownership in the age of ubiquitous highresolution internet streaming, new over the top services, and more competition than ever from mvpd distribution. We do not. In todays hyper competitive media marketplace, antitrust principles are more than adequate to govern consolidation in Television Broadcasting. We dont need separate rules administered by independent agency imposing artificial and arbitrary definitions of competition and diversity, all of which were chosen decades ago as political compromises rather than in response to rigorous thought about how Television Distribution works. Two basic premises guide by views. I believe free over the air broadcasting is a Vital National asset. A treasure even. I dont take it for granted. Whatever you say about programming markets or retransmission consent or advertising markets or the highest and best use of spectrum, i urge you to consider this. If free over the air broadcasting did not exist, and fcc allocated spectrum for today, would investors provide capital and would the new broadcasters be able to outbid internet or multichannel pay platforms to acquire the very highest cost and most popular programming and produce hours and hours of live news in every market. That is day in and day out and make it available for free. Access to people is no longer a barrier to entry, but nobody else does these things today. Second, i understand theres no free lunch. Weve chosen to finance over the air Television Broadcasting by allowing broadcasters to compete for revenue in the marketplace. The decision to finance free over the air broadcasting with profits earned in the marketplace means that broadcasters cannot take anything for granted. They have to earn their supply of programming by paying for it. Nobody requires cbs stations to broadcast nfl games. Nobody requires nfl to distribute its programming on a platform thats available for free, or to sell games to nbc when espn and fox sports will pay more. When i hear the typical arguments against broadcast consolidation, the one fact that never gets acknowledged is the simple premise that broadcasters have to compete against unregulated competitors for every minute of programming and every dollar of revenue. But they will say broadcasters, as you heard david say, have special Public Interest obligations and got their spectrum for free and that justifies limits on control. The problem is one does not follow the other. The canard that broadcasters got their spectrum for free, that justifies ownership regulation that is thwart their competitiveness drives me crazy. Very few stationers in the hand of original licensees who got their stations for free. I was there when chairman fowler dissented to giving original cellular licenses away to incumbent phone companies for free with no Public Interest but responsibilities. The same was true for dbs. Most licenses dbs and broadcast issued for free have changed hands to buyers who paid market price. More to the point, how they got their stations and limits on ownership is an intellectual non sequit sequitur. Ownership limits are not derivative from how a station was acquired. The fccs politically divine ownership rules have innumerable, perverse and harmful effects on the market. I was an active witness on the absurd unintended consequence of making washington, d. C. , a monopoly newspaper town when fcc made Joe Albritton separate washington star from its financial moorings at wjla tv, and it died. Nationally we do not need ownership caps. Because those particular rules prevent new competition to existing National Distribution platforms. As Preston Patton pointed out just two days in his wall street journal oped, the rules have the effect of freezing National Television to abc, nbc, cbs, and fox. They have 100 of american laws, why shouldnt others have that same option. Locally we dont need ownership restrictions either. We need to allow those willing to invest in local markets to organize in a way that allows them to be as profitable as competing platforms. In the system weve chosen to finance broadcasting, profits commensurate with profits of competing platforms are not just good, they are essential. Even if you believe that broadcast ownership should be regulated beyond antitrust, the next question is what ownership rules are right for 2018 and beyond. I reject as preposterous the argument that the ownership restrictions on the books, written at a time when people learned of pearl harbor bombings from three over the air networks before facebook, before google, amazon, netflix or directv or davids former employer as existed. At t was still a Long Distance provider, whether that is the best framework for 21 it 1st ce. I feel like rip van winkle. Heads up, the world has changed, rip. Get over it. The u. S. Shows finance broadcasting through markets. That was easy when broadcasters had no competition except for each other. Restrictive ownership limits had bad consequences but they were not existential threats for free television. If you want the marketplace to find a way to bring you local news, nfl games, high cost scripted programming to everyone for free, you have to let the marketplace figure out how to do it, because programmers are going to sell to the highest bidder every single time and the government aint going to subsidize. Thank you. When i said i was happy jerry is here, i take it all back. Jerry, you ended by saying the marketplace will figure it out. Im going to come back to a point i made earlier. If it this were a real marketplace, the government would have no role in there whatsoever. As long as the government has its thumb on the scale providing guaranteed distribution and, yes, free licenses at a time when other competitors have to buy them, we the American People get something in return. Here is an analogy. An analogy i use all the time. Did you know that 29 of the 32 nfl stadiums in this country were built in whole or in part with taxpayer money. That taxpayer money is your money, and it went right into the pocket of a billionaire owner. What do you get in return for that . 400 per family to attend a game. Thats what you get. Or maybe a game gets blacked out all together or subscribe to an expensive network to get it. Thats not right. My view, as long as American Public is giving something to an industry we have every right to ask for something in return, even if that means its not perfectly efficient from an economic standpoint. I think the way to handle this debate toys say, okay, we do want free over the air broadcast and we do want localism, and we do want things available to the public for free. Those are all great things. But you only get to argue that the rule should go if you can show theres somehow a disconnect between the value we get in the diversity of voices on the one platform that matters most for local news, broadcast. So far ive seen nothing, i mean zero, in the filings submitted by sinclair at the fcc that would show that. In fact, every time one of us opposing this merger suggests a question sinclair can answer like, could you please show us how your local news hiring and content compares to the rest of the industry or even just compares to tribune, the company you want to buy, crickets. No answer. Except maybe platitudes like were going to bring local basketball, local high school basketball. Thats great if i can compare it to how the rest of the industry or tribune does. So once again we can talk about the free market all day long. As long as uncle sam and us taxpayers are subsidizing this industry, we get a say and we want local news and local diversity. Lets give our debaters a hand. [ applause ] when senator plblumenthal arrives, well give him the podium. He can have my podium even. Thank you. Andy told me its a lectern, not a podium. Now ive been corrected. So let me briefly introduce our speakers. I do believe their longer bios are on the Georgetown Law Center website, if im not correct, but they are also very easy to find in any Search Engine and im not going to mention any particular Search Engine. Lo them up. They are terrific folks. I feel very, very lucky to put together this panel. Directly to my right we have rebecca hanson, who is senior Vice President for strategy and policy for Sinclair Broadcast Group. Ed lazarus, executive Vice President and general counsel for tribune corporation. By the way, this is a big deal to have two representatives of the merging parties. I called in a chip with both of them, so thank you guys. Then we have carmen scurato, director for policy and Legal Affairs for National Hispanic media coalition. Directly to her right jim winston, president of the National Association of black owned broadcasters. His right is my mentor and longtime friend and sometimes pain in the whatever, Andy Schwartzman, who is senior counselor Georgetown Institute for public representation. Welcome, everybody. We had two stark visions there. One was of an industry that gets a lot of government and taxpayer benefits and therefore owes something to the public, a fiduciary. One of the things they own is a diversity of voices. On the other hand we have a scrappy competitor in a very competitive marketplace, where the free market, according to jerry fritz, ought to rule. Whatever needs to be done to make sure broadcasters survive needs to be done, kind of the way i read what jerry is talking about. I thought i would ask anybody in the panel if they want to respond. Which is it or is it a little bit of both. David paints a very rosey picture. A lot of the points he makes are not disputable, except that we got our spectrum for free. If thats the case ill be expecting 4. 4 billion check back from eddie at some point in addition to 85 billion our company has paid over the years in acquisitions that weve made. So there is an investment in spectrum regardless, as jerry pointed out, the origin of how the original licenses were issued. But the other part of the picture that david painted is what you see before you. Its basically the environment in which we try to use these socalled government benefits to create a selfsustaining financially solid ability to deliver local news. This is a slide showing where broadcasters are in the middle in the media ecosystem in which we have to work. We have networks from whom we buy programming. 50, 60 times our size. Mdpds where we distribute our programming. To summarize where we are in this landscape, the major challenges in which were supposed to provide these Public Benefits include major declines in our primary revenue source, which is local advertising. Major consolidation of satellite and Cable Companies with nationwide or near nationwide footprin footprints. Consolidation of National Programming networks. Increased costs of programming including sports. Fragmentation of our viewership and entry of massive competitor such as apple, google, netflix and facebook. So i wanted to lay that out to set the scene that its not as black and white as david presented it. Ill stop there for a second. Andy, do you want to respond . Lets talk about our spectrum. We on the spectrum, the public owns the spectrum. We are the land lords. They are the tenants. Sinclair doesnt own spectrum. When rebecca says, our spectrum, thats not so. What sinclair pot was licenses. Their licenses for eight years which expire. They have a right to a renewal if they earn it. Unfortunately fcc rubber stamps that but they are supposed to earn it with Public Service. But make no mistake about it. We own the spectrum. You need to view it in that context when you realize that what were saying is that because we the public own the spectrum, we can set appropriate conditions to make sure that spectrum is used to benefit the public. That includes ensuring competition and diversity. So when jerry says, antitrust can take care of it, antitrust l laws about competition, this is about diversity. Diversity is the most important thing were trying to get here. When i hear this is our spectrum, i just really, really, really turns me upside down. We own it, they dont. Eddie and david, and then i want it move on to another topic. Turn on your mic. Is it on now . Thank you. So im not sure its really that fruitful a discussion to talk about who owns the spectrum quite the way we are. I think all local broadcasters feel obligations to their communities. Thats what sets local broadcasters apart. But the trade that david described is just not accurate. Theres no requirement local broadcasters provide news. The biggest, ion, many local broadcasters dont provide local news. The reason they dont is because its hugely expensive. The people that provide local news and tribune provides as much or more than most, is because its a differentiator. They live in these communities, they want to serve the communities. If they can afford it, they invest deeply in local news. They invest deeply in local sports. They invest deeply in their anchors and their relationships with the communities. But to do that, its not a government requirement. Thats something you do because you think it is the right way to run your business. Both sinclair and tribune have run their business that is way. One other small point. David talks about the fact in its biggest markets, tribune puts on more local news than sinclair does in its local markets. But theres actually a simple explanation for at least a good part of that, which is our biggest markets, new york, chicago, l. A. , we have cw affiliates or independents. You run local news on those because youre not required by your Network Partner to have good morning america, or the today show, or has they put on and require you to put on when youre a Network Affiliate. Whereas sinclair, most of their biggest stations are Network Affiliates, therefore they are required, in many circumstances, to run network programming. Both companies are deeply, deeply devoted to local news. The reason for that is, thats our way of delivering value to consumers. David said one other thing, which ill point out, we get automatic distribution. It is true local broadcasters can choose what is called must carry to get local distribution. Thats not what sinclair and most of the broadcasters do, they choose transmission consent where the free market is involved, where you negotiate with satellite and cable providers for carriage. You dont get automatic carriage. The structure of the Miles Per Hour is very different than whats described here. Can i jump in here . Quickly. Eddie makes an important about retrans. In some of our smaller markets we have Award Winning newscasts, an excellent job year after year but the revenue isnt enough. If it wasnt for retrans, we couldnt be delivering the very thing david wants us to deliver. Let me stop here. We have a national audience, not just washington, d. C. , when you say retrans and retransmission consent. Could one or two of you, rebecca since youve got the mic, explain what that is . As broadcaster theres two ways to get distribution on main distribution platforms. One send your signal out over the air. People can get that for free. But if youre subscribing to cable or satellite, that happens in one of two ways. Either you choose something called must carry, which means cable and satellite people dont pay you anything for your signal but they do have to carry it. Or you choose whats called retransmission consent, which is youre going to pay me for the consent to retransmit my signal. And what happens then is you engage in negotiation over what the price of that is going to be and the cable or satellite operator, this oversimplified, basically pays the local broadcaster for that signal in that market, and then the local broadcaster, this is also very important, pays an increasing share of that company back to the network that its affiliated with. If its cbs affiliate, youre paying back to cbs. If its abc affiliate, youre paying it back to abc. So whats happened in the marketplace today for local prod cast, local prod cabroadcast cl which is the major driver is flat to down and has been for years because of the increased competition from cable and the internet, google and facebook and all the rest of that. Retransmission consent revenue is going up, but the share that the local broadcaster is paying back to the networks is going up faster. So all local broadcasters feel themselves in a tremendous financial squeeze. That is what thats what that slide is. Thats what drives a mature industry like broadcasting to consolidate because that drives synergies which allow companies to save money and reinvest that money spot local communities. In the absence of that, there will be no growth in the broadcast industry until theres a technological change in the industry. That is why you have rebecca and i sitting up here as members of two separate companies that their shareholders are interested in becoming one party. David, i want you to respond. I want you to respond to what eddie said because i was quite struck by it that broadcasters dont have legal or statutory obligation to serve their communities. I didnt say that. I said we dont have a requirement to put on local news. That is one way to serve a local community. But there are the vast majority of broadcasters and every dma in the country dont put on local news. Doesnt mean they arent serving, religious pastors do a great job serving local communities. My mentor Andy Schwartzman talked to me about saturating. Thank you for clarifying. Im good. David. The first thing ill say is if sinclair and tribune are serious about maintaining local coverage and staffing at tribune stations they should suggest that be put in writing but youre never going to hear them commit to that. Because as i said before past is prologue sinclair buys, fires local newscasters, sports casters do you really want the government to dictate to broadcasters what kind of content to put over the air . I didnt say that. Just last month the entire Washington Community was up in arms because chairman didnt come out forcefully enough in favor of the First Amendment so nbcs license wouldnt be in jeopardy. For you to suggest the government in an order from fcc should direct broadcasters to have any specific type of programming would be just the most constitutionally infirmed decision. You and i both know it would be a negotiated Consent Decree out of department of justice. How about just a letter, a letter from ceo of sinclair saying i will not cut local staff in chicago, l. A. , new york, or any other tribune property. You will not hear it, because it will be a false statement. As for retrans, we know one thing for sure. This company intends to raise prices. Dont take my word for it. Look at the transcript from the investor call, were going to raise retrans fees. That means you, american taxpayer, if you subscribe to cable or satellite, your prices will go up. Ive worked in washington, maybe not as long as jerry or andy for 27 years and never have i seen a merging company come to this town and say please prove our merger, we intend to raise prices. Maybe thats why we have conservatives like chris ruddy, who runs newsmax and progressives like Andy Schwartzman on the same page agreeing this merger is bad news. Maybe thats why even under antitrust laws you have four attorneys general from four states including the home state, this is a bad merger. I think raising of prices and failure to commit to localism is really spelling a bad deal. I want to shift dpeegears a little bit because we havent heard from carmen or jim and they have a lot to say. I want to ask, in response to what youve heard for the last ten minutes. Also i want to focus, were talking a on the about money, retransmission consent fees and making a profit, but, you know, obviously diversity of voices affects other things. It affects our electoral process. It affects whether marginalized communities will get to speak. I was hoping jim and carmen maybe you can talk about some of your concerns not only with the change of the ownership rules but also perhaps with the merger as well, about its impact on voices of color. Carmen, why dont you start and jim, follow. Absolutely. Absolutely. Ive heard a lot of talk about localism, but i havent heard much talk about diversity and the impact this will have. Were talking about the marketplace. As it stands, women and people of color lag far behind white men in broadcast ownership. The number for latinos is dismally low. Its about 4. 5 of broadcast television. And when youre talking about diversity, when you consolidate and make these must run segments that are centrally produced and distributed to the local stations across the country, you are pushing out and keeping diverse owners out of the market. Not only that but we just dont have that diversity our community needs. Specifically the National Association of broadcasters puts out a study every year. They said latinos disproportionately rely on broadcast media for their news. 31 of latino households rely on broadcast tv solely as their source for news. The numbers are even higher for Spanish Speaking households, its 47. 7 . So i feel like this consolidation will not serve the diversity of voices that is needed to serve that community. Jim. Yes. Thank you, gigi. I feel like i need to give a little bit of history here as the president of the National Association of blackowned broadcasters, my guess is very few folks in the room may be familiar with this. So ill go back a little bit. In 1978, the federal Communications Commission recognizing the lack of diversity of ownership of broadcasting, particularly among minorities, created a is that better . Can you hear me in there we are. Okay. Created a minority ownership policy, which was designed to increase the ownership of broadcasters by africanamericans and other minorities. That program worked very well in 1978. There were 36 africanamericanowned radio stations in america, no africanamericanowned radio stations. At its peak, represented 250 africanamericanowned radio stations and 23 africanamerican owned television stations, which was a huge increase from 1978 to 1995. Unfortunately that 250 radio stations out of 11,000 in america. The 23 television stations were out of 1400 in america. Since that time, because of congressional and fcc policy changes, our numbers have actually decreased. Were at 12 full Power Television stations and 180 radio stations. When you talk about consolidation in the industry, consolidation has already caused a great loss of africanamerican ownership and minority ownership through the the industry. As carmen was saying, minority communities rely upon broadcast radio and television for their news more than the general market. So when we talk about consolidation in industry, its always a matter of great concern to nabob. Weve always been knee jerk response, no more consolidation. The merger comes at an interesting time for nabob. Recently we have been in conversation with nab. Nab brought home a really key point for us. National association of broadcasters. Lets try not to talk in a o acronyms if we can help it. What they brought to mind was this Market Cap Chart you see in back of you. If you look at the Largest Television companies, you see they are a fraction of those companies we have to compete with. You get comcast, nbc up there with huge market cap. You get at t, directv up there. So if youre a broadcasters in 2017, you are competing against companies that are many, many more times your size, not to mention facebook and google, all of whom are looking for the advertising dollar. So where we are now at nabob, were at a crossroads, trying to figure out how do we navigate, if the broadcast industry as a whole is at a disadvantage, what does that mean for us as africanamerican broadcasters. So when i look at the sinclair tribune transaction, im hoping that there will be some, because theres a discussion that some of the stations that are being acquired by sinclair may be spun off and, in fact, may be spun off to minority broadcasters. So were looking at this more in a complex way than we would have previously. I think it does require that the fcc give it a very hard and close look, and we hope that the kinds of things that sinclair and tribune have been talking about in general terms with respect to their merger might result in actual positive gains in minority ownership. So id like rebecca not only to respond to what carmen and jim have said but just to the general question, this is going to create a prod cast behemoth that nobody has ever seen before, 233 stations, 72 coverage of the American People, why is it in the Public Interest . To respond to what i heard in carmens remarks was that theres an underlying assuming an underlying causal relationship between prod cast ownership limits and minority ownership and that has never been proven to be the case. The only thing that has resulted provably in increased minority ownership was congresss minority tax cut. Tax credit. If congress were to bring that back, i think you would see increase in minority ownership. Historically thats the only data thats proven what causes minority ownership. Jim, you do correctly point out to the extent we do plan were going to have to spinoff some stations. Right now 20 of potential buyers of those stations are either minority or women owned. I wasnt clear from your ex parte but you should be aware. Thats a very strong percentage. Were very proud of that. I guess going way back to what david said, i really have to take off the table his baseless allegations that when sinclair buys a station we sort of do in and fire everyone and run it from baltimore. Thats simply not true. Thats a caricature of a narrative thats being spun, and it really clouds the policy debate which should be discussed, which is how do we fix this situation so free over the air broadcast can continue. We have chapter in verse and fcc filings, how many hours of news weve added to our broadcast, where weve added investigative reporters, where weve added digital reporters. I dont want to waste precious time going through those, but we are happy that our fcc filing speaks for itself to the people making the decision on this which is fcc. Rebecca, let me get back to the larger question, is that your Public Interest case . Give me the affirmative case and eddie, you can chime in as well, please. What do you say to craig aaron in the second row about why your merger is in the Public Interest. Why should he why should the American People support this merger . Is it just that . Im not sure thats particularly persuasive. We believe free over the air broadcasts should be just as compelling and have just as high Quality Content as content migrating behind pay walls. You can only do that with scale. Weve talked about news. Were investing in a lot of news. But theres other content that is vanishing from the free over the air landscape. Only scale will preserve that and bring it back. Sports is a great example. Look at Shonda Rhimes announced shes leaving abc. Most successful africanamerican woman producer who is going to netflix. So now if you plik greys anatomy or other shows you have to pay 10 a month. Because we believe it is a gem in the American Communications ecosystem and we dont want to see it become a second Class Service for people who cant afford cable other who dont want to pay for cable. In this day and age, you only get that with scale. Maybe i would pick up on the sports point. Your mike. We play a particular role in the world of over the air sports. You know, david, i would have thought candidly that you would be one of the biggest cheerleaders for this merger. And the reason for that is if you look at our portfolio, if you want to see the mets or the yankees is on wpix our station in new york. If you are one of the huge number of hispanics in l. A. And you want to watch the dodgers. You cant afford the park or youre not a cable or satellite subscriber. The only day to see the dodgers is on ktla in los angeles. The same is true in chicago. We carry 150 Major League Sports events on wgn. Those are hugely expensive contracts. Its exceedingly difficult for local broadcast to compete. Its difficult for National Networks to compete with over the top and with cable. But for local broadcasts to compete is a virtual impossibility, but weve managed to do it. Without deep pockets, you cant continue that and more games are going to go behind that pay wall. Of all the broadcasters, the one i would say is most devoted to sports they spent a ton of money to buy the tennis channel is sinclair. Your suggestion that we would walk away from these valuable properties that are very popular with our audience is just silly. Can i just explain what a pay wall is . A pay wall is basically tv for pay. So you have to climb over the wall or pay whoever the gatekeeper is in order to get the programming. Let me also explain why eddie can look me in the eye and say i of all people should care about the sports issues. Im the founder of a nonprofit called sports fans coalition. We petitioned the fcc to end the sports blackout rule. They yunanimously voted to end it. Of course i care about sports and i care about sports being available to the public. My beef is not with tribune. You guys have done a great job of putting free sports on tv. Im glad you mentioned the tennis channel. Let me preview for you what is going to happen when sinclair takes over. They will take the sports rights they acquire and push them onto the pay tv so you will not be able to get them over the air. You will instead have to pay more to watch your local sports. Which is i think a travesty. The nfl claimed when we were fighting them to end that sports blackout rule that without that regulatory support nfl games were going to come off tv. Well, that didnt happen. The nfl voluntarily ended it own local blackout practice. Heres my theory why. Broadcast is still the only medium in the United States where you can reach 100 of television households. So if your advertises include budweiser and coke and pepsi and other brands that require penetration of 100 , guess what, youre still going to get broadcast advertising. As long as local broadcast is still and it is the most popular place to get your local news, you still are going to have an extremely huge audience on broadcast. I do believe in keeping sports on the air. I dont believe this merger is the way to get it. Stadium is not behind a pay wall. We are starting to roll out a broadcast component, probably on our digital sub channel. So that fact needs to be corrected. Eddie wanted to respond to the other things. I dont know what basis you have for saying they would move those sports off broadcast. The reason they wont is that when you do consent negotiations with the big mvpds, one of the ways you deliver value to them and therefore get paid is by having the sports on your channel. If they move it behind the pay wall, theyre going to end up losing money to the mbpds. That makes no sense. Does that mean you would commit to not taking down that programming during a retransdispute . Quick response. Retransmission negotiations we should have another panel. One thing i know for sure is that is one of the major reasons that broadcasters do get the money they get. So the idea theres an incentive for us to move our broadcast games behind the pay wall makes no economic sense. Just as a broadcaster, it seems totally counter intuitive. You want to talk about a shorthand called side car agreements. So for years, probably 25, 30 years, broadcasters have engaged in these agreements which allows them to skirt local ownership caps. In other words, a more powerful broadcaster will cut a deal with a weaker broadcaster to sell all their advertising or to share facilities or management. And in my mind, if i could offer an opinion as a moderator, its just a way to skirt the ownership rules. I want andy to talk about what they are and why hes troubled by them. Then id like the broadcast folks to respond to, if were lifting the ownership rules anyway, why do we need side car agreements anymore . I can understand, although i didnt like it, that when the rules are more restrictive, you try and find ways to get around them. Now that were lifting a lot of the regulations, why should there be ways to get around that as well . I will exercise the privilege of responding on one point. I personally and i think most people have no problems with the guidelines that the fcc had in place for many, many years that set a goal of having certain minimum amounts of news and Public Affairs programming for every station, although a station could demonstrate that it met the Public Interest in other ways. I certainly have no problem with the 1991 Childrens Television act which specified that a minimum amount of programming has to be carried to meet the needs of children. I havent heard jerry or anyone else challenge the constitutionality of that statute and the fccs enforcement of it. The air waves belong to the public. That extends to the socalled side car agreements. This was a blatant evasion of the fccs ownership rules through contractual arrangements that give all but actual ownership to one company while having a nominal owner in place. In fact, under the Securities Exchange Commission Accounting rules, the socalled side car stations are generally reported as being owned by the dominant company and not by the Front Company in operation. A my suspicion is they have option agreements that are going to allow them to buy up the side Car Companies anyway. A side car is a means of having somebody who does nothing other than hold the license and goes through the motions of pretending to own and operate the station for the benefit of another company. Its a disgrace to Public Policy and it makes a mockery of the law. Before i turn to you rebecca and eddie, i want carmen and jim to weigh in on these side car agreements as well. And just to let people know, if the sinclair tribune merger is consummated thats pretty significant. I actually calculated 35. Okay. Whatever. Its half. Its still in my opinion evasion of the rules. But go ahead, jim and carmen. Well, with respect to side car agreements, the position has been consistent with everything andy said about how they have been used historically to evade the fccs ownership rules. And if the fcc is about to change that ownership rule, many of these side car agreements have a right for the dominant broadcaster to purchase the side car station and take absolute control. I do worry because what the fcc is proposing is so far reaching in relaxing or eliminating Television Ownership rules is that you may see a station that buys out the side car so that it now owns two stations out right in a market and then enters into a side car with a third station. Because the relaxation of the rule does not prohibit another side car agreement after they own the two. So i think the relaxation that the fcc is contemplating has the potential for just totally destroying any local broadcast Television Ownership. I think its a very bad step that the fcc is taking. I agree with andy and jim. These side car agreements were a consolidation by another name. They just exploited the loopholes. With this consolidation it was less time devoted to local news and journalism. I think theres a real concern this is going to undermine competition and the diversity of voices needed in local markets. I would direct your attention to this slide showing benefits from jsas over the years. Thats joint sales agreements. Thats one of these agreements where two stations will combine their advertising and consolidate their ad sales force. This slide shows that in these numerous markets, actually more local news or local news where there wasnt any local news on that smaller station before was introduced into that marketplace as a result of the jsa. Similarly, there are nonnews benefits which are in jsa partnerships, the smaller station can get these nonnews benefits. Id like to step back and ask the panel why the characterization that these agreements sidestep the rules if the fcc has been providing broadcasters guidance on exactly how to craft these jsas so that theyre in compliance with the rules . The fcc staff has been in the pocket of the broadcasting industry for 30 years. Thats why. Id like to continue on my answer. I cant acknowledge that. You asked the question. Ever since 2008 the fcc has approved 85 jsas. And every one of them should not have been approved. The docket is replete with their benefits. There have never been any demonstrable harms. Even the gio concluded that there was no data showing that jsas harm the Public Interest or contravene the ownership rules. Seems to me its time to put this topic to bed. I think maybe for the people who arent so deeply steeped in fcc lingo, were talking about the two ways consolidation might take place. One is a horizontal point which is the question there is what percentage is okay for broadcasters to have as a kind of horizontal matter across the country in a world where many distributors reach most of the country. The second question is within each market how many stations can you either own or have a significant relationship with such as these socalled jsas. One is the department of justices screen where they look to see if a combination of stations in any given market is going to be too large. If it is, they say youve got to get rid of a station. Then there are the fcc over lay which involves its own test and the potential for structuring deals. That was just perfect. Im so slighted that senator blumenthal was able to join us. I apologize. I didnt mean to interrupt. If you havent finished, please do. No, no, no. Im sure that my words can wait. I really want to thank the Georgetown Institute for tech law and policy for organizing today. Im very pleased that we have this excellent turnout for a merger that i think is profoundly important to the future of communications and media in america. Soon after sinclair announced its proposal to acquire Tribune Media, i called on the chairman of both the judiciary and the commerce committee. I sit on both. To have a hearing, to have full and complete consideration, and i am profoundly disappointed and troubled that there has been no hearing and theres no immediate prospect of one. Thats not only disappointing and troubling, its also, i think, potentially a disservice to the American Public that will be affected in fact more than 70 of american households will be affected by an acquisition of this scope and scale. And it has even more profoundly important ramifications going forward. So theres no question that congressional scrutiny and at least one congressional hearing is necessary and appropriate and probably more than one because both judiciary and commerce have a role here. This merger, very simply, threatens to create a concentration of unprecedented scope and scale in the Media Industry in america and will unquestionably affect the Public Interest, whether youre for or against it. I really welcome this conversation today, because it provides what i hope will be a preview of coming attractions. At the very least, a prelude to what should be close and searching congressional scrutiny. And i hope that the deliberation today will raise some of the issues that my colleagues and i have an obligation to confront. Ive laid out the details about why i oppose the sinclair proposed acquisition of tribune in a letter that i sent september 27, 2017 to the chairman of the fcc. I oppose this merger because it violated longstanding media ownership rules and would demonstrably harm media diversity, localism and competition. Localism is deeply ingrained in those rules. Competition is essential in this industry. And diversity is part of our fiber in democracy. Allowing this acquisition to move forward would reflect, very bluntly and simply, a failure by the fcc to do its job. I want to thank all of you for being here today, particularly the wonderful panel that you have and hope that there will be more opportunities to air the reasons that this transition would be a grave disservice to the American Public. Again, my apologies for interrupting. Go to it. Thank you. Thank you, senator. [ applause ]. The senator raised two interesting questions. Number one, should congress hold a hearing. Then i want to tag on a second question. He mentioned the judiciary committee. The department of justice has been talked a lot about lately with regard to the at t time warner merger. But it hasnt been talked about at all with regard to this merger. Well, i just raised it. My point is that thats the very point i made and i actually think jerry referred to it earlier as well, which is this isnt the wild west. You cant just willy nilly put a whole bunch of companies together in this country regardless of consolidation. Theres some very established rules at the department of justice. This merger is going to have to pass through that review. Im not going to talk about the nature of that review, because its all confidential. But doj has always been rigorous about its review of broadcast mergers. Its not the first one. Theyve been down this road many, many times. So the fccs review is a second level of review. The question is in addition to the concentration limits imposed by the department of justice, what more should the fcc do. And the truth is that even with the relaxed guidelines, the fcc will be doing more than the department of justice does. Its not the wild west that you could just put companies together willy nilly. What rebecca and i are trying to do is make the case that if you truly love local broadcast, if you truly believe in localism, you actually should be in favor of this deal not opposed to it, because the resources necessary to do that in an environment that is much more competitive and you can just go look at the Balance Sheets of these companies and the trend lines on their revenue. You will be drawn inescapably to that conclusion. This ad revenue chart decades ago local broadcasters probably dominated threequarters of that chart. This is the declining ad revenue that were facing. Id like to respond to some concern that the senator has. Everyone needs to understand that every broadcaster knows that if youre not local, youre not going to succeed in your market. Localism is alive and well with Sinclair Broadcast Group. I have here this is a list of where were number one or number two in our markets. And you dont get there unless you are meeting the needs of everyone in the community. Were going to have to close so i do want people to address usually when it comes to broadcast mergers of this type, the doj tends to defer to the fcc. Im asking should it play a bigger role. Obviously its more constrained than the fcc. I have a couple former students in the room today. Theyre all about to roll their eyes. In our class we would talk about the various ways in which different parts of the government look at a transaction like this, hearings on capitol hill, absolutely par for the course, get it out in the public v a have a debate in front o members of congress. Different agencies with different jurisdiction, it may sound like a redundancy and thats because it is. Different agencies with Different Missions look at the same transaction. Heres where i think we run off the rails a little bit. We havent talked a lot about a change to a rule, or really an interpretation of a statute that had profound effects. There is a rule on the books that says no broadcaster can get above 39 of u. S. Households. Im pretty sure its codified. This isnt something the fcc just invented. This is statute. With all the talk weve heard from supporters of this merger about how the world has changed, look up there, whats the one thing that chairman pie did to that rule . He went backwards in time to before the Digital Transition to when television stations used uhf signals and said thats how were going to count households. Of course that had the practical effect of raising the number of households you could reach through broadcast today. Now, what does that mean for the department of justice . The department of justice looks at that and says, oh, i guess the Expert Agency believes that rules from 1975 should still apply today. Were all about the future and technology when it comes to getting rid of rules, but on this one were going to go back in time to 1975. Will the department of justice look at that and say that seems pretty backwards. Why are we talking about a uhf way of counting when everybodys gone digital. I hope based on what we see at todays department of justice antitrust division, which is pretty aggressive with the at t time warner merger, i hope we see the same level with this merger and they discontinue this rather odd regression to the 70s that chairman pie has chosen for counting households. That is unfair alice in wonderland description of what the chairman did. All chairman pie did is say that you were going to reexamine the socalled uhf discount, which is just a way of measuring the 39 , you have to think about the 39 at the same time and think about what the Public Interest is. Thats all he did. And that, i think, is almost inarguably correct. The 39 cap is highly antiquated in this day and age. If youre going to look at one, you should look at the other. Thats all he said. He said the Wheeler Commission, which had only just changed rule a few months before, because this was on a motion for reconsideration. It wasnt even a new rule making. Had made a mistake in deciding to undo the discount without looking at the cap itself because the Wheeler Commission said that would take too long. That is really not a good way to make policy. Can i just ask eddie im not sure i follow what you said. Can you just tell me under chairman pies revision of the rule, would the merged company have to divest more or fewer television stations than under the wheeler version of the rule . And under the change that wheeler made, there are a whole bunch of companies that are already over the cap. Im asking about your transition. Our transition, we would have to invest more. Thats all i need to know. Chairman wheeler did something that means this merged company would have to divest fewer tv stations. Thats all i need to know. In fact, i dont really understand why the change was necessary in the first place. If it was bad reasoning, then lets correct the reasoning. If were talking about making a rule about how to count Audience Reach hes looking at the rule about what the ultimate definition of reach ought to be. The question is not how do you count uhf stations. The ultimate question is should broadcasters in an age where everybody else gets to reach 100 of the country only get to reach 39 . Thats a great question, actually. That is a real policy question. Chairman pie wants to answer that question. Hopefully the department of justice will answer it. Look abc, nbc, cbs all have 100 reach, not because they have licenses because rather because they do that through contract with Companies Like mine. So heres a question from the audience. By the way, great questions. I wish we had time to answer all of them. Sinclair chair david smith has said sinclair is forever expanding like the universe and if he could wish for anything it would be complete consolidation of the industry. Should there be any limits . Is it right that google has 100 reach, so you should too . I really answered that question when i described the rules in place, the antitrust division of the department of justice looks at these things. Theyre long established guidelines that dont allow for anything remotely like that. There are rules at the fcc that are more stringent than the department of justice that will also be applied here. And to keep some perspective here, the proposed rule change tomorrow is not to i heliminatee local ownership rules, its just to look at them more closely on a casebycase basis. Number one theyre not looking at them. Theyre eviscerating them. Talking about the top four theyre eviscerating them. Number two, what were talking about with the National Ownership cap is something set in place by congress. Its congress that set 39 and congress is going to have to change that. Eddie is talking as if theres not a statute that precludes what theyre talking about. Looking at the uhf discount in conjunction with the National Ownership cap is pointless because Congress Said 39 . You and i are in court over that. When i was a kid if you wanted channels 113 on the remote control, you clicked in. If you wanted 1469 youd have to tune it like a radio. Those were uhf stations. They were at a severe disadvantage and nobody watched them. Some of the programming was so awful it was unbelievable. Thats why there was a uhf discount to encourage folks to buy these less than optimal stations. Thats why there was a discount. Once we went to the digital tv transition in 2009, that disadvantage went away and thats why we got rid of the uhf discount. To me its the height of hypocrisy for a deregulator to reinstate a rule that has absolutely no basis in reality, especially a chairman who likes to say you have to take the facts as they are, not as you wish them to be. As i understand it, he wants to have that conversation of in reality what is the right number. Why is it 39 . I think the proceeding he has said he wants to open is to start that dialogue and create a record and get public input and look at todays advertising marketplace or consolidation marketplace and ask ourselves after decades, is this the right number. Im not afraid of having that dialogue. We welcome it. Its easier to have that dialogue in an agency that is set up to have public input than you can in congress. Thank you for explaining the uhf discount. What i want to make a point of is exactly what you said. Theres no technological justification for it. I think everyone here agrees with that. Youre making a procedural argument of the way we should consider it. Even when you put sinclair and tribune together, you would be over the 39 cap that currently exists and is in congress. Thats a congressional statute. When you put them together and im sure before the deal is complete they will have to come into compliance with the cap rule, which the under the current rule the combination with no divestitures is over. Because your rule is obsolete technologically should be undone without looking at the fabric of the regulation its a part of makes no sense. When you undo the uhf discount you are immediately as an effect massive lly con tricketstrictin ability for a group of companies to consolidate. Youre not then looking at the overarching rule of what number should be the right number, 39 , however you count it. Is that the right number . Whatever that is, the idea that you should just pull that one thread without looking at the picture of the Market Structure, i mean, reed hunt, democratic former chair of the fcc is when i got into the chief of staffs job he took me to dinner and said i have one piece of advice for you. Which is everything in the world is about Market Structure. If you dont think about Market Structure industries that count on the government to do the right thing are going to suffer terribly. All chairman pie is basically saying is we should look at this in an overarching Market Structure sense to understand where the broadcast business is today in terms of the appropriate level of cons consolidati consolidation. How that is objectionable, i dont understand. That is wholly apart from the concerns about we do have a terrible problem with diversity ownership in media today. Its very widespread. Its not just limited to media. How to solve that problem is one of the thorniest things that the fcc ever deals with. I dont think we were at all successful in moving the ball because its really, really hard. But having taking and sort of manipulating the consolidation rules for companies in an industry that is hurting as a way of sort of forcing diversity to me is the wrong way to think about that problem. We have to solve it, but we have to solve it in ways that are more with a scalpel than a sledge hammer. I think that the minority tax credit was extremely successful. Exactly. I think could you explain what the minority tax credit is . Sure. You cant buy a tv station or anything expensive really if you dont have credit, if there isnt a banker or lender or investor behind you. So how do you make an investment attractive . One way is you give that investor a tax break and one that could be traded. And eddie, you guys stop me if i misspeak. What congress did was change the tax code such that somebody who did lend to or sell to a minority owner got a tax benefit. Under the decision from the supreme court, we as a country are mar mofar more limited in o ability to do race specific incentives. I think thats a shame. All you have to do is look out the window and see we havent quite gotten there yet. Nothing i would argue, rebecca, stops your company from voluntarily do this. I hope when youre forced to divest, you announce those stations are going to be sold to people who have not been in the business before. Maybe thats one way to address diversity in the marketplace. Theres a really essential point that we havent quite closed the circle on thats really essential here. If you talk about the value of the tax certificate policy and the ability to spin off stations, the success of the tax certificate policy was because the fcc had rules that require limits that require ed divesttus to take place. If chairman pie lifts the ownership rules so sinclair can acquire all the tribune stations without having to divest any stations, there are no stations that are going to be spun off. As jim said, if theres going to be any value to this transaction, its would be the spinoff of stations. If the fcc lifts the rules so no stations have to be spun off and large deep pocketed companies can buy up all the stations, its fewer opportunities for new entrants to buy stations at all. Theres a direct link between changing these ownership rules and the opportunities for new owners who are minorities and women. Finally i have to say for Eddie Lazarus to talk about the fcc manipulating the ownership rules for sinclair and tribune, who have gamed the system with side cars, having sinclair side car stations owned by the elderly mother of the ceo of sinclair takes a lot of chutzpah. Hold on. Eddie ill let you respond. I want to see if jim wanted to add anything. I certainly agree with everything andy just said. Even the chutzpah part . I wont respond on that part. It is a problem when you look at what theyre doing in terms of eliminating these rules in recent years because of Court Decisions and congressional action or inaction. The minority ownership policy has been largely ineffective. All weve been able to do is get some spinoffs from some of these large mergers. If you eliminate the rules which require these spinoffs, then you do make it virtually impossible for us to see any Significant Growth coming up in minority ownership. Ill let eddie and rebecca have the last word on this. I will pass responding any other than just to say we actually dont have any jsas at tribune. So i take personal umbrage on behalf of the company. Why dont we go to the next question then . What will the impact of the merger be on political campaigns and elections given sinclairs what they call must run corporate directives and known right wing views. Is this really just about the fact that sinclair has been purported to want to start a broadcast fox . No. Is this really about their political views as opposed to the problem with the size . Go ahead, rebecca, answer the main question. Theres no impact whatsoever. I think what gigi is referring to are you talking about what we do out of our National News bureau or the commentary . Both. We launched a National News bureau that were very proud of. We have a National Bureau where we cover National Score ris and we share them with our stations. These are completely objective news stories without any opinion in them. There will be no impact whatsoever on elections with respect to what we air with respect to our news. If youre referring to some short commentaries that we run, that is a tiny fraction of what we run at various different times on our stations. They are the opinions of one person. They dont reflect the opinions of the 9,000 people that work at sinclair. And i dont think its going to have any impact on the concern. May i please . Just explain. Talking about mustruns these are segments that sinclair stations are required to air. Theres no editorial judgment able to be exercised by whoever runs those stations. I want to say this. As a card carrying flamingly progressive democrat, my opposition to this merger does not stem from the fact that there are conservative views expressed any more than the opposition of all the conservatives against this merger stem from the conservative views of the broadcaster. I mean, you wouldnt have news max and one america news and the blaze publicly opposing this merger if they were somehow against conservative views being put on the air waves. What were against is the power. And yes, elections will be affected by that power. Who gets to buy ads, who doesnt. Why was it that david smith and sinclair broke their Network Affiliate contract by not airing a story about iraq war dead, eliciting a letter from senator john mccain saying thats unpatriotic. Why . Because they didnt want that viewpoint getting out naps the point. Thats power. Its how much power is being amassed under run roof. I agree with david. I dont care about sinclairs conservative politics. I care that sinclair should have the ability to deliver any brand of politics to 72 of the country. But eddie said the tribune doesnt have jsas. Technically i suppose thats correct. It has a side car Company Calls dream catcher that has ssas. If you want me to explain the difference, there isnt any. Actually there is a very big difference. We can leave that aside. Were out of time. Just on that point, the reason we have ssas in two very small markets. These are shared service agreements. Theyre similar. Doesnt make any difference. The reason we have them is because of the incredibly arcane rule that you cant own a newspaper and a television station in the same market. So you evaded the rules with a contractural agreement, which is exactly what weve been talking about. The fcc passed on all of this. The rule maker decided the rules that would benefit the public. Youve defended the newspaper cross ownership rule until newspapers were put out of business. Its the same process. The newspapers were desperate for revenue. They wanted relief from ridiculous old rules around owner both a station and a newspaper in the same market where you could actually share a news bureau and save money and actually serve the community better. But wellmeaning people decided thats too dangerous. Its too big an accumulation of power. As a result in community after community after community in this country, local newspapers are failing. Thats an unfortunate fact. Ill just say youre wrong. One last question and then were going to wrap up. Thanks to everyone for staying so long. The last question im sorry i cant get to them all. Theyre really great. If antitrust laws are all we need to regulate broadcasters, then should be the we get rid of other regulations that distort the market such as must carry . If were going to say lets get rid of the fcc, broadcasters are not the only industry that wants to get rid of the fcc. Let the free market rule. Why should broadcasters have benefits like must carry and even retransmission consent . Which by the way is codified in law. I would just quickly say the reason retransmission consent is so important is because as we have shown, our declining nu