Sinclair Could Be a Big Winner From the FCC’s Latest Deregulation Move

Goodbye, local studio rule. Hello, more consolidation?

bx98ct/iStock / Getty Images Plus

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

For almost 80 years, the Federal Communications Commission required that TV and radio stations have a studio in or near the community they served. It was only logical that a TV station covering a particular city or region have a physical presence there—to better cover the news, to give a connection to the community, and to offer viewers an easy way to interact with the station.

But on Tuesday, the FCC’s Republican majority voted to eliminate the main studio rule. It was the latest step by the commission under President Donald Trump to deregulate the broadcast industry, and it could further pave the way for the growth of a small number of powerful media companies, including Sinclair Broadcast Group, the pro-Trump TV behemoth on a mission to dominate the local news business across the country.

The FCC’s two Democrats voted against the decision. “By eliminating the main studio rule in its entirety for all broadcast stations—regardless of size or location—the FCC signals that it no longer believes those awarded a license to use the public airwaves should have a local presence in their community,” Commission Mignon Clyburn, a Democrat, said after the vote.

Critics on the left and right condemned the FCC’s decision. “By eliminating this rule, the Commission has blasted open a path for conglomerates like Sinclair to move even more resources—including broadcast facilities and staff—away from underserved communities,” Dana Floberg, a policy analyst at the media advocacy group Free Press, said in a statement.

Christopher Ruddy, the CEO of the conservative Newsmax Media company and a friend of Trump, wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed: “If this requirement is dropped, local news production could be moved to places such as New York and Washington as the big networks buy up local stations.”

The broadcast industry was a driving force behind the FCC’s decision. The National Association of Broadcasters, the industry’s top lobbying group, argued that the rule was outdated because viewers and listeners can now contact their local TV and radio stations by email and on social media, and so it’s no longer necessary to maintain a physical presence in the community. The NAB also said that throwing out the main studio rule would lead to “cost savings and other efficiencies that will allow stations to better serve their audiences.” Broadcast companies such as Sinclair say they need all the savings they can find as they compete with Google, Amazon, and other major tech corporations entering the media business. 

The FCC’s three Republicans agreed with the industry’s stance. Ajit Pai, the commission’s Republican chairman, went even further by predicting a future in which “technology allows broadcast stations to produce local news even without a nearby studio.”

The elimination of the rule will undoubtedly help companies such as Sinclair as they seek to consolidate the broadcast business down to a handful of mega-companies. Right now, Sinclair is seeking FCC approval of a $3.9 billion merger with Tribune Media. That deal would see Sinclair acquire 42 new TV stations—including stations in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, the three largest media markets in the country—making Sinclair far and away the largest owner-operator of TV stations in America.

As it happens, Sinclair—a company notorious in the industry for cutting costs and running lean newsrooms—is already experimenting with how to outsource the news. In 2016, Sinclair decided that it would outsource the local newscast for WNWO, its NBC affiliate in Toledo, Ohio, to a centralized studio located a state away in South Bend, Indiana.

The results have at times been shaky. The website FTVLive.com has documented the slip-ups and mistakes that appear to result from Sinclair’s efforts to produce a local news program from a studio operation more than 150 miles away. Here are two examples:

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate