FCC Confirms Sinclair Misled Agency To Try And Get Its Megamerger Approved

from the disinformation-nation dept

Last week, the FCC shocked many by sending the Sinclair Tribune merger to merger review purgatory. It was shocking, in part, because the FCC had spent the better part of the last year comically neutering decades-old media consolidation rules specifically at Sinclair’s behest, only to suddenly turn around and find fault with Sinclair’s logic, relegating the merger review to an administrative law judge (historically the death knell for similar deals). Many of these rules have traditionally had bipartisan support, since they prevent any one company from dominating local media and distorting public discourse.

In a statement, FCC boss Ajit Pai indicated that the company appears to have misled regulators in its bid to pretend the deal would fall under the national media ownership cap, which bans any one broadcaster from serving more than 39% of the population. Again, a stark and sudden reversal for an agency that, until last week, had been taking an ax to decades-old media consolidation rules specifically to help grease the skids for the controversial deal, which would have given Sinclair ownership of more than 230 stations reaching 72% of the public.

Sinclair’s merger is controversial thanks to the company’s comically-slanted and highly misleading local news coverage, which recently made headlines thanks to a viral Deadspin video showing the facts-optional claptrap the broadcaster forces local stations to air in somewhat creepy synchronicity. But Pai kept going out of his way not only gutting media ownership rules, but re-instating obscure bits of regulation specifically to help Sinclair tiptoe around such limits (odd for a guy that complains endlessly about “burdensome, unnecessary regulation”).

Pai’s efforts to aid Sinclair were so blatant, he’s now facing an investigation by the FCC’s nonpartisan Inspector General into whether he coordinated the assault on the rules with Sinclair.

In short, for Pai to retreat from his Sinclair cronyism, the company must have done something notably idiotic. That something was subsequently laid out in the full FCC order (pdf) shoveling merger review off to an administrative law judge, something traditionally seen as fatal for such deals. The order notes that Sinclair, as some consumer groups had noted, had been trying to tap dance around remaining ownership rules by offloading some broadcasters to shell companies, subsidiaries and Sinclair partners at highly-discounted rates, hoping to then reacquire those companies after the deal was approved.

The FCC’s order is decidedly polite about it, but repeatedly notes how Sinclair tried to bullshit its way around the fact it had business ties to many of these potential partners and would, in many instances, still be running these broadcast stations post merger. Many of these partners had absolutely zero experience running local broadcasters, and were usually tied to Sinclair in some capacity. Like Steven Fader, CEO of a car dealership, who the FCC notes would have received a decidedly “below market value” deal as part of Sinclair’s plan:

“By way of example, one application proposed to transfer WGN-TV in Chicago to an individual (Steven Fader) with no prior experience in broadcasting who currently serves as CEO of a company in which Sinclair?s executive chairman has a controlling interest. Moreover, Sinclair would have owned most of WGN-TV?s assets, and pursuant to a number of agreements, would have been responsible for many aspects of the station?s operation. Finally, Fader would have purchased WGN-TV at a price that appeared to be significantly below market value, and Sinclair would have had an option to buy back the station in the future. Such facts raise questions about whether Sinclair was the real party in interest under Commission rules and precedents and attempted to skirt the Commission?s broadcast ownership rules.”

If you watched the FCC railroad consumer interest and trample all objective science during the net neutrality repeal, it’s understandable why Sinclair executives thought they’d be able to peddle this sort of bullshit at the agency. But the FCC investigation into Pai, who has pretty obvious post FCC political ambitions, likely gave the agency boss pause. Others think that opposition to the deal by Trump pal Rupert Murdoch (who was also advocating for the blocking of the AT&T Time Warner deal) may have also played a role in the FCC’s decision to walk back from this decidedly-unstable branch.

Regardless, Pai’s blockade ensures that the Sinclair merger (at least as written) is likely dead, and it shows that Pai’s agency does occasionally do the right thing, even if it’s probably for the wrong reasons.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: sinclair

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FCC Confirms Sinclair Misled Agency To Try And Get Its Megamerger Approved”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Complaining about nit-picky alleged errors of normative english rules (which not everybody even agrees on) make me realize that you have nothing of substance to say against the content of this message, and it can be safely assumed you agree whole-heartedly with everything he said.

So if you do agree with him, why be so mean about it?
If you don’t agree with him, why didn’t you engage with what he said, rather than find something trivial to whinge about?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Congrats to "John Smith": grammar snark drew half the comments!

"PaulT", some of the hoots due Techdirt stem from that YOU fanboys are so desperate to write ad hom that SEVEN of you pounce on one minor contrary bit that any (hypothetical) reasonable reader would have just glanced over.

So here’s a bit more pointed snark, hoping to trigger another of your 500-word off-topic, sheer ad hom rants, which reading your 14,500 comment history will turn up many of in any given month.

[Bet half a peach ya can’t ignore this! You’re a compulsive.]

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Congrats to "John Smith": grammar snark drew half the comments!

some of the hoots due Techdirt stem from that YOU fanboys are so desperate to write ad hom that SEVEN of you pounce on one minor contrary bit that any (hypothetical) reasonable reader would have just glanced over.

Nine, jackass. NINE!

And the comment total at the time of this writing is 18 – 10 of which are dedicated to this (not including mine). That’s 55.5%, not 50%.


A) Learn how to fucking count

B) Learn how to fucking divide

on one minor contrary bit that any (hypothetical) reasonable reader would have just glanced over

C) Learn what the word "irony" means

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Congrats to "John Smith": grammar snark drew half the comments!

“SEVEN of you pounce on one minor contrary bit”

No, we pounced on an idiot whose entire comment was whining about a minor piece of grammar in the headline of the article.

You wrote far more words, and said even less, except to prove that the anti-Techdirt obsessives who make up the fanbase of scum like Sinclair and Pai have so little to go on that they can no longer even address the content of the articles.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

"Try and…."

It’s "Try TO…"

An example of the literacy level of the author.

A language prescriptivist and a language descriptivist walk into a bar.

The descriptivist says "Ow!"

The prescriptivist complains that walking "into" something implies ending up within it, and continues whining about the grammatical inaccuracy while his brain slowly leaks out of his ears from the head injury.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...