Re: THIRTY YEARS AGO TUESDAY

["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>]

On 17 Mar 2002 at 9:08, Kevin Vahey wrote:

> The Ch 5 president spoke on WHDH's last
> newscast at 11 that Saturday night ( Harold Clancy?)
> and other than that the station simply signed off with
> no fanfare ( the last movie was "Fixed Bayonettes")

I think Clancy was the HeraldpTraveler's publisher, too.  I remember watching that last 
newscast.  Clancy said that any new operation was likely to have things go wrong, although 
"we hope not."  And if at any point WCVB had any problems (Again, "We hope not.") and 
there was any way WHDH could help, they would be glad to do so.  I think he was trying to 
be gracious, but, despite that offer, he came across somehow as not a very happy camper.  
Al Gore sounded much more gracious in defeat.

I also remember John Henning signing off that last newscast and looking very grim in his 
facial expression.  I remember thinking he might be concerned for his own professional 
future.  But, as it turned out, the next day, he was on WCVB.
 
> In retrospect the Herald Traveler losing the license
> was ill advised as the city lost a newspaper and the
> so called local ownership of BBI proved to be a sham
> because as feared they did sell out to Metromedia a
> few years later ... ( it was always rumored that
> Metromedia fronted BBI the money to set up shop) and
> in fact top management was imported from Metromedia.

As I recall, most of the ownership of BBI came from the law firm of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & 
Gesmer.

I've long thought the Channel 5 dispute was largely a partisan battle.  The Herald-Traveler 
was a major newspaper voice of the Northeast wing of the Republican Party.  The Globe was 
a liberal newspaper with ties to the Kennedys.  The Herald-Traveler was granted the TV 
license by an Eisenhower-appointed FCC.  The license was taken away by a Kennedy and 
Johnson appointed FCC.  

While the litigation in the courts didn't end until 1972, four years into the Nixon 
Administration, by that time it was in the Federal courts.  Not only are the courts supposed 
to be less partisan, but, with long-term appointments, it takes a long time for a new 
administration to put its stamp on the courts, to the extent that it's going to.  And a major 
tenet of administrative law is that courts show some deference to an agency's decision, 
within its jurisdiction.  
 

-- 
A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
 15 Court Square, Suite 210                 lawyer@attorneyross.com
Boston, MA 02108-2503           	         http://www.attorneyross.com