why media consolidation is NOT a good thing

[Scott Fybush]

> I have to say that this is a rather unfortunate choice on Sinclair's
> part, but it doesn't advance the point made in the subject line at
> all.  Years ago, parochial small-time operators (under the old rules
> of ``eight of a kind'') pre-empted more programming, more regularly,
> than any of the big groups do today.

But when they did, it affected a smaller number of markets. To cite some
of the more egregious examples, when the network affiliates in Jackson,
Mississippi pre-empted network newscasts during many of the big
civil-rights events of the sixties, it affected only viewers in Jackson
(and was a decision made by local owners, to boot, unlike the Sinclair
decision, which came down from headquarters with, it would appear, no
local input sought or heeded.)

If this were a Fox network show being pre-empted (less likely, I admit), a
decision by Sinclair not to carry the program would affect viewers in
several dozen markets (including mine!) And if Fox ever decided to
pre-empt a UPN show across the UPN affiliates that it owns - including
those in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Minneapolis-St. Paul - UPN
might as well just cancel its broadcasts that night.

So I'll side with Steve here and say that while this isn't a media
consolidation issue per se, its effects are certainly multiplied by media
consolidation.

And I wonder how this will affect ABC's pending affiliation deal with
Sinclair's soon-to-lose-NBC affiliates in Dayton, Ohio and central
Illinois?

s