why media consolidation is NOT a good thing

[Scott Fybush]

>Far be it from me to actually *defend* Sinclair, a loathsome[1]
>operator if ever there were one.  However, I object to the appointment
>of Sinclair as the poster child for ``media consolidation''; GE,
>Viacom, Clear Channel, and even Univision are all much more
>appropriate exemplars of that trend.  Thankfully, none of these
>companies are remotely at the level of Sinclair.

With a measly 62 TV stations under its ownership or "control" (I wouldn't 
put that in quotes, but there are a fair number of stations that Sinclair 
"controls" de facto that it can't control de jure thanks to those pesky 
multiple-ownership regs), Garrett's quite correct that Sinclair has hardly 
fed at the consolidation trough to the extent that the other companies he 
cites have done. (In particular, Sinclair has made no effort to spread 
itself into other media arenas, as Clear Channel has done in concert 
promotions and outdoor advertising. IMO, if Clear Channel's expansion is 
ever stopped in the courts, it will be for the antitrust issues between its 
concert promotions and its broadcasting arm, not for the sheer size of its 
radio and TV empire. I digress.)

But Sinclair is nevertheless notable for two reasons: first, it was doing 
de facto TV duopolies very early on in the game. Remember Glencairn, the 
company owned by David Smith's mother - with a helpful minority ownership 
interest, in both senses of the term, by Eddie Edwards - which just 
happened to buy TV stations in cities where Sinclair already owned 
(Baltimore, Pittsburgh) and just happened to lease out most/all of its 
stations' functions to Sinclair? Several of those arrangements are still in 
place on waivers and are STILL not 100% legal. A few of them wouldn't be 
legal even under the best possible version of the 
still-hung-up-in-the-courts multiple-ownership rules, and will ultimately 
require action from the FCC or Congress for Sinclair to retain them. It's a 
fair bet that a Kerry FCC wouldn't hesitate to make Sinclair divest those 
interests, and it's by no means certain that a Bush FCC would let them 
slide, either, though Sinclair is certainly juicing the appropriate palms 
in an attempt to get its way. The conflict of interest for Mark Hyman, as 
both spokesman for Sinclair and chief editorialist, is apparent and egregious.

And that brings me to the second reason why Sinclair stands out - to me at 
least - from Viacom, Clear Channel, Univision et al. As Garrett ably 
pointed out, those larger companies have greater stockholder pressure to 
balance out any intrinsic urges their management might have to use their 
size for political purposes. Even Clear Channel, for all its corporate 
donations to the GOP and its flag-waving, rally-holding talk hosts, carries 
Air America on one of its Portland, Oregon stations (and a decent signal at 
that.) I can't imagine Sinclair, if Sinclair still owned radio, ever doing 
that.

s