The conservative media giant Sinclair Broadcasting has been in the news the past few days as many of their stations across the nation ran identical propaganda scripts. Sinclair currently owns six Iowa TV stations and they are attempting to acquire two more.

Both WHO-TV, the NBC affiliate in Des Moines, and WQAD, the ABC affiliate serving Davenport, are owned by the Tribune Company. Sinclair is attempting to get FCC approval to acquire the Tribune Company, which would give them ownership of WHO and WQAD as well. This is bad news for the independence of Iowa Media markets.

Here’s where Des Moines based Meredith enters the picture. In order to get FCC approval to buy the Tribune Company’s 42 additional stations, Sinclair must divest themselves of some of the Tribune stations where they currently own one station. In Des Moines where Sinclair already owns the KDSM station, they will need to unload either WHO or KDSM.

Meredith has made it clear they are interested in buying some of the stations Sinclair must sell. In early March, Meredith executive chairman Steve Lacy said he would ask the Meredith Board to approve buying some of the Sinclair stations.

Here’s where it gets more interesting. WHO would appear to be a far greater asset than KDSM. If Sinclair must sell one of these two stations, it would seem they would prefer to own WHO rather than KDSM.

Meredith did give a clue as to which one of the two stations they want. They made it clear they won’t take the Sinclair throwaways. Meredith’s Lacy said he will choose the one he wants to buy.

We’re going to bid for what we want as opposed to what they (Sinclair) say they want to sell,” said Lacy.

That certainly sounds like a war for WHO. Sinclair has close ties to the Trump Administration and has a far right agenda as we described in a May, 2017 article, ”Right Wing Media Giant Acquires Key TV Stations.”

One of Des Moines’ TV stations will be owned by Sinclair. Either they keep KDSM or they sell it and take WHO. It’s obvious Sinclair intends to be a biased cheerleader for the Trump Administration and they plan to demand a conservative propaganda agenda from their local stations. KDSM seems like it would be a less effective propaganda tool for the Trump Administration since it is already a FOX station.

There’s one other consideration that deserves more scrutiny. Meredith might seem like a better owner for WHO. One might assume a local owner like Meredith with a long respected media history would guarantee that WHO would maintain it’s journalistic independence. However, Meredith’s recent $2.8 billion purchase of Time Magazine couldn’t have been accomplished without the investment of $650 million by the Koch Brothers.

Both Meredith and the Koch Brothers claim that the Kochs won’t exercise any editorial control over Meredith’s media holdings. Others suggest the Kochs are moving to buy media giants in order to expand their conservative and libertarian messages. Obviously the Kochs have successfully used their money to shape and drive their political views by funding conservative Republican candidates. It appears the Kochs are on the same page with Sinclair in attempting to shape their political agendas by manipulating the news.

A close longtime associate and donor to the Koch’s causes, Stanley Hubbard, confirmed that the Kochs have a political agenda in buying up media outlets.

“Knowing the Kochs, I think they’d have to see it as a business that could at the same time further their political interests,” said Hubbard.

These are the ugly facts underlying conservative groups buying up local TV outlets. If there’s any doubt about the danger to the free press, just look at talk radio. We have seen the success of conservative groups buying up local radio stations and turning them into right-wing echo chambers. Rush Limbaugh is the poster child for the loss of independent radio broadcasting.  Limbaugh led the march in transforming radio broadcasting into the epidemic spread of toxic shock-jock radio.

Conceivably, Iowans in central Iowa may end up with a choice between two TV stations controlled by either Sinclair or have potential influence from the Kochs. Sinclair is a known quantity; they have made their conservative propaganda agenda very clear. Meredith is an unknown, but the large Koch ownership raises serious suspicions. It should be of great concern to Iowans that uber-rich conservative groups are buying up control of our local TV outlets.

 

by Rick Smith
Posted 4/5/18

4 thoughts on “Sinclair Duels With Meredith Over WHO-TV Ownership

  1. One must wonder what role the FCC and the FTC are doing to protect the interests of U.S. citizens. We see concentration in airline service and pharmaceutical firms. Control of the media is a hallmark of past fascist regimes in Germany and Italy and has existed in Russia since the days of Joseph Stalin.
    The continual rant of “fake news” is meant to plant the seed of distrust in media. The concentration of media control under Sinclair and the Koch brothers will further erode any confidence we might have had about journalistic independence. We may be left with NPR and IPTV as the last bastions of balanced reporting.

  2. Whatever happened to the Sherman Antitrust Act? The Clayton Act? I’m with Steve H above. These types of “takeovers” should be patently illegal. Of course, given the climate in the country recently, I guess anything that congloneratee want to make themselves BIGGER conglomerates is just dandy. I agree that, up to a point, consolidation can be cheaper and mre efficient. These monopolies are well-past that old saw. And in this case, who controls the media controls the mindset of the populace.
    I wouldn’t look to NPR much, any more, either fo “fair and balanced”, Since its controlling interets are (euphemistic term) “extremely conservative”, NPR’s reporting has leaned more and more in that direction, as well.
    This is scary, scary stuff.

  3. ‘Have been following/studying mass media. especially electronic, since the 1950’s. ‘Have been especially interested in the relationship between government/politics and public attitudes.

    Everything has changed drastically during that period. But the most profound development has been that broadcasters who are allowed to use the public’s airwaves no longer must act in the interests of the public.

    That change in philosophy began under Reagan. Behavior favoring serving public interest by media licensed by the people was quickly eroding as the Reagans left D.C.

    With what Sinclair already has been allowed to do, there is no turning back. The essential ingredients needed for in an informed public in a well-functioning republic now are things for nostalgia–not for protection by public policy.

    The future likely will be an even more direct relationship between money and policy outcome through both political advertising and concentration of control of the mass media. This could be even more dangerous than is government control of ideas through media manipulation.

    It likely will lead to complete destruction of the concepts promoted by the First Amendment.

  4. A wise viewing public could simply chose to tune out to any Sinclair controlled broadcast outlet…. Then watch advertisers pull out…. The news-casting
    crew at KGAN TV-2 has already turned me off!

Leave a Reply

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