For NAB, there’s no other way to see the move than as a blow, and it’s one from which the organization must now pick itself up, dust itself off and regroup for next steps.

In this Talking TV conversation, Curtis LeGeyt, NAB’s president and CEO, says he’s “tremendously frustrated” with the FCC’s decision, and that the group is still weighing the next legal steps it can take to put broadcasters on a more level footing with its unregulated competitors.

LeGeyt also lays out NAB’s priorities for the year, which include an April conference that continues to expand its tent with CES-like ambitions for content creators from all media platforms to find a home.

Episode transcript below, edited for clarity.

Michael Depp: Happy New Year and welcome to our first 2024 edition of Talking TV. I’m Michael Depp, the editor of TVNewsCheck, and today I am with Curtis LeGeyt, the president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters. We’re going to be talking about that very unhappy holiday gift from the FCC to the broadcast industry, as well as the NAB’s priorities for TV broadcasters this year. We’ll be right back with that conversation.

Happy New Year, Curtis LeGeyt, and welcome to Talking TV.

Curtis LeGeyt: Great to see you, Michael. How are you? Happy New Year.

Thanks for joining me so soon in the new year. Curtis, the FCC gave broadcasters a very unwelcome Christmas present when it reaffirmed and then even tightened its network and TV station ownership limits. This was obviously a big blow, and it comes despite your lobbying efforts. So, what happens next? What’s your next move?

Well, as you point out, you know that the order from the FCC came out right before — or immediately during — the holiday week. And so, we are still spending the time going through the final item. But suffice it to say, we are very, very disappointed, and I’m confident that there are policymakers in Washington, D.C., especially on Capitol Hill, who are going to be disappointed as well.

I think there is significant awareness across Washington of the challenges facing local newsrooms across the country. We have been working with members on Capitol Hill for years on legislative efforts to level the playing field with big tech. You know, we are competing, both television and radio, in an environment where we’re competing for audience and advertising dollars with players all across the media landscape. Yet the FCC’s ownership rules are premised on the idea that broadcasters only compete against other broadcasters.

So, it’s tremendously disappointing that after sitting on this item — and let’s dwell on the fact that this is the 2018 Quadrennial Review — after sitting on this item for so many years that the FCC not only would have left the current rules intact, but in some ways use this opportunity to re-regulate in a way that is going to have a detrimental impact on smaller television markets. So, we’re tremendously frustrated.

Is your best hope here ultimately getting a Republican in the White House?

Well, I wouldn’t say that. There are people on both sides of the aisle — Democrats and Republicans — who are tremendously invested in ensuring that there is a viable business model for local newsrooms. If you look at the media landscape over the past decade, broadcasters are growing our newsrooms. We are investing in local communities and filling the void that has been created by the collapse of the local newspaper industry.

And so, I think members of Congress on both sides of the aisle see that. I have every belief that whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican administration, there is a real awareness of the need for local broadcasters to be able to compete. And in some cases, having increased scale is going to be a part of that.

So, we’re going to make our arguments at both the FCC, at the administration and the White House, regardless of which party is in power. But, you know, we are tremendously disappointed that the current FCC can’t see what I think is obvious even at the holiday dinner table when I talk to my mother or father, that the way that audiences are consuming our content has changed dramatically, yet the FCC’s rules haven’t kept up with it.

Well, preserving localism is ostensibly, for the Democrats on the FCC, that’s their prerogative here, and obviously the station owners are extremely concerned that this has exactly the opposite effect, that it’s going to be corrosive and damaging to local newsrooms. To your knowledge, is there any research about the impact that a lack of consolidation would have on local news production?

So, look, I think the newspaper industry speaks for itself. And what I’m focused on is ensuring that broadcasters have the ability, when audiences are cord cutting, to ensure viable revenue streams. We know that the major tech players, Facebook and Google, have absolutely eaten up the marketplace for digital advertising. And we see that audiences are fleeing the traditional ecosystem.

And in light of that, how do broadcasters compete, not go the way of the newspaper industry, without increasing where they choose to do it some scale, both in the local markets and in the national markets?

I think it is very, very difficult to justify how tightening the ownership rules is going to enable broadcasters to achieve the scale, to invest in the type of local journalism that our audiences have come to expect, as well as to innovate. So that’s really where we are focused right now, advocating for greater scale.

You know, we’re really heartened by the fact that looking up on Capitol Hill, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act, which is legislation that would enable broadcasters to gain some scale when we’re negotiating with the tech platforms for our content when it’s accessed online. That passed the Senate Judiciary Committee last year and demonstrates, to your question of Republican versus Democrat, we can work with both sides of the aisle.

There are significant Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill who are behind that legislation, which aims in a different way to level the playing field with big tech. We wish the FCC would take an honest look at the marketplace in the same way that our friends on Capitol Hill have.

Well, so to that end, do we need a study or studies to quantify the real potential damage now wrought by this decision? And if we do, who would best execute that?

Well, we have put plenty of evidence in the record as to the state of the local broadcast marketplace and example after example where scale in local markets has resulted in increased investment in local journalism. So, the record, in our view, speaks for itself.

We are certainly examining our legal options, as are individual companies throughout the broadcast industry. But I would expect that there will be legal challenges brought to this order. And our hope is that the record will speak for itself in justifying that these rules no longer represent their stated objectives of the Communications Act.

Well, moving past this, which is sort of like saying: “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” I wonder what else is on the NAB’s agenda this year? What are you prioritizing?

Absolutely. Well, first and foremost is the further growth of the NAB Show. You know, we are just thrilled with the way that the show has bounced back. We’ve now had two shows coming out of the pandemic and the fact that we had 65,000 people in Las Vegas last year, another 12,000 people in New York. We’re obviously building a digital platform to connect our NAB community the other 358 days of the year where they’re not in Las Vegas and they’re not in New York.

We’re gonna be building some additional opportunities to come together around that. I think it demonstrates that with all of this disruption that we are talking about here, that our business leaders and the technology companies that really enable us to create content, distribute it, monetize it, they’ve got real reason to be in person together. And so, we are thrilled with what lies ahead. You know, we’re three months out now from the 2024 show in Vegas. Expect that to be an even larger experience, new innovative experiences on the show floor. So, we’re excited for that.

You know, on the advocacy front, we are going to continue the deployment of ATSC 3.0. The FCC took a huge step last year in its Future of Television initiative, which the NAB has been asked to lead, and we are doing that. Really, this agency putting its imprimatur through that initiative on the fact that this transition needs to go from where it is right now, where you’ve got roughly 60% of the country with access to an ATSC 3.0 signal, to a full nationwide deployment.

This is very, very complicated. You know, we are not the wireless industry where any one individual company can just decide to upgrade. This requires an entire industry rowing in the same direction with the cooperation of the set manufacturers and the consumer groups, as well as our partners on the pay TV side, and I think you’re going to see real continued progress thanks to NAB’s leadership in that regard.

Just to jump in on that one, are we talking there about the task force that [FCC] Chair Jessica Rosenworcel talked about at last year’s NAB Show?

We are. Yes, so immediately following the NAB Show that task force was initiated. You know, there are three different working groups within that task force, each of which has held several meetings and will be issuing a report back to the FCC on the status of any number of issues relating to this deployment.

But I think the importance of this is rather than trying to get to a nationwide transition through just comment filing at the FCC on an issue specific basis, what that initiative enables us to do is really come together and talk about what are the technological hurdles, how do we get through them, what is the policy need to look like in a post 3.0 landscape?

And how do we ensure that no consumers are left behind? Broadcasters are absolutely vested in making sure that every consumer that wants to access a free over-the-air signal has the ability to do it, and they’re going to have an even more enhanced set of programing and a better experience through 3.0.

So, this initiative is a huge part of our agenda for 2024, as is, you know, further progress on ensuring that when our content is used, whether it’s by the large tech platforms or through the emerging generative AI technologies that are relying on news content to fuel their systems and their benefits to consumers and businesses, that local broadcasters are fairly compensated for the use of our content.

So, we’ve got a full plate here. You touched on the Quadrennial Review and the work that we need to do there to ensure a level playing field for broadcasters, But we’ve got a full agenda on Capitol Hill as well as it relates to our TV membership.

Let me just circle back to the shows for a second. In April. I should mention, of course, that TVNewsCheck is a conference partner with our Programing Everywhere event for April 14th there, which we’re very much looking forward to bringing back. Register now.

I wonder — your expectations seem to … I mean the show is bouncing back from the pandemic. Can you ever scale those 100,000-plus attendee heights again? Is that possible anymore?

I think it is possible. The response — and this is across the trade show industry — but I think the demonstrated bounce back of trade shows following the pandemic illustrates that you know, in spite of our increasingly online and digitally connected world, there is a unique value proposition to being together in person, especially when it comes to innovations.

And so, there’s no doubt in my mind that this model of bringing folks together, whether it’s predominantly in Las Vegas or spread across a number of different, more geographically centered events, that there is a demand for it.

We are still trying to make a determination on how we best cater to the NAB audience on an ongoing basis. But I think there is no doubt that given all of the evolution happening in media, you know, in some ways this industry, much in the same way that, you know, the consumer electronics industry became the nexus for, you know, a whole bunch of ancillary players, whether you’re talking about health care or auto, to convene and talk about what innovation meant for those spaces.

I think the NAB Show provides a real opportunity as content production is happening not just at NBC, CBS, Disney, Fox, but instead it’s happening, you know, at major streaming services, but also, you know, in the living room, a place where you can convene and learn about the latest technologies in content creation, the latest trends.

It has broad appeal, it has cross-sector appeal, and we’re going to continue to expand that. So, I’m not sure if the 100,000 will necessarily be simply in Las Vegas, but I think spread across the full NAB portfolio that we plan to grow over the next several years, we see real opportunities to cater to the space.

It sounds like you have a kind of CES-style vision for the thing becoming more expansive then, in that way.

Yeah, I just think that right now we do a great job of servicing broadcasters. You know, this show was created by broadcasters, has really fostered innovation in broadcast, but the reality of this show over the last decade in its growth is to the larger media landscape. And as you know, that landscape is only becoming more complicated, it’s only becoming more significant.

There are such real dramatic questions about some of the business models that are out there in media right now. And the NAB Show is going to be the place where business leaders can explore all of it, where technologists can come together. We’re really excited.

And it sounds like you’re still pretty firmly behind the NAB New York show as well, that that’s fixed on the calendar. I know it is for this year, obviously going ahead. But in the long term, do you see that show as having longevity?

I do see it as having longevity because, you know, what it allows is for those companies who have demoed particular products out in Las Vegas, it allows for them to create a more hands-on experience, a practical one in New York. It also provides us access to a very, very different audience. Yes, just geographically it’s on a different coast. But I think beyond that, the access to Madison Avenue to Wall Street opens up opportunities for our industry that we can’t just necessarily get in Las Vegas. So, there’s a lot of real potential for how we continue to build out NAB New York.

Do you see other regional shows in the mix potentially as well?

Well, I think we’ve got to continue to evaluate where those needs are. But I certainly think, you know, there is major content creation happening in emerging markets across the country. That is something that we can certainly capitalize on. You know, we are continuing to look overseas as to what opportunities might exist there. This is about expanding the NAB Show community.

And, you know, we’re not looking to create redundant experiences where we recapture the same audiences in different places. It’s about expanding our footprint and I think there’s real opportunities to do it, both by increasing our geographic diversity, but also by offering something that’s maybe a little different, more specific than what you can get at a huge show in Las Vegas.

One last thing I want to ask you: The vMVPD issue was a bruising one for broadcasters last year, with both the affiliates and the networks launching their separate respective lobbying efforts over negotiating rights. What is the NAB’s role in this? Can you serve as a mediator in this dispute?

Well, listen, I’m tremendously disappointed that the FCC hasn’t acted to refresh the record in the vMVPD proceeding. Now, this goes back to the points we were discussing with regard to the Quadrennial Review. The world around local broadcasters has changed dramatically over the last two decades, and yet the FCC pretends it is the status quo, and audiences have dramatically changed the way they’re accessing broadcast content.

Broadcasters are competing with large tech companies for market share, for advertising dollar. Yet these rules are premised on a 1990s and 2000-era media landscape. So, as it relates to vMVPD, we’re simply asking the FCC to take a look at the changes in the way that consumers are accessing broadcast content increasingly through these over-the-top streaming services. What impact is that having on local broadcast? We’ve asked them to refresh the record.

We obviously have support on Capitol Hill for that. You know, 21 Senate Democrats, including the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, Maria Cantwell, have written to Chair Rosenworcel and asked her to refresh the record in this proceeding, and we’re waiting on a response there. So, I’m tremendously frustrated.

At the same time, the relationship between the networks and the affiliates is a very, very important partnership, NAB is going to help to facilitate that partnership, that we have an unbeatable combination when the networks and the affiliates are aligned within our big tent producing, you know, must have sports journalism, national and local combined with the most-watched programing. And that is how we compete in a media landscape with Apple, Amazon and I’m going to continue to urge my networks and my affiliates to invest in that partnership.

It’s not good for anyone when mom and dad are fighting all the time, is it?

That is certainly one way to put it. I’m grateful for the service that both the affiliates and the networks are providing to communities across this country. I think those ingredients are tremendously important in a world in which we’re just overrun by tech misinformation.

Well, Curtis LeGeyt, you’ve got a busy year ahead of you, an important year for yourself and the NAB. So, thanks so much for joining me today. I appreciate it.

All right, Michael, thank you so much for the time.

And thanks to all of you for watching and listening. You can catch past episodes of Talking TV at TVNewsCheck.com and on our YouTube channel as well as an audio version of the podcast available most places you get your podcasts. We are back most Fridays with a new episode. Thanks for watching this one and see you next time.

The post Talking TV: NAB’s LeGeyt ‘Very Disappointed’ In FCC’s Ownership Decision appeared first on TV News Check.

Harry Jessell

It’s 2024 … except at the FCC where it’s still 1964 and regulating broadcasting is all the rage.

Drawing on the prevailing belief of that time that broadcasting was too powerful and concentrated not to be constrained and managed by the federal government, the agency — by a vote of its three-person Democratic majority — last week bucked the decades-long trend of loosening TV regs by affirming and tightening its Top-Four TV duopoly rule.

The rule says that broadcasters can’t own and operate more than one ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC affiliate in a market. In recent years, with the tacit blessing of the FCC staff, broadcasters have been able to circumvent the rule, mostly in 100-plus markets, by airing one or more stations on an LPTV station or multicast channel.

No more. The rule stays and the “loophole” is closed, the FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel and other FCC Dems proclaimed. Existing so-called virtual duopolies will be grandfathered, but they can’t be sold to another broadcaster without official FCC dispensation, which will cause all kinds of M&A complications.

The FCC says it will continue to consider Top-Four duopolies on a case-by-case basis, but we learned that’s a tease earlier this year when the FCC killed a proposed combo of two affils in Fargo, N.D., through one of Rosenworcel’s favorite tactics, bureaucratic indifference. Like the parties involved, I could see nothing wrong with the deal when I plugged in the FCC’s own criteria for granting them.

The ruling is a blow to broadcasters who see ownership of multiple affiliates as an effective way of achieving news economies of scale and preserving, and sometimes expanding, local news in the market.

It’s also a loss for the NAB, which argued for relief. Cable and satellite operators, organized under the banner of the American TV Alliance, pushed long and hard for keeping the lid on Top-Four duopolies, contending they gave broadcasters undue leverage in retrans negotiations that would result in higher fees for cable subs.

“We applaud the FCC’s efforts to help consumers by closing loopholes in its broadcast ownership rules,” the ATVA said in a statement following the vote. “For too long, these loopholes have allowed broadcasters to control distribution of two, three, or even all four major networks in markets throughout the country…. Today’s action promises some long-awaited relief for consumers and their pocketbooks.”

The FCC order swallows the ATVA argument whole, saying the tougher duopoly rule advances its long-standing goal of ensuring robust competition not only in retrans negotiations, but also in the local advertising market.

“Promoting competition among local television stations prevents local broadcasters from demanding higher retransmission consent fees and charging higher rates for local businesses seeking to purchase advertising time on local stations, costs that may be passed on to consumers,” the order says.

I concede that the ATVA had the higher ground in the battle since rising retrans fees no doubt put upward pressure on what consumers (i.e., constituents) have to pay for cable and satellite service. However, NAB should be able to fight uphill and win. The scores of cable networks that also demand fees from operators also drive up consumer prices.

In addition to preserving competition, the FCC also cites its long-standing goals of ensuring local programming (localism) and diversity of viewpoints or voices (separately owned stations) in justifying the duopoly rule. On paper, these are laudable, but they no longer make sense in today’s media ecosystem where there are literally hundreds of TV channels vying for attention and dollars, not to mention traditional media like newspapers as well as other relative newcomers like social media.

The FCC’s misguided obsession with broadcasters’ competitive clout may be detrimental to localism. Broadcasters need retrans dollars, as many as they can get, if they are to maintain and expand their news and offer other local programming. As I have argued here many times before, the FCC needs to get out of the way and let the market set the retrans fees.

And, of course, broadcasters also need advertising dollars to fuel their newsrooms. Is it really the job of the FCC to structure markets so that auto dealers, PI lawyers and home improvement outfits don’t pay too much for spots and pass the cost on to their customers and clients?

For the record, TV stations’ share of the local ad market shouldn’t sound alarms. According to BIA Advisory Services’ forecast, stations will reap just 13% of the $175.6 billion in local advertising spending this year, a presidential election year in which stations’ share is greater than in other years.

Intense competition, by the way, is not necessarily the path to better journalism. In fact, less of it can enhance it, producing fat profits and extra resources for newsrooms. I would say the Golden Age of Newspapers stretched from 1970 to the early 2000s when single papers emerged to dominate markets and did great things. The Times in Los Angeles, the Tribune in Chicago, the Globe in Boston, the Post in Washington all come to mind.

Newspaper publishing offers another lesson. Hundreds have withered or died over the past two decades from the onslaught of digital media. TV stations have been suffering from the same heat. That they have been holding their own so far does not mean they will continue to do so. Think what would happen if political media buyers discover a better way to reach likely voters.

Yes, the FCC is right to be concerned about the loss of a voice in the market, which is the natural consequence of duopolies, but losing a voice is better than losing an entire news operation because of regulatory hobbles.

Some markets simply can’t sustain three or four independent news operations anymore. Last spring, Sinclair shut down its local news operations in five small markets. (Here in Pittsburgh, DMA 28, where I live, Sinclair doesn’t even bother with producing its own news, although it carries newscasts of Cox’s crosstown WPXI.)

Broadcasters may be able to overturn the FCC action in the courts, but that is a long, costly and laborious process with no guarantees. Their best hope now for relief is the return of a Republican chairperson, one with faith in the marketplace and a belief that regulation is not the default, but the last resort.

Both FCC Republicans, Brendan Carr and Nathan Simington, voted against the measure. “The FCC has every reason to update this outdated set of broadcast radio and television rules,” said Carr in his dissenting statement. “The law compels us to do so. The facts tell us to do so. And the public interest in promoting local news and information counsel in favor of doing so. Yet the rules will remain in place — impervious to those compelling forces.”

I should caution that a Republican FCC might come with a lot of baggage, namely Donald Trump. He is no friend of news media that criticize him, and the FCC is a perfect tool to punish any outlet under its jurisdiction that does.

Carr, a likely FCC chairman in a Trump second term, is just the guy to wield that tool on Trump’s behalf. In May 2020, after Twitter tagged one of his posts as possibly misleading, Trump urged the FCC to look into regulating social media just as it used to regulate broadcasting via the Fairness Doctrine. Carr enthusiastically embraced the idea, First Amendment be damned. As far as I know, he is still a member of the Trump politicult.

The FCC needs a major attitude adjustment. It has to stop thinking of TV as indestructible and dominating players that must be controlled by wise heads in Washington, lest the broadcasters turn their newsroom over to AI-driven avatars, crush local economies with incessant spot increases and spawn a cable-deprived underclass.

If the FCC is truly interested in broadcast localism, the FCC needs to get its head out of ’60s and into the ’20s. I can suggest a few ways: give stations the right to negotiate directly with vMVPDs rather than having to rely on the sticky-fingered networks; facilitate ATSC 3.0 where it can; and, most important, lighten up, don’t tighten up, on the duopoly rule and other anachronistic structural regulations.

Harry A. Jessell is editor at large of TVNewsCheck. He can be contacted here. You can read earlier columns here.

The post Hey FCC, It’s Not The 1960s Anymore appeared first on TV News Check.

With more than 16 years of experience as an in-house lawyer and at top-tier law firms, Klemt brings experience in high-growth and early-stage companies, focusing on commercial transactions, contract negotiation, privacy and intellectual property in venture capital, mergers and acquisitions, and strategic transactions.

“Amy is a great addition to our growing corporate and transaction team,” said Managing Partner Bryan Tramont. “Her wealth of experiences with a wide range of companies across the energy and technology sectors will be a tremendous asset to our clients and adds to our team depth as we continue to grow the practice.”

Klemt holds a B.S. in business administration and a B.A. in international studies from the University of Wyoming and received her J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law and is a Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US).

She can be reached at 303-626-2353 and AKlemt@wbklaw.com.

The post Amy Klemt Joins Wilkinson Barker Knauer As Partner In Denver Office appeared first on TV News Check.

The lawsuit filed Friday in Los Angeles also accuses Lythgoe of sexually assaulting Abdul after she left “American Idol” and became a judge on Lythgoe’s other competition show “So You Think You Can Dance.”

The Associated Press generally does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault unless they come forward publicly, as Abdul has done.

In a statement Saturday, Abdul’s lawyer Douglas Johnson applauded the singer and dancer for speaking out publicly.

“It was clearly a difficult decision to make, but Ms. Abdul knows that she stands both in the shoes and on the shoulders of many other similarly situated survivors, and she is determined to see that justice is done,” Johnson said.

Lythgoe said in a statement that he was “shocked and saddened” to hear of the allegations made by Abdul, who he said he considered a “dear” and “entirely platonic” friend.

“While Paula’s history of erratic behavior is well known, I can’t pretend to understand exactly why she would file a lawsuit that she must know is untrue,” Lythgoe said in the statement. “But I can promise that I will fight this appalling smear with everything I have.”

The lawsuit states Abdul remained silent for years about the alleged assaults out of fear of retaliation by “one of the most well-known producers of television competition shows.”

Before “American Idol” and “So You Think You Can Dance,” on which Lythgoe served as a judge for 16 seasons, he was a producer on the British show “Pop Idol,” which became a global franchise that includes the U.S. iteration starring Abdul.

According to the lawsuit, the first sexual assault occurred while Abdul and Lythgoe were on the road filming auditions for an earlier season of “American Idol,” which premiered in 2002.

Abdul says Lythgoe groped her in the elevator of their hotel after a day of filming and “began shoving his tongue down her throat.” Abdul pushed him away and ran to her hotel room when the elevator doors opened.

“In tears, Abdul quickly called one of her representatives to inform them of the assault,” the lawsuit says, “but ultimately decided not to take action for fear that Lythgoe would have her fired from American Idol.”

Abdul, a Grammy- and Emmy-winning artist, starred as a judge for the first eight seasons, leaving in 2009.

In 2015, Abdul became a judge on “So You Think You Can Dance,” appearing alongside Lythgoe.

Around that time, Abdul alleged in the lawsuit, Lythgoe forced himself on top of her during a dinner at his home and tried to kiss her. Abdul said she again pushed Lythgoe away and immediately left.

Abdul left the reality show after two seasons. She has not worked with Lythgoe since.

The lawsuit also accuses Lythgoe of taunting Abdul about the alleged assaults, saying to her years later that “they should celebrate” because “the statute of limitations had run.”

Abdul filed the suit days before the Dec. 31 deadline of a California law that opened a one-year window for victims to file lawsuits involving sexual abuse claims after the statute of limitations has run out.

More than 3,700 legal claims were filed under a similar law in New York that expired last month.

The post Paula Abdul Accuses ‘American Idol’ Producer Nigel Lythgoe Of Sexual Assault In Lawsuit appeared first on TV News Check.

Hank Price

In a ruling that would be more at home in the 1960s than the third decade of the 21st century, the FCC last week reaffirmed its commitment to long out-of-date regulations that threaten the long-term viability of local television service.

Specifically, the FCC slammed the door on the idea of combining any two ABC, CBS, Fox or NBC affiliations in a single market. Adding insult to injury, the FCC broadened the prohibition to include secondary channels and low-power TV stations.

Pretending that America still lives in the era of LPs and 45s and console radios, the FCC’s three Democratic commissioners proclaimed that musty, typewritten rules formulated in the days before word processors are still valid because all is well with local television station competition.

One can’t help but think of Lt. Frank Drebin from the Police Squad movies standing in front of a raging fire yelling into a microphone: “Nothing to see here! Please disperse!”

Never mind the fact that consumers now spend more time viewing streaming content than watching network television.

Never mind the fact that network owners have gutted their primetime television schedules to feed their insatiable streaming platforms.

Never mind the fact that Google, Facebook and now Amazon, as well as dozens of other national players, are sucking revenue from local television markets at a record pace.

Never mind the fact that local television news viewing continues to decline, due in part to a massive oversupply.

And perhaps most importantly, never mind the fact that none of local television’s new competitors are regulated.

None of this seems to matter to the FCC. Instead, and this is hard to believe, the commission actually said combining any two networks would “result in the remaining networks paying less attention to viewer demand for innovative, high-quality programming.”

The FCC also claims that keeping the current rules “increases the bargaining power of local broadcast affiliates and enables them to influence Big Four broadcast network programming decisions in ways that better serve the interests of their local communities.”

What innovative, high-quality programming is the FCC talking about? What local station influence on network programming? It has been a long time since any network expressed interest in what local general managers thought about network programming. Quite the opposite is true.

As for innovative programming, all of that is at the station or group level these days, not at the networks.

The FCC’s decision is hard to understand because it reaches illogical conclusions that fly in the face of reality. It’s as if the FCC believes nothing in the world of local media has changed since 1980. Do these commissioners own smartphones? Do their cars have cruise control and airbags?

Not content with making a specious argument, FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel even added a red herring by saying: “No entity can own all the television stations in a single market.”

To my knowledge, no group owner has suggested there should only be one owner per market. There is a small market where one company is affiliated with all four networks, but that is an outlier and not the norm.

All stations want is reasonable consolidation that would allow fewer, but stronger, stations to compete against each other. A market that now has five or six separately owned stations might end up with three or four.

Some station consolidation is essential because the current business model is unsustainable. Continuing threats to advertising revenue and retransmission payments, combined with an explosion of competitors, means the alternative to consolidation will be the eventual demise of weaker players, leading to a last-man-standing scenario. In other words, chaos.

Strengthening and ensuring the viability of over-the-air television is critical to the well-being of our nation. At a time when the FCC should be encouraging innovation, it is instead throwing up roadblocks from a long-past era.

The current FCC majority is entrenched in the past. Let’s hope either Congress, or a more enlightened future commission, is willing to take a more constructive approach to today’s broadcast issues than simply saying “no” to the future.

Hank Price spent 30 years leading television stations for Hearst, CBS and Gannett while concurrently building a career in executive education. He is the author of Leading Local Television and two other books.

The post FCC Gives Broadcasters A Lump Of Coal For The New Year appeared first on TV News Check.

Authorities said Wednesday that the 47-year-old Masterson has been admitted to North Kern State Prison, and they released his first prison mug shot. The photo shows him wearing orange prison attire, with long hair and a beard.

In June, Masterson was convicted of raping two women in his Los Angeles home in 2003. In September, a judge sentenced him to 30 years to life in prison. His wife, actor Bijou Phillips, filed for divorce in the weeks that followed after a marriage of nearly 12 years.

He had been held in Los Angeles County jail in the months since while post-sentencing hearings were held and issues resolved, including the turnover of all the guns Masterson owned, some of which had to be located.

It will be more than 25 years before Masterson will be eligible for parole.

Masterson’s lawyers said they plan to appeal the conviction.

The post Danny Masterson Sent To State Prison To Serve Sentence For Rape Convictions appeared first on TV News Check.

Attorney General Letitia James’ office said an investigation into complaints from customers found that SiriusXM forced subscribers to wait in an automated system before often lengthy interactions with agents who were trained in ways to avoid accepting a request to cancel service.

“Having to endure a lengthy and frustrating process to cancel a subscription is a stressful burden no one looks forward to, and when companies make it hard to cancel subscriptions, it’s illegal,” the attorney general said in a statement.

The company disputed the claims, arguing that many of the lengthy interaction times cited in the lawsuit were based on a 2020 inquiry and were caused in part by the effects of the pandemic on their operations. The company said many of its plans can be canceled with a simple click of a button online.

“Like a number of consumer businesses, we offer a variety of options for customers to sign up for or cancel their SiriusXM subscription and, upon receiving and reviewing the complaint, we intend to vigorously defend against these baseless allegations that grossly mischaracterize SiriusXM’s practices,” Jessica Casano-Antonellis, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement.

The attorney general’s office cited affidavits in which customers complained of long waits in an automated system to chat with an agent, only to endure lengthy attempts to keep their business. It takes subscribers an average of 11.5 minutes to cancel by phone, and 30 minutes to cancel online, although for many subscribers it takes far longer, the attorney general’s office said.

During 2019 and 2021, more than 578,000 subscribers seeking to cancel by telephone abandoned their efforts while waiting in the queue to be connected to the live agent, according to the lawsuit.

“When I finally spoke to the first customer representative and explained that I had been waiting nearly half an hour, I was promptly hung up on. Which means I had to wait again. Another 30 minutes, just to cancel a service I would have preferred to cancel online,” one customer wrote in an affidavit.

The company said that in 2021, on average, online chat agents responded to consumer messages within 36 seconds to 2.4 minutes.

The lawsuit seeks financial penalties, including compensation for the time customers spent online during what the attorney general called “a deliberately lengthy” cancellation process.

The post New York Sues SiriusXM, Accusing Company Of Making It Deliberately Hard To Cancel Subscriptions appeared first on TV News Check.

Patrick Poivre d’Arvor denies wrongdoing, and has sued 16 of his accusers. A revered personality who hosted France’s most popular news program for more than two decades, he insists that the sexual encounters were consensual.

The prosecutors’ office in the Paris suburb of Nanterre said Wednesday that Poivre d’Arvor was given preliminary charges of rape by a person abusing his authority for alleged actions dating from 2009. He was also named as an “assisted witness” in another alleged rape from 2004.

Both incidents involved author Florence Porcel, who filed legal complaints in 2021. The Associated Press generally doesn’t identify those who say they have been victims of sexual wrongdoing, except when they publicly identify themselves.

Under French law, preliminary charges mean magistrates have strong reason to suspect wrongdoing but allow time for further investigation before deciding whether to send a case to trial. The “assisted witness” status also allows time for further investigation that could lead to eventual charges or to a case being dropped.

The Nanterre prosecutors’ office said it that opened two preliminary investigations in 2021 into numerous accusations against Poivre d’Arvor, including Porcel’s. One investigation, involving complaints by about 20 women, was closed and the other is ongoing, prosecutors said in a statement to the AP.

Poivre d’Arvor’s lawyers said in a statement published online that he “firmly contests the facts alleged by Madame Porcel, as he has since the first day, and has provided numerous elements of material evidence.”

Lawyers Jacqueline Laffont and Julie Benedetti noted that prosecutors recommended dropping the case, but the investigating judges unusually filed the charge anyway.

Poivre d’Arvor was the star presenter of French television network TF1’s evening newscast between 1987 and 2008, making him one of the most famous people in France, where he is widely known as just “PPDA.” An author, he also used to anchor a prestigious TV literary program.

Soon after Porcel’s complaint, Poivre d’Arvor acknowledged in an interview with television channel TMC “small kisses in the neck, sometimes small compliments or sometimes some charm or seduction” — acts he said younger generations no longer accepted.

Dozens of women have spoken out in recent years to accuse Poivre d’Arvor of rape, sexual abuse or harassment from 1981 to 2018. Most accusations are now too old to prosecute.

Some of the women welcomed the announcement of the rape charge.

”Finally!” posted author Helene Devynck, who published a book last year titled “Impunity” that includes interviews with about 60 women who accused Poivre d’Arvor of sexual wrongdoing. Devynck’s book denounced France’s historically lax attitude toward sexual abuse allegations and the limited impact in France of the global #MeToo movement.

One of France’s biggest film stars, Gerard Depardieu, also is under renewed scrutiny for his behavior toward women after a recent documentary showed him repeatedly making obscene remarks and gestures during a 2018 trip to North Korea.

Depardieu was handed preliminary charges of rape and sexual assault in 2020. The France-2 documentary says 16 women have accused him of harassing, groping or sexually assaulting them. Depardieu denies wrongdoing.

The post Top French TV Personality Charged With Rape And Abusing Authority appeared first on TV News Check.

A Manhattan jury found Majors, 34, guilty of one misdemeanor assault charge and one harassment violation stemming from his March confrontation with then-girlfriend Grace Jabbari. She said he attacked her in a car and left her in “excruciating” pain; his lawyers said Jabbari was the aggressor.

Majors, who was acquitted of a different assault charge and of aggravated harassment, looked slightly downward and showed no immediate reaction as the verdict was read. He declined to comment as he left the courthouse.

His lawyer, Priya Chaudhry, said in a statement that he “still has faith in the process and looks forward to fully clearing his name.” While he was convicted of an assault charge that involves recklessly causing injury, she said his team was grateful for his acquittal on the other assault count, which concerned intentionally causing injury.

“Mr. Majors is grateful to God, his family, his friends and his fans for their love and support during these harrowing eight months,” Chaudhry said.

Marvel and Disney immediately dropped the “Creed III” star from all upcoming projects following the conviction, said a person close to the studio who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.

Before his arrest, Majors had been on track to become a central figure throughout the Marvel Cinematic Universe, playing the antagonist role of Kang. Majors had already appeared in “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” and the first two seasons of “Loki.” He was to star in “Avengers: The Kang Dynasty,” dated for release in May 2026.

Majors, whose credits include “The Last Black Man in San Francisco,” “Devotion” and “Da 5 Bloods,” had been one of the fastest-rising stars in Hollywood. The Yale School of Drama graduate also starred as a troubled amateur bodybuilder in “Magazine Dreams,” which made an acclaimed debut at the Sundance Film Festival in January and was set to open in theaters this month. Ahead of Majors’ trial, Disney-owned distributor Searchlight Pictures removed “Magazine Dreams” from its release calendar.

Majors’ sentencing was set for Feb. 6. He faces the possibility of up to a year in jail for the assault conviction, though probation or other non-jail sentences also are possible.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said in a statement that the trial “illustrated a cycle of psychological and emotional abuse, and escalating patterns of coercion.”

The dispute between Majors and Jabbari began in the backseat of a chauffeured car and spilled into the streets of Manhattan.

Jabbari, a 30-year-old British dancer, accused Majors of hitting her in the head with his open hand, twisting her arm behind her back and squeezing her middle finger until it fractured.

Majors’ lawyers alleged that she flew into a jealous rage after reading a text message — from another woman — on his phone. They said Jabbari had spread a “fantasy” to take down the actor, who was only trying to regain his phone and get away safely.

But as Majors sought vindication from the jury, the trial also brought forth new evidence about his troubled relationship with Jabbari, whom he met on the set of “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” two years ago.

Prosecutors shared text messages that showed the actor begging Jabbari not to seek hospital treatment for an earlier head injury. One message warned “it could lead to an investigation even if you do lie and they suspect something.”

They also played audio of Majors declaring himself a “great man,” then questioning whether Jabbari could meet the high standards set by the spouses of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama. Majors’ attorneys countered that Jabbari had surreptitiously recorded her boyfriend as part of a plot to “destroy” his career.

Over four days of tearful testimony, Jabbari said Majors was excessively controlling and prone to fits of explosive rage that left her afraid “physically quite a lot.” She broke down on the witness stand as a jury watched security footage of him pushing her back into the car after the backseat confrontation. Prosecutors described the video as showing Majors “manhandling” her and shoving her into the vehicle “as if she was a doll.”

Majors arrived in the courtroom each morning carrying a gold-leaf Bible, accompanied by family members and his current girlfriend, actress Meagan Good. Expressionless for much of the testimony, he wiped away tears as Chaudhry urged jurors during her closing arguments on Thursday to “end this nightmare for Jonathan Majors.”

Majors did not take the stand. But Chaudhry said her client was the victim of “white lies, big lies, and pretty little lies” invented by Jabbari to exact revenge on an unfaithful partner.

The attorney cited security footage, taken immediately after the shove, that showed Majors sprinting away from his girlfriend as she chased him through the night. Jabbari then followed a group of strangers she’d met on the street to a dance club, where she ordered drinks for the group and did not appear to be favoring her injured hand.

“She was revenge-partying and charging Champagne to the man she was angry with and treating these strangers to fancy Champagne she bought with Jonathan’s credit card,” Chaudhry alleged.

The next morning, after finding Jabbari unconscious in the closet of their Manhattan penthouse, Majors called police. He was arrested at the scene, while Jabbari was transported to a hospital to receive treatment for the injuries to her ear and hand.

“He called 911 out of concern for her, and his fear of what happens when a Black man in America came true,” Chaudhry said, accusing police and prosecutors of failing to take seriously Majors’ allegations that he was bloodied and scratched during the dispute.

In her closing arguments, prosecutor Kelli Galaway said Majors was following a well-worn playbook used by abusers to cast their victims as attackers.

“This is not a revenge plot to ruin the defendant’s life or his career,” Galaway said. “You were asked why you are here? Because domestic violence is serious.”

The post Marvel, Disney Drop Actor Jonathan Majors After He’s Convicted Of Assaulting His Former Girlfriend appeared first on TV News Check.