Sinclair News Brainwashing Happening Now!

[donquixote99]

It is desired that you keep this in mind....

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CNt0g_1522608221


Note: title is error on my part. This is Sinclair Broadcasting Group in action, actually.

[Rajoo]

This is what is even more scary with Sinclair.

Docket Number:
MB Docket 17-179

Pursuant to a merger agreement, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (Sinclair) and Tribune Media Company (Tribute) have filed applications seeking Commission consent to transfer control of Tribune's full-power broadcast televisions stations, low-power television stations, and TV translator stations to Sinclair. According to the Applicants, Sinclair owns or operates 173 broadcast television stations, consisting of 528 channels, in 81 markets, with affiliations with all major networks, and is the largest local news provider in the country; Tribune owns or operates 42 broadcast television stations in 33 markets, also with affiliations with all major networks. Tribune also owns cable network WGN America, digital multicast network Antenna TV and WGN-Radio. According to the Applicants, Tribune's owns and operates broadcast television stations in the top three markets in the country, seven stations in the top ten markets, and 34 stations in the top 50 markets. The Applicants claim that under the proposed transaction, the combined company would reach 72 percent of U.S. television households and would own and operate the largest number of broadcast television stations of any station group.

That's a whole lot of people that Sinclair can brainwash and could make Fox look like poor cousins.

https://www.fcc.gov/transaction/sinclair-tribune

[Pio1980]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...712fec38b95?xp

[Pio1980]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ac473edb0108

[Oerets]

Read it!

Talk to my representative!
Really, they have all drank the Kool Aid around here. Don't have open meetings call and get a recording.


Barney

[Pio1980]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b09ef3b2441237

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b09ef3b2441237

Isn't it all too typical of conservative partisans to behave like ripe assholes?

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Isn't it all too typical of conservative partisans to behave like ripe assholes?

Uh, no. A story like this is one-sided (like the subject reporter complains, its not news reporting), but he does mention that like most on-air staff, he was likely hired under the terms of an employment contract. No one forced him to sign the contact, he did so voluntarily. The contract likely lists the terms under which the contact can be terminated by either side. I suspect that "mental and physical fatigue" is not listed in the contact as a reason for termination of the contract.

Sounds to me like the squealing of a stuck pig. More info here:

https://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/...y-for-quitting

According to a Bloomberg report, which reviewed two employment contracts, “some Sinclair employees were subjected to a liquidated damages clause for leaving before the term of their agreement was up[.]” That means if an employee quits, they’re required to pay as much as 40 percent of their annual salary back to the company. That’s a sizable amount for individuals who more than likely have everyday bills to pay, like a mortgage, student debt or a car payment.

These types of damages clauses aren’t common in most employment contracts, Bloomberg reports. However, they are relatively common in the broadcast industry, particularly when it comes to on-air talent.

So, the lesson here would be: Don't sign an employment contract (or any contract) without the review your own legal counsel, and don't try to get out of a contract without consulting with counsel as well.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

These types of damages clauses aren’t common in most employment contracts, Bloomberg reports. However, they are relatively common in the broadcast industry, particularly when it comes to on-air talent.

So, the lesson here would be: Don't sign an employment contract (or any contract) without the review your own legal counsel, and don't try to get out of a contract without consulting with counsel as well.

Not entirely true. Liquidated damages clauses are not allowed to be penalties. They can only represent the true costs/damages incurred for the proscribed actions.

In the United States, a liquidated damage clause is intended to estimate damages in the event of non-performance or breach of contract. A liquidated damages clause will be enforced where the court fnds that the harm caused by the breach is diffcult to estimate, but where the amount of liquidated damages is reasonable compensation and not disproportionate to the actual or anticipated damage. The intent of liquidated damages is simply to measure damages that are hard to prove once incurred. If the liquidated damages are disproportionate, they can, however, be declared a penalty. The clause is then void, and recovery will be limited to the actual damage that results from the breach

https://www.reedsmith.com/-/media/fi..../0804crit.pdf

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not entirely true. Liquidated damages clauses are not allowed to be penalties. They can only represent the true costs/damages incurred for the proscribed actions.

In the United States, a liquidated damage clause is intended to estimate damages in the event of non-performance or breach of contract. A liquidated damages clause will be enforced where the court fnds that the harm caused by the breach is diffcult to estimate, but where the amount of liquidated damages is reasonable compensation and not disproportionate to the actual or anticipated damage. The intent of liquidated damages is simply to measure damages that are hard to prove once incurred. If the liquidated damages are disproportionate, they can, however, be declared a penalty. The clause is then void, and recovery will be limited to the actual damage that results from the breach

https://www.reedsmith.com/-/media/fi..../0804crit.pdf

You're stating the obvious. The term liquidated damages by definition infers that damages would be incurred if the contract were terminated. The amount of such damages is often defined by the contract, sometimes in the form of a schedule (i.e., termination one month early $1000, two months early, $2000, etc.). If the reporter in this case wants to litigate the liquidated damages portion of the contract, he'll need to demonstrate that $5700 is unreasonable. I don't think the actual contract language has been made public, at least I've not seen it. But if the guy was making $45K per year plus benefits under the contract, then the station seeking $5700 - or about 12% or less of the value of the contract - might not be unreasonable.