COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Litigation We are a party to lawsuits and claims from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Actions currently pending are in various stages and no material judgments or decisions have been rendered by hearing boards or courts in connection with such actions. After reviewing developments to date with legal counsel, our management is of the opinion that none of our pending and threatened matters are material. Various parties have filed petitions to deny our applications or applications of licensees that we provide services to under LMAs for the following stations’ license renewals: WXLV-TV, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; WMYV-TV, Greensboro, North Carolina; WLFL-TV, Raleigh / Durham, North Carolina; WRDC-TV, Raleigh / Durham, North Carolina; WLOS-TV, Asheville, North Carolina; WCIV-TV, Charleston, South Carolina ; WMYA-TV, Anderson, South Carolina; WICS-TV, Springfield, Illinois; WBFF-TV, Baltimore, Maryland; WTTE-TV, Columbus, Ohio; WRGT-TV, Dayton, Ohio; WVAH-TV, Charleston / Huntington, West Virginia; WCGV-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; KGAN-TV, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and WTTO-TV in Birmingham, AL. The FCC is in the process of considering the renewal applications and we believe the petitions have no merit. In connection with the consent decree described below, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions therein, the FCC has agreed to dismiss the outstanding petitions to deny and grant all pending renewals for the above-mentioned stations. Changes in the Rules of Television Ownership, Joint Sales Agreements, and Retransmission Consent Negotiations In March, 2014, the FCC issued a public notice indicating that it will closely scrutinize any broadcast assignment or transfer application proposing sharing arrangements (such as JSAs, LMAs and other shared services agreements) and contingent interests (such as options). We cannot now predict what actions the FCC may require in connection with the processing of applications for FCC consent to future transactions. In addition, in April, 2014, the FCC issued an order amending its multiple ownership rules to provide that, for JSAs where two television stations are located in the same market, and a party with an attributable interest in one station sells more than 15% of the ad time per week of the other station, the party selling such ad time shall be treated as if it had an attributable ownership interest in the second station. The order provided that JSAs that existed on the effective date of the new rule, March 31, 2014, had two years to be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the new rules. Subsequently, Congress adopted, and the President signed into law, legislation that grandfathered preexisting JSAs until October 1, 2025. The JSA order was the subject of an appeal which was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a decision issued on May 25, 2016, the Court found that in adopting the JSA attribution rule the FCC impermissibly expanded its attribution policies prior to completing its quadrennial review to determine if its ownership rules remain in the public interest. As a result, the Third Circuit found the FCC’s approach to be procedurally invalid, vacated the JSA attribution rule, and remanded it to the FCC. We cannot predict the outcome of that remand. The FCC may complete its quadrennial review and adopt a new rule making JSAs attributable, which could limit our future ability to create duopolies or other two-station operations in certain markets. The revenues of these JSA arrangements we earned were $14.3 million and $11.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 and $26.4 million and $22.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. In February 2015, the FCC issued an order implementing certain statutorily required changes to its rules governing the duty to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith. With these changes, a television broadcast station is prohibited from negotiating retransmission consent jointly with another television station in the same market unless the “stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the Commission.” During a recent retransmission consent negotiation, an MVPD filed a complaint with the FCC accusing us of violating this rule. Although we reached agreement with the MVPD and they withdrew their complaint, the FCC undertook its own internal investigation regarding the allegations made by the MVPD and whether we negotiated in good faith as defined by the rules. In order to resolve the issues raised by the investigation described above and all other pending matters before the FCC's Media Bureau (Bureau), the Company, on July 29, 2016, without any admission of liability, entered into a consent decree with the FCC pursuant to which the Bureau agreed (i) to terminate their investigation regarding the retransmission consent negotiations described above as well as any other investigations pending before the Bureau, (ii) to dismiss with prejudice or deny any outstanding adversarial pleadings against the Company pending before the Bureau, (iii) to cancel outstanding forfeiture orders issued by the Bureau relating to the Company, and (iv) to grant all of the Company’s pending license renewals, subject to a payment by the Company to the United States Treasury in the amount of $9.5 million. As of June 30, 2016, this liability is included within accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet, with a corresponding charge to media selling, general, and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations during the three months ended June 30, 2016. The Company agreed to be subject to ongoing compliance monitoring by the FCC with the terms of the consent decree for a period of 36 months. Further, in September 2015, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a Congressional directive in STELAR to examine the “totality of the circumstances test” for good-faith negotiations of retransmission consent. The proposed rulemaking seeks comment on new factors and evidence to consider in its evaluation of claims of bad faith negotiation, including service interruptions prior to a “marquee sports or entertainment event,” restrictions on online access to broadcast programming during negotiation impasses, broadcasters’ ability to offer bundles of broadcast signals with other broadcast stations or cable networks, and broadcasters’ ability to invoke the FCC’s exclusivity rules during service interruptions. On July 14, 2016, the FCC’s Chairman announced that the FCC would not, at this time, proceed to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations of retransmission consent. No formal action has yet been taken on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and we cannot predict if the full Commission will agree to terminate the Rulemaking without action.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

Litigation

We are a party to lawsuits and claims from time to time in the ordinary course of business. Actions currently pending are in various stages and no material judgments or decisions have been rendered by hearing boards or courts in connection with such actions. After reviewing developments to date with legal counsel, our management is of the opinion that none of our pending and threatened matters are material.

Various parties have filed petitions to deny our applications or applications of licensees that we provide services to under LMAs for the following stations’ license renewals: WXLV-TV, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; WMYV-TV, Greensboro, North Carolina; WLFL-TV, Raleigh / Durham, North Carolina; WRDC-TV, Raleigh / Durham, North Carolina; WLOS-TV, Asheville, North Carolina; WCIV-TV, Charleston, South Carolina ; WMYA-TV, Anderson, South Carolina; WICS-TV, Springfield, Illinois; WBFF-TV, Baltimore, Maryland; WTTE-TV, Columbus, Ohio; WRGT-TV, Dayton, Ohio; WVAH-TV, Charleston / Huntington, West Virginia; WCGV-TV, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; KGAN-TV, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and WTTO-TV in Birmingham, AL. The FCC is in the process of considering the renewal applications and we believe the petitions have no merit. In connection with the consent decree described below, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions therein, the FCC has agreed to dismiss the outstanding petitions to deny and grant all pending renewals for the above-mentioned stations.

Changes in the Rules of Television Ownership, Joint Sales Agreements, and Retransmission Consent Negotiations

In March, 2014, the FCC issued a public notice indicating that it will closely scrutinize any broadcast assignment or transfer application proposing sharing arrangements (such as JSAs, LMAs and other shared services agreements) and contingent interests (such as options). We cannot now predict what actions the FCC may require in connection with the processing of applications for FCC consent to future transactions. In addition, in April, 2014, the FCC issued an order amending its multiple ownership rules to provide that, for JSAs where two television stations are located in the same market, and a party with an attributable interest in one station sells more than 15% of the ad time per week of the other station, the party selling such ad time shall be treated as if it had an attributable ownership interest in the second station. The order provided that JSAs that existed on the effective date of the new rule, March 31, 2014, had two years to be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the new rules. Subsequently, Congress adopted, and the President signed into law, legislation that grandfathered preexisting JSAs until October 1, 2025. The JSA order was the subject of an appeal which was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In a decision issued on May 25, 2016, the Court found that in adopting the JSA attribution rule the FCC impermissibly expanded its attribution policies prior to completing its quadrennial review to determine if its ownership rules remain in the public interest. As a result, the Third Circuit found the FCC’s approach to be procedurally invalid, vacated the JSA attribution rule, and remanded it to the FCC. We cannot predict the outcome of that remand. The FCC may complete its quadrennial review and adopt a new rule making JSAs attributable, which could limit our future ability to create duopolies or other two-station operations in certain markets. The revenues of these JSA arrangements we earned were $14.3 million and $11.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015 and $26.4 million and $22.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

In February 2015, the FCC issued an order implementing certain statutorily required changes to its rules governing the duty to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith. With these changes, a television broadcast station is prohibited from negotiating retransmission consent jointly with another television station in the same market unless the “stations are directly or indirectly under common de jure control permitted under the regulations of the Commission.” During a recent retransmission consent negotiation, an MVPD filed a complaint with the FCC accusing us of violating this rule. Although we reached agreement with the MVPD and they withdrew their complaint, the FCC undertook its own internal investigation regarding the allegations made by the MVPD and whether we negotiated in good faith as defined by the rules. In order to resolve the issues raised by the investigation described above and all other pending matters before the FCC's Media Bureau (Bureau), the Company, on July 29, 2016, without any admission of liability, entered into a consent decree with the FCC pursuant to which the Bureau agreed (i) to terminate their investigation regarding the retransmission consent negotiations described above as well as any other investigations pending before the Bureau, (ii) to dismiss with prejudice or deny any outstanding adversarial pleadings against the Company pending before the Bureau, (iii) to cancel outstanding forfeiture orders issued by the Bureau relating to the Company, and (iv) to grant all of the Company’s pending license renewals, subject to a payment by the Company to the United States Treasury in the amount of $9.5 million. As of June 30, 2016, this liability is included within accounts payable and accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet, with a corresponding charge to media selling, general, and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations during the three months ended June 30, 2016. The Company agreed to be subject to ongoing compliance monitoring by the FCC with the terms of the consent decree for a period of 36 months.

Further, in September 2015, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to a Congressional directive in STELAR to examine the “totality of the circumstances test” for good-faith negotiations of retransmission consent. The proposed rulemaking seeks comment on new factors and evidence to consider in its evaluation of claims of bad faith negotiation, including service interruptions prior to a “marquee sports or entertainment event,” restrictions on online access to broadcast programming during negotiation impasses, broadcasters’ ability to offer bundles of broadcast signals with other broadcast stations or cable networks, and broadcasters’ ability to invoke the FCC’s exclusivity rules during service interruptions. On July 14, 2016, the FCC’s Chairman announced that the FCC would not, at this time, proceed to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations of retransmission consent. No formal action has yet been taken on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and we cannot predict if the full Commission will agree to terminate the Rulemaking without action.