COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
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 is material. On December 21, 2017, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing a $13.4 million fine for alleged violations of the FCC's sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances, management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of the loss exposure for this matter. We have responded to dispute the Commission's findings and the proposed fine; however, we cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action related to this matter. We do not believe that the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material effect on the Company's financial statements. Changes in the Rules of Television Ownership, Local Marketing Agreements, Joint Sales Agreements, Retransmission Consent Negotiations, and National Ownership Cap Certain of our stations have entered into what have commonly been referred to as local marketing agreements or LMAs. One typical type of LMA is a programming agreement between two separately owned television stations serving the same market, whereby the licensee of one station programs substantial portions of the broadcast day and sells advertising time during such programming segments on the other licensee’s station subject to the latter licensee’s ultimate editorial and other controls. We believe these arrangements allow us to reduce our operating expenses and enhance profitability. In 1999, the FCC established a new local television ownership rule which made LMAs attributable. However, the rule grandfathered LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996, and permitted the applicable stations to continue operations pursuant to the LMAs until the conclusion of the FCC’s 2004 biennial review. The FCC stated it would conduct a case-by-case review of grandfathered LMAs and assess the appropriateness of extending the grandfathering periods. The FCC did not initiate any review of grandfathered LMAs in 2004 or as part of its subsequent quadrennial reviews. We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any such review of grandfathered LMAs. Currently, all of our LMAs are grandfathered under the local television ownership rule because they were entered into prior to November 5, 1996. If the FCC were to eliminate the grandfathering of these LMAs, we would have to terminate or modify these LMAs. 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 2015 retransmission consent negotiation, a MVPD filed a complaint with the FCC accusing us of violating this rule. Although we reached agreement with the MVPD, the FCC initiated an investigation. In order to resolve the investigation and all other pending matters before the FCC's Media Bureau (including the grant of all outstanding renewals and dismissal or cancellation of all outstanding adversarial pleadings or forfeitures before the Media Bureau), the Company, on July 29, 2016, without any admission of liability, entered into a consent decree with the FCC pursuant to which the Company paid a settlement payment and agreed to be subject to ongoing compliance monitoring by the FCC for a period of 36 months. 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 sought comment on new factors and evidence to consider in the FCC's 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, then-Chairman Wheeler announced that the FCC would not, at such time, proceed to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations of retransmission consent. No formal action has yet been taken on this Proposed Rulemaking, and we cannot predict if the full Commission will agree to terminate the Rulemaking without action. In August 2016, the FCC completed both its 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews of its media ownership rules and issued an order (Ownership Order) which left most of the existing multiple ownership rules intact, but amended the rules to provide for the attribution of 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 advertising time per week of the other station. JSAs existing as of March 31, 2014, were grandfathered until October 1, 2025, at which point they would have to be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the JSA attribution rule. On November 20, 2017, the FCC released an Ownership Order on Reconsideration, among other things, eliminated the JSA attribution rule. The rule changes adopted in the Ownership Order on Reconsideration became effective on February 7, 2018. A Petition for Review of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration, including the elimination of the JSA attribution rule, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On February 7, 2018, the court denied, among other things, Petitioners' request to stay the effective date of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration and instead issued a stay of the appeal for a period of 6 months. A Petition for Review of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration was subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and was transferred to the Third Circuit and is subject to the stay. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If we are required to terminate or modify our LMAs or JSAs, our business could be adversely affected in several ways, including losses on investments and termination penalties. If we are required to terminate or modify our LMAs or JSAs, our business could be affected in the following ways: Losses on investments. In some cases, we own the non-license assets used by the stations we operate under LMAs and JSAs. If certain of these arrangements are no longer permitted, we could be forced to sell these assets, restructure our agreements or find another use for them. If this happens, the market for such assets may not be as good as when we purchased them and, therefore, we cannot be certain of a favorable return on our original investments. Termination penalties. If the FCC requires us to modify or terminate existing LMAs or JSAs before the terms of the agreements expire, or under certain circumstances, we elect not to extend the terms of the agreements, we may be forced to pay termination penalties under the terms of some of our agreements. Any such termination penalties could be material. On September 6, 2016, the FCC released the UHF Discount Order, eliminating the UHF Discount. The UHF discount allowed television station owners to discount the coverage of UHF stations when calculating compliance with the FCC’s national ownership cap, which prohibits a single entity from owning television stations that reach, in total, more than 39% of all the television households in the nation. All but 34 of the stations we currently own and operate, or to which we provide programming services are UHF. On April 20, 2017, the FCC acted on a Petition for Reconsideration of the UHF Discount Order and adopted the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration which reinstated the UHF discount, which became effective June 15, 2017 and is currently in effect. The UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration is currently the subject of a Petition for Review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which is still pending. On December 18, 2017, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to examine the national audience reach cap, including the UHF discount. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. With the application of the UHF discount counting all our present stations we reach approximately 25% of U.S. households. With the pending Tribune transaction, absent divestitures, we would exceed the 39% cap, even with the application of the UHF discount. We have filed FCC applications to divest stations in certain markets, which would bring our national audience reach under the 39% cap (including the UHF discount) upon closing. Changes to the national ownership cap could limit our ability to make television station acquisitions.

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 is material.

On December 21, 2017, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing a $13.4 million fine for alleged violations of the FCC's sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. Based on a review of the current facts and circumstances, management has provided for what is believed to be a reasonable estimate of the loss exposure for this matter. We have responded to dispute the Commission's findings and the proposed fine; however, we cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action related to this matter. We do not believe that the ultimate outcome of this matter will have a material effect on the Company's financial statements.

Changes in the Rules of Television Ownership, Local Marketing Agreements, Joint Sales Agreements, Retransmission Consent Negotiations, and National Ownership Cap

Certain of our stations have entered into what have commonly been referred to as local marketing agreements or LMAs. One typical type of LMA is a programming agreement between two separately owned television stations serving the same market, whereby the licensee of one station programs substantial portions of the broadcast day and sells advertising time during such programming segments on the other licensee’s station subject to the latter licensee’s ultimate editorial and other controls. We believe these arrangements allow us to reduce our operating expenses and enhance profitability.

In 1999, the FCC established a new local television ownership rule which made LMAs attributable. However, the rule grandfathered LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996, and permitted the applicable stations to continue operations pursuant to the LMAs until the conclusion of the FCC’s 2004 biennial review. The FCC stated it would conduct a case-by-case review of grandfathered LMAs and assess the appropriateness of extending the grandfathering periods. The FCC did not initiate any review of grandfathered LMAs in 2004 or as part of its subsequent quadrennial reviews. We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any such review of grandfathered LMAs. Currently, all of our LMAs are grandfathered under the local television ownership rule because they were entered into prior to November 5, 1996. If the FCC were to eliminate the grandfathering of these LMAs, we would have to terminate or modify these LMAs.

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 2015 retransmission consent negotiation, a MVPD filed a complaint with the FCC accusing us of violating this rule. Although we reached agreement with the MVPD, the FCC initiated an investigation. In order to resolve the investigation and all other pending matters before the FCC's Media Bureau (including the grant of all outstanding renewals and dismissal or cancellation of all outstanding adversarial pleadings or forfeitures before the Media Bureau), the Company, on July 29, 2016, without any admission of liability, entered into a consent decree with the FCC pursuant to which the Company paid a settlement payment and agreed to be subject to ongoing compliance monitoring by the FCC for a period of 36 months.

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 sought comment on new factors and evidence to consider in the FCC's 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, then-Chairman Wheeler announced that the FCC would not, at such time, proceed to adopt additional rules governing good faith negotiations of retransmission consent. No formal action has yet been taken on this Proposed Rulemaking, and we cannot predict if the full Commission will agree to terminate the Rulemaking without action.

In August 2016, the FCC completed both its 2010 and 2014 quadrennial reviews of its media ownership rules and issued an order (Ownership Order) which left most of the existing multiple ownership rules intact, but amended the rules to provide for the attribution of 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 advertising time per week of the other station. JSAs existing as of March 31, 2014, were grandfathered until October 1, 2025, at which point they would have to be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the JSA attribution rule. On November 20, 2017, the FCC released an Ownership Order on Reconsideration, among other things, eliminated the JSA attribution rule. The rule changes adopted in the Ownership Order on Reconsideration became effective on February 7, 2018. A Petition for Review of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration, including the elimination of the JSA attribution rule, was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On February 7, 2018, the court denied, among other things, Petitioners' request to stay the effective date of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration and instead issued a stay of the appeal for a period of 6 months. A Petition for Review of the Ownership Order on Reconsideration was subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and was transferred to the Third Circuit and is subject to the stay. We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding. If we are required to terminate or modify our LMAs or JSAs, our business could be adversely affected in several ways, including losses on investments and termination penalties.

If we are required to terminate or modify our LMAs or JSAs, our business could be affected in the following ways:

Losses on investments. In some cases, we own the non-license assets used by the stations we operate under LMAs and JSAs. If certain of these arrangements are no longer permitted, we could be forced to sell these assets, restructure our agreements or find another use for them. If this happens, the market for such assets may not be as good as when we purchased them and, therefore, we cannot be certain of a favorable return on our original investments.

Termination penalties. If the FCC requires us to modify or terminate existing LMAs or JSAs before the terms of the agreements expire, or under certain circumstances, we elect not to extend the terms of the agreements, we may be forced to pay termination penalties under the terms of some of our agreements. Any such termination penalties could be material.

On September 6, 2016, the FCC released the UHF Discount Order, eliminating the UHF Discount. The UHF discount allowed television station owners to discount the coverage of UHF stations when calculating compliance with the FCC’s national ownership cap, which prohibits a single entity from owning television stations that reach, in total, more than 39% of all the television households in the nation. All but 34 of the stations we currently own and operate, or to which we provide programming services are UHF. On April 20, 2017, the FCC acted on a Petition for Reconsideration of the UHF Discount Order and adopted the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration which reinstated the UHF discount, which became effective June 15, 2017 and is currently in effect. The UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration is currently the subject of a Petition for Review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit which is still pending. On December 18, 2017, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to examine the national audience reach cap, including the UHF discount. We cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings. With the application of the UHF discount counting all our present stations we reach approximately 25% of U.S. households. With the pending Tribune transaction, absent divestitures, we would exceed the 39% cap, even with the application of the UHF discount. We have filed FCC applications to divest stations in certain markets, which would bring our national audience reach under the 39% cap (including the UHF discount) upon closing. Changes to the national ownership cap could limit our ability to make television station acquisitions.