COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES: Litigation and other legal matters 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. As of August 7, 2018, the Company is aware of three putative class action lawsuits filed in United States District Court against the Company, Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC and other defendants, including some that are unnamed. The lawsuits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits. The Company believes the lawsuits may have been related to media reports of a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) the Company received from the Department of Justice earlier this year, which regarded an investigation to determine whether there had been a violation of the Sherman Act by sharing of pace data within the industry. The CID indicated that it was issued in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Tribune. The Company believes these class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations. On July 19, 2018, the FCC released a Hearing Designation Order (HDO) to commence a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with respect to the Company’s acquisition of Tribune, discussed under Pending Acquisitions within Note 2. Acquisitions and Dispositions of Assets. The HDO directs the FCC's Media Bureau to hold in abeyance all other pending applications and amendments thereto related to the proposed merger until the issues that are the subject of the HDO have been resolved with finality. The HDO asks the ALJ to determine (i) whether Sinclair was the real party in interest to the sale of WGN-TV, KDAF(TV), and KIAH(TV), (ii) if so, whether the Company engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the FCC and (iii) whether consummation of the overall transaction would be in the public interest and compliance with the FCC’s ownership rules. The Company maintains that the overall transaction and the proposed divestitures comply with the FCC’s rules, and strongly rejects any allegation of misrepresentation or lack of candor; however, we cannot predict the timing for completion or the outcome of the ALJ hearing. While review of the issues raised by the HDO remains pending, the Company's ability to acquire additional TV stations may be impacted. In addition, in light of the release of the HDO, there can be no assurance that the transaction with Tribune will be consummated. The failure to complete the transaction may adversely affect Sinclair’s business and operations. 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 that, 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. A Petition for Review of the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 12, 2017. The court denied the Petition for Review on July 25, 2018. 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 the rulemaking proceeding. 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 and other legal matters

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.

As of August 7, 2018, the Company is aware of three putative class action lawsuits filed in United States District Court against the Company, Tribune Media Company, Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC and other defendants, including some that are unnamed. The lawsuits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations throughout the United States, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney’s fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits. The Company believes the lawsuits may have been related to media reports of a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) the Company received from the Department of Justice earlier this year, which regarded an investigation to determine whether there had been a violation of the Sherman Act by sharing of pace data within the industry. The CID indicated that it was issued in connection with the Company’s acquisition of Tribune. The Company believes these class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.

On July 19, 2018, the FCC released a Hearing Designation Order (HDO) to commence a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with respect to the Company’s acquisition of Tribune, discussed under Pending Acquisitions within Note 2. Acquisitions and Dispositions of Assets. The HDO directs the FCC's Media Bureau to hold in abeyance all other pending applications and amendments thereto related to the proposed merger until the issues that are the subject of the HDO have been resolved with finality. The HDO asks the ALJ to determine (i) whether Sinclair was the real party in interest to the sale of WGN-TV, KDAF(TV), and KIAH(TV), (ii) if so, whether the Company engaged in misrepresentation and/or lack of candor in its applications with the FCC and (iii) whether consummation of the overall transaction would be in the public interest and compliance with the FCC’s ownership rules. The Company maintains that the overall transaction and the proposed divestitures comply with the FCC’s rules, and strongly rejects any allegation of misrepresentation or lack of candor; however, we cannot predict the timing for completion or the outcome of the ALJ hearing. While review of the issues raised by the HDO remains pending, the Company's ability to acquire additional TV stations may be impacted. In addition, in light of the release of the HDO, there can be no assurance that the transaction with Tribune will be consummated. The failure to complete the transaction may adversely affect Sinclair’s business and operations.

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 that, 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. A Petition for Review of the UHF Discount Order on Reconsideration was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 12, 2017. The court denied the Petition for Review on July 25, 2018. 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 the rulemaking proceeding. 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.