-
FCC Proposes $13 Million Fine Against Sinclair For Airing Sponsored TV 'News' Without Disclosure
December 21, 2017 at 11:08 AM (PT)
What do you think? Add your comment below. -
As the deal to take over TRIBUNE MEDIA remains pending, SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP is now facing a proposed $13,376,200 fine from the FCC for failure to disclose that stories it aired either as news reports or as 30-minute programs on its TV stations were instead paid programming.
On an anonymous tip, the FCC found that SINCLAIR aired the reports from the HUNTSMAN CANCER INSTITUTE over 1,700 times without identifying them as sponsors. The proposed fine is the largest ever levied for violations of sponsorship identification rules.
The big fine wasn't nearly big enough for Commissioner JESSICA ROSENWORCEL, who noted that the fine is only 0.5% of SINCLAIR's 2016 revenue and only 0.3% of the value of the TRIBUNE merger; "In an era where true facts too often are derided as fake news, this behavior is troubling," ROSENWORCEL contended. "The unprecedented volume of these violations deserves an unprecedented response. But instead of seeking the maximum fine allowable under our rules, this notice cuts the company a break." She also noted that SINCLAIR has been fined before for several violations and was cut a deal for $9.49 million last year to settle investigations into the company's retransmssion consent negotiation practices, adding, "the immediate notice should seek the highest fines permissible under our rules. But instead of doing so, we offer unreasonable and suspicious favor to a company with a clear record of difficulty complying with the law."
Also dissenting was Commissioner MIGNON CLYBURN, who called SINCLAIR's violation a "mere slap on the wrist" and an "egregious violation of the Commission’s rules by a company that knows better." She pointed out that other companies have been fined to a greater extent relative to their revenues, asking, "we routinely fine companies between 3-8% of their gross revenues for egregious violations of our rules. Does this mark yet another example of special treatment by the FCC majority? You decide."