Introduction
Portfolio managers, analysts, and broadcast operators:
We are pleased to present the 20th edition of the Broadcast Television Fact Book. In
the Fact Book, we provide you with what we hope you find to be relevant and useful
information regarding the television broadcasting industry. The Fact Book is divided
into four distinct sections: 1) Ownership, 2) Transactions, 3) Advertising, and 4)
Ratings Data.
The January 2008 Broadcast Television Fact Book reflects the change to broadcast
ownership rules delineated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in
the Commission’s August 5, 1999 Rulemaking that permitted TV duopolies.
The January 2008 Fact Book also reflects the FCC’s June 2, 2003 Rulemaking on
media ownership. The June 2003 Rulemaking addressed several issues relating to the
ownership of local TV stations:
1. The National Television Station Ownership Rule (NTSO). The FCC
recommended that the NTSO, which governs the percentage of U.S. TV
households that any broadcaster can reach with its TV stations, be raised to 45%
from 35%. In January 2004, Congress, as part of an omnibus spending bill, voted
to roll back the FCC’s proposal to 39%. This is now law.
2. The Local TV Ownership Rule — Duopoly and Triopoly. In its June 2, 2003
Media Ownership Rulemaking, the FCC recommended that the local TV
ownership rule, which governs the number of local TV stations a broadcaster
may own in any given market, be modestly loosened. After the 1999 FCC rule
change, a broadcaster was allowed to own up to two TV stations in markets as
long as 1) the two TV stations were not among the four highest-rated TV stations
in a market and 2) there were at least eight other owners of commercial and
noncommercial TV stations in the market after the transaction (“eight-voice
test”).
In the June 2, 2003 Rulemaking, the FCC elected to retain its restriction of
owning two of the top-four-rated TV stations in a TV market, but it also decided
to strike down the eight-voice test. So theoretically, any market with at least five
owners of commercial TV stations could have duopoly activity.
The 2003 FCC TV order and rulemaking outlined some waiver criteria that
would permit more opportunities for consolidation. Waivers would have been
considered if:
􀂃 a TV property operator has a significant competitive disadvantage relative to
other market players;

􀂃 a combination creates new news programming for a station that lacked it;
􀂃 a combination creates additional news services between the two stations; and
􀂃 one or both of the stations are UHF affiliates.
If the 2003 FCC rules are ultimately adopted, we believe some operators might
be able to “buy in” local marketing agreements for which they have a contract to
do so.
In addition to changes in duopoly, the FCC also proposed rules for triopoly in
markets with 18 or more TV stations. These markets include New York, Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, Dallas-Ft Worth, Washington,
D.C., Minneapolis-St. Paul, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Albuquerque.
3. Newspaper-Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule. In its December 19, 2007
Media Ownership Rulemaking, the FCC recommended that the newspaperbroadcast
cross-ownership rule be modestly relaxed in the top 20 markets. Since
1975, local newspaper companies had not been permitted to own local TV and
radio properties and vice versa.
The December 2007 ruling adopted by the FCC pertains primarily to the top 20
markets. Under the ruling, a daily newspaper can own one television station or
one radio station in the market as long as the TV station is not among the top four
in terms of ratings. In addition, the market must pass the eight-voice test
(previously left out of the 2003 rulemaking process), meaning that there must be
at least eight independently owned and operated major newspapers and/or full
power commerical TV stations in the DMA post-transactions.
All other proposed newspaper/broadcast transactions would be presumed not in
the public interest. However, the negative presumption test in other markets
could be reversed if 1) the broadcast station does not currently air local news, and
the new owner commits to provide seven hours of local programming per week,
or 2) the newspaper or the broadcast outlet meet criteria for a “failed” or “failing”
property.
While the full documentation on this ruling is not yet available, according to an
FCC press release, to be deemed “failed”, the newspaper or broadcast station
would have to have ceased publication or gone dark at least four months before
the filing of an application, or be in bankruptcy proceedings. To be treated as
failing, the applicant must show that 1) the broadcast station has had an all-day
audience share of 4% or lower, 2) the newspaper or broadcast station has had
negative cash flow for the previous three years, 3) the combination will produce
public interest benefits, and 4) the in-market buyer is the only reasonably
available candidate willing and able to acquire and operate the newspaper or
station.
In the December 2007 rulemaking, the FCC also issued a ruling regarding
Grandfathering/Permanent Waivers. All existing combinations that were
grandfathered in 1975 or granted permanent waivers will be permitted to remain

in existence. All existing combinations under temporary waivers and involving
one daily and either one TV or one radio station will also be grandfathered.
Other existing combinations will be given an opportunity to make a showing that
continued ownership would serve the public interest.
Congress and the Courts Weigh in on Media Ownership. Immediately after the
FCC’s 2003 Rulemaking was released, Congress and the courts became quite active
in challenging the rules. As we mentioned, Congress scaled back the FCC’s proposal
on national TV ownership rules from 45% reach of TV households to 39%.
The courts had their say, as well. In the court case Prometheus versus FCC,
consumer groups challenged the media ownership rules. The Network Affiliates
Station Alliance (NASA) also petitioned the court over the relaxation of the National
TV Station Ownership rule. One day before the rules were to become effective, the
Third Circuit Court in Philadelphia decided to stay the June 2, 2003 FCC ownership
rules until they could be addressed more formally in court.
In a split decision on June 24, 2004, the Third Circuit Court decided to remand the
newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rules and multiple-TV station ownership rules
(duopoly/triopoly) back to the FCC for a more thorough justification. In remanding
the rules back to the Commission, the Philadelphia Court asked the FCC to come up
with a better rationale for its rule changes than the Diversity Index, which the court
found flawed.
In remanding the duopoly/triopoly rules, the court noted, “The deference with which
we review the Commission’s line-drawing decisions extends only so far as the linedrawing
is consistent with the evidence or is not ‘patently unreasonable.’ The
Commission’s numerical limits are neither.”
The December 2007 changes by the FCC regarding newspaper/broadcast crossownership
relaxation in the top 20 markets also has its dissenters. For context, in
2003, the Senate passed a “Resolution of Disapproval” but Republican leadership in
the House did not take up the Resolution. A Resolution of Disapproval essentially
sets aside the ruling of an expert agency, which, in this case, was the FCC.
In 2008, we believe that the Senate will successfully pass a Resolution of
Disapproval, and we will have to see whether the Resolution will pass the House as
well. If the Resolution does pass both chambers, we believe that it would earn a
Presidential Veto and that the veto would likely be sustained. We will continue to
monitor developments here.
Fact Book Acknowledges June 2, 2003 Rules. In our duopoly analysis, we have
sections that identify duopolies permitted relative to the June 2, 2003 rulemaking,
and those that would be noncompliant with those rules as well.
We also acknowledge triopoly markets in our analysis, if applicable.
We will monitor developments and will make adjustments to our analysis as required.
For now, we will assume that the current FCC rules stay in place.

Page 6 TELEVISION BROADCASTING: FACT BOOK
We hope that you find this data useful. If you have any questions, comments, or
suggestions on how we might improve the usefulness of the Broadcast Television
Fact Book, please feel free to call Victor B. Miller at (212) 272-4233, Tracy B.
Young at (212) 272-0178, or Christopher H. Ensley at (212) 272-3171.

Table of Contents Page
Introduction ......................................................................................................................3
Ownership Database: 50 Largest Broadcast Groups ....................................................9
Part I: Summary Rankings of 50 Largest Broadcast Groups ...........................................11
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by Total Owned and Operated Clearance
(Syndicator Perspective).....................................................................................13
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by Owned and Operated FCC Clearance .........14
50 Largest Broadcasters — Ranked by 2006 Gross TV Revenue ...........………… 15
Part II: Ownership Database ............................................................................................16
Station Transactions —1991 Through December 2007...............................................55
Advertising Data — 1980 Through 2006 ....................................................................141
Part I: Total Advertising ................................................................................................143
Part II: Measured Media Advertising ............................................................................154
Part III. Local and National Advertising.........................................................................156
Part IV: Television Advertising......................................................................................159
Part V: Political Advertising...........................................................................................163
Ratings Data (1979-80 to 2006-07 Broadcast Season)................................................165
Part I: Network Ratings and Shares ...............................................................................167
Part II: Households Delivered........................................................................................170
Part III: Cable Network Viewership ..............................................................................172