COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 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 (formerly WMMP-TV); 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. 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, 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. We cannot predict whether we will be able to terminate or restructure such arrangements prior to October 1, 2025 on terms that are as advantageous to us as the current arrangements. The new rule is the subject of an appeal, which was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in April 2016. We cannot predict the outcome of that appeal. Among other things, the new JSA rule 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 $12.2 million and $10.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 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 is still looking into the allegations made by the MVPD and whether we negotiated in good faith as defined in the rules. We cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action, but it is possible that such action could include fines that may be material to our consolidated financial statements. 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. We cannot predict the impact such rulemaking may have on our retransmission consent negotiations.

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 (formerly WMMP-TV); 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.

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, 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. We cannot predict whether we will be able to terminate or restructure such arrangements prior to October 1, 2025 on terms that are as advantageous to us as the current arrangements. The new rule is the subject of an appeal, which was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in April 2016. We cannot predict the outcome of that appeal. Among other things, the new JSA rule 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 $12.2 million and $10.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 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 is still looking into the allegations made by the MVPD and whether we negotiated in good faith as defined in the rules. We cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action, but it is possible that such action could include fines that may be material to our consolidated financial statements.

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. We cannot predict the impact such rulemaking may have on our retransmission consent negotiations.