COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
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. The FCC has undertaken an investigation in response to a complaint it received alleging possible violations of the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. We cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action related to this matter but it is possible that such action could include fines and/or compliance programs. 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, an 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 fine 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 (the "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 ownership interest in one station sells more than 15% of the advertising time per week of the second station. The Ownership Order also provides that JSAs that existed prior to March 31, 2014, will not be counted as attributable and may remain in place until October 1, 2025, at which point they must be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the rules. These "grandfathered" JSAs may be transferred or assigned without terminating the grandfathering status relief. Among other things, the television JSA attribution rule could limit our future ability to create duopolies or other two-station operations in certain markets. 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 revenues of these JSA arrangements we earned during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 were $16.1 million and $29.2 million, and $14.3 million and $26.4 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively. The Ownership Order is the subject of an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and of Petitions for Reconsideration before the FCC. We cannot predict the outcome of that appeal or petitions. 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 an order eliminating the UHF discount (the "UHF Discount Order"). 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 28 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 an Order on Reconsideration which reinstated the UHF Discount, to become effective June 5, 2017. The Order on Reconsideration also announced the FCC's plans to open a rulemaking proceeding later this year to consider whether to modify the national audience reach rule, including the UHF discount. A petition for judicial review of the Order on Reconsideration was filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 12, 2017. The court has granted Sinclair leave to intervene in the proceedings in support of the FCC. On May 26, 2017, the petitioners in that case filed an emergency motion with the court seeking a stay of the Order on Reconsideration pending judicial review. On June 1, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals entered an administrative stay of the Order on Reconsideration, which was to take effect on June 5, 2017, pending its review of the emergency stay motion. On June 15, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dissolving the administrative stay and denying the emergency stay motion. The Order on Reconsideration became effective immediately upon release of the court's order, as a result of which the UHF discount remains in effect. The Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit of Appeals remains pending at this time, and we cannot predict the outcome of that proceeding. With the application of the UHF discount, counting all our present stations, and including the pending Bonten transaction, we would 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. Changes to the national ownership cap could limit our ability to make television station acquisitions. Congress authorized the FCC to conduct so-called “incentive auctions” to auction and re-purpose broadcast television spectrum for mobile broadband use. Pursuant to the auction, television broadcasters submitted bids to receive compensation for relinquishing all or a portion of its rights in the television spectrum of their full-service and Class A stations. Low power stations were not eligible to participate in the auction and are not protected and therefore may be displaced or forced to go off the air as a result of the post-auction repacking process. On April 13, 2017, the FCC issued a public notice which announced the conclusion of the spectrum auction. In July 2017, we received $310.7 million of gross proceeds from the auction. The results of the auction are not expected to produce any material change in operations of the Company as there is no change in on air operations. In the repacking process associated with the auction, the FCC has reassigned some stations to new post-auction channels. We do not expect reassignment to new channels to have a material impact on our coverage. We received letters from the FCC in February 2017 notifying us that 93 of our stations have been assigned to new channels. The legislation authorizing the incentive auction provides the FCC with a $1.75 billion fund to reimburse reasonable costs incurred by stations that are reassigned to new channels in the repack. We cannot predict whether the fund will be sufficient to reimburse all of our expenses related to the repack.

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. The FCC has undertaken an investigation in response to a complaint it received alleging possible violations of the FCC’s sponsorship identification rules by the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. We cannot predict the outcome of any potential FCC action related to this matter but it is possible that such action could include fines and/or compliance programs.

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, an 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 fine 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 (the "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 ownership interest in one station sells more than 15% of the advertising time per week of the second station. The Ownership Order also provides that JSAs that existed prior to March 31, 2014, will not be counted as attributable and may remain in place until October 1, 2025, at which point they must be terminated, amended or otherwise come into compliance with the rules. These "grandfathered" JSAs may be transferred or assigned without terminating the grandfathering status relief. Among other things, the television JSA attribution rule could limit our future ability to create duopolies or other two-station operations in certain markets. 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 revenues of these JSA arrangements we earned during the three and six months ended June 30, 2017 were $16.1 million and $29.2 million, and $14.3 million and $26.4 million during the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, respectively. The Ownership Order is the subject of an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and of Petitions for Reconsideration before the FCC. We cannot predict the outcome of that appeal or petitions.

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 an order eliminating the UHF discount (the "UHF Discount Order"). 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 28 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 an Order on Reconsideration which reinstated the UHF Discount, to become effective June 5, 2017. The Order on Reconsideration also announced the FCC's plans to open a rulemaking proceeding later this year to consider whether to modify the national audience reach rule, including the UHF discount. A petition for judicial review of the Order on Reconsideration was filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 12, 2017. The court has granted Sinclair leave to intervene in the proceedings in support of the FCC. On May 26, 2017, the petitioners in that case filed an emergency motion with the court seeking a stay of the Order on Reconsideration pending judicial review. On June 1, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals entered an administrative stay of the Order on Reconsideration, which was to take effect on June 5, 2017, pending its review of the emergency stay motion. On June 15, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dissolving the administrative stay and denying the emergency stay motion. The Order on Reconsideration became effective immediately upon release of the court's order, as a result of which the UHF discount remains in effect. The Petition for Review in the D.C. Circuit of Appeals remains pending at this time, and we cannot predict the outcome of that proceeding. With the application of the UHF discount, counting all our present stations, and including the pending Bonten transaction, we would 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. Changes to the national ownership cap could limit our ability to make television station acquisitions.

Congress authorized the FCC to conduct so-called “incentive auctions” to auction and re-purpose broadcast television spectrum for mobile broadband use. Pursuant to the auction, television broadcasters submitted bids to receive compensation for relinquishing all or a portion of its rights in the television spectrum of their full-service and Class A stations. Low power stations were not eligible to participate in the auction and are not protected and therefore may be displaced or forced to go off the air as a result of the post-auction repacking process. On April 13, 2017, the FCC issued a public notice which announced the conclusion of the spectrum auction. In July 2017, we received $310.7 million of gross proceeds from the auction. The results of the auction are not expected to produce any material change in operations of the Company as there is no change in on air operations. In the repacking process associated with the auction, the FCC has reassigned some stations to new post-auction channels. We do not expect reassignment to new channels to have a material impact on our coverage. We received letters from the FCC in February 2017 notifying us that 93 of our stations have been assigned to new channels. The legislation authorizing the incentive auction provides the FCC with a $1.75 billion fund to reimburse reasonable costs incurred by stations that are reassigned to new channels in the repack. We cannot predict whether the fund will be sufficient to reimburse all of our expenses related to the repack.