Sinclair stock loses $90 million in value.

[AtheistArchon]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190004

[...]

Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, is taking action against Sinclair on behalf of its clients holding shares in Sinclair. General partner Jim Glickenhaus mounted the action based on Sinclair's CEO and directors having a financial obligation to shareholders.

"We are not partisan. We are investors," Glickenhaus explained today. "Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view. Otherwise the company is placing its future and the value of our investment in jeopardy, by putting the renewal of its FCC licenses at risk, alienating local advertisers, and opening itself up to libel suits against the company."

Since Sinclair's decision to air Stolen Honor became public on October 9, the company's stock has fallen nearly 13 percent, as of the close of the market yesterday, October 18, wiping out nearly $90 million in shareholder value.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Those darn liberal stockholders and their demands to make money! Its all fixed. The NYSE and Dow Jones are all liberally biased!

[The Laughing Man]

Ah, so that's how much freedom of speech is worth.

[spiritmech]

Let's be honest, this is not a free speech issue. This is someone, with private money, expressing their view outside of their standard business model, and getting busted for it.

I'm all for them showing whatever they want, but the Constitution does not guarantee anyone getting paid for saying what they want.

I'm voting for Bush, but to present this as a free speech issue isn't valid.

[citizenkyle]

Let's be honest, this is not a free speech issue. This is someone, with private money, expressing their view outside of their standard business model, and getting busted for it.

I'm all for them showing whatever they want, but the Constitution does not guarantee anyone getting paid for saying what they want.

I'm voting for Bush, but to present this as a free speech issue isn't valid.

Yeah, well, when's the last time Jinx raised a valid point? Just kidding, Jinx (sort of). :-)

[The Laughing Man]

Let's be honest, this is not a free speech issue.

Sure it is. Sinclair has the freedom and the right to air this program.


This is someone,

...with the freedom of speech...


with private money,

...and the freedom of speech...


expressing their view

...with their freedom of speech...


outside of their standard business model,

Whatever that means. :ahem:


and getting busted for it.

Correction: and being attacked by the freedom of speech-hating liberals.


I'm all for them showing whatever they want,

FREEDOM OF SPEECH! You just lost, my friend.


but the Constitution does not guarantee anyone getting paid for saying what they want.

What does that have to do with this?


I'm voting for Bush, but to present this as a free speech issue isn't valid.

It's very valid. CBS had the freedom of speech to air the phony documents about President Bush. They paid the price afterwards, but there was no "pre-emptive strike" by Republicans to shut them down beforehand like there is with Sinclair by the Democrats.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure it is. Sinclair has the freedom and the right to air this program.



...with the freedom of speech...



...and the freedom of speech...



...with their freedom of speech...Polly want a cracker?




Whatever that means. :ahem:Its a joke. You are parroting yourself... but I give you major props for responding to something I had yet to say. *big thumbs up*


Correction: and being attacked by the freedom of speech-hating liberals.Of the New York Stock Exchange?


What does that have to do with this?That's where the stock value is dropping.


It's very valid. CBS had the freedom of speech to air the phony documents about President Bush. They paid the price afterwards, but there was no "pre-emptive strike" by Republicans to shut them down beforehand like there is with Sinclair by the Democrats.THe difference is that CBS was more deversified, so that could handle a little thing like the CBS issue. However, Sinclair is obviously all loaded into one boat and their stockholders, who have their right to speak for the company because they own shares, are upset that this could hurt their companies performance. Sinclair, who is using the stockholder's money as equity has to listen to them if enough raise a stink... and where in the world does the Democratic Party come into the shareholder issue?


*squak*

[Arnold]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190004

[...]

Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock, is taking action against Sinclair on behalf of its clients holding shares in Sinclair. General partner Jim Glickenhaus mounted the action based on Sinclair's CEO and directors having a financial obligation to shareholders.

"We are not partisan. We are investors," Glickenhaus explained today. "Sinclair's decision has caused harm to the value of our investment in Sinclair. We believe Sinclair must give equal time to an opposing point of view. Otherwise the company is placing its future and the value of our investment in jeopardy, by putting the renewal of its FCC licenses at risk, alienating local advertisers, and opening itself up to libel suits against the company."

Since Sinclair's decision to air Stolen Honor became public on October 9, the company's stock has fallen nearly 13 percent, as of the close of the market yesterday, October 18, wiping out nearly $90 million in shareholder value.
Well it gained almost all of that loss back yesterday (its best up day this year). The DJ Broadcasting Index has had an up and down year and is trending down right now. Sinclair has been trending down for six months. I suspect this will boost the stock at least temporarily. But lawsuits are not good for stocks. :no:

[Arnold]

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190004

[...]

Glickenhaus & Co., a Wall Street investment firm holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair stock

This is very fishy. 6100 shares is just a drop in the bucket. They are only worth about forty grand. For an investment house that is less than pocket change. It would take me about one second to drop those shares in my Ameritrade account. Who'se holding the gun to this guy's head? This story just doesn't sound right - there's some politics involved with this.