Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

x                              ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008

OR

o                                 TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM           TO          .

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER:  000-26076

SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

10706 Beaver Dam Road

Hunt Valley, MD 21030

(Address of principal executive offices)

(410) 568-1500

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company.  See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes o No x

Based on the closing sales price of $7.60 per share as of June 30, 2008, the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity of the Registrant held by non-affiliates was approximately $398.8 million.

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Documents Incorporated by Reference - Portions of our definitive Proxy Statement relating to our 2009 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.  We anticipate that our Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of our fiscal year ended December 31, 2008.   

Table of Contents

SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.

FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report includes or incorporates forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  We have based these forward-looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events.  These forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions about us, including, among other things, the following risks:

General risks

Industry risks

Risks specific to us

Other matters set forth in this report and other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Risk Factors set forth in Item 1A of this report may also cause actual results in the future to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements.  Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.  In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking statements discussed in this report might not occur.

2

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1.          BUSINESS

We are a diversified television broadcasting company that owns or provides certain programming, operating or sales services to more television stations than most other commercial broadcasting groups in the United States.  We currently own, provide programming and operating services pursuant to local marketing agreements (LMAs) or provide (or are provided) sales services pursuant to outsourcing agreements to 58 television stations in 35 markets.  For the purpose of this report, these 58 stations are referred to as “our” stations.

We have a mid-size market focus and 43 of our 58 stations are located in television designated market areas (DMAs) that rank between the 13th and 75th largest in the United States.  Our television station group is diverse in network affiliation: FOX (20 stations); MyNetworkTV (17 stations); ABC (9 stations); The CW (9 stations); CBS (2 stations) and NBC (1 station).  Refer to our Markets and Stations table later in this section for more information.

We broadcast free over-the-air programming to television viewing audiences in the communities we serve through our local television stations.  The programming that we provide consists of network provided programs, news produced locally, local sporting events and syndicated entertainment programs.  We provide network produced programming, which we broadcast pursuant to our agreements with the network with which the stations are affiliated.  We produce news at 18 stations in 12 markets, including two stations where we produce news pursuant to a local news sharing arrangement with a competitive station in that market.  We have 14 stations which have local news sharing arrangements with a competitive station in that market that produces the news aired on our station.  We provide live local sporting events on many of our stations by acquiring the local television broadcast rights for these events.  Additionally, we purchase and barter for popular syndicated programming from third parties.  See Operating Strategy later in this Item for more information regarding the programming we provide.

Our primary source of revenue is the sale of commercial inventory on our television stations to our advertising customers.  Our objective is to meet the needs of our advertising customers by delivering significant audiences in key demographics.  Our strategy is to achieve this objective by providing quality local news programming and popular network and syndicated programs to our viewing audience.  We attract our national television advertisers through a single national marketing representation firm which has offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Atlanta.  Our local television advertisers are attracted through the use of a local sales force at each of our television stations, which is comprised of approximately 350 account executives company-wide.

Our operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations.  The second and fourth quarter operating results are typically higher than the first and third quarters due to increased advertising revenues.  The second quarter operating results are typically higher than the first and third quarters primarily because advertising expenditures are increased in anticipation of consumer spending on “summer related” items such as home improvements, lawn care and travel plans.  The fourth quarter operating results are typically higher than first and third quarters due to anticipation of holiday season spending by consumers.  Due to the recent economic turmoil, our seasonal fluctuations may stray from the norm.  Our operating results are usually subject to cyclical fluctuations from political advertising.  In the past, political spending has been significantly higher in the even-number years due to the cyclicality of political advertising.  In addition, every four years, political spending is elevated further due to the advertising revenue preceding the presidential election.  Because of this cyclicality, there has been a significant difference in our operating results when comparing even-numbered years’ performance to the odd-numbered years’ performance.  We believe political advertising will continue to be a strong advertising category in our industry.

Over the last few years, we have been earning revenue from our retransmission consent agreements through payments from the MVPDs in our markets.  The MVPDs are local cable companies, satellite television and local telecommunication video providers.  The revenues primarily represent payments from the MVPDs for access to our signal so they may rebroadcast directly to and charge their subscribers.  We have seen this revenue category grow significantly since 2006 as we successfully negotiated favorable payment terms in our retransmission consent agreements with the MVPDs.  Certain agreements expired in 2008 and successful contractual negotiations were reached.  We expect to continue to generate revenues from retransmission consent agreements at terms as favorable as or more favorable than our existing agreements upon the expiration of those agreements.  Many of our retransmission consent agreements include automatic annual fee escalators.  We may not continue to grow these revenues at the current growth rate since most of the MVPDs that we conduct business with are under contract.  Additionally, as mobile television develops, we may be able to generate additional revenue streams through agreements with portable device service providers.

3

Table of Contents

We are currently working on various potential uses of our digital spectrum.  Mobile digital television holds tremendous potential for the television broadcasting industry.  We are a member of the Open Mobile Video Coalition (the Coalition), which is a voluntary association of television broadcasters whose mission is to accelerate the development of mobile digital broadcast television.  The Coalition has been working within the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) to develop a mobile broadcasting system that will allow cell phones, laptop computers, video screens in vehicles, portable video players and other portable devices to receive our digital signals.  Broadcasters are working with the Coalition to understand and develop an innovative and viable business model.  We expect mobile television to increase our viewership and generate additional revenues; however, we are uncertain when this will occur.  According to a January 2009 article in TV Newsday, “Advertising studies show an incremental 10 percent viewing time is reasonable.  So using existing figures that would be roughly $2 billion per year on broadcast stations.”  Over-the-air television broadcasting in the U.S. was scheduled to complete the transition from high power analog transmissions to digital transmissions on February 17, 2009; however, Congress extended this deadline to June 12, 2009.  In spite of this extension, Congress allowed broadcasters to petition the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or Commission) for approval to maintain the original February 17, 2009 deadline.  We obtained approval from the FCC for 46 stations to maintain the February 17, 2009 transition and successfully completed the transition accordingly with minimum viewing impact.  The remaining 12 stations are expected to transition by the June 12, 2009 deadline.

We believe 2009 will prove to be a difficult year for television broadcasting due to the severe economic recession, the lack of political advertising, the continued deterioration of the automotive industry, which historically has been our largest advertising category and the stagnant growth of advertising spending in general.  According to a BIA Advisory Services Report from December 2008, “Political advertising couldn’t prevent the television industry from posting -7 percent growth in 2008…This year’s negative results reflect not only the economy but stagnant ad spending that has remained at $43 billion since 2000...”  While our 2008 operating results including market share fared better than the industry’s overall projected results, we were and continue to be significantly impacted by the weak economic conditions.

We are a Maryland corporation formed in 1986.  Our principal offices are located at 10706 Beaver Dam Road, Hunt Valley, Maryland 21030.  Our telephone number is (410) 568-1500 and our website address is www.sbgi.net.

4

Table of Contents

TELEVISION BROADCASTING

Markets and Stations

We own and operate, provide programming services to, provide sales services to or have agreed to acquire the following television stations:

5

Table of Contents

6

Table of Contents

Operating Strategy

Our operating strategy includes the following elements:

Programming to Attract Viewership.  We seek to target our programming offerings to attract viewership, to meet the needs of the communities in which we serve and to meet the needs of our advertising customers.  In pursuit of this strategy, we seek to obtain, at attractive prices, popular syndicated programming that is complementary to each station’s network programming.  We also seek to broadcast live local and national sporting events that would appeal to a large segment of the local community.  Moreover, we produce news at 18 stations in 12 markets, including two stations which have a local news sharing agreement with a competitive station in that market.  We have 14 stations which have local news sharing arrangements with a competitive station in that market, which produces the news aired on our station.

Attract and Retain High Quality Management.  We believe that much of our success is due to our ability to attract and retain highly skilled and motivated managers at both the corporate and local station levels.  We provide a combination of base salary, long-term incentive compensation and, where appropriate, cash bonus pay designed to be competitive with comparable employers in the television broadcast industry.  A significant portion of the compensation available to our Chief Operating Officer, sales vice presidents, group managers, general managers, sales managers and other station managers is based on their exceeding certain operating results.  We also provide some of our corporate and station managers with deferred compensation plans and equity awards.

Developing Local Franchises.  We believe the greatest opportunity for a sustainable and growing customer base lies within our local communities.  Therefore, we have focused on developing a strong local sales force at each of our television stations, which is comprised of approximately 350 account executives company-wide.  Excluding political advertising revenue, 68.2% of our net time sales were local for the year ended December 31, 2008, compared to 66.3% in 2007.  Market share survey results reflect that our stations’ share of the local television advertising market, excluding political, in 2008 increased to 18.9% from 17.9% in 2007.  Our goal is to grow our local revenues by increasing our market share and by developing new business opportunities.

Local News.  We believe that the production and broadcasting of local news is an important link to the community and an aid to a station’s efforts to expand its viewership.  In addition, local news programming can provide access to advertising sources targeted specifically to local news viewers.  We assess the anticipated benefits and costs of producing local news prior to the introduction of local news at our stations because a significant investment in capital equipment is required and substantial operating expenses are incurred in introducing, developing and producing local news programming.  We also continuously review the performance of our existing news operations to make sure they are economically viable.  In 2008, we upgraded to high–definition (HD) newscasts in four of our markets, Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; Asheville, North Carolina and Pensacola, Florida.  As future financial conditions warrant, we will continue to roll out this capability to our other news producing markets.

Our local news initiatives are an important part of our strategy that has resulted in our entering into 16 local news sharing arrangements with other television broadcasters.  We are the provider of news services in two instances while in 14 of our news share arrangements, we are the recipient of services.  We believe news share arrangements generally provide both higher viewer ratings and revenues for the station receiving the news and generate a profit for the news share provider.  Generally, both parties and the local community are beneficiaries of these arrangements.

Developing New Business.  We are always striving to develop new business models to complement or enhance our existing television broadcast business.  We are currently developing new ways to bundle online and mobile text messaging advertising with our traditional commercial broadcasting model.  In addition, we are currently working on various potential uses of our digital spectrum including developing a viable business platform for mobile digital broadcasting.  We continue to explore new opportunities and plan to implement new initiatives in 2009.

Retransmission Consent Agreements.  We have retransmission consent agreements with MVPDs, such as cable, satellite and telecommunications operators in our markets.  MVPDs compensate us for the right to retransmit our broadcast signals.  Our successful negotiations with MVPDs have created agreements that now produce meaningful sustainable revenue streams.  During 2008, our retransmission consent agreements, including the advertising component, generated $73.9 million in total broadcast revenues.  This represents a 25.5% increase over 2007 results.  We expect to continue to generate revenues from retransmission consent agreements at terms as favorable as or more favorable than our existing agreements upon the expiration of those agreements.  Many of our retransmission consent agreements include automatic annual fee escalators.  While we expect revenues from our retransmission consent agreements to continue to grow over the next fiscal year and beyond, these revenues may not continue to grow at current growth rates, since most of our MVPDs that we conduct business with are under contract.  Additionally, as mobile television develops, we may be able to generate additional revenue streams through agreements with portable device service providers.

7

Table of Contents

Ownership Duopolies and Utilization of Local Marketing Agreements.  We have sought to increase our revenues and improve our margins through the ownership of two stations in a single market, called a duopoly, and by providing programming services pursuant to a LMA to a second station in eight DMAs where we already own one station.  Duopolies and LMAs allow us to realize significant economies of scale in marketing, programming, overhead and capital expenditures.  We also believe these arrangements enable us to air popular programming and contribute to the diversity of programming within each DMA.  Although under the FCC ownership rules released in June 2003 (the 2003 Rules), we would be allowed to continue to program most of the stations with which we have a LMA, in the absence of a waiver, the 2003 Rules would require us to terminate or modify three of our LMAs.  Although there can be no assurances, we have studied the application of the 2003 Rules to our markets and believe we are qualified for waivers.  Under the ownership rules established in 2008, we may be required to terminate or modify three more of our LMAs that we executed after November 5, 1996.  We also may be required to terminate or modify three other LMAs that we executed prior to November 5, 1996, if the FCC subsequently initiates a case-by-case review of those LMAs and determines not to extend the grandfathering period.  For additional information, refer to Risk Factors - Changes in Rules on Television Ownership, and Risk Factors - The FCC’s multiple ownership rules limit our ability to operate multiple television stations in some markets and may result in a reduction in our revenue or prevent us from reducing costs.  Changes in these rules may threaten our existing strategic approach to certain television markets.

Use of Outsourcing Agreements/Joint Sales Agreements (JSAs).  In addition to our LMAs, we currently operate under four (and may seek opportunities for additional) outsourcing agreements in which our stations provide or are provided various non-programming related services such as sales, operational and managerial services to or by other stations.  Pursuant to these agreements, our stations in Nashville, Tennessee and Cedar Rapids, Iowa currently provide services to another station in each’s respective market and another party provides services to our stations in Peoria/Bloomington, Illinois and Rochester, New York.  We believe the outsourcing structure allows stations to achieve operational efficiencies and economies of scale, which should improve broadcast cash flow and competitive positions.  While television JSAs are not currently “attributable”, as that term is defined by the FCC, on August 2, 2004, the FCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on its tentative conclusion that television joint sales agreements should be attributable.  We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, nor can we predict how many changes, together with possible changes to ownership rules, would apply to our existing outsourcing agreements.  See the Local Marketing Agreements under the Federal Regulation of Television Broadcasting section below.

Multi-Channel Digital Broadcasting.  FCC rules allow broadcasters to transmit additional digital channels within the spectrum allocated to each FCC license holder.  This provides viewers with additional programming alternatives at no additional cost to them.  Four of our television stations are experimenting with broadcasting a second digital channel in accordance with these rules, airing various alternative programming formats.  We are airing a secondary digital channel comprised of independent programming in one market.  In the three other markets, we are broadcasting MyNetworkTV and independent programming.  In addition, as noted below, we believe mobile digital television will serve as an additional use of our digital spectrum.

We may consider other alternative programming formats that we could air using our multi-channel digital spectrum space with the goal towards achieving higher profits and community service.

Mobile Digital Television.  We are a member of the Open Mobile Video Coalition (the Coalition), which is a voluntary association of television broadcasters whose mission is to accelerate the development of mobile digital broadcast television.  We believe mobile digital television will become a viable use of our local stations’ programming.   The Coalition has been working within the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) to develop a mobile broadcasting system that will allow digital television to be broadcast to numerous mobile devices including cell phones, laptop computers, video screens in vehicles, portable video players and other portable devices.  Broadcasters are working with the Coalition to understand and develop innovative and viable business models.  We believe that the technical ability to receive our television broadcast content on mobile devices will be attractive to individuals.  We believe this technology, if successfully implemented, could create an entirely new revenue stream for television broadcasters.  Due to the complexity of the technology, the disparate competitive interests in developing a technology standardization, the availability of other competing technologies and the number of stakeholders involved including cellular network operators, there are risks associated with successfully monetizing this platform.  Although the technology and business plan are in process, plans are to begin a mobile digital television service in 22 markets reaching 35% of U.S. Households.  We expect to participate in the initial launch of this service by broadcasting mobile digital television on 11 of our stations in six different markets.

Control of Operating and Programming Costs.  By employing a disciplined approach to managing programming acquisition and other costs, we have been able to achieve operating margins that we believe are very competitive within the television broadcast industry.  We believe our national reach of approximately 22% of the country provides us with a strong position to negotiate with programming providers and, as a result, the opportunity to purchase high quality programming at more favorable prices.  Moreover, we emphasize control of each of our station’s programming and operating costs through program-specific profit analysis, detailed budgeting, regionalization of staff and detailed long-term planning models.

Popular Sporting Events.  Our CW and MyNetworkTV affiliated stations generally face fewer preemption restrictions on broadcasting live local sporting events compared with our FOX, ABC, CBS and NBC affiliated stations, which are required to broadcast a greater number of hours of programming supplied by the networks.  At some of our stations, we have been able to

8

Table of Contents

acquire local television broadcast rights for certain sporting events, including NBA basketball, Major League Baseball, NFL football, NHL hockey, ACC basketball and both Big Ten and SEC football and basketball and high school sports.  We seek to expand our sports broadcasting in DMAs as profitable opportunities arise.  In addition, our stations that are affiliated with FOX, ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast certain NBA basketball games, Major League Baseball games, NFL football games, NHL hockey games and NASCAR races, as well as other popular sporting events.

Strategic Realignment of Station Portfolio.  We continue to examine our television station group portfolio in light of the 2003 Rules.  For a summary of these rules, refer to Ownership Matters, discussed in the Federal Regulation of Television Broadcasting.  Our objective has been to build our local franchises in the markets we deem strategic.  We routinely review and conduct investigations of potential television station acquisitions, dispositions and station swaps.  At any given time, we may be in discussions with one or more television station owners.  For more information related to station sales, see Note 13. Discontinued Operations, in the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Investments.  As in the past, we continue to seek more ways to diversify our business and return additional value to our shareholders.  We carry investments in various companies from many different industries including sign design and fabrication, security alarm monitoring and bulk acquisition, software development, information technology staffing and consulting and television transmitter manufacturing.  In addition, we invest in various real estate ventures including developmental land and apartment and shopping complexes.  We also invest in private equity and structure debt and mezzanine financing investment funds.  Currently our investment activity represents a small portion of our overall operating results.  Activity related to our investments is included in our other operating divisions segment.  We expect to continue to make investments in non-broadcast assets as sound economic opportunities appear.

FEDERAL REGULATION OF TELEVISION BROADCASTING

The ownership, operation and sale of television stations are subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC, which acts under the authority granted by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act).  Among other things, the FCC assigns frequency bands for broadcasting; determines the particular frequencies, locations and operating power of stations; issues, renews, revokes and modifies station licenses; regulates equipment used by stations; adopts and implements regulations and policies that directly or indirectly affect the ownership, operation and employment practices of stations; and has the power to impose penalties for violations of its rules or the Communications Act.

The following is a brief summary of certain provisions of the Communications Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act) and specific FCC regulations and policies.  Reference should be made to the Communications Act, the 1996 Act, FCC rules and the public notices and rulings of the FCC for further information concerning the nature and extent of federal regulation of broadcast stations.

License Grant and Renewal

Television stations operate pursuant to broadcasting licenses that are granted by the FCC for maximum terms of eight years and are subject to renewal upon application to the FCC.  During certain periods when renewal applications are pending, petitions to deny license renewals can be filed by interested parties, including members of the public.  The FCC will generally grant a renewal application if it finds:

All of the stations that we currently own and operate or provide programming services or sales services to, pursuant to LMAs or other agreements, are presently operating under regular licenses, which expire as to each station on the dates set forth under Television Broadcasting above.  Although renewal of a license is granted in the vast majority of cases even when petitions to deny are filed, there can be no assurance that the license of any station will be renewed.

In 2004, we filed with the FCC an application for the license renewal of WBFF-TV in Baltimore, Maryland.  Subsequently, an individual named Richard D’Amato filed a petition to deny the application.  In 2004, we also filed with the FCC applications for the license renewal of television stations: WXLV-TV, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; WMYV-TV, Greensboro, North Carolina;

9

Table of Contents

WLFL-TV, Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina; WRDC-TV, Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina; WLOS-TV, Asheville, North Carolina and WMMP-TV, Charleston, South Carolina.  An organization calling itself “Free Press” filed a petition to deny the renewal applications of these stations and also the renewal applications of two other stations in those markets, which we program pursuant to LMAs: WTAT-TV, Charleston, South Carolina and WMYA-TV, Anderson, South Carolina.  Several individuals and an organization named “Sinclair Media Watch” also filed informal objections to the license renewal applications of WLOS-TV and WMYA-TV, raising essentially the same arguments presented in the Free Press petition.  The FCC is currently in the process of considering these renewal applications and we believe the objections have no merit.

On October 12, 2004, the FCC issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) in the amount of $7,000 per station to virtually every FOX station, including the 15 FOX affiliates presently licensed to us and the four FOX affiliates programmed by us and one FOX affiliate we sold in 2005.  The NAL alleged that the stations broadcast indecent material contained in an episode of a FOX network program that aired on April 7, 2003.  We, as well as other parties including the FOX network, filed oppositions to the NAL.  On February 22, 2008, the FCC released an order assessing a $7,000 per station forfeiture against 13 FOX stations, including KDSM-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, WZTV-TV in Nashville, Tennessee and WVAH-TV in Charleston, West Virginia, which we program pursuant to a Local Marketing Agreement (LMA).  We did not pay the forfeiture for our stations.  On March 24, 2008, we joined the FOX network and other FOX affiliates in filing a petition for reconsideration of the forfeiture order.  On April 4, 2008, the FCC returned the petition without consideration based on the alleged failure to comply with a procedural rule.  On April 21, 2008, we joined the FOX network and other FOX affiliates in seeking reconsideration of the FCC’s April 4, 2008 decision to return the petition for reconsideration and that proceeding is still pending.  On April 4, 2008, the Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the FCC, sued several of the stations that had not paid the forfeiture amounts assessed by the FCC, including the two stations we own and WVAH-TV.  Our stations and WVAH-TV paid the forfeiture assessments in April 2008.  The proceedings initiated by the DOJ have been dismissed.  The FOX network has agreed to indemnify its affiliates for the full amount of the forfeiture assessment paid.

On July 21, 2005, we filed with the FCC an application to acquire the license and non-license television broadcast assets of WNAB-TV in Nashville, Tennessee.   The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (Rainbow/PUSH) filed a petition to deny that application and also requested that the FCC initiate a hearing to investigate whether WNAB-TV was improperly operated with WZTV-TV and WUXP-TV, two of our stations located in the same market as WNAB-TV.  The FCC is currently in the process of considering the transfer of the broadcast license and we believe the Rainbow/PUSH petition has no merit.

On August 1, 2005, we filed applications with the FCC requesting renewal of the broadcast licenses for WICS-TV and WICD-TV in Springfield/Champaign, Illinois.  Subsequently, various viewers filed informal objections requesting that the FCC deny these renewal applications.  On September 30, 2005, we filed an application with the FCC for the renewal of the broadcast license for KGAN-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  On December 28, 2005, an organization calling itself “Iowans for Better Local Television” filed a petition to deny that application.  The FCC is currently in the process of considering these renewal applications and we believe the objections and petitions requesting denial have no merit.

On August 1, 2005, we filed applications with the FCC requesting renewal of the broadcast licenses for WCGV-TV and WVTV-TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  On November 1, 2005, the Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition filed a petition to deny these renewal applications.  On June 13, 2007, the Video Division of the FCC denied the petition to deny, and subsequently, the Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition filed a petition for reconsideration of that decision, which we opposed.  In July 2008, the Video Division granted the renewal application of WVTV-TV and separately denied the Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition’s petition for reconsideration.  On August 11, 2008, the Milwaukee Public Interest Media Coalition and another organization filed another petition for reconsideration of the decision, which we opposed.  The petition for reconsideration and the renewal application for WCGV-TV are currently pending.

On February 27, 2006, an individual named James Pennino purportedly filed a petition to deny the license renewal application of WUCW-TV in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  Despite not having found any official record of the filing, we opposed the petition and the renewal application is currently pending.

Action on many license renewal applications, including those we have filed, has been delayed because of the pendency of complaints that programming aired by the various networks contained indecent material and complaints regarding alleged violations of sponsorship identification rules.  We cannot predict when the FCC will address these complaints and act on the renewal applications.  We continue to have operating authority until final action is taken on our renewal applications.

The FCC has made it difficult for us to predict the impact on our license renewals from allegations related to the airing of indecent material that may arise in the ordinary course of our business.  For example, on Veterans’ Day in November 2004, we preempted (did not air) “Saving Private Ryan”, a program that was aired during ABC’s network programming time.  We were concerned that since the program contained the use of the “F” word (indecent material as defined by the FCC) airing the programming could result in a fine or other negative consequences for one or more of our ABC stations.  In February 2005, the FCC dismissed all complaints filed against ABC stations regarding this program.  The FCC’s decision justified what some may consider indecent material as appropriate in the context of the program.  Although this ruling has expanded the programming

10

Table of Contents

opportunities of our stations, it still leaves us at risk because what might be determined as legitimate context by us may not be deemed so by the FCC and the FCC will not rule beforehand as this may be considered a restriction of free speech.  For example, in September 2006, we preempted a CBS network documentary on the events that happened on September 11, 2001 because the program contained what some have argued is indecent material and the FCC would not provide, in advance of the airing of the documentary, any guidance on whether that material was appropriate in the context of the program.  In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the FCC’s indecency policy regarding “fleeting expletives” was arbitrary and capricious.  The FCC challenged the decision and the case was argued before the Supreme Court in November 2008 and is still pending.  In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the FCC’s decision concluding, among other things, that a fleeting display of nudity was indecent.  Additionally, other FCC indecency decisions have been challenged in federal appellate courts, and those cases are currently pending.  These decisions and the FCC’s unclear policy make it difficult for us to determine what may be indecent programming.  We only know that “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” are allowed to be aired in their unedited entirety under current FCC rulings.

Ownership Matters

General.  The Communications Act prohibits the assignment of a broadcast license or the transfer of control of a broadcast license without the prior approval of the FCC.  In determining whether to permit the assignment or transfer of control of, or the grant or renewal of, a broadcast license, the FCC considers a number of factors pertaining to the licensee, including compliance with various rules limiting common ownership of media properties, the “character” of the licensee and those persons holding “attributable” interests in that licensee and compliance with the Communications Act’s limitations on alien ownership.

To obtain the FCC’s prior consent to assign a broadcast license or transfer control of a broadcast license, appropriate applications must be filed with the FCC.  If the application involves a “substantial change” in ownership or control, the application must be placed on public notice for a period of approximately 30 days during which petitions to deny the application may be filed by interested parties, including members of the public.  If the application does not involve a “substantial change” in ownership or control, it is a “pro forma” application.  The “pro forma” application is not subject to petitions to deny or a mandatory waiting period, but is nevertheless subject to having informal objections filed against it.  If the FCC grants an assignment or transfer application, interested parties have approximately 30 days from public notice of the grant to seek reconsideration or review of the grant.  Generally, parties that do not file initial petitions to deny, or informal objections against the application, face difficulty in seeking reconsideration or review of the grant.  The FCC normally has an additional 10 days to set aside such grant on its own motion.  When passing on an assignment or transfer application, the FCC is prohibited from considering whether the public interest might be served by an assignment or transfer to any party other than the assignee or transferee specified in the application.

The FCC generally applies its ownership limits to “attributable” interests held by an individual, corporation, partnership or other association.  In the case of corporations holding, or through subsidiaries controlling, broadcast licenses, the interests of officers, directors and those who, directly or indirectly, have the right to vote 5% or more of the corporation’s stock (or 20% or more of such stock in the case of insurance companies, investment companies and bank trust departments that are passive investors) are generally attributable.  In August 1999, the FCC revised its attribution and multiple ownership rules and adopted the equity-debt-plus rule that causes certain creditors or investors to be attributable owners of a station.  Under this rule, a major programming supplier (any programming supplier that provides more than 15% of the station’s weekly programming hours) or same-market media entity will be an attributable owner of a station if the supplier or same-market media entity holds debt or equity, or both, in the station that is greater than 33% of the value of the station’s total debt plus equity.  For the purposes of this rule, equity includes all stock, whether voting or non-voting, and equity held by insulated limited partners in partnerships.  Debt includes all liabilities whether long-term or short-term.  In addition, LMAs are attributable where a licensee owns a television station and programs more than 15% of another television station in the same market.

The Communications Act prohibits the issuance of a broadcast license to, or the holding of a broadcast license by, any corporation of which more than 20% of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by non-U. S. citizens or their representatives or by a foreign government or a representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country (collectively, aliens).  The Communications Act also authorizes the FCC, if the FCC determines that it would be in the public interest, to prohibit the issuance of a broadcast license to, or the holding of a broadcast license by, any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than 25% of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens.  The FCC has issued interpretations of existing law under which these restrictions in modified form apply to other forms of business organizations, including partnerships.

As a result of these provisions, the licenses granted to our subsidiaries by the FCC could be revoked if, among other restrictions imposed by the FCC, more than 25% of our stock were directly or indirectly owned or voted by aliens.  Sinclair and its subsidiaries are domestic corporations, and the members of the Smith family (who together hold approximately 87.0% of the common voting rights of Sinclair) are all United States citizens.  Our amended and restated Articles of Incorporation (the Amended Certificate) contain limitations on alien ownership and control that are substantially similar to those contained in the Communications Act.  Pursuant to the Amended Certificate, we have the right to repurchase alien-owned shares at their fair market value to the extent necessary, in the judgment of the Board of Directors, to comply with the alien ownership restrictions.

11

Table of Contents

In February 2008, the FCC released a Report and Order that, with the exception of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule, essentially re-adopts the ownership rules the FCC originally introduced in 1999 and has enforced since then.

The relevant 2008 ownership rules are as follows:

Radio/Television Cross-Ownership Rule.  The FCC’s radio/television cross-ownership rule (the “one to a market” rule) generally permits a party to own a combination of up to two television stations and six radio stations in the same market, depending on the number of independent media voices in the market.

Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule.  The FCC’s rule generally prohibits the common ownership of a radio or television broadcast station and a daily newspaper in the same market.  However, the FCC will presume that, in the top 20 DMAs, it is not inconsistent with the public interest for one entity to own a daily newspaper and a radio station or, under the following circumstances, a daily newspaper and a television station if: (1) the television station is not ranked among the top-four stations in the DMA and (2) at least eight independent “major media voices” remain in the DMA.  The FCC will presume that all other newspaper/broadcast mergers are not in the public interest, but it will allow applicants to seek a waiver and rebut this presumption by clear and convincing evidence that, post-merger, the merged entity will increase the diversity of independent news outlets and increase competition among independent news sources in the relevant market.

Dual Network Rule.  The four major television networks, FOX, ABC, CBS and NBC, are prohibited, absent a waiver, from merging with each other.  In May 2001, the FCC amended its dual network rule to permit the four major television networks to own, operate, maintain or control other television networks, such as The CW or MyNetworkTV.

National Ownership Rule.  As of 2004, by statute, the national television viewing audience reach cap is 39%.  Under this rule, where an individual or entity has an attributable interest in more than one television station in a market, the percentage of the national television viewing audience encompassed within that market is only counted once.  Additionally, since historically, very high frequency, or VHF stations (channels 2 through 13) have shared a larger portion of the market than ultra high frequency, or UHF stations (channels 14 through 69), only half of the households in the market area of any UHF station are included when calculating an entity’s national television viewing audience (commonly referred to as the UHF discount). Due to the elimination of the analog signal and switch to digital in 2009, the FCC has indicated that it may institute a future proceeding to assess whether it should alter or eliminate the UHF discount.

All but seven of the stations we own and operate, or to which we provide programming services, are UHF.  We reach approximately 22% of U. S. television households or 12.4% taking into account the FCC’s UHF discount.

Local Television (Duopoly) Rule.  A party may own television stations in adjoining markets, even if there is Grade B (discussed below) overlap between the two stations’ broadcast signals and generally may own two stations in the same market:

In addition, a party may request a waiver of the rule to acquire a second or third station in the market if the station to be acquired is economically distressed or not yet constructed and there is no party who does not own a local television station who would purchase the station for a reasonable price.

There are three grades of service for traditional television broadcasts, City (strongest), Grade A and Grade B (least strong); and the signal decreases in strength the further away the viewer is from the broadcast antenna tower.  Generally, it is not as easy for viewers with properly installed outdoor antennas to receive a Grade B signal, as it is to receive a Grade A or City Grade signal.

Antitrust Regulation.  The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission have increased their scrutiny of the television industry since the adoption of the 1996 Act and have reviewed matters related to the concentration of ownership within markets (including LMAs) even when ownership or the LMA in question is permitted under the laws administered by the FCC or by FCC rules and regulations.  The DOJ takes the position that an LMA entered into in anticipation of a station’s acquisition with the proposed buyer of the station constitutes a change in beneficial ownership of the station which, if subject to filing under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Anti Trust Improvements Act, cannot be implemented until the waiting period required by that statute has ended or been terminated.

12

Table of Contents

Expansion of our broadcast operations on both a local and national level will continue to be subject to the FCC’s ownership rules, DOJ review and any changes the FCC or Congress may adopt.  At the same time, any further relaxation of the FCC’s ownership rules, which could occur if the rules adopted in 2008 are declared unenforceable, may increase the level of competition in one or more markets in which our stations are located, more specifically to the extent that any of our competitors may have greater resources and thereby may be in a superior position to take advantage of such changes.  Conversely, any such relaxation or invalidation of such rules may provide us the opportunity to expand should we have the resources and find the terms advantageous.

Local Marketing Agreements

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 ultimate editorial and other controls being exercised by the latter licensee.  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 and decided to attribute LMAs for ownership purposes.  It grandfathered our LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996, permitting 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.  Subsequently, the FCC invited comments as to whether, instead of beginning the review of the grandfathered LMAs in 2004, it should do so in 2006.  The FCC did not initiate any review of grandfathered LMAs in 2004 or as part of its 2006 quadrennial review.  We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any such review of grandfathered LMAs.  With respect to LMAs executed on or after November 5, 1996, the FCC required that parties come into compliance with the 1999 local television ownership rule by August 6, 2001.  We challenged the 1999 local television ownership rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and that court stayed the enforcement of the divestiture of the post-November 5, 1996 LMAs.  In 2002, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. v. F.C.C., 284 F.3d 114 (D.C. Cir. 2002) that the 1999 local television ownership rule was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the rule to the Commission.

In 2003, the FCC revised its ownership rules, including the local television ownership rule. The effective date of the 2003 ownership rules was stayed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the rules were remanded to the FCC.  Because the effective date of the 2003 ownership rules had been stayed and, in connection with the adoption of those rules, the FCC concluded the 1999 rules could not be justified as necessary in the public interest, we took the position that an issue exists regarding whether the FCC has any current legal right to enforce any rules prohibiting the acquisition of television stations.  Several parties, including us, filed petitions with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of the Third Circuit decision, but the Supreme Court denied the petitions in June 2005.

In July 2006, as part of the FCC’s statutorily required quadrennial review of its media ownership rules, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on how to address the issues raised by the Third Circuit’s decision, among other things, remanding the local television ownership rule.  In February 2008, the FCC released an order containing its current ownership rules, which re-adopted its 1999 local television ownership rule.  On February 29, 2008, several parties, including us, separately filed petitions for review in a number of federal appellate courts challenging the FCC’s current ownership rules.  By lottery, those petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In July 2008, several parties, including us, filed motions to transfer the consolidated proceedings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and other parties requested transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In November 2008, the Ninth Circuit transferred the consolidated proceedings to the Third Circuit and the proceedings are pending.

On November 15, 1999, we entered into a plan and agreement of merger to acquire through merger WMYA-TV (formerly WBSC-TV) in Anderson, South Carolina from Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (Cunningham), but that transaction was denied by the FCC.  In light of the change in the 2003 ownership rules, we filed a petition for reconsideration with the FCC and amended our application to acquire the license of WMYA-TV.  We also filed applications in November 2003 to acquire the license assets of the remaining five Cunningham stations: WRGT-TV, Dayton, Ohio; WTAT-TV, Charleston, South Carolina; WVAH-TV, Charleston, West Virginia; WNUV-TV, Baltimore, Maryland; and WTTE-TV, Columbus, Ohio.  Rainbow/PUSH filed a petition to deny these five applications and to revoke all of our licenses.  The FCC dismissed our applications in light of the stay of the 2003 ownership rules and also denied the Rainbow/PUSH petition.  Rainbow/PUSH filed a petition for reconsideration of that denial and we filed an application for review of the dismissal.  In 2005, we filed a petition with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit requesting that the Court direct the FCC to take final action on our applications, but that petition was dismissed.  On January 6, 2006, we submitted a motion to the FCC requesting that it take final action on our applications.  The applications and the associated petition to deny are still pending.  We believe the Rainbow/PUSH petition is without merit.  On February 8, 2008, we filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit requesting that the Court direct the FCC to act on our assignment applications and cease its use of the 1999 local television ownership rule that it re-adopted as the permanent rule in 2008.  In July 2008, the D.C. Circuit transferred the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and we filed a petition

13

Table of Contents

with the D.C. Circuit challenging that decision, which was denied.  We also filed with the Ninth Circuit a motion to transfer that case back to the D.C. Circuit.  In November 2008, the Ninth Circuit consolidated our petition seeking final FCC action on our applications with the petitions challenging the FCC’s current ownership rules and transferred the consolidated proceedings to the Third Circuit.  In December 2008, we agreed voluntarily with the parties to our proceeding to dismiss our petition seeking final FCC action on our applications.  We may refile our petition in the future, depending on the outcome of the Third Circuit proceedings.

The Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) and the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA)

In 1988, Congress enacted the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), which enabled satellite carriers to provide broadcast programming to those satellite subscribers who were unable to obtain broadcast network programming over-the-air.  SHVA did not permit satellite carriers to retransmit local broadcast television signals directly to their subscribers.  The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 (SHVIA) revised SHVA to reflect changes in the satellite and broadcasting industry.  This legislation allowed satellite carriers, until December 31, 2004, to provide local television signals by satellite within a station market, and effective January 1, 2002, required satellite carriers to carry all local signals in any market where they carry any local signals.  On or before July 1, 2001, SHVIA required all television stations to elect to exercise certain “must carry” or “retransmission consent” rights in connection with their carriage by satellite carriers.  We have entered into compensation agreements granting the two primary satellite carriers retransmission consent to carry all our stations.  In December 2004, President Bush signed into law the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act (SHVERA).  SHVERA extended, until December 31, 2009, the rights of broadcasters and satellite carriers under SHVIA to retransmit local television signals by satellite.  On February 9, 2009, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives to extend this deadline for one year after enactment of the bill.  SHVERA also authorized satellite delivery of distant network signals, significantly viewed signals and local low-power television station signals into local markets under defined circumstances.  With respect to digital signals, SHVERA established a process to allow satellite carriers to retransmit distant network signals and significantly viewed signals to subscribers under certain circumstances.  In November 2005, the FCC completed a rulemaking proceeding enabling the satellite carriage of “significantly viewed” signals.  In December 2005, the FCC concluded a study, as required by SHVERA, regarding the applicable technical standards for determining when a subscriber may receive a distant digital network signal.  The carriage of programming from two network stations to a local market on the same satellite system could result in a decline in viewership of the local network station, adversely impacting the revenues of our affected owned and programmed stations.

Must Carry/Retransmission Consent

Pursuant to the Cable Act of 1992, television broadcasters are required to make triennial elections to exercise either certain “must-carry” or “retransmission consent” rights in connection with their carriage by cable systems in each broadcaster’s local market.  Prior to October 1, 2008 we elected retransmission consent with respect to all our stations for the period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011.  By electing the must-carry rights, a broadcaster demands carriage and receives a specific channel on cable systems within its DMA, in general, as defined by the Nielsen DMA Market and Demographic Rank Report of the prior year.  These must-carry rights are not absolute and their exercise is dependent on variables such as:

·                  the number of activated channels on a cable system;

·                  the location and size of a cable system; and

·                  the amount of programming on a broadcast station that duplicates the programming of another broadcast station carried by the cable system.

Therefore, under certain circumstances, a cable system may decline to carry a given station.  Alternatively, if a broadcaster chooses to exercise retransmission consent rights, it can prohibit cable systems from carrying its signal or grant the appropriate cable system the authority to retransmit the broadcast signal for a fee or other consideration.

In February 2005, the FCC adopted an order stating that cable television systems are not required to carry both a station’s analog and digital signals during the digital transition period.  Thus, only television stations operating solely with digital signals are entitled to mandatory carriage of their digital signal by cable companies.  In addition, it is technically possible for a television station to broadcast more than one channel of programming using its digital signal.  The same FCC order clarified that cable systems need only carry a broadcast station’s primary video stream and not any of the station’s other programming streams in those situations where a station chooses to transmit multiple programming streams.

Many of the viewers of our television stations receive the signal of the stations via MVPDs.  MVPDs generally transmit our signals pursuant to permission granted by us in retransmission consent agreements.  A portion of these retransmission consent agreements will expire in 2009.  There can be no assurance that future negotiations of these agreements will be advantageous to us

14

Table of Contents

or that we or the MVPDs might not determine to terminate some or all of these agreements.  A termination of our retransmission consent agreements would make it more difficult for our viewers to watch our programming and could result in lower ratings and a negative financial impact on us.  There can be no assurances that we will be able to negotiate mutually acceptable retransmission consent agreements in the future relating to the carriage of our digital signals.  However, we believe that as these agreements expire we will be able to negotiate terms as favorable as or more favorable than the existing agreements.

Syndicated Exclusivity/Territorial Exclusivity

The FCC’s syndicated exclusivity rules allow local broadcast television stations to demand that cable operators black out syndicated non-network programming carried on “distant signals” (i.e. signals of broadcast stations, including so-called “superstations”, which serve areas substantially removed from the cable systems’ local community).  The FCC’s network non-duplication rules allow local broadcast, network affiliated stations to require that cable operators black out duplicate network programming carried on distant signals.  However, in a number of markets in which we own or program stations affiliated with a network, a station that is affiliated with the same network in a nearby market is carried on cable systems in our markets.  This is not necessarily a violation of the FCC’s network non-duplication rules.  However, the carriage of two network stations on the same cable system could result in a decline of viewership, adversely affecting the revenues of our owned or programmed stations.

Digital Television

The FCC has taken a number of steps to implement digital television (DTV) broadcasting services.  The FCC has adopted an allotment table that provides all authorized television stations with a second channel on which to broadcast a DTV signal. The FCC has attempted to provide DTV coverage areas that are comparable to stations’ existing service areas.  On August 7, 2007, the FCC released an order which adopted the final DTV table of allotments establishing the post-transition digital channels for all full-power television stations in the country.  On October 26, 2007, we filed petitions for reconsideration of the FCC’s final DTV table for stations WTVZ-DT, WMMP-DT, and WVTV-DT requesting that the Commission correct the FCC antenna identification numbers and power levels for the stations set forth in the DTV table.  Instead of acting on the petitions for reconsideration, on March 6, 2008, the FCC released an order which modified the final DTV table of allotments and at the same time invited certain television stations, including WTVZ-DT, WMMP-DT, and WVTV-DT, to file construction permit applications with the FCC to resolve the issues raised in their petitions for reconsideration. We filed the necessary construction permit applications for each of the stations on March 17, 2008, and the applications were all subsequently granted by the FCC, ensuring that the stations licensed digital operations are consistent with the parameters set forth in the DTV Table.

On May 30, 2008, the FCC lifted the prior freeze on the filing of applications to expand service area coverage and petitions for digital channel substitutions.  On June 20, 2008, the following stations filed construction permit applications proposing to make technical improvements to the stations’ facilities:  WLOS-DT, WTVZ-DT, WTTA-DT, WRDC-DT, WLFL-DT, WVTV-DT, WMMP-DT, KABB-DT, WFGX-DT, KVMY-DT, WSTR-DT, and WSMH-DT.  The FCC granted each of the applications with the exception of the applications filed by stations KABB-DT and WSTR-DT.  There can be no assurance that the FCC will grant these applications.  Also on June 20, the following stations filed petitions to change channel positions in order to provide improved service to their viewers:  WMSN-DT, WSYX-DT, and WDKY-DT.  The FCC granted the WMSN-DT and WDKY-DT petitions, but the WSYX-DT petition remains pending.  There can be no assurance that the FCC will grant the pending applications or the WSYX-DT petition.  If the FCC does not grant these filings, revenues for these stations could be negatively impacted by the loss of potential viewers.

The FCC has ruled that television broadcast licensees may use their digital channels for a wide variety of services such as high-definition television, multiple standard definition television programming, audio, data and other types of communications, subject to the requirement that each broadcaster provide at least one free video channel equal in quality to the current technical standard and further subject to the requirement that broadcasters pay a fee of 5% of gross revenues from any DTV ancillary or supplementary service for which there is a subscription fee or for which the licensee receives a fee from a third party.

DTV channels are generally located in the range of channels from channel 2 through channel 51.  All commercial stations were required to begin digital broadcasting on May 1, 2002.  Under the FCC’s rules, all DTV stations are required to operate at all times in which their analog stations are operating.  In September 2004, the FCC eliminated its requirement that a digital station simulcast a certain percentage of the programming transmitted on its associated analog station.

As of December 31, 2004, DTV stations were required to meet a certain signal strength standard for the digital signal coverage in their communities of license.  By July 2005, a DTV licensee affiliated with a top four network (i.e., FOX, ABC, CBS or NBC) that is located in one of the top 100 markets was required to meet a higher replication standard or lose interference protection for those areas not covered by the digital signal.  For a station subject to this deadline which had not yet received a construction permit, the FCC required that such station build a “checklist” facility by August 2005.  For all other commercial DTV licensees, as well as non-commercial DTV licensees, that have received construction permits, the deadline for meeting a higher replication standard was July 

15

Table of Contents

2006.  All of our stations filed a DTV status report with the FCC, as required, by the February 19, 2008 deadline.  Sixteen of our full-power television stations that had not completed the transition to digital broadcasting or had filed modification applications to their post-transition digital construction permit application since February 19, 2008 submitted an updated DTV status report by the July 18, 2008 filing deadline.

We operate our television stations at different power levels pursuant to our FCC licenses, applicable permits or special temporary authority granted by the FCC.  The following table is a summary of our operating status as of February 26, 2009:

In April 2003, the FCC adopted a policy of graduated sanctions to be imposed upon licensees who do not meet the FCC’s DTV build-out schedule.  Under the policy, the stations could face monetary fines and possible loss of any digital construction permits for non-compliance with the build-out schedule.  After completion of the transition period, the FCC will reclaim the non-digital channels.  In 2005, Congress passed legislation establishing a hard deadline of February 17, 2009 by which broadcasters must cease using their analog channel.  On February 4, 2009, Congress passed the “DTV Delay Act” that extends the date for the completion of the DTV transition from February 17, 2009 to June 12, 2009.  We do not know how the extension of the deadline will affect our stations or the digital transition generally.

On February 5, 2009 the FCC issued a Public Notice to announce the procedures that full-power television broadcast stations must follow if they wish to terminate their analog television broadcast service on or after February 17, 2009, in compliance with the DTV Delay Act.  The stations we own or to which we provide services followed these procedures, and 52 of our 58 stations requested early termination.  Our WSYX-TV, WNYO-TV, WDKY-TV, WSMH-TV and WTWC-TV stations did not request early termination.  WLOS-TV requested early termination but subsequently filed a withdrawal of that request, which was granted by the FCC on February 13, 2009.  Although a procedure exists for obtaining FCC consent for these six stations, at this time, we have decided not to seek consent for early analog termination for such stations.  The stations that ceased analog operations may be at a disadvantage as compared to television stations which continue to broadcast in analog for the period from February 17, 2009 through June 12, 2009.  The FCC approved the requests for early analog termination for all stations for which we requested it other than WCHS-TV, WVAH-TV, WKEF-TV, WRGT-TV, WEAR-TV and WMSN-TV.  There can be no assurance that the early analog termination will not result in reduced advertising revenue because the stations that terminated analog operation early will only be operating in digital format until the June 12, 2009 transition date.  In addition, the termination of analog operations on any date may place all of our stations at a disadvantage against other entertainment sources, primarily cable television stations, as it may reduce the amount of over-the-air viewing of our stations due to the inability of analog televisions to receive our signals in the absence of using a digital-to-analog converter box.  It is anticipated that the early analog termination will result in reduced electric bills because the impacted stations will not be required to simultaneously operate both analog and digital transmitters.

On December 31, 2007, the FCC released an order discussing the progress of the transition to digital television and imposing new reporting obligations and pre-transition construction deadlines on digital television station licensees and permittees.  As of February 9, 2009 all but 10 of the television stations we own or to which we provide services are operating on their authorized post-transition digital channels and have certified to the FCC that they are doing so in compliance with the new interim construction deadlines.  As a result of the order, the remaining 10 television stations, which are not operating on their post-transition DTV channels, are required to comply with the new pre-transition construction deadlines, and file construction permit applications, construction permit extension applications, or tolling requests, as appropriate.   There can be no assurance that the FCC will grant applications filed for these stations or that the stations will meet the FCC pre-transition deadlines or be fully transitioned to digital broadcasts by June 12, 2009.

Implementation of digital television has imposed substantial additional costs on our television stations because of the need to replace equipment.  There can be no assurance that our television stations will be able to increase revenue to offset such costs.  In addition, the FCC has proposed imposing new public interest requirements on television licensees in exchange for their receipt of DTV channels.

16

Table of Contents

We believe that the following developments regarding the FCC’s digital regulations may have effects on us:

Reclamation of analog channels.  Analog broadcasters are required to cease operation on their assigned analog spectrum by June 12, 2009.  At that time, the FCC will reclaim this spectrum from broadcasters and make it available to the entities that have been assigned the spectrum through FCC auctions.  The FCC envisions that the reclaimed band will be used for a variety of broadcast-type applications including two-way interactive services and services using Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing technology.  We cannot predict how the development of this spectrum will affect our television operations.

Digital must-carry.  In February 2005, the FCC adopted an order stating that cable television systems are not required to carry both a must-carry station’s analog and digital signals during the digital transition.  The same order also clarified that a cable system is required to carry a must-carry station’s primary video stream but is not required to carry any of the station’s other programming streams in those situations where a station chooses to transmit multiple programming streams.  On September 11, 2007, the FCC adopted an order requiring, after the digital transition, all cable operators to make the primary digital stream of must-carry television stations viewable by all cable subscribers, regardless of whether they are using analog or digital television equipment.  The FCC indicated that it would consider requests for a waiver of this requirement by small cable system operators, where compliance with that requirement would be unduly burdensome.  Grant of any such waiver to a small cable system operator in a market in which we operate could result in a loss of viewers for our station(s) in that market, which could negatively impact station revenues.  In September 2008, the FCC issued an order exempting cable systems that either have 2,500 or fewer subscribers and are not affiliated with a large cable operator, or have an activated channel capacity of 552 MHz or less from the requirement to carry HD versions of broadcast signals for three years following the DTV transition.  The inability of our stations to have high definition signals carried on such cable systems could result in a loss of viewers for the stations and negatively impact station revenues.  In March 2008, the FCC adopted an order requiring satellite carriers to carry digital-only stations upon request in markets in which the satellite carriers are providing local-into-local service pursuant to the statutory copyright license.  The FCC also required that satellite carriers carry the HD signals of digital-only stations in HD format if any broadcaster in the same market is carried in HD.  This latter requirement will be implemented over a four-year phase-in period starting in February 2009.  Accordingly, until February 2013, satellite carriers will be permitted in a certain percentage of markets to choose what HD signals it will carry.  Any impairment on viewers’ ability to obtain our digital HD signals retransmitted by satellite in markets in which we operate could result in a loss of viewers for those stations and could negatively impact station revenues.  In the associated notice of proposed rulemaking released with the order, the FCC invited comments on, among other things, whether satellite carriers should be required to carry the signals of all local broadcast stations in HD and standard definition (SD) if the carriers retransmit the signals of any local station in the same market in both HD and SD and whether satellite carriers must make the primary digital stream of must-carry stations viewable by all subscribers, regardless of whether those subscribers are using analog or digital television equipment.

Multi-Channel Digital Broadcasting.  FCC rules allow broadcasters to transmit additional digital signals within the spectrum allocated to each FCC license holder.  We are currently broadcasting a single digital signal for all but four of our television stations.  During 2006, we began broadcasting a second digital signal in Baltimore, Maryland.  In 2006, we also entered into agreements with MyNetworkTV to air prime-time programming on the second digital signal in Columbus, Ohio, Dayton, Ohio and Richmond, Virginia.  During non-prime-time hours these stations air religious, paid-programming, “classic” syndicated programming and simulcasting of our primary digital channel.

Capital and operating costs.  We have incurred and will continue to incur costs to replace equipment in our stations in order to provide digital television.  Some of our stations will continue to incur increased utilities costs as a result of broadcasting both analog and digital signals due to the delay of the transition period.

Children’s programming.  In 2004, the FCC established children’s educational and informational programming obligations for digital multicast broadcasters and placed restrictions on the increasing commercialization of children’s programming on both analog and digital broadcast and cable television systems.  In addition to imposing its limit as to the amount of commercial matter in children’s programming (10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays) on all digital or video programming, free or pay, directed to children 12 years old and younger, the FCC also mandated that digital broadcasters air an additional half hour of “core” children’s programming for every 28-hour block of free video programming provided in addition to the main DTV program stream.  The additional core children’s programming requirement for digital broadcasters took effect on January 2, 2007.

Emergency Alert System.  In November 2005, the FCC adopted an order requiring that digital broadcasters comply with the FCC’s present Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules.  It also issued a further notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on what actions the FCC should take to expedite the development of a digitally based public alert and warning system.  On July 12, 2007, the Commission adopted an order allowing mandatory use of EAS by state governments and requiring that all EAS participants, including television broadcasters, be able to receive messages formatted pursuant to a procedure to be adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.  In a further notice, the FCC invited comments

17

Table of Contents

on, among other things, how the EAS rules could be modified to ensure that non-English speakers and persons with disabilities are reached by EAS messages and whether local, county, tribal, or other state governmental entities should be allowed to initiate mandatory state and local alerts.  Any additional EAS requirements on digital broadcasters could increase our costs.

Restrictions on Broadcast Programming

Advertising of cigarettes and certain other tobacco products on broadcast stations has been banned for many years.  Various states also restrict the advertising of alcoholic beverages and, from time to time, certain members of Congress have contemplated legislation to place restrictions on the advertisement of such alcoholic beverages.  FCC rules also restrict the amount and type of advertising which can appear in a program broadcast primarily for an audience of children 12 years old and younger.  In addition, the Federal Trade Commission issued guidelines in December 2003 and continues to provide advice to help media outlets voluntarily screen out weight loss product advertisements that are misleading.

The Communications Act and FCC rules also place restrictions on the broadcasting of advertisements by legally qualified candidates for elective office.  Those restrictions state that:

·                  stations must provide “reasonable access” for the purchase of time by legally qualified candidates for federal office;

·                  stations must provide “equal opportunities” for the purchase of equivalent amounts of comparable broadcast time by opposing candidates for the same elective office; and

·                  during the 45 days preceding a primary or primary run-off election and during the 60 days preceding a general or special election, legally qualified candidates for elective office may be charged no more than the station’s “lowest unit charge” for the same class and amount of time for the same period.

It is a violation of federal law and FCC regulations to broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane programming.  FCC licensees are, in general, responsible for the content of their broadcast programming, including that supplied by television networks.  Accordingly, there is a risk of being fined as a result of our broadcast programming, including network programming.  As a result of legislation passed in June 2006, the maximum forfeiture amount for the broadcast of indecent or obscene material was increased to $325,000 from $32,500 for each violation.

Programming and Operation

General.  The Communications Act requires broadcasters to serve the “public interest.”  The FCC has relaxed or eliminated many of the more formalized procedures it had developed in the past to promote the broadcast of certain types of programming responsive to the needs of a station’s community of license.  FCC licensees continue to be required, however, to present programming that is responsive to the needs and interests of their communities and to maintain certain records demonstrating such responsiveness.  Complaints from viewers concerning a station’s programming may be considered by the FCC when it evaluates renewal applications of a licensee, although such complaints may be filed at any time and generally may be considered by the FCC at any time.  Stations also must pay regulatory and application fees and follow various rules promulgated under the Communications Act that regulate, among other things, political advertising, sponsorship identifications, obscene and indecent broadcasts and technical operations, including limits on radio frequency radiation.

In 2000, the FCC initiated a rulemaking proceeding to determine whether its requirements pertaining to television stations’ public inspection files were sufficient to ensure that the public had adequate access to information on how stations were serving their communities.  In February 2008, the FCC released an order adopting a standardized form for the quarterly reporting of programming aired in response to issues facing a station’s community and imposed a requirement that portions of each station’s public inspection file be placed on the Internet.  We believe that we are materially in compliance with FCC requirements.

Equal Employment Opportunity.  On November 20, 2002, the FCC adopted rules, effective March 10, 2003, requiring licensees to create equal employment opportunity outreach programs and maintain records and make filings with the FCC evidencing such efforts.  The FCC simultaneously released a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on whether and how to apply these rules and policies to part-time positions, defined as less than 30 hours per week.  That rulemaking is still pending.

18

Table of Contents

Children’s Television Programming.  Television stations are required to broadcast a minimum of three hours per week of “core” children’s educational programming, which the FCC defines as programming that:

·                  has the significant purpose of serving the educational and informational needs of children 16 years of age and under;

·                  is regularly scheduled weekly and at least 30 minutes in duration; and

·                  is aired between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. local time.

In addition, the FCC concluded that starting on January 2, 2007, a digital broadcaster must air an additional half hour of “core” children’s programming per every increment of 1 to 28 hours of free video programming provided in addition to the main DTV program stream.  Furthermore, “core” children’s educational programs, in order to qualify as such, are required to be identified as educational and informational programs over-the-air at the time they are broadcast and are required to be identified in the children’s programming reports, which are required to be placed quarterly in stations’ public inspection files and filed quarterly with the FCC.

On April 17, 2007, the FCC requested comments on the status of children’s television programming and compliance with the Children’s Television Act and the FCC’s rules.  That proceeding is still pending.

Violent Programming.  In 2004, the FCC initiated a notice of inquiry seeking comments on issues relating to the presentation of violent programming on television and its impact on children.  On April 25, 2007, the FCC released a report concluding that there is strong evidence that exposure to violence in the media can increase aggressive behavior in children, at least in the short term.  Accordingly, the FCC concluded that it would be in the public interest to regulate such programming and Congress could do so consistent with the First Amendment.  As possible solutions, the FCC suggested, among other things, a voluntary industry initiative to reduce the amount of excessively violent programming viewed by children and also proposed several viewer-initiated blocking proposals, such as the provision of video channels by multi-channel video programming distributors on family tiers or on an a la carte basis.

Television Program Content.  The television industry has developed an FCC approved ratings system that is designed to provide parents with information regarding the content of the programming being aired.  Furthermore, the FCC requires certain television sets to include the so-called “V-chip”, a computer chip that allows the blocking of rated programming.  It is a violation of federal law and FCC regulations to broadcast obscene or indecent programming.  FCC licensees are, in general, responsible for the content of their broadcast programming, including that supplied by television networks.  Accordingly, there is a risk of being fined as a result of our broadcast programming, including network programming.

Localism.  In 2004, the FCC initiated a notice of inquiry seeking comments on what actions, if any, it should take to ensure that licensees air programming that is responsive to the interests and needs of their communities.  In January 2008, the FCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing, among other things, to require licensees to establish permanent advisory boards and to modify the FCC’s renewal application processing guidelines to ensure that all broadcasters provide some locally oriented programming.  The FCC also proposed to require all stations to maintain their main studios within the boundaries of their communities of license and to have employees physically present at those studios during all hours of operation.  Additionally, the FCC proposed to grant Class A status to additional low-power television stations, providing such stations additional interference protection from full-power television stations and requiring such stations to provide local programming.

 Closed Captioning.  Effective January 1, 2006, all new nonexempt analog and digital English language programming was required to be captioned.  In November 2008, the FCC issued a declaratory ruling clarifying certain closed captioning obligations for stations transmitting digital programming, including the obligation to transmit captions in analog standard after the DTV transition and simplifying the close captioning complaint process for consumers.

DTV Consumer Education Initiative.  On March 3, 2008, the FCC released an order requiring, among other things, that each full-power television station provide to its viewers, through compliance with one of several alternative sets of rules, certain on-air information about the transition to DTV.  Each station is also required to report its activities in this regard to the FCC and place such reports in its public inspection file.

19

Table of Contents

Pending Matters

Congress and the FCC have under consideration and in the future may consider and adopt, new laws, regulations and policies regarding a wide variety of matters that could affect, directly or indirectly, the operation, ownership and profitability of our broadcast stations, result in the loss of audience share and advertising revenues for our broadcast stations and affect our ability to acquire additional broadcast stations or finance such acquisitions.

Other matters that could affect our broadcast properties include technological innovations and developments generally affecting competition in the mass communications industry, such as direct television broadcast satellite service, Class A television service, the continued establishment of wireless cable systems and low power television stations, digital television technologies, the internet and mobility and portability of our broadcast signal to hand-held devices.

For example, in November 2008, the FCC adopted an order allowing new low power devices to operate in the broadcast television spectrum at locations where channels in that spectrum are not in use.  The operation of such devices could cause harmful interference to our broadcast signals adversely affecting the operation and profitability of our stations.

Other Considerations

The preceding summary is not a complete discussion of all provisions of the Communications Act, the 1996 Act or other congressional acts or of the regulations and policies of the FCC, or in some cases, the DOJ.  For further information, reference should be made to the Communications Act, the 1996 Act, other congressional acts and regulations and public notices circulated from time to time by the FCC, or in some cases, the DOJ.  There are additional regulations and policies of the FCC and other federal agencies that govern political broadcasts, advertising, equal employment opportunity and other matters affecting our business and operations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

Prior to our ownership or operation of our facilities, substances or waste that are, or might be considered, hazardous under applicable environmental laws may have been generated, used, stored or disposed of at certain of those facilities.  In addition, environmental conditions relating to the soil and groundwater at or under our facilities may be affected by the proximity of nearby properties that have generated, used, stored or disposed of hazardous substances.  As a result, it is possible that we could become subject to environmental liabilities in the future in connection with these facilities under applicable environmental laws and regulations.  Although we believe that we are in substantial compliance with such environmental requirements and have not in the past been required to incur significant costs in connection therewith, there can be no assurance that our costs to comply with such requirements will not increase in the future.  We presently believe that none of our properties have any condition that is likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations or consolidated statements of cash flows.

COMPETITION

Our television stations compete for audience share and advertising revenue with other television stations in their respective designated market areas (DMAs), as well as with other advertising media such as radio, newspapers, magazines, outdoor advertising, transit advertising, telecommunications providers, internet, yellow page directories, direct mail, MVPDs and wireless video.  Some competitors are part of larger organizations with substantially greater financial, technical and other resources than we have.  Other factors that are material to a television station’s competitive position include signal coverage, local program acceptance, network affiliation, audience characteristics and assigned broadcast frequency.

Competition in the television broadcasting industry occurs primarily in individual DMAs.  Generally, a television broadcasting station in one DMA does not compete with stations in other DMAs.  Our television stations are located in highly competitive DMAs.  In addition, certain of our DMAs are overlapped by over-the-air and MVPDs of stations in adjacent DMAs, which tends to spread viewership and advertising expenditures over a larger number of television stations.

Broadcast television stations compete for advertising revenues primarily with other broadcast television stations, radio stations, cable channels, MVPDs serving the same market, as well as with newspapers, the internet, yellow page directories, direct mail, outdoor advertising operators and transit advertisers.  Television stations compete for audience share primarily on the basis of program popularity, which has a direct effect on advertising rates.  Our network affiliated stations are largely dependent upon the performance of network provided programs in order to attract viewers.  Non-network time periods are programmed by the station primarily with syndicated programs purchased for cash, cash and barter or barter-only, as well as through self-produced news, public affairs programs, live local sporting events, paid-programming and other entertainment programming.

20

Table of Contents

Television advertising rates are based upon factors which include the size of the DMA in which the station operates, a program’s popularity among the viewers that an advertiser wishes to attract, the number of advertisers competing for the available time, the demographic makeup of the DMA served by the station, the availability of alternative advertising media in the DMA including radio, MVPDs, internet, newspapers and yellow page directories, direct mail, the aggressiveness and knowledge of the sales forces in the DMA and development of projects, features and programs that tie advertiser messages to programming.  We believe that our sales and programming strategies allow us to compete effectively for advertising revenues within our DMAs.

The broadcasting industry is continuously faced with technical changes and innovations, competing entertainment and communications media, changes in labor conditions and governmental restrictions or actions of federal regulatory bodies, including the FCC, any of which could possibly have a material affect on a television station’s operations and profits.  For instance, the FCC has established Class A television service for qualifying low power television stations.  This Class A designation provides low power television stations, which ordinarily have no broadcast frequency rights when the low power signal conflicts with a signal from any full power stations, some additional frequency rights.  These rights may allow low power stations to compete more effectively with full power stations.  We cannot predict the effect of increased competition from Class A television stations in markets where we have full power television stations.

There are sources of video service other than conventional television stations, the most common being cable television, which can increase competition for a broadcast television station by bringing into its market additional program channels.  These narrow program channels serve as low rated, expensive programs to local advertisers.  Other principal sources of competition include home video exhibition and Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services and Broadband Radio Service (BRS).  DBS and cable operators, in particular, compete aggressively for advertising revenues.

Moreover, technology advances and regulatory changes affecting programming delivery though fiber optic telephone lines and video compression could lower entry barriers for new video channels and encourage the further development of increasingly specialized “niche” programming.  Telephone companies are permitted to provide video distribution services via radio communication, on a common carrier basis, as “cable systems” or as “open video systems”, each pursuant to different regulatory schemes.  Additionally, in January 2004, the FCC concluded an auction for licenses operating in the 12 GHz band that can be used to provide multi-channel video programming distribution.  Those licenses were granted in July 2004.  We are unable to predict what other video technologies might be considered in the future or the effect that technological and regulatory changes will have on the broadcast television industry and on the future profitability and value of a particular broadcast television station.

DTV technology has the potential to permit us to provide viewers multiple channels of digital television over each of our existing standard digital channels, to provide certain programming in high definition television format and to deliver other channels of information in the forms of data and programming to the internet, to PCs and mobile devices.  These additional capabilities may provide us with additional sources of revenue, as well as additional competition.

We also compete for programming, which involves negotiating with national program distributors or syndicators that sell first-run and rerun packages of programming.  Our stations compete for exclusive access to those programs against in-market broadcast station competitors for syndicated products and with national cable networks.  Public broadcasting stations generally compete with commercial broadcasters for viewers, but not for advertising dollars.

We believe we compete favorably against other television stations because of our management skill and experience, our ability historically to generate revenue share greater than our audience share, our network affiliations and our local program acceptance.  In addition, we believe that we benefit from the operation of multiple broadcast properties, affording us certain non-quantifiable economies of scale and competitive advantages in the purchase of programming.

EMPLOYEES

As of February 26, 2009, we had approximately 2,500 employees.  Approximately 100 employees are represented by labor unions under certain collective bargaining agreements.  We have not experienced any significant labor problems and consider our overall labor relations to be good.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

We regularly use our website as a source of company information and it can be accessed at www.sbgi.net. We make available, free of charge through our website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after such documents are electronically submitted to the SEC.  In addition, a replay of each of our quarterly earnings conference calls is available on our website until the subsequent quarter’s earnings call.

21

Table of Contents

ITEM 1A.               RISK FACTORS

You should carefully consider the risks described below before investing in our securities.  Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies such as general economic conditions, geopolitical events, competition, technological obsolescence and employee relations.  The risks described below, along with risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial, may impair our business operations and our liquidity in an adverse way.

The current global financial crisis and economic slowdown may have an adverse impact on our industry, business, results of operations or financial position.

The continuation or worsening of the current global financial crisis and economic slowdown could have an adverse effect on the fundamentals of our business, results of operations and/or financial position.  These current economic conditions could have a negative impact on our industry or the industry of those customers who advertise on our stations, including, among others, the automotive industry, which is a significant source of our advertising revenue.  There can be no assurance that we will not experience any material adverse effect on our business as a result of the current economic conditions or that the actions of the United States Government, Federal Reserve or other governmental and regulatory bodies for the reported purpose of stabilizing the economy or financial markets will achieve their intended effect.  Additionally, some of these actions may adversely affect financial institutions, capital providers, advertisers or other consumers or our financial condition, results of operations or the trading price of our Securities.  Potential consequences of the current financial crisis and global economic slowdown include:

·                  the financial condition of those companies that advertise on our stations, including, among others, the automobile manufacturers and dealers which may file for bankruptcy protection or face severe cash flow issues, may result in a significant decline in our advertising revenue;

·                  our ability to borrow capital on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, or at all, may be limited, which could limit our ability to refinance existing debt, including our ability to address the put option exercises in May 2010 and January 2011 related to our 3.0% Notes and 4.875% Notes, respectively;

·                  our ability to pursue the acquisition of attractive non-television assets may be limited if we are unable to obtain any necessary additional capital on favorable terms, if at all;

·                  our ability to pursue the acquisition or divestiture of television assets may be limited;

·                  the possibility that our business partners such as our counterparties to our outsourcing and new share arrangements could be negatively impacted and our ability to maintain these business relationships;

·                  our ability to develop a viable mobile digital television strategy and platform and develop various potential uses of our digital spectrum may be limited if we are unable to obtain any necessary additional capital on favorable terms, if at all;

·                  the possible impairment of some or all of the value of our goodwill and other intangible assets, including our broadcast licenses;

·                 the possible impairment of the value of our non-broadcast assets, which includes investments in various companies and in various real estate ventures; and

·                  one or more of the lenders under our Bank Credit Agreement could refuse to fund its commitment to us or could fail, as did Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman Brothers), and we may not be able to replace the financing commitment of any such lenders on favorable terms, or at all.

Our advertising revenue can vary substantially from period to period based on many factors beyond our control.  This volatility affects our operating results and may reduce our ability to repay indebtedness or reduce the market value of our securities.

We rely on sales of advertising time for most of our revenues and, as a result, our operating results are sensitive to the amount of advertising revenue we generate.  If we generate less revenue, it may be more difficult for us to repay our indebtedness and the value of our business may decline.  Our ability to sell advertising time depends on:

·                 the levels of automobile advertising, which historically have represented about one quarter of our advertising revenue; however, during 2008, automobile advertising represented 18.3% of our net time sales;

·                  the health of the economy in the area where our television stations are located and in the nation as a whole;

·                  the popularity of our programming and that of our competition;

·      changes in the makeup of the population in the areas where our stations are located;

22

Table of Contents

·                  the activities of our competitors, including increased competition from other forms of advertising-based mediums, such as other broadcast television stations, radio stations, MVPDs and internet and broadband content providers serving in the same markets; and

·                  other factors that may be beyond our control.

The relative lack of political advertising in 2009 and the continued deterioration of the automotive industry will likely result in a decrease in our advertising revenue for 2009, which will likely have an adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our financial condition and prevent us from fulfilling our debt obligations.

We have a high level of debt, totaling $1.4 billion at December 31, 2008, compared to the book value of shareholders’ deficit of $83.7 million on the same date.  Our relatively high level of debt poses the following risks, particularly in periods of declining revenues:

·                  we use a significant portion of our cash flow to pay principal and interest on our outstanding debt, limiting the amount available for working capital, capital expenditures, dividends and other general corporate purposes;

·                  our lenders may not be as willing to lend additional amounts to us for future working capital needs, additional acquisitions or other purposes;

·                  if our cash flow were inadequate to make interest and principal payments, we might have to refinance our indebtedness or sell one or more of our stations to reduce debt service obligations;

·                  our ability to finance working capital needs and general corporate purposes for the public and private markets, as well as the associated cost of funding is dependent, in part, by our credit ratings.  As of the filing date of this Form 10-K, our credit ratings, as assigned by Moody’s Investor Services (Moody’s) and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (S&P) were:

The credit ratings previously stated are not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities and may be subject to revision or withdrawal by the assigning rating organization.  Each rating should be evaluated independently of any other rating.

·                  we may be more vulnerable to adverse economic conditions than less leveraged competitors and thus, less able to withstand competitive pressures; and

·                  of the $1.4 billion of total debt outstanding, $399.6 million relates to our Bank Credit Agreement.  The interest rate under our Bank Credit Agreement is a floating rate and will increase if interest rates increase.  This will reduce the funds available to repay our obligations and for operations and future business opportunities and will make us more vulnerable to the consequences of our leveraged capital structure.

·                  of the $1.4 billion of total debt outstanding, $488.5 million relates to our 3.0% Notes, face value of $345.0 million and our 4.875% Notes, face value of $143.5 million which the holders thereof may require us to repurchase for cash at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount, plus accrued and unpaid interest on May 15, 2010 and January 15, 2011, respectively.  At our current stock trading price levels, it is highly probable that the holders of these notes will exercise their put option.  If we are required to repurchase our 3.0% Notes and 4.875% Notes, we may seek access to capital markets to secure debt and equity financing.  The timing, terms, size and pricing of any debt and equity financing will depend on investor interest and market conditions and there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain any such financings.  As a result, we may not be able to refinance or extinguish these notes on the put dates.  The inability to successfully refinance or extinguish these notes upon a put could have a significant negative impact on our operating results and the value of our securities.

23

Table of Contents

Any of these events could reduce our ability to generate cash available for investment, debt repayment, capital improvements or to respond to events that would enhance profitability.

Commitments we have made to our lenders limit our ability to take actions that could increase the value of our securities or may require us to take actions that decrease the value of our securities.

Our existing financing agreements prevent us from taking certain actions and require us to meet certain tests.  These restrictions and tests may require us to conduct our business in ways that make it more difficult for us to repay our indebtedness or decrease the value of our business.  These restrictions and tests include the following:

·                  restrictions on additional debt;

·                  restrictions on our ability to pledge our assets as security for our indebtedness;

·                  restrictions on payment of dividends, the repurchase of stock and other payments relating to capital stock;

·                  restrictions on some sales of certain assets and the use of proceeds from asset sales;

·                  restrictions on mergers and other acquisitions, satisfaction of conditions for acquisitions and a limit on the total amount of acquisitions without the consent of bank lenders;

·                  restrictions on the type of business we and our subsidiaries may operate in; and

·                  financial ratio and condition tests including the ratio of earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, as adjusted (adjusted EBITDA) to certain of our fixed expenses, the ratio of adjusted EBITDA to senior indebtedness and adjusted EBITDA to operating company indebtedness.

Future financing arrangements may contain additional restrictions and tests.  All of these restrictive covenants may limit our ability to pursue our business strategies, prevent us from taking action that could increase the value of our securities or may require actions that decrease the value of our securities.  In addition, we may fail to meet the tests and thereby default on one or more of our obligations (particularly if the economy continues to weaken and thereby reduce our advertising revenues).  If we default on our obligations, creditors could require immediate payment of the obligations or foreclose on collateral.  If this happens, we could be forced to sell assets or take other actions that could significantly reduce the value of our securities and we may not have sufficient assets or funds to pay our debt obligations.

We may be able to incur significantly more debt in the future, which could increase the foregoing risks related to our indebtedness.

At December 31, 2008, we had $84.0 million available (subject to certain borrowing conditions) for additional borrowings under the Bank Credit Agreement, all of which was available under our current borrowing capacity.  In addition, under the terms of our debt instruments, we may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future, including additional senior debt and in some cases, secured debt.  Provided we meet certain financial and other covenants, the terms of the indentures governing our outstanding notes do not prohibit us from incurring such additional indebtedness.  If we incur additional indebtedness, the risks described above relating to having substantial debt could intensify.

We must purchase television programming in advance based on expectations about future revenues.  Actual revenues may be lower than our expectations.  If this happens, we could experience losses that may make our securities less valuable.

One of our most significant costs is television programming.  Our ability to generate revenue to cover this cost may affect the value of our securities.  If a particular program is not popular in relation to its costs, we may not be able to sell enough advertising time to cover the costs of the program.  Since we generally purchase programming content from others rather than produce it ourselves, we have limited control over the costs of the programming.  We usually must purchase programming several years in advance and may have to commit to purchase more than one year’s worth of programming.  We may replace programs that are doing poorly before we have recaptured any significant portion of the costs we incurred or before we have fully amortized the costs.  Any of these factors could reduce our revenues or otherwise cause our costs to escalate relative to revenues.  These factors are exacerbated during a weak advertising market.  Additionally, our business is subject to the popularity of the programs provided by the networks with which we have network affiliation agreements or which provide us programming.

24

Table of Contents

We may lose a large amount of programming if a network terminates its affiliation with us, which could increase our costs and/or reduce revenue.

Our 58 television stations that we own and operate, or to which we provide programming services or sales services, are affiliated with networks.  The networks produce and distribute programming in exchange for each station’s commitment to air the programming at specified times and for commercial announcement time during programming.  The amount and quality of programming provided by each network varies.

The non-renewal or termination of any of our network affiliation agreements would prevent us from being able to carry programming of the relevant network.  This loss of programming would require us to obtain replacement programming, which may involve higher costs and which may not be as attractive to our target audiences, resulting in reduced revenues.  Upon the termination of any of the above affiliation agreements, we would be required to establish a new affiliation agreement with another network or operate as an independent station.  At such time, the remaining value of the network affiliation asset could become impaired and we would be required to write down the value of the asset to its estimated fair value.  In addition, as network affiliation agreements come up for renewal we may not be able to negotiate terms as favorable as the previous agreement.  All eight affiliation agreements between ABC and our stations expire on December 31, 2009.  At this time, we cannot predict the final outcome of future negotiations for those affiliation agreements or for any others and what impact, if any, they may have on our consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations or consolidated statements of cash flows.

On February 9, 2009, MyNetworkTV announced that it was moving to a new program services model pursuant to which it would obtain for its affiliates popular programming that has previously aired on other networks, rather than continuing to create first-run programming as is generally the case in a typical network model.  MyNetworkTV has advised us that in connection with this change to what it refers to as a “hybrid” model it believes it has the right to terminate all of its existing affiliate agreements, including those with our 17 MyNetworkTV affiliates, and negotiate new agreements for this programming service with the television stations that have been MyNetworkTV affiliates.  On March 3, 2009, we received notice from MyNetworkTV claiming that they cease to exist as a network and therefore, are terminating each of our affiliation agreements effective September 26, 2009.  We are currently considering the options we have for programming these television stations and do not necessarily agree that MyNetworkTV will cease operating as a network.  We cannot predict the likelihood of success of the new model being proposed by MyNetworkTV and the impact that this change will have on the performance of our stations.  See Item 1. Business, Television Broadcasting table for further information regarding our affiliation agreements.

The effects of the economic environment could require us to record an asset impairment of goodwill and FCC licenses.

Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets (FAS 142) requires companies to analyze goodwill and certain other intangible assets for impairment.  FAS 142 establishes a method of testing goodwill and FCC licenses for impairment on an annual basis, or on an interim basis if an event occurs that would reduce the fair value of a reporting unit or an indefinite-lived asset below its carrying value.

At least annually, we test our goodwill and FCC licenses for impairment.  To perform this test, we estimate the fair values of our reporting units for goodwill and FCC licenses using a combination of observed prices paid for similar assets and liabilities, discounted cash flow models and appraisals.  We make certain critical estimates about the future revenue growth rates within each of our markets as well as the discount rates and comparable multiples that would be used by market participants in an arms-length transaction.  If these growth rates or multiples decline or if the discount rate increases, our goodwill and/or FCC licenses’ carrying amounts could be in excess of the estimated fair value.  An impairment of some or all of the value of these assets could result in a material effect on the consolidated statements of operations in the future.  As of December 31, 2008 we had $824.2 million and $132.4 million of goodwill and broadcast licenses, respectively.  As of December 31, 2008, goodwill and broadcast licenses in aggregate represented 52.7% of total assets.  Due to the economic recession, we may be more susceptible to potential impairment in 2009.

Key officers and directors have financial interests that are different and sometimes opposite from our own and we may engage in transactions with these officers and directors that may benefit them to the detriment of other securityholders.

Some of our officers, directors and majority shareholders own stock or partnership interests in businesses that engage in television broadcasting, do business with us or otherwise do business that conflicts with our interests.  They may transact some business with us upon approval by the independent members of our Board of Directors even if there is a conflict of interest or they may engage in business competitive to our business and those transactions may benefit the officers, directors or majority shareholders to the detriment of our securityholders.  David D. Smith, Frederick G. Smith, and J. Duncan Smith are each an officer and director of Sinclair and Robert E. Smith is a director of Sinclair.  Together, the Smiths hold shares of our common stock that control the outcome of most matters submitted to a vote of shareholders.  The Smiths own a controlling interest in a television station which we program pursuant to an LMA.  The Smiths also

25

Table of Contents

own businesses that lease real property and tower space to us and engage in other transactions with us.  David D. Smith, Frederick G. Smith, J. Duncan Smith, Robert E. Smith and David B. Amy, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, together own interests in Allegiance Capital Limited Partnership, a limited partnership in which we also hold an interest.  Frederick G. Smith owns an interest in Patriot Capital II, L.P., a limited partnership in which we also hold an interest.  Also, David D. Smith, Frederick G. Smith, J. Duncan Smith and Robert E. Smith together own a portion of the stock of G1440, a company in which we own an interest.  During 2008, David D. Smith sold his interest in Acrodyne Communications, Inc., a company of which we also own an interest.  We can give no assurance that these transactions or any transactions that we may enter into in the future with our officers, directors or majority shareholders, have been, or will be, negotiated on terms as favorable to us as we would obtain from unrelated parties.

Maryland law and our financing agreements limit the extent to which our officers, directors and majority shareholders may transact business with us and pursue business opportunities that we might pursue.  These limitations do not, however, prohibit all such transactions.

For additional information regarding our related person transactions, see Note 12. Related Person Transactions, in the Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements.

The Smiths exercise control over most matters submitted to a shareholder vote and may have interests that differ from other securityholders.  They may, therefore, take actions that are not in the interests of other securityholders.

David D. Smith, Frederick G. Smith, J. Duncan Smith and Robert E. Smith hold shares representing approximately 87.0% of the common stock voting rights and, therefore, control the outcome of most matters submitted to a vote of shareholders, including, but not limited to, electing directors, adopting amendments to our certificate of incorporation and approving corporate transactions.  The Smiths hold substantially all of the Class B Common Stock, which have ten votes per share.  Our Class A Common Stock has only one vote per share.  In addition, the Smiths hold half our board of directors’ seats and, therefore, have the power to exert significant influence over our corporate management and policies.  The Smiths have entered into a stockholders’ agreement pursuant to which they have agreed to vote for each other as candidates for election to the board of directors until June 13, 2015.

Circumstances may occur in which the interests of the Smiths, as the controlling security holders, could be in conflict with the interests of other securityholders and the Smiths would have the ability to cause us to take actions in their interest.  In addition, the Smiths could pursue acquisitions, divestitures or other transactions that, in their judgment, could enhance their equity investment, even though such transactions might involve risks to our other securityholders.  (See Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters and Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, which will be included as part of our Proxy Statement for our 2009 Annual Meeting.)

Certain features of our capital structure that discourage others from attempting to acquire our company may prevent our securityholders from receiving a premium on their securities or result in a lower price for our securities.

The control the Smiths have over shareholder votes may discourage other parties from trying to acquire us.  Anyone trying to acquire us would likely offer to pay more for shares of Class A Common Stock than the amount those shares were trading for in the open market at the time of the offer.  If the voting rights of the Smiths discourage such takeover attempts, shareholders may be denied the opportunity to receive such a premium.  The general level of prices for Class A Common Stock might also be lower than it would otherwise be if these deterrents to takeovers did not exist.

Federal regulation of the broadcasting industry limits our operating flexibility, which may affect our ability to generate revenue or reduce our costs.

The FCC regulates our business, just as it does all other companies in the broadcasting industry.  We must ask the FCC’s approval whenever we need a new license, seek to renew, assign or modify a license, purchase a new station, sell an existing station or transfer the control of one of our subsidiaries that holds a license.  Our FCC licenses and those of the stations we program pursuant to LMAs are critical to our operations; we cannot operate without them.  We cannot be certain that the FCC will renew these licenses in the future or approve new acquisitions in a timely manner, if at all.  If licenses are not renewed or acquisitions approved, we may lose revenue that we otherwise could have earned.

In addition, Congress and the FCC may, in the future, adopt new laws, regulations and policies regarding a wide variety of matters (including technological changes) that could, directly or indirectly, materially and adversely affect the operation and ownership of our broadcast properties.  (See Item 1. Business.)

26

Table of Contents

The FCC’s multiple ownership rules limit our ability to operate multiple television stations in some markets and may result in a reduction in our revenue or prevent us from reducing costs.  Changes in these rules may threaten our existing strategic approach to certain television markets.

Changes in Rules on Television Ownership

Congress passed a bill requiring the FCC to establish a national audience reach cap of 39% that was signed into law on January 23, 2004.  This law permits broadcast television owners to own more television stations nationally, potentially affecting our competitive position.

In June 2003, the FCC adopted new multiple ownership rules.  In July 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision which upheld a portion of such rules and remanded the matter to the FCC for further justification of the rules.  The court also issued a stay of the 2003 rules pending the remand.  Several parties, including us, filed petitions with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of the Third Circuit decision, but the Supreme Court denied the petitions in June 2005.  In July 2006, as part of the FCC’s statutorily required quadrennial review of its media ownership rules, the FCC released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making seeking comment on how to address the issues raised by the Third Circuit’s decision, among other things, remanding the local television ownership rule.  In February 2008, the FCC released an order containing its current ownership rules, which re-adopted its 1999 local television ownership rule.  On February 29, 2008, several parties, including us, separately filed petitions for review in a number of federal appellate courts challenging the FCC’s current ownership rules.  By lottery, those petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In July 2008, several parties, including us, filed motions to transfer the consolidated proceedings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and other parties requested transfer to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  In November 2008, the Ninth Circuit transferred the consolidated proceedings to the Third Circuit and the proceedings are pending.

Changes in Rules on Local Marketing Agreements

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 ultimate editorial and other controls being exercised by the latter licensee.  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 and decided to attribute LMAs for ownership purpose.  It grandfathered our LMAs that were entered into prior to November 5, 1996, permitting 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.  Subsequently, the FCC invited comments as to whether, instead of beginning the review of the grandfathered LMAs in 2004, it should do so in 2006.  The FCC did not initiate any review of grandfathered LMAs in 2004 or as part of its 2006 quadrennial review.  We do not know when, or if, the FCC will conduct any such review of grandfathered LMAs.  With respect to LMAs executed on or after November 5, 1996, the FCC required that parties come into compliance with the 1999 local television ownership rule by August 6, 2001.  We challenged the 1999 local television ownership rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and that court stayed the enforcement of the divestiture of the post-November 5, 1996 LMAs.  In 2002, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. v. F.C.C., 284 F.3d 114 (D.C. Cir. 2002) that the 1999 local television ownership rule was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the rule to the Commission.

In 2003, the FCC revised its ownership rules, including the local television ownership rule. The effective date of the 2003 ownership rules was stayed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the rules were remanded to the FCC.  Because the effective date of the 2003 ownership rules had been stayed and, in connection with the adoption of those rules, the FCC concluded the 1999 rules could not be justified as necessary in the public interest, we took the position that an issue exists regarding whether the FCC has any current legal right to enforce any rules prohibiting the acquisition of television stations.  Several parties, including us, filed petitions with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of the Third Circuit decision, but the Supreme Court denied the petitions in June 2005.

On November 15, 1999, we entered into a plan and agreement of merger to acquire through merger WMYA-TV (formerly WBSC-TV) in Anderson, South Carolina from Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation (Cunningham), but that transaction was denied by the FCC.  In light of the change in the 2003 ownership rules, we filed a petition for reconsideration with the FCC and amended our application to acquire the license of WMYA-TV.  We also filed applications in November 2003 to acquire the license assets of the remaining five Cunningham stations: WRGT-TV, Dayton, Ohio; WTAT-TV, Charleston, South Carolina; WVAH-TV, Charleston, West Virginia; WNUV-TV, Baltimore, Maryland; and WTTE-TV, Columbus, Ohio.  Rainbow/PUSH filed a petition to deny these five

27

Table of Contents

applications and to revoke all of our licenses.  The FCC dismissed our applications in light of the stay of the 2003 ownership rules and also denied the Rainbow/PUSH petition.  Rainbow/PUSH filed a petition for reconsideration of that denial and we filed an application for review of the dismissal.  In 2005, we filed a petition with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit requesting that the Court direct the FCC to take final action on our applications, but that petition was dismissed.  On January 6, 2006, we submitted a motion to the FCC requesting that it take final action on our applications.  Both the applications and the associated petition to deny are still pending.  We believe the Rainbow/PUSH petition is without merit.   On February 8, 2008, we filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit requesting that the Court direct the FCC to take final action on these applications and cease its use of the 1999 local television ownership rule that it re-adopted as the permanent rule in 2008.  In July 2008, the D.C. Circuit transferred the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and we filed a petition with the D.C. Circuit challenging that decision, which was denied.  We also filed with the Ninth Circuit a motion to transfer that case back to the D.C. Circuit.  The motion to transfer is pending.  The FCC filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit seeking to consolidate this matter with the pending appeals of the FCC’s February 2008 decision re-adopting the 1999 local television ownership rule.  We have opposed such consolidation, and the motion is pending.

If we are required to terminate or modify our LMAs, our business could be affected in the following ways:

Losses on investments.  As part of our LMA arrangements, we own the non-license assets used by the stations with which we have LMAs.  If certain of these LMA arrangements are no longer permitted, we would 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 before the terms of the LMAs expire, or under certain circumstances, we elect not to extend the terms of the LMAs, we may be forced to pay termination penalties under the terms of some of our LMAs.  Any such termination penalties could be material.

Use of outsourcing agreements

In addition to our LMAs, we have entered into four (and may seek opportunities for additional) outsourcing agreements in which our stations provide or are provided various non-programming related services such as sales, operational and managerial services to or by other stations.  Pursuant to these agreements, one of our stations in Nashville, Tennessee and Cedar Rapids, Iowa currently provides services to another station in each’s respective market and another party provides services to our stations in Peoria/Bloomington, Illinois and Rochester, New York.  We believe this structure allows stations to achieve operational efficiencies and economies of scale, which should otherwise improve broadcast cash flow and competitive positions.  While television joint sales agreements (JSAs) are not currently “attributable”, on August 2, 2004, the FCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on its tentative conclusion that television joint sales agreements should be attributable.  We cannot predict the outcome of this proceeding, nor can we predict how any changes, together with possible changes to the ownership rules, would apply to our existing outsourcing agreements.

Failure of owner/licensee to exercise control

The FCC requires the owner/licensee of a station to maintain independent control over the programming and operations of the station.  As a result, the owners/licensees of those stations with which we have LMAs or outsourcing agreements can exert their control in ways that may be counter to our interests, including the right to preempt or terminate programming in certain instances.  The preemption and termination rights cause some uncertainty as to whether we will be able to air all of the programming that we have purchased under our LMAs and therefore, uncertainty about the advertising revenue that we will receive from such programming.  In addition, if the FCC determines that the owner/licensee is not exercising sufficient control, it may penalize the owner licensee by a fine, revocation of the license for the station or a denial of the renewal of that license.  Any one of these scenarios might result in a reduction of our cash flow and an increase in our operating costs or margins, especially the revocation of or denial of renewal of a license.  In addition, penalties might also affect our qualifications to hold FCC licenses, putting our own licenses at risk.

The pendency and indeterminacy of the outcome of these ownership rules, which pose to limit our ability to provide services to additional or existing stations pursuant to licenses, LMAs, outsourcing agreements or otherwise, expose us to a certain amount of volatility, particularly if the outcomes are adverse to us.  Further, resolution of these ownership rules has been and will likely continue to be a cost burden and a distraction to our management and the indefinite continuation may have a negative effect on our business.

28

Table of Contents

Competition from other broadcasters or other content providers and changes in technology may cause a reduction in our advertising revenues and/or an increase in our operating costs.

The television industry is highly competitive and this competition can draw viewers and advertisers from our stations, which reduces our revenue or requires us to pay more for programming, which increases our costs.  We face intense competition from the following:

New Technology and the subdivision of markets

Cable providers, direct broadcast satellite companies and telecommunication companies are developing new technology that allows them to transmit more channels on their existing equipment to highly targeted audiences, reducing the cost of creating channels and potentially leading to the division of the television industry into ever more specialized niche markets.  Competitors who target programming to such sharply defined markets may gain an advantage over us for television advertising revenues.  The decreased cost of creating channels may also encourage new competitors to enter our markets and compete with us for advertising revenue.  In addition, emerging technologies that will allow viewers to digitally record, store and play back television programming may decrease viewership of commercials as recorded by media measurement services such as Nielsen Media Research and, as a result, lower our advertising revenues.  The broadcast and advertising industries have agreed on a ratings standard that includes live viewing plus viewers who watch a program within 72 hours of its original appearance.

Types of competitors

We also face competition from rivals that may have greater resources than we have.  These include:

·                  other local free over-the-air broadcast television and radio stations;

·                  telecommunication companies;

·                  cable and satellite system operators;

·                  print media providers such as newspapers, direct mail and periodicals;

·                  internet providers; and

·                  competition from other emerging technologies including mobile television.

Deregulation

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 and subsequent actions by the FCC have removed some limits on station ownership, allowing telephone, cable and some other companies to provide video services in competition with us.  In addition, the FCC has reallocated a portion of the spectrum for new services including fixed and mobile wireless services and digital broadcast services.  As a result of these changes, new companies are able to enter our markets and compete with us.

We may not be able to renegotiate retransmission consent agreements at terms comparable to or more favorable than our current agreements upon expiration.

Since 2006 revenue from our retransmission consent agreements has grown significantly on a consistent basis.  However, as certain retransmission consent agreements expire, we may not be able to renegotiate such agreements at terms comparable to or more favorable than our current agreements.  This may cause revenues and/or revenue growth from our retransmission consent agreements to decrease under the renegotiated terms despite the fact that our current retransmission consent agreements include automatic annual fee escalators.

29

Table of Contents

We could be adversely affected by labor disputes and legislation and other union activity.

The cost of producing and distributing entertainment programming has increased substantially in recent years due to, among other things, the increasing demands of creative talent and industry-wide collective bargaining agreements.  Although we generally purchase programming content from others rather than produce it ourselves, our program suppliers engage the services of writers, directors, actors and on-air and other talent, trade employees and others, some of whom are subject to these collective bargaining agreements.  If our program suppliers are unable to renew expiring collective bargaining agreements, it is possible that the affected unions could take action in the form of strikes or work stoppages.  Failure to renew these agreements, higher costs in connection with these agreements or a significant labor dispute could adversely affect our business by causing delays in production that lead to declining viewers, and reductions in the profit margins of our programming and the amounts we can charge advertisers for time.  Further, any changes in the existing labor laws, including the possible enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act, may further the realization of the foregoing risks.

The commencement of the Iraq War resulted in a decline in advertising revenues and negatively impacted our operating results.  Future conflicts, terrorist attacks or other acts of violence may have a similar effect.

The commencement of the war in Iraq in 2002 resulted in a reduction of advertising revenues as a result of uninterrupted news coverage and general economic uncertainty.  During the first quarter of 2003, we experienced $2.2 million in advertiser cancellations and preemptions, which resulted in lower earnings than we would have experienced without this disruption.  If the United States becomes engaged in similar conflicts in the future, there may be a similar adverse effect on our results of operations.  Also, any terrorist attacks or other acts of violence may have a similar negative effect on our business or results of operations.

Unrelated third parties may claim that we infringe on their rights based on the nature and content of information posted on websites maintained by us.

We host internet services that enable individuals to exchange information, generate content, comment on our content, and engage in various online activities.  The law relating to the liability of providers of these online services for activities of their users is currently unsettled both within the United States and internationally.  While we monitor postings to such websites, claims may be brought against us for defamation, negligence, copyright or trademark infringement, unlawful activity, tort, including personal injury, fraud, or other theories based on the nature and content of information that may be posted online or generated by our users.  Our defense of such actions could be costly and involve significant time and attention of our management and other resources.

If our Class A Common Stock fails to meet all applicable listing requirements, it could be delisted from the NASDAQ Global Select Market, which could adversely affect the market price and liquidity of our Class A Common Stock and harm our financial condition and business.

Our Class A common stock is currently traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (the Exchange) under the symbol “SBGI.”  If we fail to meet any of the continued listing standards of the Exchange, our Class A Common Stock could be delisted from the Exchange.  These continued listing standards include, among others, maintaining a $1.00 minimum closing bid price per share.  NASDAQ has suspended the minimum $1.00 closing bid price rule through Friday, April 17, 2009.  The rule is scheduled to be reinstated on Monday, April 20, 2009.

Our Class A Common Stock has traded at or below $1.00 per share in the past month.  If the NASDAQ rule is reinstated and our Class A Common Stock trades below $1.00 per share for thirty consecutive trading days, there can be no assurance that NASDAQ will not take action to enforce its listing requirements.

If our Class A Common Stock were to be delisted from the Exchange, we could apply to list our Class A Common Stock on the NASDAQ Capital Market, or our Class A Common Stock could be traded in the over-the-counter market on an electronic bulletin board, such as the OTC Bulletin Board or the Pink Sheets.  Any delisting could adversely affect the market price and the liquidity of our Class A Common Stock and negatively impact our financial condition and business.

Our ability to pay dividends in the future is subject to many factors.

In February 2009, we suspended our dividends indefinitely.  Our ability to pay any future dividends may be impaired if any of the risks described in this Item 1A were to occur.  In addition, payment of dividends depends on our results of operations, cash requirements and surplus, financial condition, covenant restrictions and other factors that our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time.  See Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer purchases of Equity Securities — Dividend Policy for more information.

ITEM 1B.       UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

30

Table of Contents

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES

Generally, each of our stations has facilities consisting of offices, studios and tower sites.  Transmitter and tower sites are located to provide maximum signal coverage of our stations’ markets.  We believe that all of our properties, both owned and leased, are generally in good operating condition, subject to normal wear and tear and are suitable and adequate for our current business operations.  The following is a summary of our principal owned and leased real properties.  Approximately 67,000 square feet of the leased office and studio building below related to our corporate facilities.  We believe that no one property represents a material amount of the total properties owned or leased.  See Item 1. Business, for a listing of our station locations.

ITEM 3.          LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are a party to lawsuits and claims from time to time in the ordinary course of business.  Actions currently pending are in various preliminary stages and no 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 the outcome of our pending and threatened matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations or consolidated statements of cash flows.

ITEM 4.          SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

No matters were submitted to a vote of our shareholders during the fourth quarter of 2008.

31

Table of Contents

PART II

Our Class A Common Stock is listed for trading on the NASDAQ stock market under the symbol SBGI.  Our Class B Common Stock is not traded on a public trading market or quotation system.  The following tables set forth for the periods indicated the high and low closing sales prices on the NASDAQ stock market for our Class A Common Stock.

As of February 26, 2009, there were approximately 90 shareholders of record of our common stock.  This number does not include beneficial owners holding shares through nominee names.

Dividend Policy

We believe our operating cash flow and availability on our revolver would have enabled us to continue paying our current quarterly dividend throughout 2009, however in February 2009, we decided it was prudent to suspend the dividend due to the current negative economic climate.  Future dividends on our common shares, if any, will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on several factors including our results of operations, cash requirements and surplus, financial condition, covenant restrictions and other factors that the Board of Directors may deem relevant.  Our Bank Credit Agreement and some of our subordinated debt instruments have general restrictions on the amount of dividends that may be paid.  Under the indentures governing our 8.0% Senior Subordinated Notes, due 2012, we are restricted from paying dividends on our common stock unless certain specified conditions are satisfied, including that:

·                  no event of default then exists under the indenture or certain other specified agreements relating to our indebtedness; and

·                  after taking account of the dividend, we are within certain restricted payment requirements contained in the indenture.

In addition, under certain of our senior unsecured debt, the payment of dividends is not permissible during a default thereunder.

Our dividend paid during 2008 of 20 cents per share per quarter and during 2007 of 15 cents per share per quarter, except for the fourth quarter dividend of 17.5 cents per share, was not in excess of any applicable restrictions or conditions contained within the indentures of our various senior subordinated notes and our Bank Credit Agreement.

During 2007, the Board of Directors voted to increase the dividend twice.  On February 14, 2007, we announced that our Board of Directors approved an increase to our annual dividend to 60 cents per share from 50 cents per share.  On October 31, 2007, we announced that our Board of Directors approved an increase to our annual dividend to 70 cents per share from 60 cents per share.  On February 6, 2008, we announced that our Board of Directors approved an increase to our annual dividend to 80 cents per share from 70 cents per share.  The 2008 and 2007 dividends declared were as follows:

32

Table of Contents

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table summarizes repurchases of our stock in the quarter ended December 31, 2008: