position:associate general counsel

  • The Growth of Sinclair’s Conservative Media Empire | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/the-growth-of-sinclairs-conservative-media-empire

    Sinclair is the largest owner of television stations in the United States, with a hundred and ninety-two stations in eighty-nine markets. It reaches thirty-nine per cent of American viewers. The company’s executive chairman, David D. Smith, is a conservative whose views combine a suspicion of government, an aversion to political correctness, and strong libertarian leanings. Smith, who is sixty-eight, has a thick neck, deep under-eye bags, and a head of silvery hair. He is an enthusiast of fine food and has owned farm-to-table restaurants in Harbor East, an upscale neighborhood in Baltimore. An ardent supporter of Donald Trump, he has not been shy about using his stations to advance his political ideology. Sinclair employees say that the company orders them to air biased political segments produced by the corporate news division, including editorials by the conservative commentator Mark Hyman, and that it feeds interviewers questions intended to favor Republicans.

    In some cases, anchors have been compelled to read from scripts prepared by Sinclair. In April, 2018, dozens of newscasters across the country parroted Trump’s invectives about “fake news,” saying, “Some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control exactly what people think. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.” In response, Dan Rather, the former anchor of “CBS Evening News,” wrote, on Twitter, “News anchors looking into camera and reading a script handed down by a corporate overlord, words meant to obscure the truth not elucidate it, isn’t journalism. It’s propaganda. It’s Orwellian. A slippery slope to how despots wrest power, silence dissent, and oppress the masses.”

    It’s unclear whether Sinclair is attempting to influence the politics of its viewers or simply appealing to positions that viewers may already have—or both. Andrew Schwartzman, a telecommunications lecturer at Georgetown Law School, told me, “I don’t know where their personal philosophy ends and their business goals begin. They’re not the Koch brothers, but they reflect a deep-seated conservatism and generations of libertarian philosophy that also happen to help their business.”

    Sinclair has even greater ambitions for expansion. In May, 2017, the company announced a proposed $3.9-billion merger between Sinclair and Tribune Media Company, which owns forty-two television stations. The merger would make Sinclair far larger than any other broadcaster in the country, with stations beaming into seventy per cent of American households. The proposal alarmed regulatory and free-speech experts. Michael Copps, a former official at the Federal Communications Commission, told me, “One of the goals of the First Amendment is to make sure the American people have the news and information they need to make intelligent decisions about our democracy, and I think we’re pretty close to a situation where the population lacks the ability to do that. That’s the whole premise of self-government.” He went on, “There are a lot of problems facing our country, but I don’t know one as important as this. When you start dismantling our news-and-information infrastructure, that’s poison to self-government and poison to democracy.”

    In subsequent years, Smith took measures to deepen Sinclair’s influence among policymakers, apparently recognizing that the company’s profits were dependent upon regulatory decisions made in Washington. One of Smith’s first notable forays into politics was his support for Robert Ehrlich, Jr., a Republican congressman who represented Maryland from 1995 until 2003. Sinclair became a top donor to Ehrlich and, in 2001, Ehrlich sent the first of several letters on Sinclair’s behalf to Michael Powell, who had recently become the chair of the F.C.C. The commission was investigating a request from Sinclair to buy a new group of stations, and Ehrlich protested the “unnecessary delays on pending applications.” The F.C.C.’s assistant general counsel responded that Ehrlich’s communication had violated procedural rules. Ehrlich sent another message, alleging that the delays were politically motivated and threatening to “call for a congressional investigation into this matter.” He added, “Knowing that you have served as Chairman for a few short months, we would prefer to give you an opportunity to address these concerns.” The proposed acquisitions were approved.

    A former general-assignment reporter at the station, Jonathan Beaton, told me, “Almost immediately, I could tell it was a very corrupt culture, where you knew from top down there were certain stories you weren’t going to cover. They wanted you to keep your head down and not upset the fruit basket. I’m a Republican, and I was still appalled by what I saw at Sinclair.” Beaton characterized the man-on-the-street segments as “Don’t forget to grab some random poor soul on the street and shove a microphone in their face and talk about what the Democrats have done wrong.” He said that reporters generally complied because of an atmosphere of “intimidation and fear.”

    After Trump’s victory, it looked as though Sinclair’s investment in the candidate would pay off. In January, 2017, Trump appointed Ajit Pai, a vocal proponent of media deregulation, to be the chair of the F.C.C. Pai, formerly an associate general counsel at Verizon and an aide to Senators Jeff Sessions and Sam Brownback, was exactly the sort of commission head that Sinclair had been hoping for. He believed that competition from technology companies such as Google had made many government restrictions on traditional media irrelevant—an argument that echoed Smith’s views on ownership caps and other regulations. Sinclair executives quickly tried to cultivate a relationship with Pai; shortly after the election, he addressed a gathering of Sinclair managers at the Four Seasons in Baltimore. He also met with David Smith and Sinclair’s C.E.O., Christopher Ripley, the day before Trump’s Inauguration.

    It’s not unusual for business executives to meet with the chair of the F.C.C., but Pai soon announced a series of policy changes that seemed designed to help Sinclair. The first was the reinstatement of the ultrahigh-frequency discount, an arcane rule that digital technology had rendered obsolete. The move served no practical purpose, but it freed Sinclair to acquire many more stations without bumping up against the national cap.

    The F.C.C. soon made other regulatory modifications that were helpful to Sinclair. It eliminated a rule requiring television stations to maintain at least one local studio in licensed markets, essentially legitimatizing Sinclair’s centralized news model. Perhaps most perniciously, Pai took steps toward approving a new broadcast-transmission standard called Next Gen TV, which would require all consumers in the U.S. to purchase new televisions or converter devices. A subsidiary of Sinclair owns six patents necessary for the new standard, which could mean billions of dollars in earnings for the company. Jessica Rosenworcel, the sole Democratic commissioner at the F.C.C., told me, “It’s striking that all of our media policy decisions seem almost custom-built for this one company. Something is wrong.” Rosenworcel acknowledged that many F.C.C. policies need to be modernized, but, she said, “broadcasting is unique. It uses the public airwaves, it’s a public trust.” She added, “I don’t think those ideas are retrograde. They are values we should sustain.”

    The F.C.C. and the D.O.J. both warned Sinclair about the dummy divestitures, insisting that the company find independent owners in ten problematic markets. According to a lawsuit later filed by Tribune, instead of taking steps to appease regulators, Sinclair executives “antagonized DOJ and FCC staff” by acting “confrontational” and “belittling.” The company offered to make sales in only four of the markets, and told the Justice Department that it would have to litigate for any further concessions. One Sinclair lawyer told government representatives, “Sue me.” There was no tactical reason for Sinclair to take such a combative and self-sabotaging stance. Instead, the episode seemed to reflect how Trump’s own corruption and conflicts of interest have filtered into the business community. One industry expert who followed the proceedings closely told me that the company clearly “felt that, with the President behind them, why would the commission deny them anything?

    Then, in April, the Web site Deadspin edited the broadcasts of Sinclair anchors reciting the script about fake news into one terrifying montage, with a tapestry of anchors in different cities speaking in unison. The video ignited public outrage, and Trump tweeted a defense of Sinclair, calling it “far superior to CNN and even more Fake NBC, which is a total joke.” (In a statement, a spokesperson for Sinclair said, “This message was not presented as news and was not intended to be political—there was no mention of President Trump, political parties, policy issues, etc. It was a business objective centered on attracting more viewers.”)

    #Médias #Concentration #Dérégulation #Etats-Unis #Sinclair

  • REDACTED TEXT OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MYSELF AND MORRISON & FOERSTER PARTNERS DOUGLAS HENDRICKS AND ERIC COFFILL

    On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    Hello Mr. Hendricks:

    As you recall, around 2011 you wrote and introduced yourself as the associate general counsel of Morrison & Foerster .

    As you probably know by now, a suit naming, among others, Morrison & Foerster, Mr. Brosnahan, and Mr. Chatterejee was filed a few days ago in Yolo County Superior Court.

    Presently, I am in the process of causing the action to be served by a process server on the various defendants. As far as Morrison & Foerster defendants, however, I have learned from official records maintained by California Secretary of State Debra that Morrison & Foerster (entity number C0980795 ) is now DISSOLVED.

    I do know for a fact, however, that the Sacramento office is still operational and am wondering whether I can instruct the process-server to drop off the papers at the Sacramento office instead since the San Francisco office is now DISSOLVED.

    Please let me know ASAP because time is of the essence and I am being prejudiced by MoFo’s failure to maintain current records with California Secretary of State.

    Thank you for your time.

    Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 8:43 AM
    To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
    Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
    Subject: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

    Mr. Hendricks:

    I just noticed that other entities associated with Morrison & Foerster use a service known as CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE with an address of 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 150N, SACRAMENTO.

    Please inform if I I can send the process server to CSC.

    Thanks,

    On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

    The Morrison & Foerster law firm operates as a California limited liability partnership and is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. CSC is not the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP.

    Douglas L. Hendricks
    General Counsel
    Morrison & Foerster LLP
    425 Market St. | San Francisco, CA 94105
    P: 415.268.7037 | F: +415.276 7037 | C: 510.384.8994
    DHendricks@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

    Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:56 PM
    To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
    Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
    Subject: Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

    Thank you for replying.

    A search for “Morrison & Foerster” at California Secretary of State’s Business Search database http://kepler.sos.ca.gov under “Corporation Name” yields:

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C0980795 04/21/1980 DISSOLVED MORRISON & FOERSTER DOUGLAS L HENDRICKS
    C1257410 09/21/1984 ACTIVE MORRISON & FOERSTER/GIRVAN PECK MEMORIAL FUND CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE
    C1532498 06/02/1986 ACTIVE THE MORRISON & FOERSTER FOUNDATION CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC - LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

    However, a similar search under “Limited Liability Company” yields: Record not found.

    In essence, if I understand correctly, CSC is an agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster Foundation and Morrison & Foerster Girvan Peck Memorial Fund only. While Morrison & Foerster was structured as a corporation, you were the registered agent for service of process. Presently, Morrison & Foerster is structured as an LLP and claims that it is in good standing with the appropriate authorities. At least according to California Secretary of State, which may or may not be an appropriate authority, Morrison & Foerster LLP does not exist and/or did not designate an agent for service of process.

    If not a bother, can you please write back with name and address of the agent for service of process for Morrison & Foerster LLP. ?

    Thank you.

    On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Hendricks, Douglas L. <DHendricks@mofo.com> wrote:

    I am sorry, but I am not in a position to assist you in your suit against my law firm.

    Doug Hendricks
    Morrison & Foerster LLP
    (415) 268-7037

    Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:59 PM
    To: Hendricks, Douglas L.
    Cc: Brosnahan, James J.; Chatterjee, Somnath Raj; Farman, Charles S.; Coffill, Eric J.
    Subject: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

    Dear Mr. Hendricks:

    Thanks again for replying. I understand your predicament and accept your apology.

    In any event, the entire issue is now moot because service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today.

    My understanding is that the registered process server encountered both the receptionist and Mr. Coffill, and was told by Mr. Coffill that he can’t accept service on behalf of the individual defendants.

    If Messrs. Brosnahan and Chatterjee are willing to waive personal service, please let me know.

    On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Coffill, Eric J. <ECoffill@mofo.com> wrote:

    Please let me correct a statement below. Your statement below that “service of process has been perfected on Morrison & Foerster (Sacramento Office) earlier today” is factually incorrect. The individual who appeared in our office yesterday morning was told we could not and would not accept service of process on behalf of anyone other than Morrison & Foerster, and the individual then left. Service was not made and the individual left our office with the complete envelope of materials he arrived with.

    Regards,

    Eric

    Eric J. Coffill
    Managing Partner, SA
    Morrison & Foerster LLP
    400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2600
    Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
    P: 916.325.1324 | F: 916.448.3222
    ECoffill@mofo.com | www.mofo.com

    Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM
    subject: Re: Service of Process on MoFo Perfected — Re: Re Addendum: Morrison & Foerster ; Service of Process on Sacramento Office

    Coffill, Eric J." <ECoffill@mofo.com>
    cc: “Hendricks, Douglas L.” <DHendricks@mofo.com>,
    “Brosnahan, James J.” <JBrosnahan@mofo.com>,
    “Chatterjee, Somnath Raj” <SChatterjee@mofo.com>,
    “Farman, Charles S.” <CFarman@mofo.com>

    Mr. Coffill:

    My understanding is that the process-server met and spoke with you and the receptionist.

    Furthermore, my understating is that you told the process-server that you will only accept service on behalf of Morrison & Foerster, that you can’t accept papers on behalf of Defendant James Brosnahan and Defendant Raj Chatterjee, and that subsequently the process-server served Morrison & Foerster only with one envelope containing summons, first amended complaint, ADR package, and notice of CMC.

    Personally, I view your version of events as not credible, suspect, implausible, as well as illogical. Please note that I have absolutely no reason to doubt the creditability of the process-server — who yesterday also served other defendants in Sacramento (such as Accenture, Fulcrum Properties, McGeorge, and others.) Also, why would a professional process-server would leave your office without serving Morrison & Foerster — an assignment which he was hired to complete ??!!

    On the other hand, to date, Morrison & Foerster has been understandably evasive, uncooperative, and motivated to lie due to the potentially catastrophic consequences stemming from allegations relating to Morrison & Foerster and James Brosnahan suspect interactions with governmental officials (such as Joe Dunn, Martha Escutia, Geoffrey Brown, Michael Peevey) on behalf of clients and related acts of grave misconduct surrounding California Energy Crisis.

    Please note that a failure to appear in a timely manner will result in the entry of a default judgment against Morrison & Foerster.