Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group command an expansive reach across the U.S. television landscape. Together, they own and operate hundreds of local TV stations, influencing public conversation in markets large and small. With that reach comes power — and scrutiny.
In recent weeks, a notable shift has occurred. A growing number of advertisers are either scaling back their media buys or cutting ties altogether with affiliates under these two broadcast giants. The pivot isn’t random. Several groups have cited concerns over controversial programming segments, including a high-profile moment involving late-night personality Jimmy Kimmel, which aired on a Nexstar-affiliated station.
This developing advertiser backlash raises questions: What, exactly, is prompting these strategic pauses? How much does consumer perception and audience trust factor into marketing decisions? And in an evolving media environment, where do accountability and editorial standards intersect with revenue? Let’s break it down.
Broadcast media buying in 2024 continues to demand a nuanced understanding of both local influence and national scale. In local markets, advertisers evaluate stations based on demographic penetration, market share, and past viewership data—culled primarily from Nielsen ratings and Comscore analytics. National advertisers, meanwhile, focus on regional clusters or network affiliates to scale impact, often bundling buys across multiple Designated Market Areas (DMAs) to ensure consistency and efficiency.
Direct station buys still dominate local transactions, with agencies leveraging long-standing relationships. In contrast, programmatic buying—though more common in digital—has begun entering broadcast through platforms like WideOrbit and Hudson MX, enhancing automation but requiring high-volume commitment to deliver value.
Two core factors guide buying decisions in 2024: audience reach and brand alignment. Reach is quantifiable—viewership numbers, frequency caps, daypart alignment—while brand alignment leans heavily on subjective fit. Marketers scrutinize editorial slant, brand safety metrics, and recently, station-level social impact. Nexstar and Sinclair, operating collectively over 350 TV stations, remain major players due to their ability to deliver 60%+ penetration in several regional Midwest, South, and West DMAs.
Yet numbers alone don’t close a deal. Media planners look at GRP (Gross Rating Points), CPM (Cost Per Mille), and verified audience impressions. However, they also demand transparency on placement adjacency—especially important during election cycles or polarizing events. Adjacent content has the power to elevate a brand or undercut its integrity.
Several tactical reasons drive buys with Nexstar and Sinclair. First, consistency across markets—they offer buyers a one-stop-shop for multi-regional campaigns. Then comes their carriage strength; with affiliate agreements across major networks (CBS, Fox, NBC), these groups guarantee prime-time impressions. For example, a retailer launching a national Memorial Day campaign can leverage Nexstar’s 60+ station reach in key battleground states—critical ahead of the 2024 elections.
Additionally, both media groups provide competitive rate cards due to vertical integration and ownership economies. They also deliver data-backed reporting tools, allowing advertisers to track performance not in weeks, but in daily or even hourly cycles. This level of granularity appeals to sectors like automotive and healthcare, which base return on marketing spend (ROMI) on tight attribution windows.
Advertising teams within several large companies have begun comprehensive evaluations of their media partners. These internal reviews aren't just routine budget checks—they’re deeper reflections on brand alignment, especially in relation to public-facing values and corporate ethics. An increasing number of advertisers now weigh the tone, political associations, and editorial direction of networks like Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group against their own brand commitments to social justice, equity, and factual integrity.
Marketing departments, often spurred by questions from CMOs and ESG officers, are reviewing transcripts, monitoring news segments, and auditing associated public sentiment toward each network. In offices from San Francisco to New York, these audits directly influence media planning decisions and yearly advertising rollouts.
Some groups reporting ad pauses don't come to the decision in isolation. A measurable rise in consumer feedback—emails, DMs, contact form submissions—triggers a tracking process inside corporate communication and marketing teams. For context, one media buyer for a Fortune 500 company shared that in the span of two weeks, over 300 unique emails objecting to their client’s ad placements on Sinclair-owned stations were forwarded to the marketing division.
Further pressure arrives via media watchdog reports. When prominent media advocacy groups issue statements highlighting instances of disinformation or politically skewed reporting, advertisers find themselves publicly named. These media advisories create ripple effects throughout corporate boardrooms, often leading to questions from investor relations teams and C-suites.
The alignment between where a brand advertises and what a brand stands for has grown tighter. Executives no longer treat media planning as a purely transactional exercise. Instead, it’s become a form of public alignment—a declaration of values in action. A multinational consumer goods company that previously remained neutral on media affiliations now includes media ethics criteria in its RFP sessions with agencies.
One shift increasingly seen in 2024 involves advertisers tying their ad placement decisions to third-party trust metrics and fact-checking protocols. Networks flagged by think tanks or accuracy-tracking nonprofits often see ad contracts put on hold—even if those networks command significant reach. The reasoning? Associating with a media outlet perceived as promoting bias or factual instability undermines long-term brand trust.
Political advertising plays a decisive role in how organizations choose media outlets. In highly polarized environments, the tone and alignment of political content on local broadcast stations can trigger direct consequences for ad placement. Buyers review not just reach and demographics but also editorial climate—who is speaking, what’s being said, and how those messages align or clash with brand principles.
Stations affiliated with Nexstar and Sinclair have drawn criticism for airing segments perceived as overtly partisan. In 2020, Sinclair-owned WJLA, the ABC affiliate in Washington, D.C., faced backlash for featuring must-run commentary by former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn. The editorial welcomed skepticism toward the legitimacy of mail-in voting at a time when public confidence in electoral systems was under strain. Another widespread example includes “Terrorism Alert Desk,” a Sinclair-syndicated segment that critics argued framed global events through a disproportionately fear-inducing lens.
Nexstar’s station group, which includes affiliates in over 100 markets, has also aired politically charged editorials via NewsNation, its national network. NewsNation marketed itself as centrist but has, at times, provided a platform for figures with partisan affiliations, creating reputational complications for brands aiming to stay neutral.
During election cycles, political ad inventory surges, and so does public scrutiny. The Federal Election Commission reported over $8.5 billion in political ad spending during the 2020 election. With 2024 shaping up to surpass that record, transparency around media funding is under a microscope. Activists and watchdog organizations are tracing financial support back to the companies enabling political messages—raising questions about complicity and alignment.
In this climate, even passive association with partisan messaging can turn into a public relations liability. Advertisers are responding by reevaluating their placements, consulting media audits, and pausing buys that cross into contentious editorial terrain.
With more than 350 stations combined, Nexstar Media Group and Sinclair Broadcast Group control a significant share of the U.S. local broadcast market. Nexstar, the largest local TV operator, reaches over 68% of American households through affiliates across the country. Sinclair, one of the oldest players, operates nearly 200 stations and maintains substantial influence, particularly in mid-sized and smaller markets. Together, they deliver local news, syndicated programs, and national content via networks like ABC, NBC, Fox, and CBS.
These broadcasters occupy a unique position: they blend locally produced news with content and editorial perspectives created at the national level. This integration can create friction. While advertisers often target communities with tailored messaging, station-level editorial decisions may not always align with brand values. For instance, Sinclair has drawn criticism for mandating the broadcast of centrally produced segments across local newsrooms — a directive that can dilute local journalistic autonomy and prompt advertiser scrutiny.
Brand managers, particularly those managing national campaigns with regional relevance, face a complex challenge. An ad placed through Nexstar or Sinclair may appear alongside commentary or editorial choices that invite public controversy. When a brand mission centers on equity, inclusion, or factual integrity, even a single misaligned segment can undermine the broader narrative they’ve invested in crafting.
When advocacy groups and brands like Progressive Turnout Project or MoveOn.org decide to pause ads on Nexstar and Sinclair outlets, the market impact is immediate and visible. These broadcasters provide access to millions of viewers, particularly in swing regions and local communities where digital media penetration lags. A strategic pause, therefore, reduces exposure in high-value electoral regions, potentially weakening campaign visibility or diminishing commercial reach.
Advertisers are increasingly weighing the value of massive reach against the reputational risks of ceding control over message context. These pauses represent more than just a protest; they’re a calculated rebalancing of media strategy in an environment where content alignment increasingly dictates spend efficiency.
Advertising decisions now face greater public scrutiny than at any point in modern broadcasting history. Consumers, investors, and advocacy groups are asking a pointed question: where do ad dollars go, and what messages do they amplify? In response, some corporations are recalibrating strategy, choosing to pull or pause ad placements with networks whose content or partnerships no longer align with their publicly stated values. This includes high-profile groups halting campaigns with Nexstar and Sinclair.
The simple act of pausing ads has taken on new strategic utility. Rather than issuing press releases or quietly shifting budget allocations, executive teams now use ad pauses as visible expressions of value alignment. These decisions don’t happen in a vacuum—they frequently follow direct outreach from customers or internal employee concerns. Executives are treating these moves not just as operational choices but as brand-sensitive actions with long-term implications for equity and reputation.
Several notable brands have responded to public concern by halting ad buys with controversial networks, and the resulting outcomes vary. Some emerged with strengthened loyalty metrics and elevated brand equity, while others navigated backlash from segments of their base.
The takeaway for CMOs? Strategic silence—pulling back dollars instead of pushing out statements—can become the loudest message a corporation sends this year. Who’s next to reassess the value exchange of network association? That conversation is already happening in boardrooms.
In recent years, specific local stations affiliated with Nexstar and Sinclair have drawn criticism for airing segments perceived as misleading, biased, or lacking critical context. One widely cited example involves a scripted message aired across dozens of Sinclair-owned stations in 2018, where anchors read identical lines warning viewers about “fake news” in language that echoed partisan rhetoric. This prompted backlash not only from media analysts but also from viewers who saw it as manufactured opinion masquerading as local journalism.
In the 2022 election cycle, watchdog groups identified broadcast segments—especially during primetime opinion slots—that repeated unfounded claims about voting integrity. Several of those aired on stations under the Sinclair umbrella. Nexstar stations, although often perceived as more centrist in tone, have also come under observation. At least three local affiliates aired interviews and commentary containing medically inaccurate information about COVID-19 vaccines in 2021, according to research compiled by Media Matters for America.
When advertising budgets flow into local broadcast networks without granular oversight, brands may unintentionally sponsor content that undermines public trust. Every 30-second slot that precedes or follows politically loaded commentary ties that brand to the surrounding message, however indirectly. Political action committees (PACs), advocacy organizations, and corporations—especially those with ESG priorities—have begun to scrutinize where, when, and how their ad dollars are spent.
In several instances, buyers only discovered that their spots aired alongside conspiratorial segments or hosts with histories of pushing misinformation after feedback surfaced on social media. Internal reviews then triggered urgent reallocation requests, or full campaign pauses. This is not a coincidence; it is the result of viewers actively connecting brand presence to perceived platform bias.
Digital natives and policy-savvy audiences don't just consume media—they analyze, critique, and publicly respond to it. Organized efforts including email campaigns, hashtag drives, and media rating platforms have amplified consumer influence over both content and corporate alignment. Groups like Sleeping Giants and Check My Ads have documented cases where individual social media posts led to sponsors pulling ads from segments associated with disinformation.
If brands respond quickly to viewer outrage, stations take notice. When Nordstrom and Subaru paused advertising with select broadcasters in 2023 after audience pushback, local affiliates reported concern about the potential domino effect. It reinforced a simple fact: advertisers aren't only buying attention—they’re inheriting audience expectations. And if trust erodes, attention dies with it.
The decision by some groups to pause their ads with Nexstar and Sinclair has reignited an ongoing debate: How accountable should broadcasters be for the content they present and the messages they amplify? While stations claim to maintain a clear division between advertising and editorial control, the public perceives a strong link between the two. That's where scrutiny intensifies—especially when controversial narratives or politically charged programming dominate airtime.
In recent months, media strategists, advocacy organizations, and watchdog groups have openly questioned the ethical framework guiding what broadcast networks choose to platform. When controversial segments or opinion-heavy commentary blend into what should be neutral news coverage, the line between informing and influencing blurs. For many advertisers, that blur has now become a red line.
Pulling ads isn’t just a financial action—it's a statement. Companies and issue advocacy organizations use budget decisions to signal disapproval and pressure content providers to align more closely with a set of ethical or brand-aligned standards. The logic is straightforward: revenue drives programming, and if ad buyers step back, networks may be forced to reflect on what they’ve been willing to air in exchange for higher ratings or larger audiences.
But the effectiveness of this method varies. Some stations, especially those with strong ideological viewerships, may double down rather than shift course. Others may see financial impact trickle into boardroom decisions, reshaping editorial direction to avoid further losses. Each case adds new data points to a growing question: how much can advertisers influence newsroom ethics without directly meddling in journalistic independence?
The absence of advertiser dollars produces ripple effects well beyond the financial reports. When commercial spots go unsold, it changes the economics of production. In the short term, that can mean more filler content, longer in-network promos, or broader syndication of existing material. Over time, advertising gaps may lead stations to pivot towards less controversial and more universally acceptable programming to restore advertiser confidence.
What happens when ad revenue shrinks? Decisions shift. Newsrooms—especially local affiliates operating on narrower budgets—lean harder on cost-effective stories that generate reach without provoking backlash. Some innovation might emerge from this pressure, forging new content designed to uphold trust and balance. Alternatively, a network might fill airtime with more sensational material, aiming to court niche audiences and nontraditional revenue models like sponsored content or direct-to-consumer platforms.
The underlying issue remains: ethical broadcasting doesn't evolve without pressure. Whether that pressure comes from within the newsroom, from citizen viewers, or from ad budgets being redirected speaks volumes about who really shapes media narratives in 2024.
Local news affiliates operate at the intersection of journalism and identity. In towns across America, nightly broadcasts feel less like mass media and more like community bulletins. Anchors often become household names. Their voices and faces are associated with reliability—not because of brand strategy devised in New York or Los Angeles, but through years of familiarity built in living rooms and kitchens coast to coast.
When these trusted stations affiliate with larger conglomerates—such as Nexstar Media Group or Sinclair Broadcast Group—their editorial tone may shift. Network-wide policies or syndicated segments often override local editorial autonomy. This creates a fracture between audience expectations and actual programming content. In small markets, that contrast stands out dramatically.
For advertisers, local stations can serve as high-conversion vehicles—particularly in swing states or tightly defined regional markets. However, when these stations run controversial or politically charged programming—sometimes dictated by parent companies—brand perception suffers.
Recent advertiser pullbacks reflect this tension. An organization that buys ad space on a trusted local news slot may unknowingly be tied to broader parent network narratives. Viewers don’t separate local station identity from national syndication—especially when affiliate branding is visually indistinct from corporate logos. The result: brand guilt by association.
Consider this: KATV in Little Rock, Arkansas—under Sinclair ownership—drew national scrutiny for airing commentary segments that overtly criticized COVID-19 public health guidelines. In Bozeman, Montana, a Nexstar affiliate featured political content that prompted advertisers to reassess their commitments there. These are not top-tier media markets, yet the ripple effects extended far beyond state lines. National groups paused ad placements in multiple regions after backlash emerged on social platforms and press coverage intensified.
As advertisers review GRP metrics and demographic overlays, they now factor in another layer: reputational risk. A 30-second spot in a mid-size Mississippi town might generate thousands of impressions—but when aired alongside contentious editorial content, those impressions can quickly turn toxic for a brand.
The small markets were once predictably safe zones for campaign or product messaging. That landscape is changing. Affiliates now mediate a complex dynamic—local community expectations vs. parent company policies. Where conflict arises between the two, advertisers must choose sides.
When advertisers decide to pull their campaigns from networks such as Nexstar or Sinclair, they’re executing a calculated move. Behind each pause is a brand strategy shaped by data, stakeholder alignment, and audience values. The goal: to separate the brand identity from controversies that could disrupt customer trust or provoke backlash.
However, this kind of action doesn’t come without consequences. Boycotting can alienate certain audience segments, strain relationships with network executives, and limit reach in key regional markets. For marketers managing national or hyperlocal campaigns, those trade-offs require detailed impact modeling and scenario planning.
High-profile boycotts often follow headline-driving incidents. One such case targeted comments made during a segment involving ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live!—re-aired through affiliated networks, including stations owned by Sinclair. The backlash triggered advertiser exits, some temporary, others indefinite. Specific brands didn’t always announce their withdrawal publicly, but media buying insights from ad-tracking firms like iSpot.tv and AdImpact confirmed changes in placement frequency and channel spend.
In parallel, certain advocacy groups from healthcare, education, and technology sectors have quietly scaled back ad buys on Nexstar stations following concerns over editorial bias or content positioning during election cycles. These trends have accelerated in 2024 alongside intensifying scrutiny of local news content decisions.
Smart advertisers aren’t simply reducing spend—they’re reallocating. Dollars previously earmarked for traditional broadcast segments are being redirected into diversified formats:
Some brands are also increasing their use of programmatic buying tools that exclude predefined inventory blocks, ensuring an automated screen of placements against preselected content risks.
Have you noticed fewer brand messages during certain broadcast news segments in your area? The shift isn’t accidental—it’s a response. And the chessboard of media placements keeps evolving with every viewer reaction and corporate PR calculation.
When advertisers press pause on spending with major broadcasters like Nexstar and Sinclair, they’re doing more than shifting budgets. They’re broadcasting their own message—one that asks harder questions about alignment between media content, corporate accountability, and audience expectations.
Across boardrooms, strategy calls, and advocacy groups, the calculus has changed. Advertisers no longer benchmark value solely on reach or ratings. They assess tone, editorial decisions, and how networks manage misinformation. Media partnerships must reflect brand values, and if content erodes trust, dollars will follow that erosion right out the door.
Programmatic channels and streaming platforms stand ready to absorb shifting budgets. CTV (connected TV) ad spend in the U.S. is projected to reach $30.10 billion in 2024, according to eMarketer. That money moves with agility, often flowing toward platforms offering higher transparency and tighter editorial control.
Meanwhile, nonprofit and mission-driven media outlets—smaller in scale but often more trusted—are seeing increased advertiser interest. As the definition of “newsworthy” evolves, so will the list of preferred media partners.
Broadcasters relying on legacy infrastructure and historical advertiser loyalty can’t bank on inertia. Without proactive changes in content governance, alignment with verified information, and greater ethical rigor, they’ll watch trust—and revenue—drift to competitors who deliver both storytelling and standards.
©2025 American TV. All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: All rights reserved. AmericanTV.com is a website for research and comparison as such, falls under "Fair Use". AmericanTV.com does not provide directly phone, TV, and internet service. All trademarks, logos, etc. remain the property of their respective owners and are used by AmericanTV.com only to describe products and services offered by each respective trademark holder. The use of any third party trademarks on this site in no way indicates any relationship between AmericanTV.com and the holders of said trademarks, nor any endorsement of AmericanTV.com by the holders of said trademarks.
We are here 24/7 to answer all of your TV + Internet Questions:
1-855-690-9884
1-855-690-9884