In 2013, viewers across several U.S. markets suddenly found themselves without access to their local news, weather, and sports coverage. At the heart of the disruption was a high-stakes contract dispute between Journal Broadcast Group (JBG) and Time Warner Cable (TWC)—two media powerhouses clashing over retransmission fees. What began as a behind-the-scenes negotiation quickly erupted into a full-blown public feud, leaving frustrated customers in the crossfire and raising critical questions about corporate control over broadcast access.

JBG, which owned multiple local television stations including WTMJ in Milwaukee, argued it deserved higher compensation for its content. TWC countered that the requested fee hikes were unreasonable and would drive up costs for subscribers. As a result, TWC pulled JBG’s channels from its lineup, sparking viewer backlash, lawsuits, and a flurry of PR tactics on both sides.

This incident wasn’t just a local blackout—it became part of a broader industry trend of carriage disputes that highlight growing tensions between content creators and distributors. In this article, we dive into what caused the conflict, how it escalated, and what it reveals about the evolving media landscape where viewer access can be caught in the middle of corporate battles.

Let’s take a deep dive into what sparked this conflict, how it unfolded, and what it tells us about the business of broadcasting in America.

The Players: Who Are Journal Broadcast Group and Time Warner Cable?

Before diving into the dispute, it’s important to understand the parties involved.

Journal Broadcast Group was a division of Journal Communications, owning and operating radio and television stations across the United States. Known for local TV stations in markets like Milwaukee, Tucson, and Omaha, Journal Broadcast Group prided itself on delivering local news, sports, and syndicated programming to regional audiences.

Time Warner Cable, on the other hand, was one of the largest cable television providers in the U.S. before its merger with Charter Communications in 2016. TWC provided cable, internet, and phone services to millions of subscribers across the country, often acting as the gatekeeper between local broadcasters and viewers.

At the heart of their feud was a fundamental disagreement over retransmission consent fees—a contentious issue affecting relationships between broadcasters and cable operators nationwide.

Understanding Retransmission Fees: The Root of the Dispute

Retransmission fees are payments that cable providers like Time Warner Cable must make to broadcasters in order to carry their channels. These fees are negotiated every few years, and when an agreement can’t be reached, cable providers are forced to black out local stations—a move that directly impacts consumers.

In 2013, this is exactly what happened.

The contract between Journal Broadcast Group and Time Warner Cable expired on July 25, 2013, and the two parties failed to reach a new agreement in time. As a result, TWC pulled Journal’s stations from its cable lineup, including popular local affiliates like NBC in Milwaukee (WTMJ) and CBS in Omaha (KMTV).

How Viewers Were Affected

The fallout from the feud between Journal Broadcast Group (JBG) and Time Warner Cable (TWC) hit viewers the hardest. When negotiations broke down over retransmission fees in mid-2013, TWC pulled several JBG-owned stations from its lineup across various markets. This included vital local affiliates like WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee, which carried NBC programming and local news.

As a result, thousands of subscribers suddenly lost access to daily newscasts, local weather updates, and major national broadcasts—including highly anticipated sporting events such as NFL preseason games. The blackout left many viewers frustrated, especially those who relied on over-the-air channels for regional content and real-time information.

To make matters worse, both companies launched public campaigns blaming one another, further confusing consumers. JBG encouraged viewers to pressure TWC or switch providers, while TWC suggested alternative programming. The lack of transparent communication and extended blackout led to public outcry and even legal action—a class-action lawsuit filed by customers citing breach of service.

Ultimately, the dispute underscored the vulnerability of viewers in corporate standoffs. Many were forced to wait weeks before full programming was restored, revealing how business decisions made at the top can disrupt everyday access to essential media content.

The War of Words

As with many media disputes, the public fallout was marked by dueling press releases, media campaigns, and blame games.

Journal Broadcast Group’s Position:

Journal insisted it was asking for “fair market compensation” for its programming. The company argued that TWC profited from carrying its content and should pay reasonable fees, especially given the strong performance and high ratings of its local stations.

Journal launched an online campaign directing viewers to switch to satellite providers or install antennas to continue receiving their local channels. They positioned themselves as protectors of local journalism being unfairly squeezed by a massive cable conglomerate.

Time Warner Cable’s Position:

TWC, meanwhile, claimed that the Journal was demanding unreasonable fee increases and that it was trying to keep costs down for customers. The company accused the Journal of putting profits above people and using blackouts as a negotiation tactic to pressure TWC into submission.

In its public messaging, TWC encouraged viewers to contact the Journal directly and to explore alternatives like watching shows online or through network websites.

Behind the Scenes: The Larger Industry Context

While the Journal-TWC conflict may have seemed isolated, it was part of a much larger trend in the television industry.

As cable revenues plateaued and online streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu gained ground, traditional broadcasters began relying more heavily on retransmission fees as a source of income. In fact, such fees grew from $200 million in 2006 to over $3 billion by 2013.

At the same time, cable companies faced increasing pressure from customers who were unhappy about rising subscription costs. This created a perfect storm for conflicts: broadcasters needed more money to survive, while cable operators couldn’t afford to keep raising prices.

The Journal-TWC feud was emblematic of this broader struggle over control, revenue, and relevance in a rapidly shifting media environment.

Resolution: How the Dispute Was Settled

After nearly two months of blackout, Journal Broadcast Group and Time Warner Cable finally reached a new retransmission agreement on September 20, 2013. Details of the deal were not disclosed, as is typical in such negotiations, but Journal’s stations were restored to TWC’s lineup shortly thereafter.

Both parties issued brief statements expressing satisfaction with the agreement and relief that programming would return to viewers. However, the damage—particularly in public relations—had already been done.

Lessons Learned: Impact on Consumers and the Industry

The feud left a lasting impression on both viewers and industry players. Here are a few key takeaways:

1. The Rise of Cord-Cutting

The blackout reinforced frustrations with traditional cable and nudged many toward alternative platforms. Cord-cutting, already on the rise, gained further momentum as people discovered they could get local channels through antennas or streaming services.

2. Transparency Matters

Consumers expressed frustration not only about the blackout but also about the lack of clarity regarding what was happening. Both companies’ unwillingness to fully explain the financial disagreements contributed to a sense of alienation among viewers.

3. Strengthening the Argument for Reform

Some lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups used the incident to call for regulatory reform of retransmission negotiations, proposing solutions such as mandatory arbitration or preventing blackouts altogether. Although little legislative progress followed, the debate continues.

4. The Power of Local Broadcasting

Despite the proliferation of streaming options, the dispute revealed the ongoing importance of local TV. Viewers cared deeply about missing their community news, local weather, and regional sports teams—elements that can’t be easily replicated by national streaming platforms.

The Aftermath and Legacy

Following the feud, both companies continued their operations—Journal Broadcast Group was later merged with E.W. Scripps Company in 2015, while Time Warner Cable was acquired by Charter Communications in 2016 and rebranded as Spectrum.

While the Journal-TWC dispute is now history, it remains a case study in how strained relationships between broadcasters and distributors can affect millions of people. It also serves as a reminder that in the ever-evolving media world, control over content and access remains a battleground.

Final Thoughts

Unfortunately, disputes like the one between Journal Broadcast Group and Time Warner Cable are likely to persist. As long as broadcasters rely on retransmission fees and cable providers aim to keep prices competitive, the potential for conflict remains high.

However, what’s changed since 2013 is the increasing leverage of the consumer. With more choices than ever—streaming, on-demand, over-the-air antennas—viewers are no longer captive to cable blackouts. The companies that recognize this shift and prioritize uninterrupted, affordable access will be the ones that thrive in the long run.