studiothree

A note about AI, “People, Not Prompts,” and how we actually make our productions.

We want to be transparent about something across both studiothree and RETROcirq.

Yes, we use generative AI.

And because we’ve used the phrase “People, Not Prompts,” we think it’s only fair to explain exactly what that means and where AI actually fits into our production process.

AI does not make the entire show.

We use ChatGPT during development. It helps us brainstorm ideas, organize concepts, refine scripts, develop characters, work through production decisions, and assist with things like announcements and updates. Yes, that includes helping us put together posts like this one.

We use Suno for certain pieces of music, themes, jingles, beds, and channel imaging. The new RETROcirq Legacy music package includes music generated with Suno.

We have also used generative image tools for specific virtual production elements. The new RETROcirq video-store environment, for example, was created with generative AI and is being used as a virtual set.

That’s the AI part.

The rest of the production is considerably more traditional.

Our graphics, logos, layouts, thumbnails, branding, and much of our visual presentation are designed and assembled using Canva.

Our programs are edited by us using tools such as Adobe Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve. We make the editorial decisions: what footage stays, what gets cut, how something is paced, how the music is used, how the graphics are incorporated, and what the finished program ultimately looks like.

And most importantly, our performers are real people.

We remotely hire actors and performers to portray our characters and hosts. They film their performances, bring their own personalities and interpretations to the material, and are compensated for their work.

Livie is performed by an actor.

Charli is performed by an actor.

Nancy is performed by an actor.

Our other personalities are performed by people.

We are not trying to quietly replace those performers with AI-generated versions of themselves.

That distinction matters to us.

We’re a small independent production operation. We cannot physically build an entire 1980s video store for a YouTube production. We cannot commission musicians and construct physical television sets every time we have an idea. Generative tools allow us to accomplish certain things that would otherwise be financially unrealistic at our scale.

But there is still a human production process surrounding those tools.

Someone still develops the concept.

Someone still hires the performers.

Someone still directs them.

Someone still designs the graphics.

Someone still edits the footage.

Someone still decides whether something works.

Someone still presses export.

That’s what “People, Not Prompts” means to us.

It does not mean “No AI has ever touched this production.”

If we claimed that, we would be lying.

It means we don't want the prompt to become the product.

We understand that some viewers draw the line differently. Some people do not support generative AI in any capacity, and there are legitimate ongoing concerns involving creative labor, copyright, training data, environmental impact, and the future of creative industries.

We’re not asking those viewers to abandon their principles because they happen to like our channel.

If knowing how we use AI means you decide studiothree or RETROcirq is no longer for you, you are free to unsubscribe. We respect that decision.

We would rather be upfront about our production methods and potentially lose viewers than conceal our use of these tools while promoting “People, Not Prompts.”

So going forward, when generative AI makes a significant contribution to something we produce, we will make a reasonable effort to disclose it.

ChatGPT assists with development and writing.

Suno assists with certain music and audio production.

Generative imagery assists with certain virtual sets and visual elements.

Canva is used for graphic design and branding.

Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve are used for editing and post-production.

And real performers remain in front of the camera.

AI can help us build the stage.

People still put on the show.

That’s the balance we’re comfortable standing behind.

— studiothree / RETROcirq Studios

2 days ago | [YT] | 6

studiothree

RETROcirq Legacy and studiothree are getting leaner.

Both channels will carry Bold Originals and NonStop Express, but each will keep its own branding, presentation and personality.

Think of it as two channels sharing programming while still having different identities.

So we're curious:

With some programming appearing on both, what would give you the biggest reason to watch BOTH channels?

3 days ago | [YT] | 4

studiothree

RETROcirq Studios (the parent of StudioThree and RETROcirq) is primarily an entertainment and retro-media operation.

From time to time, however, we step outside our usual coverage of television, pop culture, media history, and nostalgia to comment on issues affecting our community. This is one of those occasions.

The following is an editorial commentary, representing our perspective on the outcome and political strategy surrounding Florida's 20th Congressional District Democratic primary. It should not be confused with straight news reporting, nor should it be interpreted as an endorsement of any political party or candidate. We encourage readers and viewers to examine the election results, reporting, and candidates' positions for themselves.

We also disclose a personal connection: we are based within District 20. This is therefore an issue affecting the community in which we live and work.

EDITORIAL: District 20: We Have No One to Blame But Ourselves

The votes have been counted.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has won the Democratic primary for Florida’s 20th Congressional District.

And before anyone rushes to point fingers at Wasserman Schultz, at party leadership, at Tallahassee, at redistricting, at money, at endorsements, or at any convenient outside force, there is an uncomfortable truth we have to confront here at RETROcirq Studios:

**We have no one to blame but ourselves.**

A disclosure before going further: **we are from District 20.** This is not an abstract political analysis from a distance. This is our community, our neighborhoods, our voters, our political reality. So yes—this one hits close to home.

And this outcome was not some sudden, unforeseeable shock.

Months before the primary, Luther Campbell, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, Dale Holness, and Elijah Manley were already engaged in discussions about consolidating the field. The concern was clear and widely understood: multiple Black candidates competing for overlapping constituencies risked splitting the vote and opening a path for Wasserman Schultz to win with a plurality.

They knew.

Local political leaders knew.

The candidates knew.

The voters knew.

And still, the negotiations collapsed.

By the filing deadline, no one stepped aside. All remained in the race.

Then Election Day arrived.

Wasserman Schultz won with roughly 46 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Dale Holness finished a distant second at roughly 23 percent, followed by Elijah Manley, Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, and Luther Campbell.

Read that first number again.

**About 46 percent.**

She did not need a majority.

She did not need an overwhelming mandate.

She needed a plurality.

And a divided field made that possible.

Now, let’s be clear: you cannot simply add the votes of her opponents and declare a guaranteed alternative outcome. Elections are not algebra problems. Voters are not interchangeable. Coalitions shift. Turnout changes. Some voters would have chosen Wasserman Schultz regardless.

But politically, the lesson remains unavoidable.

If preserving Black representation in District 20 was truly the overriding priority, then consolidation was not optional—it was essential.

Somebody had to step aside.

Maybe two people had to step aside.

Maybe more.

Instead, everyone wanted to be the candidate.

And when everyone insists on being the standard-bearer, sometimes nobody carries the standard at all.

That is why reducing this outcome to “Wasserman Schultz is to blame” misses the larger point.

Yes, you can critique her decision to run in a district long associated with Black representation. You can question the implications of a well-funded, nationally recognized incumbent entering a reshaped district after redistricting altered the political landscape. You can debate what this means for representation in South Florida.

Those are valid conversations.

But Wasserman Schultz was a candidate.

Candidates run to win.

She saw an opening and took it.

The opposition saw the same opening—and failed to close ranks.

That distinction matters.

There were conversations before the filing deadline specifically about unifying behind a single candidate to avoid exactly this outcome. Those conversations did not produce agreement. No consolidation occurred.

That is not something you can outsource to an opponent.

That is politics.

More precisely, it is what happens when political ambition outweighs political strategy.

And there is another uncomfortable truth we have to sit with: representation cannot only be defended in the aftermath of defeat.

If Black representation in District 20 is a priority—and for many voters it clearly is—then the work to preserve it must begin long before ballots are printed.

That means candidate recruitment.

That means coalition-building.

That means fundraising infrastructure.

That means voter engagement that does not peak six weeks before a primary.

And yes, it sometimes means making the hardest political decision of all:

**This is not your moment.**

That is not a slogan anyone puts on a campaign flyer.

But it is the reality of effective political organizing.

Unity is not everyone getting what they want.

Unity is alignment around a shared outcome, even when it requires personal sacrifice.

Sometimes that means endorsing a rival.

Sometimes it means stepping aside.

Sometimes it means prioritizing collective power over individual ambition.

In this case, that alignment did not happen.

And the voters ultimately made their decision.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz won.

That is democracy.

We do not have to like the outcome. We do not have to avoid debating what it means for representation in a district that has long seen Black leadership in Congress, especially in the wake of redistricting that reshaped Florida’s political map.

But democracy also requires accountability—not just for winners, but for strategy.

There will be a strong temptation to turn this into a simple villain narrative.

That is easy.

It is also incomplete.

Because Wasserman Schultz did not force four candidates to remain in the race.

She did not prevent consolidation.

She did not create the divisions that made unity impossible.

Those decisions were made within the same political ecosystem that now has to live with the result.

And now District 20 has its Democratic nominee.

So maybe the lesson of this election is not just about one candidate.

Maybe it is about us.

Because political representation is not guaranteed by demographics alone. A district can have a significant Black electorate and still elect a non-Black representative. Demographics create opportunity—but **organization determines outcome.**

And divided organization produces divided power.

Which, in practice, often means no power at all.

If representation truly matters, then the work cannot begin at the filing deadline.

It has to begin now.

Otherwise, we are not just analyzing this election.

We are rehearsing for the next one.

And next time, we may not be able to say we weren’t warned.

Editorial & AI Disclosure: This commentary reflects the views and editorial perspective of RETROcirq Studios. Generative AI tools may be used to assist with drafting, research organization, or editing, but the subjects we address, positions we take, and final editorial decisions are determined by us. AI assistance should not be interpreted as AI authorship of our opinions.

4 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 2

studiothree

A new Bold Originals begins September 17.

Starting September 17 at 10 PM Eastern, we’re changing the way we present our original programming on studiothree.

Instead of expecting every show to return every single week, our shows will now take turns in the spotlight. One week you might get VanessaVision. Another week, XOCO. Then StaffPicks, BlockCubed, Frankie & Company or Nancy’s StaffPicks.

That means more breathing room between editions, more time to work with what we’ve already filmed, and less pressure to make something simply because another week has arrived.

Most importantly, the shows aren’t going away.

They’re sharing the stage.

Expect familiar faces, some retooled formats, longer stretches between appearances, and a much more streamlined approach to how we produce and release our programming.

Bold Originals begins its new chapter September 17.

Thursdays & Fridays at 10 PM Eastern.

Same signal. Different show. See what turns up.

4 days ago | [YT] | 3

studiothree

The First Amendment Doesn't Have a Party Affiliation

Let me tell you a story from Baltimore.

Back in May 2021, then-Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby had a problem with the local news.

Her office accused Baltimore television station WBFF — FOX45 — of producing “slanted” and “distorted” coverage of Mosby and her office. The response wasn't merely a press release criticizing the station. Her communications director sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission asking the federal regulator to investigate WBFF.

Think about that for a moment.

An elected government official didn't like the way a television station was covering her administration, so her office appealed to the federal agency responsible for regulating that station's use of the public airwaves.

Media experts interviewed by WBFF called it “shooting the messenger” and described the complaint as attempted intimidation. The station's general manager responded that WBFF stood by its reporting, even when that reporting was unpopular with the people and institutions under scrutiny.

Now here's the question.

Who owned WBFF?

We'll come back to that.

Because five years later, the names have changed, the politics have changed, and the principle hasn't changed one damn bit.

Today, Disney and ABC are taking the FCC to court.

ABC, Disney and eight ABC-owned television stations filed suit against the Federal Communications Commission on August 18, arguing that the agency's unusually early review of their broadcast licenses amounts to political retaliation and violates the First Amendment. The licenses ordinarily wouldn't be up for renewal until 2028. The FCC says its actions concern matters including Disney's employment practices and broadcasters' public-interest obligations; ABC argues that the proceedings are part of a broader campaign to punish the network for programming and journalism the Trump administration dislikes.

And on this one, I'm applauding ABC.

Not because ABC is liberal.

Not because I agree with everything on *The View*. Not because Jimmy Kimmel is above criticism. Not because Disney deserves some special exemption from criticism because Mickey Mouse has good lawyers.

I'm applauding ABC because **the government does not get to sit in the editor's chair.**

That's the principle.

You can hate ABC News.

You can think FOX News is garbage.

You can believe MSNBC is hopelessly partisan. You can believe Sinclair's local stations push an ideological agenda. You can think *The View* is brilliant, unbearable or something playing in a dentist's waiting room while you're desperately trying not to listen.

None of that changes the First Amendment.

Government officials don't acquire a constitutional remote control because they don't like what's on television.

And that's where our Baltimore story becomes important.

## Same Constitution. Different Jersey.

For conservatives applauding government pressure against ABC, go back to Baltimore in 2021.

Marilyn Mosby was a Democratic elected official.

WBFF's coverage was critical of her.

Her office complained to the FCC.

And conservatives quite reasonably cried foul.

One expert told WBFF that an elected official disliking news coverage doesn't mean the outlet can be silenced. Another called the attempt an abuse of governmental power.

They were right.

But constitutional principles aren't coupons that expire when the other political party takes office.

If it was wrong for Marilyn Mosby's office to ask Washington to investigate a television station whose reporting she considered unfair, then conservatives should understand exactly why ABC is challenging federal action that it alleges is retaliation for its editorial decisions.

Likewise, liberals shouldn't suddenly discover press freedom because ABC is involved. The same principle protects conservative broadcasters, newspapers, podcasters and commentators when Democrats hold power.

That's how rights work.

The First Amendment doesn't ask who you voted for.

## And Yes, This Includes Us Little Guys

This isn't merely about billion-dollar television networks.

The underlying principle matters in the world we're actually living in now.

A YouTube channel can criticize Donald Trump.

Another YouTube channel can praise him.

A progressive TikTok creator can attack a Democratic mayor.

A conservative podcaster can criticize a Democratic governor.

A newspaper can endorse a candidate.

A television commentator can say something spectacularly stupid.

And somebody running a tiny channel from a bedroom can get on their soapbox too.

Government doesn't get to punish lawful speech simply because the person currently holding office doesn't like the message.

That doesn't mean speech is consequence-free.

This is where internet discussions about the First Amendment frequently go flying off the rails.

## Freedom of Speech Isn't Freedom From Everybody Else

The First Amendment primarily restricts **government action** against protected speech. It isn't a magical force field protecting you from every consequence of something you say.

If you knowingly make false factual claims about somebody that meet the legal requirements for defamation, that person may be able to sue you for libel or slander.

If you're employed by a private company and publicly say something that violates your employment agreement or company policies, the company may have legal grounds to discipline or terminate you, subject to applicable laws and contracts.

If you're a spokesperson and a sponsor decides your behavior no longer represents its brand, the sponsor can generally end the relationship according to its contract.

If YouTube removes something under its rules, that's a different constitutional question from the federal government ordering YouTube to silence a lawful political viewpoint. The distinction between **private moderation** and **government coercion** matters.

And criticism itself is speech.

If ABC airs something you think is dishonest, criticize ABC.

Write about it.

Change the channel.

Organize a boycott.

Cancel Disney+.

Make a three-hour YouTube video titled *WHY ABC IS DESTROYING AMERICA — PART 17* with a thumbnail featuring six red arrows and somebody making the YouTube Face.

Knock yourself out.

But using governmental regulatory authority to punish editorial speech crosses a very different line.

That's why ABC's lawsuit matters beyond ABC.

The company is asking a federal court to determine whether the FCC crossed that line. ABC alleges the accelerated license proceedings constitute coercion and censorship; the FCC maintains that broadcasters receive access to public airwaves and therefore must fulfill their public-interest obligations. That's precisely the dispute the courts now get to examine.

ABC doesn't automatically win because it invokes the First Amendment.

The government doesn't automatically win because it invokes the “public interest.”

That's what courts are for.

But ABC absolutely has the right to challenge the government — and deserves credit for finally saying: **See you in court.**

Which brings us back to Baltimore.

Remember WBFF?

The station whose journalism Marilyn Mosby's office accused of being slanted?

The station whose critics of Mosby's FCC complaint argued that government shouldn't use federal regulatory power to intimidate journalists?

The station standing on freedom-of-the-press principles?

Here's the punchline.

**WBFF is the flagship television station of Sinclair Broadcast Group.**

Yes.

*That* Sinclair.

One of the biggest conservative-leaning broadcasting companies in America.

And that's exactly why this story matters.

Because if the First Amendment protects Sinclair when a Democratic official wants the FCC investigating its journalism, then the First Amendment also protects ABC when a Republican administration takes actions the network alleges are retaliation for its journalism and programming.

You don't have to like Sinclair.

You don't have to like Disney.

You don't have to like FOX45.

You don't have to like ABC.

You don't even have to like the person speaking.

That's the whole freaking point.

**Freedom of the press isn't tested when government protects speech everybody likes. It's tested when government has the power to punish speech it doesn't.**

And whichever party happens to control Washington doesn't change the answer.

5 days ago | [YT] | 5

studiothree

Editorial- HP and the unfortunate tragedy.

We normally don’t comment on real-world events. We’re a retro television and commercial channel, and that’s where we prefer to stay.

But the unfortunate passing of Hayden Panettiere at only 36 deserves acknowledgment.

For many millennials, Hayden was part of the television landscape we grew up with—from Remember the Titans and Heroes to Nashville, Scream and, yes, those Neutrogena commercials.

Her death also reminds us that the people appearing in the old footage we preserve aren’t simply nostalgia. They’re human beings with lives far more complicated than the images television and advertising sold us.

We’ve noticed how prominently the commercial networks have covered her passing. That’s understandable, although it also illustrates an interesting reality: ABC, CBS and NBC have long existed within enormous corporate entertainment ecosystems. Hollywood is, in a sense, reporting on Hollywood.

PBS and NPR remain notable exceptions. Whatever criticisms one may have about their perceived political leanings, they still largely approach journalism as institutions of record, where the most consequential news generally comes first.

But today, our larger media criticism can wait.

Hayden Panettiere was only 36. She was a mother, daughter, sister and a familiar face to an entire generation.

We won’t speculate about the circumstances of her death. We’ll simply acknowledge the loss.

Rest in peace, Hayden Panettiere.

1989–2026.

5 days ago (edited) | [YT] | 3

studiothree

RETROcirq Is Coming Back. So What Happens to studiothree?

There is a sentence we genuinely didn’t expect to write again:

RETROcirq is coming back.

After ending RETROcirq’s original run on August 31, 2025, and finally signing off on March 25, 2026, we believed we had reached the end of a journey that began with our first upload on February 21, 2013.

We moved on.

We built studiothree.

We experimented with new formats, new personalities and new ideas. Some worked. Some didn’t. We learned what audiences responded to, what became too complicated, and what simply cost too much time and money to sustain.

And somewhere along the way, something became apparent:

Ending RETROcirq didn’t erase the reason people liked RETROcirq.

The archive was still there.

The audience was still there.

And when we recently asked viewers what should happen to the old channel, many of them didn’t ask us to rebuild RETROcirq exactly as it was.

They asked us to keep the archive active.

So we listened.

RETROcirq Returns — But Not the Old RETROcirq

The channel is being revived as RETROcirq: The Legacy Channel.

Calling it a revival requires an important qualification.

We’re not rebuilding the production operation that ended.

At its largest, RETROcirq became much more than an archive. There were original segments, characters, performers, commissioned shoots, compilations, experiments and an increasingly complicated production machine behind all of it.

There were things about that era we’re proud of.

There were also things we learned from.

The Legacy Channel is deliberately stripping that model down.

Its foundation will be the enormous library we’ve already accumulated: classic commercial breaks, television oddities, promos, IDs, compilations, archival segments and other material from throughout RETROcirq’s history.

Where appropriate, familiar faces from our past may appear again through existing footage, with respect for the wishes of the collaborators involved.

But we aren’t rebuilding an enormous cast.

We aren’t commissioning material simply because we need something to upload.

And we’re not going to spend money trying to make RETROcirq pretend it’s still 2023.

The old car is coming out of the garage.

We’re just taking a lot of unnecessary weight out of the trunk first.

So What Does This Mean for studiothree?

This is probably the biggest question.

The answer is surprisingly simple:

studiothree isn’t going anywhere.

In fact, bringing RETROcirq back this way may finally make studiothree’s purpose clearer.

studiothree does not need to become RETROcirq.

That distinction matters.

studiothree remains the place where we experiment with current original programming, personalities and formats such as Bold Originals, BlockCubed, VanessaVision, Frankie & Company, StaffPicks and whatever comes next.

RETROcirq: The Legacy Channel has another job.

RETROcirq remembers. studiothree creates.

There will naturally be some crossover. Selected studiothree programs may receive encore presentations on The Legacy Channel. A personality or format may have history connecting both brands. The two channels are produced under the same creative umbrella, so pretending they’re completely unrelated would be silly.

But they don’t need to duplicate each other.

If something premieres on studiothree and later gets a Saturday encore on RETROcirq, that’s not two channels fighting over the same program.

That’s syndication.

One creates the program.

The other gives it another window.

And Maybe That’s What We Were Missing

For much of studiothree’s first year, we were trying to answer a difficult question:

What is this channel supposed to be after RETROcirq?

Maybe part of the problem was the question itself.

studiothree doesn’t have to be after RETROcirq anymore.

It can simply be studiothree.

RETROcirq can handle its own history.

That gives both brands room to breathe.

The strange irony is that reviving RETROcirq may actually help us finally move beyond RETROcirq.

We no longer have to cram nostalgia, archival programming, original productions and every idea we have into one identity.

Now there are two lanes.

RETROcirq: The Legacy Channel preserves, curates and occasionally replays.

studiothree develops, experiments and premieres.

One looks through the rearview mirror.

The other keeps its eyes on the road ahead.

And sometimes they’ll be riding in the same car.

We’re Also Doing This Differently

There’s another lesson we’re carrying into this era.

We’re becoming much more reluctant to create something simply because we can.

A new character doesn’t automatically mean we need to hire another performer.

An empty programming slot doesn’t automatically mean we need another show.

A revived channel doesn’t automatically need another expensive production operation.

We’re increasingly asking the opposite question:

What do we already have?

There is more than a decade of RETROcirq material sitting in the library.

There are existing studiothree programs.

There are performers and characters we’ve already invested in.

There are hundreds of hours of material waiting to be curated rather than replaced.

That’s where we’re starting.

Not with another casting call.

Not with another giant production slate.

With the library.

This Isn’t Us Pretending the Ending Never Happened

RETROcirq’s original run still ended August 31, 2025.

We still signed off March 25, 2026.

Those decisions were real.

We needed the ending.

What we’re doing now exists precisely because we had the opportunity to walk away, look at RETROcirq from a distance and decide what was actually worth carrying forward.

Some things aren’t coming back.

Some collaborators have moved on, and their wishes regarding their likeness and footage will continue to be respected.

Some formats belonged to their moment.

Some ideas simply weren’t sustainable.

A legacy isn’t everything that happened.

It’s what remains meaningful afterward.

That’s what The Legacy Channel is supposed to represent.

The Engine Started

We’ve been using a car metaphor throughout this process because, somehow, it keeps fitting.

We parked RETROcirq.

Turned everything off.

Walked away.

Eventually we came back into the garage.

Not because we wanted to recreate every road trip we’d ever taken, but because we started wondering whether there was still some life in the old machine.

There was.

So we’re not rebuilding it from scratch.

We’re making it lighter.

We’re keeping the parts that work.

We’re respecting the pieces that aren’t coming back.

And we’re putting it on a different road.

Meanwhile, studiothree keeps driving forward.

Maybe that’s the relationship these two brands needed all along.

One carries the history.

The other carries the future.

And now they can coexist without either one pretending to be the other.

RETROcirq: The Legacy Channel.

The engine is running again.

The past plays on.

1 week ago | [YT] | 5

studiothree

Editorial: How to Save Local Television: Sometimes You Have to Let a Station Die

Maybe we’ve been asking the wrong question.

Everybody wants to know how we “save local television.”

Our answer?

First decide what’s actually worth saving.

Because saving local journalism is not the same thing as saving every television station.

Saving broadcasting is not the same thing as guaranteeing the survival of every licensee.

And preserving local information certainly isn’t the same thing as preserving every corporation that currently distributes it.

If consolidation, deregulation, layoffs and perpetual cost-cutting are the only tools remaining to keep some broadcasters alive, perhaps it’s time to consider the alternative nobody wants to discuss.

Call it a day.

No bailout.

No guarantee of corporate immortality.

No assumption that because you’ve held a broadcast license for decades, you’re entitled to hold it forever.

Sometimes failure is failure.

And sometimes replacing the institution may be healthier than endlessly trying to rescue it.

The license isn’t the station’s birthright

Broadcast history has precedent for something far more dramatic than consolidation.

Boston knows this particularly well.

The original WHDH-TV on Channel 5 became embroiled in a long-running licensing battle. Ultimately, its license was not renewed, and in 1972 a new licensee took over Channel 5 as WCVB-TV.

A decade later, Boston television went through another extraordinary transition.

WNAC-TV lost its battle to retain Channel 7, and in 1982 the frequency passed to a new licensee operating as WNEV-TV—the station that eventually became today’s WHDH-TV.

Those histories are legally complicated and shouldn’t be reduced to “the FCC didn’t like the station and shut it down.”

But the broader principle is important:

A broadcast license is not property in perpetuity.

The public airwaves belong to the public.

A company receives permission to use them.

That’s a privilege with responsibilities attached.

Maybe we’ve forgotten that.

Today’s debate seems to begin with the assumption that existing broadcasters must survive somehow.

If advertising collapses, consolidate.

If audiences decline, consolidate.

If Big Tech becomes more powerful, consolidate.

If network economics deteriorate, deregulate.

If all of that fails, apparently consolidate some more.

At what point are we allowed to say:

Maybe this particular business doesn’t work anymore?

Capitalism includes failure

This is where broadcasters can’t have it both ways.

Corporate America has spent generations defending free markets.

Fine.

Then accept the entire package.

Capitalism doesn’t guarantee that every company survives.

There are winners and losers.

Businesses close.

Assets get sold.

Competitors emerge.

Industries restructure.

New technologies destroy old business models and create new ones.

That’s creative destruction.

So if a television station genuinely cannot remain economically viable without joining an enormous national station group, perhaps selling or surrendering the license should be part of the conversation.

Let somebody else try.

Maybe it’s another commercial broadcaster.

Maybe it’s an independent operator.

Maybe it’s a locally based ownership group.

Maybe it’s a nonprofit.

Maybe it’s public media.

Maybe nobody can make the economics work and the spectrum eventually finds another use.

But “we must preserve the incumbent corporation” should not automatically equal “we must preserve local television.”

We’ve done it ourselves

And here’s where we’re obligated to acknowledge our own experience.

We aren’t saying this comfortably from the sidelines.

We did it ourselves.

RETROcirq’s original content ended in August 2025.

On March 25, 2026, we finally made the decision to shut that chapter down.

We could have kept dragging it along.

We could have continued spending money trying to preserve something because we were emotionally attached to the name.

We could have convinced ourselves that because we’d invested years into it, RETROcirq somehow deserved to continue.

It didn’t.

We reached a point where preserving the institution was less important than preserving the creativity behind it.

So we accepted reality.

The ideas could continue elsewhere.

The people could continue elsewhere.

The lessons could continue elsewhere.

But the old operation didn’t have to.

That’s the distinction broadcasters need to understand.

Sometimes ending something is not failure.

Sometimes refusing to end it is.

Breakups shouldn’t be taboo either

There’s another possibility.

Maybe some broadcast groups simply become too large.

If regulators conclude that excessive concentration harms competition, localism or viewpoint diversity, breaking companies apart should not be treated as some unimaginable act of economic vandalism.

We’ve broken up concentrated businesses before.

We’ve blocked mergers before.

We’ve forced divestitures before.

Broadcasting shouldn’t somehow become exempt from competition policy simply because the industry faces competition from Google and YouTube.

In fact, if localism is supposedly broadcasting’s greatest strength, smaller ownership structures deserve serious consideration.

Let stations become independent.

Let affiliates walk away from networks when the economics no longer make sense.

WJXT survived without CBS.

WHDH survived without NBC.

WPLG chose independence from ABC.

Football or no football.

A network affiliation isn’t a constitutional right either.

Maybe some stations discover that independence makes them stronger.

Maybe others discover that it doesn’t.

Let them compete.

And yes, some stations may disappear

That’s the uncomfortable part.

Saving local television might actually require fewer television stations.

It might require failed licensees disappearing.

It might require ownership groups being broken apart.

It might require licenses changing hands.

It might require independent stations replacing affiliates.

It might require entirely new organizations providing local journalism.

And yes, that would hurt.

People could lose jobs.

Communities could lose familiar brands.

Decades-old call letters could disappear.

Nobody should celebrate that human cost.

But keeping an unsustainable company alive indefinitely doesn’t eliminate that reckoning.

It postpones it.

If the choice becomes endless consolidation or accepting that some broadcasters have reached the end of the road, we choose the latter.

Let it die.

Then let someone else build.

Because what matters isn’t whether a particular corporate logo survives.

It’s whether someone covers the hurricane.

Someone attends the school board meeting.

Someone investigates city hall.

Someone reports from the neighborhood everyone else forgot.

Someone tells the community what happened today.

That person doesn’t necessarily need to work for ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox.

They don’t necessarily need to work for Nexstar, Sinclair, Gray or Tegna.

Hell, they don’t necessarily need a television transmitter.

They need resources, credibility, independence and an audience.

That’s what needs saving.

Save the mission, not every institution

We’re YouTubers, so naturally there’s hypocrisy in making this argument.

Digital platforms helped disrupt the very industry we’re discussing.

We’ve also never spent our careers working inside a local television newsroom, and we’re not going to pretend otherwise.

But perhaps that distance makes the distinction clearer.

We don’t want local journalism to die.

We don’t want community broadcasting to die.

We don’t want journalists to disappear.

But we’re increasingly unwilling to accept the proposition that protecting those things requires protecting every existing broadcaster.

It doesn’t.

If a station can reinvent itself, fantastic.

If independence works, go independent.

If new ownership can revive it, sell it.

If an ownership group has become too concentrated, break it apart.

And if absolutely none of that works?

Turn off the transmitter.

Surrender the license.

Call it a day.

Then give somebody else a chance.

No bailout required.

Because sometimes the best way to save an industry isn’t keeping everything alive.

Sometimes you clear away what no longer works so something better finally has room to grow.

1 week ago | [YT] | 5

studiothree

A question about what happens after October 30.

First, let’s be clear: nothing is changing with our current fall plans.

The current studiothree season will continue as planned through October 30. We’re committed to finishing what we started.

What we’re discussing is what comes afterward.

Over the past year, studiothree has given us a place to experiment with new hosts, new shows, new formats and a different approach to retro programming. We’ve learned quite a bit from it—what works, what doesn’t, and what we realistically want to continue producing.

Now we’re considering whether the next chapter should bring studiothree and our original RETROcirq identity closer together.

One possibility:

studiothree becomes RETROcirq Studios — the active home for our current and future programming, including Bold Originals and NonStop Express.

Our former channel would continue as RETROcirq Legacy — preserving classic RETROcirq programming, with the possibility of selected simulcasts and encore presentations.

This would not mean going backward to the old RETROcirq format. The shows, ideas and lessons developed through studiothree would move forward with us.

Or we could simply keep building studiothree.

So, after October 30, what would you rather see?

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 3

studiothree

People.

We’d like to make it clear that this documentary RETROcirq studios have zero editorial control over what was said but at the same time I’d do like to make a few corrections:

*All of the original content including the mimes will air as part of our Bold Originals Block.

*We hold no ill will, but even if we lose more subs, integrity matters.

We want to thank ‪@CinematicBrainDamage‬ for sharing the story. -Y

3 weeks ago | [YT] | 5