I’ve only been writing this blog for about ten months. It just seems like much longer. But now, it’s time to move on to something else.

This is the last Media Biz entry. Starting on Monday, Jan. 28, I will no longer be covering the business of media and entertainment. Instead, I will be writing a daily column called Morning Buzz that will go up on CNNMoney.com shortly after the opening bell and focus on the big market and economic news of the day.

You’ll be able to find that column at this URL on Monday. And you should be able to subscribe to an RSS feed of it by clicking here. (Again, these links should hopefully be live by late Monday morning or early afternoon) I hope that many of you who have enjoyed this blog will start making Morning Buzz a regular part of your daily routine.

It’s been fun covering the media and technology sectors for CNNMoney.com for the past five years but it’s time for something new. From time to time, I will still touch on big trends and companies in media. Heck, Yahoo! (YHOO) and Google (GOOG) both report earnings next week. And companies such as Apple (AAPL), News Corp. (NWS), Comcast (CMCSA), Walt Disney (DIS) and, of course, my parent company Time Warner (TWX) should continue to be pretty newsworthy.

But I am looking forward to having the flexibility to cover broader market and macroeconomic trends, and not have to focus on just the ins and outs of the media business - which, let’s be honest, is often an industry that only fellow journalists and public relations people really obsess about.

Speaking of my colleagues in the PR world, it’s been great dealing with many of you. If you work with any economists, market strategists or fund managers, feel free to keep sending them my way, since I would like to stay in touch with big picture thinkers for my new column. However, it would be greatly (and I can’t stress enough how greatly) appreciated if you no longer send me pitches about individual companies in the media and entertainment and technology sectors.

So that’s it. It’s been a blast. Thanks to all of you who have contributed comments and e-mails during the past ten months. I look forward to hearing your feedback about Morning Buzz.

Are regulators finally set to make a decision about the merger between Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) and XM Satellite Radio (XMSR)? Investors are once again betting that this is the case.

Briefing.com, a site that is widely followed by traders, is citing an unnamed report Wednesday morning saying that “XMSR-SIRI merger could receive approval from DoJ and FCC tonight.” That isn’t much in the way of any real information. but don’t tell that to Wall Street.

Shares of XM were up nearly 4 percent in mid-morning trading while Sirius’ stock gained more than 5 percent. This is worth noting considering that the rest of the stock market, and the tech sector in particular, is trading lower Wednesday, thanks in large part to Apple’s (AAPL) disappointing outlook.

But as I’ve pointed out repeatedly since chatter that approval of this deal was said to be “imminent” in late November, it’s silly for investors to try and bet on when exactly the Department of Justice and Federal Communications Commission will issue their rulings.

Spokesmen for both Sirius and XM declined to comment on the latest speculation as did spokeswomen at the FCC and DOJ.

I still think the merger should, and will, eventually be approved. But this is a complicated deal so nothing is certain. And even though it may seem that the DOJ and FCC are dragging their feet on it, recent history shows that the regulators are not taking that much longer to review this merger than they have for other deals that have antitrust implications. As I reported last week, the FCC took longer than its informal 180-day guideline to approve AT&T’s (T) purchase of BellSouth in 2006, as well as Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner’s (TWX) purchase of bankrupt cable company Adelphia. (Time Warner also owns CNNMoney.com.)

There is nothing to suggest that a ruling is going to be announced today, this week, or even this month. So my words of advice to anxious Sirius and XM shareholders would be “Patience, grasshopper. Patience.” Stop buying and selling on unsubstantiated rumors and just sit back and wait for the inevitable, although not necessarily imminent, announcement.

And the financial riches from the Academy Award nominations go to….Walt Disney (DIS) and Viacom (VIAB)!

Disney and Viacom are the biggest winners from this morning’s Oscar nominations. That’s because the two media giants are listed as co-producers for the two movies that scored the most nods, including coveted Best Picture nominations. “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” each produced by Viacom’s Paramount Vantage and Disney’s Miramax, wound up with 8 nominations.

In addition to Best Picture nominations, “There Will Be Blood” star Daniel Day-Lewis was nominated for Best Actor while “No Country for Old Men’s” Javier Bardem received a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

Why is this financially significant? According to a 2001 study by Colby College professor Randy Nelson, a Best Picture nomination could add, on average, nearly $6 million in ticket sales for a film between the day the nominations are announced and the Oscar telecast. And the winning film could stand to get another $16 million.

Best Actor and Best Actress nominations could add an estimated $1 million to the box office while the films featuring winners in those categories could get another $5 million or so. Nominations for Best Supporting Actor and Actress also help lift box office, although not by a substantial amount.

In the past few years, nominations have been crucial to box office success of Oscar-nominated films, particularly since the Academy has recently shown a tendency to honor films that weren’t big box office draws initially. Best Picture nominations were a boon for “Brokeback Mountain” in 2006 and for “Million Dollar Baby” in 2005.

Still, nominations often aren’t as significant for movies that already were doing well financially. That was the case with “The Departed,” last year’s Oscar winner for Best Picture. It already had grossed more than $100 million before the nominations were announced.

But nominations can also help lift DVD sales, particularly for nominated movies that are out of theaters by the time nominations are announced. This is key as DVDs have become an increasingly important part of the revenue stream for media conglomerates.

“Little Miss Sunshine” enjoyed a bump in DVD sales shortly after Oscar nominations were announced last year. And DVD sales of “Crash,” which wound up beating “Brokeback Mountain” for Best Picture two years ago, also got a nice bump after nominations were announced.

“In the most recent years, DVDs have benefited more from Oscar nominations and awards,” Nelson said in an interview with me today.

So Oscar nominations do matter. And most of the major media companies had reasons to be happy Tuesday. News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox scored a Best Picture nomination for the comedy “Juno.” And star Ellen Page was nominated for Best Actress. Time Warner’s (TWX) Warner Bros. received a Best Picture nomination for “Michael Clayton” as well as Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress nominations for George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton. (Time Warner also owns CNNMoney.com.)

The final Best Picture nomination went to “Atonement,” the adaptation of the popular Ian McEwan novel that was released by Focus Features, which is owned by GE’s (GE) Universal unit. “Atonement,” which won the Golden Globe for Best Picture — Drama — did lose out in the Best Actor and Actress categories though as stars James McAvoy and Kiera Knightley were snubbed. Thirteen-year old Saorise Ronan did get a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her potrayal as young Briony Tallis, however.

Of course, it is still up in the air whether or not there will actually be a televised awards ceremony due to the Hollywood writers’ strike. But Nelson’s study indicates, that as actors and actresses are fond of saying on the red carpet before the show, it is an honor just to be nominated.

So even though winners may not receive as much fanfare as in years past, all the films with major nominations are likely to benefit from increased marketing hype in the next month as the studios will be quick to tout all their award contenders.

Paramount, the movie studio owned by media conglomerate Viacom (VIAB), is about to find out if a summer popcorn flick can do well during the dead of winter.

“Cloverfield,” a sci-fi movie about a mysterious monster wreaking havoc on New York City (again? Why couldn’t we have an urban disaster film based in, I don’t know, Dallas or Boston?) will hit theaters Friday.

Hopes are high that the movie, which has generated lots of buzz since its cryptic trailer was first shown in theaters last July before “Transformers,” could not only make big money for January but big money for any month.

January usually is not a strong month at the box office. That’s because studios usually are content to ride the coattails of movies released in December as well as re-release movies that are likely to get Academy Award nominations. It’s pretty rare for a “new” release in January to become a big hit.

In fact, the current record for a January release is the special edition re-release of “Star Wars” in 1997. It grossed $35.9 million during its opening weekend, according to figures from movie research firm Box Office Mojo.

But Jeff Bock, a box office analyst with movie research firm Exhibitor Relations, thinks there is a good chance that “Cloverfield” could break this record and possibly make as much as $50 million during its first four days, which include the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day federal holiday on Monday.

“Paramount did an amazing job promoting this film. It could be a game changer that shows you can open a film with the right amount of hype at any point on the calendar,” Bock said.

A blog that focuses on movie ad campaigns — Movie Marketing Madness — has a pretty extensive and detailed look at the specifics behind the “Cloverfield” marketing machine.

In addition to the first trailer - which showed footage of the monster’s attack courtesy of a bunch of young adults filming a friend’s party, ended with a shot of the Statue of Liberty’s head landing with a thud on a Manhattan street - Paramount has set up an elaborate Web site for the film that Bock said reminds him of the online marketing done for “The Blair Witch Project.”

That film, which was shot with handheld cameras and purported to be based on a true story, wound up grossing more than $140 million at the box office in the U.S., making it one of the most successful independent films of all time. Artisan, the small studio that distributed “Blair Witch,” has since been bought by publicly held Lionsgate (LGF).

But is “Cloverfield” really a guaranteed hit?

After all, the only big “name” behind the movie, which features a relatively unknown cast, is J.J. Abrams. He’s one of the producers of the film and is best known for being one of the main creative forces behind the TV shows “Felicity,” “Alias” and “Lost.”

And just because a lot of bloggers are actively yakking about a movie online doesn’t necessarily mean that these people are going to tear themselves from their computers, head down to their local multiplex and plop down $10 or so for a movie ticket. Remember “Snakes on a Plane” in the summer of 2006? That film wound up being a huge flop despite having a ton of online buzz - mostly for its kitschy title, premise and the promise of star Samuel L. Jackson using his favorite expletive to describe said snakes.

Still, Bock said he’s fairly certain “Cloverfield” will dominate the box office this weekend. He said the only other two major new releases - “Mad Money” and “27 Dresses” - are both being marketed to a similar demographic of young women and may wind up “getting lost in the shuffle.” “27 Dresses” is being released by News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox while “Mad Money” is being released by Overture Films, a studio owned by John Malone’s Liberty Media (LCAPA).

So even though audiences have already had plenty of opportunities to watch New York get pummeled by aliens, meteors and tidal waves (just to name a few) during the past few years, Bock thinks Paramount should feel confident that it will make back the relatively modest $25 million production budget for “Cloverfield” during its first weekend.

“This film has blockbuster written all over it,” Bock said.

And Viacom, which was the best performing big media conglomerate stock last year thanks in large part to a turnaround in the box office fortunes at Paramount, better hope Bock is right.

Are we in a recession or not? Well, investors in the big five media conglomerates seem to think so.

Shares of my parent company Time Warner (TWX) are down nearly 5 percent. And it’s not alone. News Corp. (NWS) has fallen 7 percent this year. Walt Disney (DIS) is down nearly 8 percent in 2008. Viacom (VIAB) has shed 9 percent of its value while its former corporate sibling CBS (CBS) has plummeted 14 percent.

CBS, Time Warner, Disney and News Corp. are all trading near 52-week lows, and each stock is down between 15 percent and 20 percent for the past three months. Viacom, 2007’s best-performing media stock, has held up slightly better over the past few months thanks to a rebound in ratings at the company’s cable networks, as well as strong box office performance from its Paramount and DreamWorks movie studios. Viacom’s stock is about 20 percent above its 52-week low.

But the steep sell-off in media stocks so far this year — all but Time Warner have taken a bigger hit than the S&P 500 — raises concerns about whether the group can possibly do well in 2008. In addition to the recession fears, which have some media experts wondering about a pullback in ad spending, the Hollywood writers’ strike could wreak havoc on sales and earnings this year.

So far, the big TV networks and studios have maintained that the strike is not hurting them. But with the strike now in its eleventh week and with no end in sight, there is a risk that the networks won’t be able to have much in the way of new programming for the 2008-2009 television season.

David Joyce, an analyst with Miller Tabak & Co., said that the hotly contested presidential race might help the media companies somewhat, but that the strike and economic weakness would outweigh any gains from political ad spending.

“For the conglomerates, there’s the strike effect and recession fears. There is usually a high degree of correlation between advertising spending and the economy,” Joyce said.

Joyce said analysts may be forced to trim earnings estimates for the big media companies over the next few quarters because of the strike and sluggish economy. He said CBS is probably most at risk given that it generates a large percentage of sales and profits from its broadcast network.

Still, Joyce thinks investors with a long-term approach might want to take a gamble on Disney and News Corp. since he believes valuations are reasonable — Disney trades at about 6 times 2008 earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, a key measure of profitability in the media business, while News Corp. trades at around 8.5 times EBITDA estimates for fiscal 2009, which ends in June of that year.

Joyce said he also likes both companies because they have more diverse revenue streams than rivals. Disney, for example, has a big theme parks division while News Corp. has the most global exposure of all the media titans.

“Most of the bad news is priced in and there is value if you can buy and hold for at least a year,” he said.

However, that may sound like a familiar, not to mention hollow, refrain for media investors.

The media companies have continued to be good value plays for some time,” said Robin Diedrich, an analyst with Edward Jones. “Media has been unloved for a number of years.”

Yet, she also thinks there are opportunities in the media sector. She likes Viacom best because she believes that companies with the most exposure to the cable networks business should do well since cable advertising is expected to grow at a higher pace in 2008 than other forms of traditional media, such as radio, newspapers and broadcast television.

Diedrich added that the cable network business is also attractive — and slightly more immune to a recession — because cable networks generate revenue not just from advertising but from fees paid by cable providers like Comcast (CMCSA) to carry the channels. Time Warner, News Corp. and Disney could also benefit from this trend since they also own popular cable networks.

Both Diedrich and Joyce also said they think Time Warner is a decent value now and that the company could benefit from possible restructuring. The company has a new CEO — Jeff Bewkes — and there has been a lot of speculation about Bewkes considering a full spin-off of majority owned subsidiary Time Warner Cable (TWC) as well as a possible sale or spin-off of the AOL Internet unit, which has been in turnaround mode for some time.

Still, as long as recession fears weigh on the markets, it’s hard to predict when these stocks will recover.

“Consumer discretionary stocks have been hit hard in 2008 and media is no exception,” Diedrich said.

In other words, media stocks probably haven’t hit bottom yet.

“I’m getting the sense that we won’t be out of this economic slowdown until the middle of the year, if not later,” Joyce conceded.

Merriam-Webster defines the word “imminent” as “ready to take place.” And back in late November, investors were led to believe, courtesy of a Bear Stearns analyst report, that Department of Justice approval of the merger between Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI) and XM Satellite Radio (XMSR) was “imminent.”

But it’s now more than a month and a half later and there has been no ruling from either the DOJ or the Federal Communications Commission, which must also give the deal its blessing, about the merger. So much for “imminent.”

Investors are getting increasingly nervous. Shares of Sirius have plunged nearly 26 percent since November 30 while XM’s stock has plummeted 31 percent. Investors were betting at the end of last year that a deal would be approved, but as each day goes by without any news from Washington, doubts grow about whether Sirius and XM will be allowed to merge.

To be sure, the uncertainty in Washington is not the only thing weighing on the shares of the two companies. Bleak economic readings have sparked recession fears. And since both companies depend heavily on auto sales for new subscribers, it stands to reason that a pullback in consumer spending could curb growth for Sirius and XM.

But as I wrote late last year, I still think the deal will probably go through. The companies have agreed to give consumers a so-called “a la carte” option if the merger is approved, meaning subscribers would be able to pick and choose stations from Sirius and XM for a lower monthly rate than the standard $12.95 a month plan that the two companies currently offer.

FCC chairman Kevin Martin is a big fan of a la carte programming choices — he’s been pressuring cable companies to offer such a plan to consumers — so this concession by Sirius and XM may have very well sealed the deal with the FCC.

A spokesperson from the FCC had no comment. But according to the FCC’s Web site, it is now day 222 of the deal review process — and decisions on mergers have often been handed down within 180 days. But the 180 day cutoff is merely an informal guideline. Other recent complex media deals have taken much longer for the FCC to rule on — it took 404 days for the FCC to approve the acquisition of bankrupt cable provider Adelphia by Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner (TWX), for example. (Time Warner also owns CNNMoney.com.)

And according to an article in The Wall Street Journal today, Martin said in a press conference yesterday that he hopes the review will be completed by the end of March and that he did not think the FCC would issue a decision before the DOJ.

But it’s a bit trickier trying to figure out how the DOJ will rule.

On the one hand, it’s undeniable that a merger of Sirius and XM would create a monopoly since they are currently the only two companies with satellite radio licenses. But I, and many others, have argued that a merger may not necessarily harm competition and be bad for consumers since Sirius and XM also compete with traditional free radio powerhouses like CBS (CBS) and Clear Channel Communications (CCU), as well as mobile music devices such as Apple’s (AAPL) iPod and iPhone.

A spokeswoman for the DOJ’s antitrust division told me today that the review is still an “ongoing open investigation.”

Joe Bonner, an analyst with Argus Research, thinks investors are overreacting to the lack of news from regulators. Sure, the companies and investors were hoping the deal would be wrapped up before the end of last year. But given the complex issues regarding the merger, investors may still be left waiting once the one-year anniversary of the merger announcement rolls around on Feb. 19.

“Nobody really knows how long it will take. The FCC and DOJ say they have a lot of data to go through. I still think it’s a good deal and I don’t think the delay really means anything since the government takes a long time to do anything,” Bonner said.

So it’s probably a mistake to assume that the longer the review process takes, the less likely it is that the merger will be approved. But it may be time for traders to give up trying to time exactly when the DOJ and FCC will make their decision.

There’s an old wall Street axiom: Buy on the rumor and sell on the news. But in the case of Netflix (NFLX) and speculation about an iTunes movie rental service, this was a case of sell on the rumor, sell on the news.

Shares of Netflix tumbled nearly 6 percent Tuesday afternoon once Apple (AAPL) CEO Steve Jobs told everyone at Macworld that Apple had reached an agreement with all the major movie studios for downloadable movie rentals via iTunes.

The news shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody following Apple and Netflix as rumors have swirled since shortly after Christmas that Apple was talking to News Corp.’s (NWS) Fox about an iTunes rental service. As such, shares of Netflix have already taken a beating, plummeting more than 20 percent since December 26.

But Wall Street may be overreacting. James McQuivey, media and technology analyst with Forrester Research, said investors should not interpret iTunes movie rentals as competition for Neftlix as much as it is a rival to video on demand services offered by cable giants like Comcast (CMCSA) and Time Warner Cable (TWC), which like CNNMoney.com, is a subsidiary of Time Warner (TWX).

“This really isn’t a shot at Netflix. It’s more a shot at cable companies since their video on demand services is so lousy, McQuivey said. “Apple is trying to capitalize on the fact that your cable company doesn’t do a good job with video on demand.”

McQuivey said that there is still demand for renting DVDs since doing so gives consumers more flexibility about when they actually decide to sit down and watch a movie. In the case of the iTunes rentals, on the other hand, you have 30 days to watch it. And once you start watching a movie, you must finish doing so within 24 hours.

So call me crazy. (I’ve been called worse.) But it seems like today might be a good one to take advantage of Netflix’s stock weakness.

As I pointed out earlier this month, Netflix has its own digital distribution plans. What’s more, the DVD rental business still appears to be in decent shape, especially since it appears that the bloody price war between Netflix and Blockbuster (BBI) may finally be abating.

And Netflix’s stock, which in the past has traded at an exorbitantly high valuation, now looks reasonably attractive. Shares, following today’s dip, are trading at about 24 times 2008 earnings estimates. Yes, this is probably going to be a tough year for Netflix, with analysts predicting sales growth of just 9 percent and earnings growth of only 3 percent. But analysts are forecasting annual profit growth of about 18 percent a year, on average, for the next few years.

So even though Wall Street is acting as if Steve Jobs will soon put Netflix out of business, savvy investors should look past these overblown fears.

Writer’s strike? What writer’s strike? You can probably forgive News Corp. (NWS)-owned Fox for not fretting too much about the ratings impact of the Writers Guild of America strike, which now is entering its eleventh week.

Sure, as I’ve argued before, the WGA walkout should eventually hurt all the big networks. And it’s in the best interest that the studios and writers come to an amicable solution sooner rather than later. But Fox has held up fine so far.

According to figures from ratings tracker Nielsen Media Research, Fox is the only network that has seen its ratings for both overall viewers and the lucrative 18-49 year-old demographic that causes advertisers to drool like Pavlov’s dogs increase so far this TV season. (Data is through the week that ended Jan. 6.)

And even though Fox is still in fourth place among 18-49 year-olds, trailing Walt Disney’s (DIS) ABC, GE (GE)-owned NBC and CBS (CBS), Fox probably won’t be in fourth for long. That’s because the network’s singing contest juggernaut “American Idol” returns for its seventh season on Jan. 15. Fox is also likely to get a huge boost from Super Bowl XLII, which it will air on Feb. 3.

“Most people agree they’ll win adults 18-49 again. ‘American Idol’ is immune from the writer’s strike. And besides ‘Idol’ and the Super Bowl, they didn’t have a disastrous fourth-quarter like they usually have,” said Brad Adgate, senior vice president of corporate research for Horizon Media, a media buying firm.

“American Idol,” despite a ratings dip last year, still finished the 2006-2007 season as the highest and second-highest rated regular shows in prime-time television. The “Idol” results show on Wednesday nights averaged 30 million viewers while the performance shows on Tuesday averaged 29.5 million viewers - putting “Idol” well ahead of the ratings for ABC’s “Dancing with the Stars” and other top-ten shows such as CBS’ “CSI” and ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy.” Those shows tend to average about 18 million to 20 million people a week. Read the rest of this entry »

Will all those 20-somethings on MySpace soon be able to use another News Corp. (NWS) subsidiary to help them find a job?

The New York Times‘ DealBook blog reported Thursday, citing another blog post on Seeking Alpha from Tuesday, that News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch had sent a letter to online recruitment company Monster Worldwide (MNST) offering $4.8 billion for the firm. Shares of Monster surged as much as 6 percent in pre-market trading. That came on the heels of a more than 4 percent pop in Monster’s stock in regular trading on the Nasdaq Wednesday.

But not so fast. News Corp. shot down the reports Thursday morning. “News Corporation has not made an offer for Monster Worldwide,” spokeswoman Teri Everett said in an e-mail. The denial of the Monster rumor sent the stock tumbling 2 percent after the opening bell.

To be sure, buying Monster could make sense for News Corp. since a career site would complement not just the company’s newly acquired Wall Street Journal and the rest of Dow Jones but all of News Corp.’s newspapers. In fact, News Corp.’s Fox Interactive Media unit made a small investment in online job search engine Simply Hired in April 2006.

What’s more, before the Monster rumors, News Corp. was supposedly hankering to buy professional social networking site LinkedIn. Check out my video interview with LinkedIn CEO Dan Nye last month for more about the News Corp. rumor.

Still, the timing doesn’t seem right for News Corp. to do another multi-billion dollar deal. The company’s stock has fallen in recent months on concerns not just about the overall economy but also that the $5 billion deal for Dow Jones could be a sign the company may be overspending in its zeal to increase its digital media assets.

There has also been speculation that News Corp. might consider a bid for the Weather Channel and its Weather.com properties now that Weather Channel owner Landmark Communications has put itself on the shopping block. There has been talk that the Weather Channel could sell for as high as $5 billion. Would News Corp. really want to spend another $10 billion so soon after taking over Dow Jones?

Plus, from Monster’s perspective, it’s not as if takeover rumors are anything new. I wrote two years ago about speculation that Google (GOOG) might want to make a bid for Monster. Didn’t happen. Yahoo! (YHOO), which owns Monster competitor HotJobs, and newspaper publisher Gannett (GCI), which owns a stake in Monster rival CareerBuilder.com, have also been cited as possible suitors for Monster.

And rumors have been running rampant about an imminent Monster sale ever since Sal Iannuzzi took over as CEO last April. The sole reason for the speculation is simply that the last company Iannuzzi led, Symbol Technologies, wound up selling out to Motorola (MOT) shortly after Iannuzzi joined Symbol.

So will Monster eventually sell out? It’s possible. But if the company was unable to agree on a deal when the stock was trading substantially higher — shares have plunged nearly 40 percent since the beginning of last year — it’s tough to imagine someone as savvy as Iannuzzi agreeing to a deal on the cheap.

The rumored $4.8 billion price for Monster values the company at about $37.50 a share. Last spring, analysts were chattering about Monster possibly being worth $60 a share in a takeover.

Despite concerns about a recession and weak job market hurting Monster, analysts expect sales to increase 15 percent this year and earnings to increase 30 percent. For the next few years, analysts are forecasting annual profit growth of 25 percent a year, on average, for the next few years. Monster’s stock will eventually bounce back. So selling at what could be close to the bottom would be a monstrously bad move.

The political pundits may say that Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain came out of the New Hampshire primary as the biggest winners.  But on Wall Street, it’s looking like local television station owners, who can probably now expect even more money to be spent on political advertising ahead of Super Duper Tuesday on February 5, stand to gain the most from the resurgence of Clinton and McCain.

Speaking at a Citigroup media and telecom conference in Phoenix this afternoon, News Corp. (NWS) president and chief operating officer Peter Chernin said that the results of New Hampshire are “a tremendous positive for the local television business.” News Corp. owns the Fox broadcast network as well as several local television stations.

Chernin also went as far to say that competitor CBS (CBS), which in addition to owning the national CBS network owns 39 local stations, could be a big beneficiary of a boost in political ad spending. But Wall Street wasn’t impressed. Shares of the Eye Network fell about 1.6 percent Wednesday.

But CBS was the exception. Shares of News Corp. rose 2.2 percent Wednesday and they were not the only company with exposure to local TV to rally on what turned out to be another volatile day on Wall Street.

Shares of Media General (MEG) gained 2.3 percent Wednesday. The newspaper publisher also owns 32 local TV stations, and broadcasting sales account for about 40 percent of the company’s total revenue. Shares of pure play local station operators fared even better. Nexstar Broadcasting (NXST) gained nearly 6 percent, Sinclair Broadcasting Group (SBGI) rose 7 percent and Lin TV (TVL) surged nearly 8 percent.

So it seems safe to say that regardless of the political leanings of local station executives, many are probably hoping to see McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee all remain competitive for the GOP nod following next week’s Michigan primary and that Clinton, Obama and Edwards all continue to fight it out in Nevada, South Carolina and into early February for the Democratic nomination.

As long as the presidential race remains wide open, the money should keep flowing freely from the candidates into the coffers of the local TV stations.