WMTW did a very brief recitation of talking points from both sides of the dispute, drawing on official statements; it was buried at the end of the A-block. Online, they dismissed TWC's claims of a 300% increase being demanded by Hearst as exaggerated.http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine/Important-update-for-Time-Warner-Cable-Subscribers/-/8792012/15123094/-/2i7d4m/-/index.html
WCSH led the A-block of both the 5PM and 6PM newscasts with the story, with reporter Caroline Cornish doing an on-camera interview with WMTW GM David Abel (who just happens to be Channel 6's former General Sales Manager.) The station's tech guru also gave a rundown of methods for watching WMTW's network and syndicated fare online.http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/206817/314/WMTW-pulled-from-Time-Warner-Cable
WGME didn't cover the dispute at all.
So, what kind of editorial judgment went into the varying coverage decisions? Was WCSH's heavy coverage driven by their past association with Abel (for good or ill?) Was WGME reluctant to cover another station's retrans dispute given its recent history with TWC? You be the judge...