UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant ☒    Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ☐

Check the appropriate box:

TEGNA Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

MARCH 12, 2018

Dear Shareholder:

On behalf of your Board of Directors and management, we cordially invite you to attend the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 26, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. ET at the Company’s headquarters located at 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22107.

At this meeting, our shareholders will vote on matters set forth in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement. We also will provide a report on our Company, including an update on the Company’s performance as we approach the one-year anniversary of the spin-off of Cars.com, and entertain questions of general interest to shareholders.

2017 was a truly transformative year for our Company—by spinning off Cars.com and concluding our evaluation of strategic alternatives for CareerBuilder by selling a majority ownership interest to a group led by investment funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, we completed our transformation into a pure-play media company focused on being a best-in-class operator, transforming our content, sales and marketing offerings and generating strong cash flow.

At TEGNA, we continue to deliver highly relevant content and information to consumers across all platforms. As always, our foundation remains our long-standing commitment to provide outstanding journalism across our stations to serve the greater good of our communities.

We are proud of the successful efforts made by our approximately 5,300 employees in driving TEGNA’s continuing transformation, finding new ways to engage audiences in today’s multi-platform environment and enhancing our alignment with the evolving needs of consumers, advertisers and marketers.

Thank you for your continued support.

Cordially,

7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22107 (703) 873-6600

Notice of Annual Meeting of Shareholders

The Board of Directors has set the close of business on February 26, 2018 as the record date to determine the shareholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

An admission ticket is required for attendance at the Annual Meeting. Please see page 67 of the Proxy Statement for instructions about obtaining tickets.

By Action of the Board of Directors,

Akin S. Harrison

Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Secretary

McLean, Virginia

March 12, 2018

Your Vote Is Important. Your shares should be represented at the annual meeting whether or not you plan to attend. If you do not wish to vote in person or if you will not be attending the annual meeting, you may vote by proxy. Shareholders of record can vote by proxy over the internet or by telephone by following the instructions provided in the notice of internet availability of proxy materials that was previously mailed to you or, if you requested printed copies of the proxy materials, you can also vote by mail, by telephone or on the internet as instructed on the proxy card you received. If your shares are held in an account at a brokerage firm, bank, broker-dealer or other similar organization, please follow the instructions provided to you by that organization. You may revoke your proxy and vote in person if you decide to attend the annual meeting.

This Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement are first being delivered to shareholders on or about March 12, 2018.

2017: A Year of Transformation

2017 was a year of continued transformation and progress for our Company. We completed previously announced strategic actions that will drive the Company forward and we continued to evolve to meet the constantly changing needs of our consumers, clients and customers. We also launched new, innovative products, and told impactful, meaningful stories that made a difference to the communities that we serve. In every decision we made, we positioned our Company for success, now and in the future.

We successfully completed the spin-off of Cars.com (the “Cars.com Spin-off”) and sold our controlling interest in CareerBuilder, completing our transformation into a pure-play media company. We remain confident that these actions will maximize long-term value for our shareholders while putting the Company in the best position to succeed for its customers and its employees.

Our Company also achieved strong financial results in 2017. Our overall company revenue was $1.9 billion, growing seven percent on a non-GAAP comparable basis.* Our adjusted EBITDA* totaled $631.4 million, with an adjusted EBITDA margin of 33 percent. In addition, our innovation initiatives contributed an even-increasing percentage of our revenue, marking strong success in execution.

We also are very pleased to have ended 2017 on a high note, announcing our acquisition from Midwest Television, Inc. of television broadcast stations, KFMB-TV, the CBS affiliated station, and KFMB-D2 (CW), and radio broadcast stations, KFMB 760 AM talk radio and KFMB-FM, each in San Diego, which we completed in February 2018.

In 2017, we commenced a board refreshment process to ensure that the skills of our directors remain aligned with our evolving business. This resulted in the addition of three new directors:

On February 22, 2018, we also announced that Howard D. Elias would succeed Marjorie Magner as non-executive chairman of the Board immediately following the Annual Meeting.

Proposal 1—Election of Directors

YOUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors is currently composed of twelve directors, including the eleven directors nominated for re-election and Marjorie Magner, our current Chairman, who is retiring from the Board at the 2018 Annual Meeting in order to devote more time to philanthropic activities. The Board of Directors held twelve meetings during 2017. Each director attended at least 94% of the meetings of the Board and its committees on which he or she served that were held during the period for which he or she served as a director or committee member, as applicable, during 2017. All directors then serving on the Board attended the 2017 Annual Meeting in accordance with the Company’s policy that all directors attend the Annual Meeting.

Nominees elected to our Board at the 2018 Annual Meeting will serve one-year terms expiring at the Company’s 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The Board, upon the recommendation of its Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee, has nominated the following individuals: Gina L. Bianchini, Howard D. Elias, Stuart J. Epstein, Lidia Fonseca, David T. Lougee, Scott K. McCune, Henry W. McGee, Susan Ness, Bruce P. Nolop, Neal Shapiro and Melinda C. Witmer. The Board believes that each of the nominees will be available and able to serve as a director. If any nominee becomes unable or unwilling to serve, the Board may do one of three things: recommend a substitute nominee, reduce the number of directors to eliminate the vacancy, or fill the vacancy later. The shares represented by all valid proxies may be voted for the election of a substitute if one is nominated.

The Company’s By-laws provide that director nominees are elected by the vote of a majority of the votes cast with respect to the director at the meeting, unless the number of nominees exceeds the number of directors to be elected, in which case directors shall be elected by the vote of a plurality of the shares present and entitled to vote at the meeting. At the 2018 Annual Meeting, the majority vote standard will apply. If an incumbent nominee does not receive an affirmative majority of the votes cast, he or she is required to submit a

		1		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Your Board of Directors

letter of resignation to the Board’s Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee, which would recommend to the Board the action to be taken with respect to the letter of resignation. The Board is required to act on the Committee’s recommendation and publicly disclose its decision and its rationale within 90 days after the election results are certified.

The Company’s Board of Directors unanimously recommends that you vote “FOR” the election of each of the nominees to serve as directors of the Company until the Company’s 2019 Annual Meeting and until their successors are elected and qualified.

BOARD LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE

Our Board has determined that having an independent director serve as the Chairman of the Board is currently the best leadership structure for the Company. Separating the positions of Chairman and CEO allows the CEO to focus on executing the Company’s strategic plan and managing the Company’s operations and performance and permits improved communications between the Board, the CEO and other senior leaders of the Company. Our Board regularly reviews the Company’s Board leadership structure, how the structure is functioning and whether the structure continues to be in the best interest of our shareholders.

The duties of the Chairman of the Board include:

THE BOARD’S ROLE IN RISK OVERSIGHT

Evaluating how senior leadership identifies, assesses, manages and monitors the various risks confronting the Company is one of the most important areas of the Board’s oversight. In carrying out this critical responsibility, the Board oversees the Company’s risk management function through regular discussions with senior leadership, considering the Company’s risks in the context of the Company’s strategic plan and operations. In doing so, the Board actively and regularly reviews, guides and oversees the implementation of the Company’s long-term strategic plan. In addition, the Company has an enterprise risk management program to enhance the Board’s and management’s ability to identify, assess, manage and respond to strategic, market, operational and compliance risks facing the Company.

While the Board has primary responsibility for overseeing the Company’s risk management function, each committee of the Board also considers risk within its area of responsibility. For example, the Executive Compensation Committee reviews risks relating to compensation matters. The Board is apprised by the committee chairs of significant risks and management’s response to those risks via periodic reports. While the Board and its committees oversee the Company’s risk management function, management is responsible for implementing day-to-day risk management processes and reporting to the Board and its committees on such matters.

The Audit Committee is primarily responsible for reviewing risks relating to accounting and financial controls. In addition, the Board has designated the Audit Committee with primary responsibility for overseeing the Company’s enterprise risk management program. In accordance with this responsibility, the Audit Committee monitors the Company’s significant business risks, including financial, operational, privacy, cybersecurity, business continuity, legal and regulatory, and reputational exposures, and reviews the steps management has taken to monitor and control these exposures. With respect to cybersecurity, the Board receives regular reports from Company management, including updates on the internal and external cybersecurity threat landscape, incident response, assessment and training activities, and relevant legislative, regulatory, and technical developments.

With respect to risks relating to compensation matters, the Executive Compensation Committee with the assistance of its independent compensation consultant has reviewed the Company’s executive compensation program and has concluded that the program does not

		2		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Executive Compensation Committee views the design of the Company’s annual cash and long-term equity incentives as providing an effective and appropriate mix of incentives to help ensure the Company’s performance is focused on long-term profitability and shareholder value creation and does not encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking at the expense of long-term results.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

The Board of Directors has determined that, other than David T. Lougee, all of our current directors are, and other than Gracia C. Martore, former President and CEO of the Company, all directors who served during the Company’s most recently completed fiscal year were, “independent” of the Company within the meaning of the rules governing NYSE-listed companies. For a director to be “independent” under NYSE rules, the Board of Directors must affirmatively determine that the director has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder, or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company. To assist it in making these determinations, the Board has determined that the following categories of relationships between a director and the Company are not material:

In making its independence determinations, our Board considered all relationships, direct and indirect, between each director and our Company that were identified in questionnaires completed by each Board member.

Consistent with the NYSE rules, the Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance call for the Company’s non-management directors to meet in regularly scheduled executive sessions without management as they deem appropriate. The Company’s non-management directors held five executive sessions in 2017, and will meet in executive sessions as appropriate throughout 2018.

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE INTERLOCKS AND INSIDER PARTICIPATION; RELATED TRANSACTIONS

Our Company has not had compensation committee interlocks with any other company, nor has our Company engaged in any material related transactions since January 1, 2017, the first day of our last fiscal year. Although no such related transactions have occurred or are anticipated, the Board will consider any other future transactions involving the Company, on the one hand, and any of its officers or directors, on the other hand, on a case-by-case basis, and any such approved transaction involving a director will be considered in assessing his or her independence.

The Company has adopted a related person transaction policy that outlines the procedures that directors not involved in the transaction will follow in connection with reviewing certain transactions involving the Company and related persons. The policy takes into account the categories of transactions that the Board has determined are not material in making determinations regarding independence and requires directors and executive officers to notify the Company’s chief legal officer of any potential related person transactions.

		3		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Corporate Governance

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The Board and the Company have instituted strong corporate governance practices, a number of which are described above, to ensure that the Company operates in ways that support the long-term interests of our shareholders. Other important corporate governance practices of the Company include the following:

Additional information regarding the Company’s corporate governance practices is included in the Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance posted on the Corporate Governance page under the “Investors” menu of the Company’s website at www.tegna.com. See the “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” section of this Proxy Statement for a discussion of the Company’s compensation-related governance practices.

SHAREHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The Company is committed to acting in the best interests of its shareholders, and views ongoing dialogue with shareholders as a critical component of the Company’s corporate governance program. As part of this commitment, the Company actively engages with its shareholders in order to fully understand their viewpoints concerning the Company, to garner feedback on areas for improvement, and to help our shareholders better understand our performance and long-term strategic plan. We believe our regular engagement with shareholders has been productive and provides an open exchange of ideas and perspectives for both the Company and its shareholders.

Company management regularly engages with many of its investors through in person and telephonic meetings throughout the year to solicit input and answer questions on a variety of topics. Company management provides the Board with regular updates regarding its shareholder outreach efforts as well as feedback received from shareholders, which helps to influence our policies and practices.

During 2017 and early in 2018, the Company actively engaged with shareholders, holding an investor day on May 17, 2017 and reaching out to shareholders representing, in the aggregate, more than 50% of our outstanding shares in order to understand their viewpoints concerning a variety of topics, including the following:

		4		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Shareholder Engagement

The Company also has a policy that all of our directors attend our Annual Meeting of Shareholders, which presents yet another opportunity for us to engage directly with our shareholders. All of the standing directors, and those nominated for election at the time, attended the Company’s 2017 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

For those who are unable to attend any of our investor meetings, transcripts of all management presentations are available on our website at www.tegna.com. Any shareholder who has an inquiry or meeting request is invited to contact Jeff Heinz, Vice President/Investor Relations, at 703-873-6917.

ANNUAL BOARD PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Company believes in continuously improving its corporate governance practices in order to support the Company’s performance. In 2017, the Board retained an independent consultant experienced in corporate governance matters to conduct an in-depth study of the Board’s effectiveness and to assist it with the annual performance evaluation process. The consultant interviewed each director to obtain his or her assessment of the effectiveness of the Board and its committees, including identifying opportunities for the Board to enhance its effectiveness. The Board then met with the consultant to discuss the consultant’s findings and recommendations for enhancing the Board’s overall operation and effectiveness. As a result of this process, the Board implemented a number of the consultant’s recommendations, including increasing the amount of time dedicated to Board strategy discussions and holding more committee meetings in between scheduled Board meetings.

INFORMATION ABOUT DIRECTORS

Our Board members have a diverse set of qualifications, skills and experiences and also reflect diversity of age, tenure and gender. The Board regularly evaluates its composition to determine if there are areas for improvement. Our recent director refreshment activities led the Board to add Ms. Witmer in December 2017 and Ms. Bianchini and Mr. Epstein in February 2018, supplementing the existing skills and experience of our Board, increasing the size of the Board to 12 directors and resulting in 5 of our 11 independent directors having less than 3 years of tenure.

AGE		TENURE		GENDER DIVERSITY

DIRECTOR SKILLS

		5		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Information About Directors

The Nominees

The following director nominees are currently serving on the Board and have been nominated by the Board on the unanimous recommendation of the Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee to stand for re-election at the Company’s 2018 Annual Meeting for a one-year term. The principal occupation and business experience of each nominee, including the reasons the Board believes each of them should be re-elected to serve another term on the Board, are described below.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareholders of the Company vote FOR the election of the nominees to serve as directors.

		6		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Information About Directors

		7		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Information About Directors

		8		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Information About Directors

		9		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Committees of the Board of Directors

COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The Board of Directors conducts its business through meetings of the Board and its four committees: the Audit Committee, Executive Committee, Executive Compensation Committee and Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee. The following chart shows the current membership and chairperson of each of our Board committees and the number of committee meetings held during 2017.

C – Chairperson

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in its oversight of financial reporting practices and the quality and integrity of the financial reports of the Company. Each member of the Audit Committee meets the independence requirements of the SEC as well as those of the NYSE. In addition, the Board has determined that Bruce P. Nolop is an audit committee financial expert, as that term is defined under the SEC rules. This Committee met seven times in 2017.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee may exercise the authority of the Board between Board meetings, except as limited by Delaware law. The Executive Committee did not meet in 2017.

Executive Compensation Committee

The Executive Compensation Committee discharges the Board’s responsibilities relating to the compensation of the Company’s directors and executives and has overall responsibility for the Company’s compensation plans, principles and programs. The Committee’s duties and responsibilities include reviewing and approving on an annual basis corporate goals and objectives relevant to the compensation of the Company’s CEO and other senior executives, including members of the TEGNA Leadership Team and certain other Company officers. The Committee also is responsible for reviewing and discussing with management the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) disclosures contained in the Company’s Proxy Statement, and for making a recommendation as to whether the CD&A disclosures should be so included and incorporated by reference into the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Board of Directors has determined that each member of the Committee meets the independence requirements of the SEC as well as those of the NYSE. This Committee met six times in 2017.

The Committee has primary responsibility for administering the Company’s equity incentive plans and in that role is responsible for approving equity grants to our senior executives. The Committee historically has delegated to the CEO the authority for approving equity grants to employees other than our senior executives mentioned above within the parameters of a pool of shares approved by the Committee. This provides flexibility for equity grants to be made to employees below the senior leadership level who are less familiar to the Committee.

Under its charter, the Committee may, in its sole discretion, retain or obtain the advice of a compensation consultant, independent legal counsel or other adviser. The Committee is directly responsible for the appointment, compensation and oversight of any such consultant, counsel or adviser, and the Company shall provide appropriate funding for payment of reasonable compensation to any such consultant, counsel or adviser, as determined by the Committee. In selecting a consultant, counsel or adviser, the Committee

		10		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Committees of the Board of Directors

evaluates its independence by considering the following six factors and any other factors the Committee deems relevant to the adviser’s independence from management:

The Committee retains Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC (Meridian) as its consultant to advise it on executive compensation matters. After considering the six factors used by the Committee to evaluate independence, the Committee determined that Meridian is an independent compensation consultant in accordance with applicable SEC and NYSE rules.

Meridian participates in Committee meetings as requested by the chairman of the Committee and communicates directly with the chairman of the Committee outside of meetings. Meridian specifically has provided the following services to the Committee:

Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee

The Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee is charged with identifying individuals qualified to become Board members, recommending to the Board candidates for election or re-election to the Board, and considering from time to time the Board committee structure and makeup. The Committee also monitors the Company’s human resources practices, including its performance in diversity and equal employment opportunity, monitors the Company’s performance in meeting its obligations of fairness in internal and external matters, and takes a leadership role with respect to the Company’s corporate governance practices. This Committee met five times in 2017.

The Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee charter sets forth certain criteria for the Committee to consider in evaluating potential director nominees. In addition to evaluating a potential director’s independence, the Committee considers whether director candidates have relevant experience in business and industry, government, education and other areas, and monitors the mix of skills and experience of directors in order to assure that the Board has the necessary breadth and depth to perform its oversight function effectively. The charter also encourages the Committee to work to maintain a board that reflects the diversity of the communities we serve. The Committee evaluates potential candidates against these requirements and objectives. For those director candidates who appear upon first consideration to meet the Committee’s criteria, the Committee will engage in further research to evaluate their candidacy.

The Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee periodically retains search firms to assist in the identification of potential director nominee candidates based on criteria specified by the Committee and in evaluating and pursuing individual candidates at the direction of the Committee. The Committee will also consider timely written suggestions from shareholders. Shareholders wishing to suggest a candidate for director nomination for the 2019 Annual Meeting should mail their suggestions to TEGNA Inc., 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22107, Attn: Secretary. Suggestions must be received by the Secretary of the Company no earlier than December 27, 2018 and no later than January 16, 2019. The manner in which the Committee evaluates director nominee candidates suggested by shareholders will be consistent with the manner in which the Committee evaluates candidates recommended by other sources.

		11		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Committees of the Board of Directors

The By-laws of the Company establish a mandatory retirement age of 70 for directors who have not been executives of the Company and 65 for directors who have served as executives, except that the Board of Directors may extend the retirement age beyond 65 for directors who are or have been the CEO of the Company. The Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance also provide that a director who retires from, or has a material change in responsibility or position with, the primary entity by which that director was employed at the time of his or her election to the Board of Directors shall offer to submit a letter of resignation to the Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee for its consideration. The Committee will make a recommendation to the Board of Directors on whether to accept or reject the resignation, or whether other action should be taken.

COMMITTEE CHARTERS

The written charters governing the Audit Committee, the Executive Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Public Responsibility Committee, as well as the Company’s Principles of Corporate Governance, are posted on the Corporate Governance page of the Company’s website at www.tegna.com under the “Investors” menu. You may also obtain a copy of any of these documents without charge by writing to: TEGNA Inc., 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22107, Attn: Secretary.

ETHICS POLICY

The Company has long maintained a code of conduct and ethics (the “Ethics Policy”) that sets forth the Company’s policies and expectations. The Ethics Policy, which applies to every Company director, officer and employee, addresses a number of topics, including conflicts of interest, relationships with others, corporate payments, the appearance of impropriety, disclosure policy, compliance with laws, corporate opportunities and the protection and proper use of the Company’s assets. The Ethics Policy meets the NYSE’s requirements for a code of business conduct and ethics as well as the SEC’s definition of a code of ethics applicable to the Company’s senior officers. Neither the Board of Directors nor any Board committee has ever granted a waiver of the Ethics Policy.

The Ethics Policy is available on the Corporate Governance page of the Company’s website at www.tegna.com under the “Investors” menu. You may also obtain a copy of the Ethics Policy without charge by writing to: TEGNA Inc., 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia 22107, Attn: Secretary. Any additions or amendments to the Ethics Policy, and any waivers of the Ethics Policy for executive officers or directors, will be posted on the Corporate Governance page under the “Investors” menu of the Company’s website and similarly provided to you without charge upon written request to this address.

The Company has a telephone hotline staffed by an independent third party for employees and others to submit their concerns regarding violations or suspected violations of the Company’s Ethics Policy or violations of law and for reporting any concerns regarding accounting or auditing matters on a confidential anonymous basis. Employees and others can report concerns by calling 1-800-695-1704 or by emailing or writing to the addresses provided in the Company’s Ethics Violation Reporting Policy found on the Corporate Governance page of the Company’s website at www.tegna.com under the “Investors” menu. Any concerns regarding accounting or auditing matters so reported will be communicated to the Company’s Audit Committee.

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in its oversight of financial reporting practices and the quality and integrity of the financial reports of the Company, including compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications and independence, and the performance of the Company’s internal audit function. The Audit Committee appoints and is responsible for setting the compensation of the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. In selecting the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, the Audit Committee considers, among other things, historical and recent performance of the current independent audit firm, known significant legal or regulatory proceedings related to the firm, external data on audit quality and performance, industry experience, firm capabilities and audit approach, and the independence of the audit firm. The Committee reviews the firm’s qualifications on an annual basis, assessing, among other things, the quality of its service, the quality of the communication and interaction with the firm, and the firm’s independence, objectivity and professional skepticism. In conducting this review, the Committee also considers the advisability and potential impact of selecting a different independent public accounting firm.

The Audit Committee also provides oversight of the Company’s internal audit function including the review of proposed audit plans and the coordination of such plans with the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit Committee oversees the adequacy and effectiveness of the Company’s accounting and financial controls and the guidelines and policies that govern the process

		12		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Report of the Audit Committee

by which the Company undertakes financial, accounting and audit risk assessment and risk management. The Audit Committee also is responsible for reviewing compliance with the Company’s Ethics Policy and assuring appropriate disclosure of any waiver of or change in the Ethics Policy for executive officers, and for reviewing the Ethics Policy on a regular basis and proposing or adopting additions or amendments to the Ethics Policy as appropriate. In connection with the Ethics Policy, the Audit Committee has established procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints received by the Company regarding accounting controls or auditing matters and the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the Company of any accounting or auditing concerns. The Audit Committee operates under a formal written charter that has been adopted by the Board of Directors.

The Audit Committee members are not professional accountants or auditors, and their role is not intended to duplicate or certify the activities of management and the independent registered public accounting firm, nor can the Committee certify that the independent registered public accounting firm is “independent” under applicable rules. The Committee serves a Board-level oversight role, in which it provides advice, counsel and direction to management and the independent registered public accounting firm on the basis of the information it receives, discussions with management and the independent registered public accounting firm, and the experience of the Committee’s members in business, financial and accounting matters.

During fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for each of those years, Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”), billed the Company the following fees and expenses:

The Audit Committee has adopted a policy for the pre-approval of services provided by the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. Under the policy, particular services or categories of services have been pre-approved, subject to a specific budget. Periodically, but at least annually, the Audit Committee reviews and approves the list of pre-approved services and the maximum threshold cost of performance of each. The Audit Committee is provided with a status update on all EY services periodically throughout the year and discusses such services with management and EY. Pursuant to its pre-approval policy, the Audit Committee has delegated pre-approval authority for services provided by EY to its Chair, Bruce P. Nolop. Mr. Nolop may pre-approve up to $100,000 in services provided by EY, in the aggregate at any one time, without consultation with the full Audit Committee, provided he reports such approved items to the Audit Committee at its next scheduled meeting. In determining whether a service may be provided pursuant to the pre-approval policy, consideration is given to whether the proposed service would impair the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm.

In connection with its review of the Company’s 2017 audited financial statements, the Audit Committee received from EY written disclosures and a letter regarding EY’s independence in accordance with applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, including a detailed statement of any relationships between EY and the Company that might bear on EY’s independence, and has discussed with EY its independence. The Audit Committee considered whether the provision of non-audit services by EY is compatible with maintaining EY’s independence. EY stated that it believes it is in full compliance with all of the

		13		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

PROPOSAL 1—ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

Report of the Audit Committee

independence standards established by the various regulatory bodies. The Audit Committee also discussed with EY various matters required to be discussed by Statements on Auditing Standards No. 16, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standards, Vol. 1, AU Section 380), as adopted by the PCAOB in Rule 3200T, including, but not limited to, the selection of and changes in the Company’s significant accounting policies, the basis for management’s accounting estimates, EY’s conclusions regarding the reasonableness of those estimates, and the disclosures included in the financial statements.

The Audit Committee met with management, the Company’s internal auditors and representatives of EY to review and discuss the Company’s audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Based on such review and discussion, and based on the Audit Committee’s reviews and discussions with EY regarding the various matters mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the 2017 fiscal year, and the Board has approved that recommendation.

Audit Committee

Bruce P. Nolop, Chair

Marjorie Magner

Susan Ness

		14		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

Proposal 2—Ratification of Appointment of

Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors is responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of the Company’s independent auditor. The Audit Committee has appointed Ernst & Young LLP (EY) as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for our fiscal year ending December 31, 2018. EY was first appointed the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm in 2005 and we believe that the retention of EY is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders. Upon the recommendation of the Audit Committee, the Board of Directors is submitting the appointment of EY as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for shareholder ratification at the 2018 Annual Meeting.

The Board of Directors unanimously recommends that the shareholders of the Company vote FOR the ratification of the appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the current year.

Our By-laws do not require that the shareholders ratify the appointment of EY as our independent registered public accounting firm. We are seeking ratification because we value our shareholders’ views on the Company’s independent registered accounting firm and believe it is a good corporate governance practice. If the shareholders do not ratify the appointment, the Audit Committee will reconsider whether to retain EY, but in its discretion may choose to retain EY as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm. Even if the appointment is ratified, the Audit Committee in its discretion may change the appointment at any time during the year if it determines that a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders.

The Audit Committee believes it is important for the independent auditor to maintain its objectivity and independence. In accordance with SEC rules and EY policies, audit partners are subject to rotation requirements to limit the number of consecutive years an individual partner may provide audit services to our Company. For lead and concurring review audit partners, the maximum number of years of service in that capacity is five years. The Audit Committee and its Chairman are involved in the process for selecting the lead audit partner.

A representative of EY is expected to be present at the 2018 Annual Meeting. The EY representative will have an opportunity to make a statement if he or she desires to do so and will be available to respond to appropriate questions from shareholders.

The approval of this Proposal 2 requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of common stock present in person or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the 2018 Annual Meeting. Your bank, broker or other intermediary may vote without your instructions on this proposal.

		15		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

Executive Compensation

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

In this Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, references to “the Committee” are to the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. References to “NEOs” are to our Named Executive Officers, who for the 2017 fiscal year were: David T. Lougee, President and Chief Executive Officer, Victoria D. Harker, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Lynn Beall (Trelstad)*, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer—Media Operations, Todd A. Mayman, Executive Vice President/Chief Legal and Administrative Officer, Gracia C. Martore, former President and Chief Executive Officer, and John A. (Jack) Williams, former President/TEGNA Digital.

On May 31, 2017, the Company completed the previously announced separation of its digital automotive marketplace business from its broadcasting business in order to create two publicly traded companies (the “Cars.com Spin-off”). In connection with the Cars.com Spin-off, among other things, Gracia C. Martore retired from the Company and John A. (Jack) Williams ceased to serve as President/TEGNA Digital. When we discuss in this “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” our compensation objectives for our NEOs for 2017 and prospectively, we are addressing only those NEOs who are continuing to serve as executive officers: Mr. Lougee, Ms. Harker, Ms. Beall and Mr. Mayman, unless otherwise noted.

Executive Summary

This Executive Summary will provide an overview of the following key areas: Shareholder Return, Performance Highlights, Pay for Performance, Executive Compensation Committee Responsibilities, Guiding Principles, Compensation-Related Governance Practices and Say on Pay.

SHAREHOLDER RETURN

		16		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

Comparison of Cumulative One Year Total Return Comparison of Cumulative Three Year Total Return

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Summary

The above graphs show that our Company’s stock outperformed an index comprised of the Company’s 2017-2019 TSR Peer Group (“Peer Group”) over each of the 1-, 3- and 5-year periods ending December 31, 2017. (See page 28 of this Proxy Statement for a list of the companies included in the Peer Group.) The total returns of the Peer Group are weighted by market capitalization. The graphs depict representative results of investing $100 in the Company’s common stock and the Peer Group at market close on December 31, 2012, 2014 and 2016, respectively. In making the calculations, we assumed that dividends were reinvested monthly with respect to the Company’s common stock and each Peer Group company, with the Company’s performance following the June 29, 2015 spin-off of its publishing business (the “Publishing Spin-off”), which retained the name Gannett Co., Inc. (“Gannett”), calculated using the combined result of one TEGNA share and one-half Gannett share beginning June 29, 2015, and the Company’s performance following the May 31, 2017 Cars.com Spin-off calculated using the combined result of one TEGNA share, one-half Gannett share and one-third Cars.com share beginning June 1, 2017.

		17		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

Comparison of Cumulative Five Year Total Return

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Summary

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

Highlights of the Company’s 2017 performance included:

Reconciliations of the following non-GAAP financial measures to the Company’s results as reported under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States may be found in the Company’s Form 10-K, filed March 1, 2018: non-GAAP comparable revenue—page 25; adjusted EBITDA—page 26; non-GAAP earnings per share—page 24; and free cash flow—page 26.

PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

The Committee supports compensation policies that place a heavy emphasis on pay for performance. Having our NEOs receive a higher proportion of their long-term awards as performance-based performance shares that may be earned based on how the Company’s total shareholder return (TSR) compares to the TSR of the Company’s Peer Group during a three-year measurement period rather than restricted stock units (which are service-based) strengthens the pay for performance aspect of the Company’s long-term incentive program. The percentage of NEO annual equity awards granted in January 1, 2017 (based on award value) that were performance-based were 75% for our CEO and 65% for each of the other NEOs (other than Ms. Beall, who was not an NEO at the time she received her annual equity award).

		18		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Summary

The following chart compares our CEO’s Adjusted Summary Compensation Table (SCT) Compensation and Realized Pay between 2015 and 2017 in comparison to our cumulative 3-year total shareholder return relative to our Peer Group. The chart reflects Mr. Lougee’s Adjusted SCT compensation and Realized Pay for calendar year 2017 and Ms. Martore’s Adjusted SCT compensation and Realized Pay for calendar years 2016 and 2015.

The amount of pay presented for our CEO and the other NEOs in the Summary Compensation Table includes the grant date fair value of long-term incentive awards for accounting purposes. Based on the performance of our share price and how the Company’s total shareholder return compares to the total shareholder returns of our Peer Group, the amount of pay actually realized by our NEOs from these awards may differ significantly from their accounting value. As a result, we believe it is useful to compare our CEO’s Realized Pay between 2015 and 2017 with his or her Adjusted SCT Compensation for the same period. For this purpose, we define:

Our CEO’s Realized Pay between 2015 and 2017 consisted of:

		19		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

CEO Pay SCT Compensation and Realized Pay

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Summary

The preceding chart and table are not substitutes for the information required to be included in the Summary Compensation Table, but provide additional information with regard to our CEO’s pay.

President and CEO Target Pay Mix

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES

The Committee oversees the Company’s executive compensation program and is responsible for:

The Committee also regularly reviews other components of executive compensation, including benefits, perquisites and post-termination pay.

		20		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Summary

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

In making its NEO compensation decisions, the Committee is guided by the following principles:

COMPENSATION-RELATED GOVERNANCE PRACTICES

The Board’s commitment to strong corporate governance practices extends to the compensation plans, principles, programs and policies established by the Committee. The Company’s compensation-related governance practices and policies of note include the following:

		21		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Summary

SAY ON PAY

At last year’s annual meeting of shareholders, approximately 90% of the votes cast were in favor of the Company’s Say on Pay proposal, indicating strong support for the Company’s executive compensation program, including the long-term incentive program described in the Company’s 2017 Proxy Statement. The Committee will continue to consider the outcome of the Company’s Say on Pay votes when making future NEO compensation decisions.

OVERVIEW OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROGRAM

Key Components of Annual Compensation Decisions

The Company has designed an executive compensation program that is currently comprised of several components, as more fully discussed in the pages that follow. The key components of the Company’s annual compensation decisions are described in the following table.

		22		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

HOW THE COMMITTEE DETERMINES NEO COMPENSATION

The Committee determines NEO compensation in its sole discretion based on its business judgment, informed by the experience of the Committee members, input from the Committee’s independent compensation consultant, market data, management’s and the Committee’s assessment of the NEO, achievement of Key Performance Indicators, the Company’s performance and progress towards achievement of its strategic plan and the challenges confronting our business.

The Committee does not focus on any one particular objective, formula or financial metric, but rather on what it considers to be value-added quantitative and qualitative goals in furtherance of our compensation guiding principles described in the Executive Summary of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Key Performance Indicators

The Committee assesses the degree and extent of achievement of key performance indicators (KPIs) as a principal tool for making NEO compensation decisions. KPIs, set annually for each of our executive officers, consist of individually designed qualitative and quantitative goals organized in three areas:

Each NEO’s KPIs include multiple items in each of the three areas. The KPIs are intended to be challenging but realistic, with a high degree of difficulty in achieving all of the goals set for each NEO. Accordingly, the Committee’s assessment of NEO performance versus KPIs is holistic, with no particular weighting ascribed to achievement of any particular item in any area.

While the Committee takes into consideration the degree of achievement of each NEO’s KPIs and the Company performance goals and financial measures set forth above in making compensation decisions, the Committee exercises its business judgment, in its sole discretion, to set NEO compensation.

Comparative Market Data

To assist the Committee in making decisions affecting NEO compensation opportunities, Company management provided it with a report regarding, among other things, executive compensation data, which the Committee reviewed and used in its year-end compensation decisions. The report included data from the Willis Towers Watson Media Compensation Survey, the Willis Towers Watson General Industry Executive Compensation Survey, the Croner Digital Content and Technology Survey and data from Equilar, a source of detailed executive compensation information (collectively, “Comparative Market Data”).

Through use of this data, the Committee compares NEO salaries, bonus opportunities and equity compensation opportunities to those of companies in the media sector and other companies with comparable revenues to confirm that the elements of our compensation program and the range of amounts we pay our executives for each element are appropriate in that context. The Committee does not, however, target elements of compensation to a certain range, percentage or percentile within the Comparative Market Data.

BASE SALARY

We pay our NEOs base salaries to compensate them for service in their executive role. Salaries for NEOs take into account:

		23		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

Based on these factors, the Committee set 2017 NEO base salaries as follows:

Upon the completion of the Cars.com Spin-off:

ANNUAL BONUSES

ANNUAL BONUS OPPORTUNITY

Our NEOs participate in an annual bonus program. Bonuses are short term compensation designed to reflect the individual NEO’s contribution to overall Company results and attainment of strategic business objectives during the year. Annual bonuses therefore can vary significantly in amount from year to year.

In early 2017, the Committee, in consultation with its independent compensation consultant, considered amounts for bonus opportunity developed by our President and CEO and Senior VP/Chief Human Resources Officer. These amounts are calculated by multiplying the NEO’s base salary by a target percentage which takes into account:

Based on these factors, the Committee approved the following 2017 bonus guideline opportunities for our NEOs:

ANNUAL BONUS PAYOUT FOR 2017

The extent to which a bonus is earned by an NEO is determined by the Committee, informed by attainment of the Company’s annual financial and qualitative performance goals, individual contributions made by the NEO during the year and each NEO’s KPIs set at the beginning of the year.

In addition to assessing individual KPI achievement, the Committee also considers the financial performance of the Company across a variety of financial measures which, for 2017, included total revenues, operating income, net income, earnings per share, Adjusted EBITDA, EBITDA margins, subscription revenue and free cash flow as a percentage of revenue. The Committee selected these financial measures for 2017 because it considers them to be broad enough to capture the most significant financial aspects of an organization as large as ours yet also focused enough to represent the financial measures that we believe drive our financial success as a pure-play media company.

		24		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

In assessing Company achievement of these financial performance measures, the Committee compares them to management budgets approved by the Board at the beginning of the year and financial results from prior years, and takes into account the Company’s financial performance relative to its peer companies, as well as industry and market conditions. Finally, the Committee evaluates the performance of our executives and the roles played by each of them in achieving critically important strategic transactions. For 2017, the performance of our NEOs in completing the Cars.com spin-off, the sale of CareerBuilder and our acquisition of media assets that will expand our viewership in San Diego were considered favorably in this regard.

2017 was a transformational year for the Company with the successful Cars.com Spin-off and the sale of the controlling interest in CareerBuilder, allowing the Company to achieve its strategic goal of becoming a pure-play media company. In reaching its 2017 bonus decisions, the Committee considered the role of the management team in completing those strategic transactions; achievement of the financial results described in the “Executive Summary” above; and the following contributions made by each NEO versus his or her KPIs during the year:

		25		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

		26		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

The Committee, exercising its business judgment, in its sole discretion, and informed by the foregoing individual and Company performance factors, awarded 2017 annual bonuses to our NEOs as follows:

LONG-TERM INCENTIVES

We use equity-based awards to recognize the performance of executives who drive the development and execution of our business strategies and goals. The primary purposes of these awards are to align further the executive’s interests with those of the Company’s shareholders and the Company’s longer-term objectives, to drive shareholder return, to foster executive stock ownership and to promote retention. We awarded both total shareholder return (TSR) performance shares (Performance Shares) and restricted stock units (RSUs) to our NEOs on January 1, 2017.

Performance Shares

The Company grants Performance Shares based on the Company’s total shareholder return versus a peer group of media companies. Under the Performance Share awards, the Company may issue shares of Company common stock (Performance Shares) to senior executives following the completion of a three-year period beginning on the grant date (the Incentive Period). Generally, if an executive remains in continuous employment with the Company during the Incentive Period, the number of Performance Shares that the executive will receive will be determined based upon how the Company’s TSR compares to the TSRs of a peer group of media companies (TSR Peer Group) during the Incentive Period. By tying the payout of the Performance Share awards to the Company’s TSR, a purely objective standard, the Committee is aligning executive compensation with shareholders’ interests.

For each grant of Performance Shares, the Company’s TSR is ranked against the TSR of each company in the TSR Peer Group over the Incentive Period. The Committee, with assistance from its independent compensation consultant, selects certain media and digital companies to be included in the TSR Peer Group based on the Committee’s assessment of the similar nature of the peer companies’ business operations. In anticipation of the Cars.com Spin-off and the potential sale of CareerBuilder, the Committee selected a 2017-2019 TSR Peer Group consisting solely of media companies.

		27		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

The Company’s TSR Peer Groups for each Incentive Period including 2017 are as follows:

2017 – 2019 TSR Peer Group

2016 – 2018 TSR Peer Group

2015 – 2017 TSR Peer Group

For additional information regarding the Company’s TSR Peer Groups, see “Impact of Certain Transactions on Performance Share Awards Involving 2015-2017 TSR Peer Group Members” on page 30 of this Proxy Statement.

For purposes of the Performance Share awards, a company’s TSR generally equals a fraction, the numerator of which is the company’s stock price change plus the dividends paid on such stock (which are assumed to be reinvested in the stock) from the first day of the Incentive Period to the applicable measurement date, and the denominator of which is the company’s closing stock price on the business day preceding the first day of the Incentive Period.

For each Incentive Period, the Committee will calculate the number of Performance Shares earned by multiplying the target number of Performance Shares (as specified in the executive’s award agreement) by a percentage based upon the Company’s 3-year TSR performance ranked against the TSR performance of the TSR Peer Group.

The percentages for each Incentive Period are set forth on the following table, with percentiles between the thresholds determined by straight line interpolation:

Relative TSR performance is measured at the end of each of the last four quarters in the Incentive Period and a hypothetical payout calculated. The average results of these payouts are used to calculate the actual number of Performance Shares that an executive earns, so that the calculation does not solely rely upon the Company’s stock price on the first day and the last day of the Incentive Period.

		28		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

With certain exceptions for terminations due to death, disability, retirement (defined as 65 years of age or at least 55 years of age with at least 5 years of service) or a change in control, Performance Shares generally vest on the expiration of the Incentive Period only if the executive continues to be employed by the Company through the last day of the Incentive Period.

After the end of the Incentive Period, each executive who is entitled to Performance Shares based on these calculations and the satisfaction of the applicable service and performance requirements will receive the number of Performance Shares that the executive has earned, less withholding taxes. Dividends are not paid or accrued on Performance Shares.

For Performance Share awards granted on or after January 1, 2016, a change in control of the Company will only accelerate full vesting of equity awards to executives if the awards are not continued or assumed (e.g., the awards are not equitably converted or substituted for awards of the successor company) in connection with the change in control or the recipient has a qualifying termination of employment within two years following the date of the change in control. For Performance Share awards granted before January 1, 2016, upon a change in control of the Company, Performance Share awards will fully vest. In the event of a change in control, an executive will be entitled to receive a number of Performance Shares (to the extent vested) based on the Company’s TSR relative to the TSR of each company in its TSR Peer Group for the applicable Incentive Period on the date of the change in control, unless the change in control occurs during the first 6 months of an Incentive Period (12 months for Performance Shares granted for the 2016—2018 Incentive Period or the 2017 – 2019 Incentive Period), in which case the executive will receive the target number of Performance Shares set forth in the executive award agreement for that Performance Share grant.

The Performance Share awards have additional rules that will affect calculations in the event a TSR Peer Group company is acquired, enters into a definitive agreement to be acquired or becomes involved in bankruptcy proceedings during the Incentive Period.

The number of Performance Shares granted to an executive will be reduced if the price of the shares when paid exceeds 300% of the price of the shares on the first day of the Incentive Period. The price of the shares on the first day of the Incentive Period is equal to the closing price of a share of Company common stock on the last trading day prior to that date. The price of the Company’s shares of common stock on the first day of each Incentive Period is as follows:

		29		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

Impact of Certain Transactions on Performance Share Awards Involving 2015-2017 TSR Peer Group Members

Angie’s List: On May 1, 2017, Angie’s List Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by IAC/InterActiveCorp. As a result of Angie’s List entering into this agreement during Year 3 of the 2015-2017 Incentive period, Angie’s List had its TSR position fixed below the TSR position of the Company for the remainder of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period based on the average closing price of both companies’ stock during the 30 consecutive trading days ending on the trading day immediately preceding the announcement of the definitive agreement.

AOL Inc.: On May 12, 2015, AOL Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Verizon Communications. As a result of AOL Inc. entering into this agreement during Year 1 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, AOL Inc. was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

Constant Contact, Inc.: On October 30, 2015, Constant Contact, Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Endurance International. As a result of Constant Contact, Inc. entering into this agreement during Year 1 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, Constant Contact, Inc. was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

LinkedIn Corp.: On June 13, 2016, LinkedIn Corp. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Microsoft Corporation. As a result of LinkedIn Corp. entering into this agreement during Year 2 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, LinkedIn Corp. was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

Media General, Inc.: On January 27, 2016, Media General, Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by NexStar Broadcasting Group, Inc. As a result of Media General, Inc. entering into this agreement during Year 2 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, Media General, Inc. was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

Meredith Corporation: On September 8, 2015, Meredith Corporation entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Media General, Inc. As a result of Meredith Corporation entering into this agreement during Year 1 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, Meredith Corporation was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

Monster Worldwide Inc.: On August 9, 2016, Monster Worldwide Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Randstad Holding nv. As a result of Monster Worldwide Inc. entering into this agreement during Year 2 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, Monster Worldwide Inc. was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

ReachLocal Inc.: On June 27, 2016, ReachLocal Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Gannett Co., Inc. As a result of ReachLocal Inc. entering into this agreement during Year 2 of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period, ReachLocal Inc. was excluded from the Company’s TSR Peer Group companies for the 2015-2017 Incentive Period.

Tribune Media Co.: On May 8, 2017, Tribune Media Co. entered into a definitive agreement to be acquired by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. As a result of Tribune Media Co. entering into this agreement during Year 3 of the 2015-2017 Incentive period, Tribune Media Co. had its TSR position fixed below the TSR position of the Company for the remainder of the 2015-2017 Incentive Period based on the average closing price of both companies’ stock during the 30 consecutive trading days ending on the trading day immediately preceding the announcement of the definitive agreement.

2015-2017 TSR Performance

As of December 31, 2017, taking into account the special acquisition rules described above, comparing the combined Company/Cars.com TSR to the TSR of the 2015-2017 TSR Peer Group companies at the end of each of the last four quarters in the 2015-2017 Incentive Period resulted in the combined Company/Cars outperforming, on average, 7 of the 12 remaining 2015-2017 TSR Peer Group companies. Accordingly, the executives were awarded a number of Performance Shares equal to 116% of the target number of Performance Shares granted to them in connection with their 2015-2017 awards, with 85% of the target number of Performance Shares paid on January 3, 2018 based on results through the first three lock-in periods, and an additional 31% of the target number of Performance Shares paid on January 23, 2018 based on results through the fourth lock-in period.

RSUs

An RSU generally represents the right to receive a share of Company stock at a specified date, provided certain service requirements are satisfied. The Company grants RSUs with four-year terms to help retain our executives over an extended period of time. The four-year term is longer than the three-year term often used by companies for RSU grants.

RSUs granted in 2015 and 2016 generally vest in four equal annual installments with vested shares being delivered to the executive upon the earliest to occur of (1) the executive’s termination of employment, and (2) four years after the grant date. A prorated portion of

		30		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

the RSUs also vest and are paid upon retirement, disability or death. These RSUs fully vest and are paid upon a change-in-control of the Company, except that for RSUs granted in 2016 a change in control of the Company will only accelerate full vesting and payment if the RSUs are not continued or assumed (e.g., the awards are not equitably converted or substituted for awards of the successor company) in connection with the change-in-control or the recipient has a qualifying termination of employment within two years following the date of the change-in-control.

RSUs granted in 2017 generally vest and are paid in four annual installments. Executives are also entitled to receive a prorated portion of their RSUs upon retirement, disability or death. A change-in-control of the Company will only accelerate full vesting and payment of these RSUs if the RSUs are not continued or assumed (e.g., the awards are not equitably converted or substituted for awards of the successor company) in connection with the change-in-control or the recipient has a qualifying termination of employment within two years following the date of the change-in-control.

Long-Term Equity Awards under the 2017 Program

For the January 1, 2017 grants, the Committee considered the total long-term equity award target values developed by our President and CEO, Senior VP/Chief Human Resources Officer and Vice President/Total Rewards and HR Services. These target values were calculated by multiplying the NEO’s base salary by a target percentage, which takes into account:

Based on these factors, the Committee approved the following total long-term equity award target values for our NEOS:

Using these long-term equity award target value recommendations as a guideline, the Committee approved 2017 total long-term award values for each of our NEOs in December 2016 as shown in the table below. The Committee determined that these long-term equity award values were appropriate given the individual performance of each NEO against his or her KPIs, the financial performance of the Company and the divisions and operations for which they are responsible, and the Company’s progress towards the goals of its strategic plan.

		31		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

On January 1, 2017, the first day of the 2017-2019 Incentive Period, the long-term equity award value for each NEO was translated into a target award of Performance Shares based on the grant date fair value per share as calculated using the Monte Carlo valuation method and an award of RSUs based upon the Company’s closing stock price on December 30, 2016 (taking into account that dividends would not be paid on the RSUs), as follows:

As described below, pursuant to the Employee Matters Agreement and the Performance Share and RSU award agreements, these awards were converted into the following awards denominated in shares of Company stock as a consequence of the Cars.com Spin-off:

In addition to the awards described above, following the completion of the Cars.com Spin-off, in June 2017:

Impact of Cars.com Spin-Off on Equity-Based Awards

Pursuant to the Employee Matters Agreement entered into by the Company in connection with the Cars.com Spin-off, as of the date of the Cars.com Spin-off, outstanding Company equity awards were adjusted to reflect the impact of the Cars.com Spin-off, as follows:

Performance Shares Granted in 2017 and RSUs Granted in 2017 or 2016

As of May 31, 2017 (the date of the Cars.com Spin-off), each outstanding Performance Share granted in 2017 and each outstanding RSU award granted in 2017 or 2016 that was held by an employee who remained employed by the Company following the Cars.com Spin-off remained denominated in shares of Company common stock, provided that the number of shares subject to the award was adjusted in a manner intended to preserve the aggregate intrinsic value of the original award by multiplying the number of shares by a conversion ratio based upon the volume weighted average per share price of Company common stock during the five (5) trading days immediately preceding and immediately following the date of the Cars.com Spin-off. TSR Performance goals were adjusted to reflect the Cars.com Spin-off, with performance based on the performance of the Company prior to and after the Cars.com Spin-off. In addition, for purposes of calculating the Company’s TSR, the price of a share of Company stock on the first day of the 2017-2019 Incentive Period was adjusted to reflect the Cars.com Spin-off, by dividing the price by the same conversion ratio referenced above.

Performance Shares Granted Prior to 2017 and RSUs Granted Prior to 2016

As of the Cars.com Spin-off date, each outstanding Performance Share granted prior to 2017 and each outstanding RSU granted prior to 2016 was converted into an award of both shares of Company common stock and shares of Cars.com common stock. The number of shares of Company common stock subject to each award was equal to the number of shares subject to the award prior to the Cars.com Spin-off, while the number of shares of Cars.com common stock subject to the award was determined by multiplying the number of shares of Company common stock subject to each award by the “Distribution Ratio”—the number of shares of Cars.com common stock distributed per Company share in the Spin-off. The Distribution Ratio was equal to one-third.

		32		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

TSR performance goals for pre-2017 Performance Share awards will be measured following the Cars.com Spin-off by aggregating both Company performance and Cars.com performance applying the following rules:

Stock Options

Although the Company does not currently award stock options, as of the Cars.com Spin-off date, each outstanding stock option award held by an employee who remained employed by the Company following the Cars.com Spin-off remained denominated in shares of Company common stock, provided that the number of shares and the exercise prices of each option award were adjusted in a manner intended to preserve the aggregate intrinsic value of the original stock option as measured immediately before and immediately after the date of the Cars.com Spin-off.

BENEFITS AND PERQUISITES

The Company’s NEOs are provided a limited number of personal benefits and perquisites (described in footnote 5 to the Summary Compensation Table). The Committee’s objectives in providing these benefits are to provide insurance protection for our NEOs and their families, to enable the Company to attract and retain superior management talent in a competitive marketplace, to complement other compensation components, and to help minimize distractions from our executives’ attention to important Company initiatives.

The personal benefits and perquisites the Company provides to our NEOs, including medical, life insurance and disability plans, are generally the same as those offered to other similarly situated senior executives. For additional information about these and other post-employment benefits, see the “Other Potential Post-Employment Payments” section of this Proxy Statement.

2017 COMPENSATION DECISIONS FOR MS. MARTORE AND MR. WILLIAMS

In setting the 2017 base salaries of Ms. Martore and Mr. Williams, similar to the other NEOs, the Committee considered the nature and responsibility of their respective positions, their current and historical achievement of KPIs, internal pay equity among positions and Comparative Market Data. Based on these factors, the Committee set Ms. Martore’s 2017 base salary at $1,000,000 and Mr. Williams’ 2017 base salary at $615,000.

Ms. Martore and Mr. Williams each participated in the Company’s annual bonus program in 2017. In determining 2017 bonuses for each of Ms. Martore and Mr. Williams, in May 2017 the Committee, working with its independent compensation consultant, considered bonus guidelines developed by our Senior VP/Chief Human Resources Officer, taking into account the same factors considered by the Committee in setting NEO base salaries as well as Ms. Martore’s impending retirement and the expected elimination of Mr. Williams’ position in connection with the Cars.com Spin-off.

After reviewing these factors, the Committee calculated bonus guideline amounts for each of Ms. Martore and Mr. Williams and, exercising its business judgment, in its sole discretion, informed by the Company’s financial performance through May 2017, the impending completion of the Cars.com Spin-off and progress made on the review of strategic options for CareerBuilder, and their respective contributions to the Company’s successful transformation, the Committee awarded a bonus to Ms. Martore in the amount of $825,000 and a bonus to Mr. Williams in the amount of $175,000.

In light of Ms. Martore’s impending retirement and the expected elimination of Mr. Williams’ position in connection with the Cars.com Spin-off, the Committee did not make long-term equity awards to Ms. Martore or Mr. Williams in 2017. Instead, in February 2017, the Committee awarded Ms. Martore a cash-based incentive award, in connection with which she received a $2,100,000 payout in June 2017, and in May 2017 the Committee awarded Mr. Williams an additional $100,000 bonus, which was paid to Mr. Williams in June 2017.

Additional information on compensation awarded to the Company’s NEOs in 2017 is set forth in the section of this Proxy Statement entitled “Grants of Plan-Based Awards” and “Additional Information Regarding the Summary Compensation Table and the Grants of Plan-Based Awards Table.”

		33		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

POST-TERMINATION PAY

The Company sponsors post-termination pay plans which assist the Company in recruiting and retaining employees and in providing leadership stability and long-term commitment.

TEGNA Retirement Plan (TRP)

Prior to the Publishing Spin-off, eligible Company employees generally had earned benefits under the Gannett Retirement Plan (GRP). In connection with the Publishing Spin-off, the Company adopted the TEGNA Retirement Plan (TRP), a tax-qualified defined benefit retirement plan which assumed the GRP pension liabilities relating to Company employees. Accordingly, the TRP generally provides retirement income to certain of the Company’s U.S.-based employees who were employed before their benefits were frozen on August 1, 2008, at which time participants, including each of the NEOs (other than Ms. Harker, who did not participate in the GRP and does not participate in the TRP), ceased to earn additional benefits for compensation or service earned on or after that date. The TRP provides benefits for employees based upon years of credited service, and the highest consecutive five-year average of an employee’s compensation out of the final ten years of credited service, referred to as final average earnings, or FAE. Subject to Internal Revenue Code limits, compensation generally includes a participant’s base salary, performance-based bonuses, and pre-tax contributions to the Company’s benefit plans other than the TEGNA Deferred Compensation Plan (DCP). Until benefits commence, participants’ frozen benefits are periodically adjusted to reflect increases in a specified cost-of-living index (i.e., the consumer price index for all urban consumers published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics for U.S. all items less food and energy).

Effective January 1, 1998, the Company made a significant change to the GRP for service after that date. Certain employees who were either retirement-eligible or had a significant number of years of service with the Company were “grandfathered” in the plan provisions applicable to them prior to the change (pre-1998 plan provisions). Other employees were transitioned to the post-1997 plan provisions under the GRP.

The pre-1998 plan provisions provide for a benefit that is expressed as a monthly annuity at normal retirement equal to a gross benefit reduced by a portion of the participant’s Social Security benefit. Generally, a participant’s annual gross benefit is calculated by multiplying the participant’s years of credited service by specified percentages (generally 2% for each of a participant’s first 25 years of credited service and 0.7% for years of credited service in excess of 25) and multiplying such amount by the participant’s FAE. Benefits under the pre-1998 plan provisions are paid in the form of monthly annuity payments for the life of the participant and, if applicable, the participant’s designated beneficiary. The pre-1998 plan provisions provide for early retirement subsidies for participants who terminate employment after attaining age 55 and completing five years of service and elect to commence benefits before age 65. Under these provisions, a participant’s gross benefit that would otherwise be paid at age 65 is reduced by 4% for each year the participant retires before age 65. If a participant terminates employment after attaining age 60 with 25 years of service, the participant’s gross benefit that would otherwise be paid at age 65 is reduced by 2.5% for each year the participant retires before age 65.

The post-1997 plan provisions provide for a benefit under a pension equity formula, which generally expresses a participant’s benefit as a current lump sum value based on the sum of annual percentages credited to each participating employee. The percentages increase with years of service, and, in some circumstances, with age. Upon termination or retirement, the total percentages are applied to a participant’s FAE resulting in a lump sum benefit value. The pension equity benefit can be paid as either a lifetime annuity or a lump sum.

As noted above, in connection with the Publishing Spin-off, the TRP assumed the GRP pension liabilities of the NEOs who had accrued a benefit under the GRP. The TRP benefit for each of our participating NEOs is calculated under the post-1997 plan provisions. However, as noted below, the SERP benefit for Ms. Beall is calculated under the pre-1998 plan provisions. Each of the NEOs who participates in the TRP is fully vested in his or her TRP benefit.

In connection with its acquisition of Belo Corp. (Belo), the Company assumed the legacy Belo pension plan (Belo Plan), which was merged into the TRP. Since Mr. Lougee earned a pension benefit while employed by Belo, the total TRP benefit for Mr. Lougee is calculated based on his accruals under both the post-1997 TRP plan provisions and the Belo Plan provisions, in which benefits he is also fully vested. Under the Belo Plan, which was frozen to new benefits as of March 31, 2007, Mr. Lougee will be entitled to monthly annuity payments for his life commencing at age 65 calculated by multiplying his Belo credited service (including any additional service credits provided when the plan was frozen) by his monthly FAE, in each case earned at Belo as of March 31, 2007, and further multiplied by specified percentages (generally 1.1% plus 0.35% for average earnings in excess of covered compensation). If Mr. Lougee were to terminate employment and elect to commence receiving benefits prior to age 65, his benefit that would otherwise be paid at age 65 would be reduced as follows: 3.33% per year for each year of such early retirement prior to age 61 and 6.67% per year for each year of such early retirement between ages 61 and 65.

		34		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

TEGNA Supplemental Retirement Plan (SERP)

The SERP is a nonqualified retirement plan that provides eligible employees with retirement benefits that cannot be provided under the TRP due to the Internal Revenue Code, which limits the compensation that can be recognized under qualified retirement plans and imposes limits on the amount of benefits which can be paid. For some participants, including Ms. Beall, the SERP also provides a benefit equal to the difference between the benefits calculated under the pre-1998 formula, without regard to the IRS-imposed limits on pay and benefits, and the amount they will receive from the TRP under the post-1997 formula. The SERP benefits for Mr. Lougee and Mr. Mayman are calculated under the post-1997 formula without regard to the IRS-imposed limits on pay and benefits. For all SERP participants, the benefit calculated under the applicable SERP formula is reduced by benefits payable from the TRP. Ms. Harker does not participate in the SERP.

In conjunction with the Company’s decision to freeze benefits under the GRP, the Company also decided to make changes to benefits under the SERP. Generally, until December 31, 2017, SERP participants whose SERP benefits were calculated under the pre-1998 formula continued to accrue benefits under the SERP. However, their benefits for credited service after August 1, 2008 were calculated at a rate that is one-third less than the pre-August 1, 2008 rate. Ms. Beall is the only NEO affected by this change. Ms. Beall is currently eligible for early retirement under the pre-1998 formula that applies to her under the SERP.

Effective December 31, 2017, SERP participants whose SERP benefits were calculated under the pre-1998 formula had their SERP benefits frozen such that they ceased to earn additional benefits for earnings, credited service, cost of living adjustments or any other factor or reason after that date. Ms. Beall is the only NEO affected by this change.

Effective August 1, 2008, SERP participants whose SERP benefits were not calculated under the pre-1998 formula had their SERP benefits frozen such that they ceased to earn additional benefits for compensation or service earned on or after that date. Until benefits commence, such participants’ frozen benefits are periodically adjusted to reflect increases in a specified cost-of-living index (i.e., the consumer price index for all urban consumers published by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics for U.S. all items less food and energy). Mr. Lougee and Mr. Mayman are the only NEOs affected by this change.

SERP benefits are generally paid in the form of a lump sum amount when a participant separates from service or, if later, the date the participant attains age 55, except that payment is accelerated in the event that the Company undergoes a change in control. In order to comply with federal tax laws, an NEO’s SERP benefit cannot be paid within the first six months after the participant’s separation from service with the Company. Mr. Lougee, Ms. Beall and Mr. Mayman each are fully vested in their SERP benefits.

TEGNA 401(k) Savings Plan (401(k) Plan)

Most of the Company’s employees based in the United States may participate in the TEGNA 401(k) Savings Plan (“401(k) Plan”), which permits eligible participants to make pre-tax contributions and provides for matching and other employer contributions. Effective August 1, 2008, new participants as well as participants whose benefits have been frozen under the TRP and, if applicable, the SERP, commenced receiving higher matching contributions under the 401(k) Plan. At that time, the matching contribution rate generally increased from 50% of the first 6% of compensation that an employee elects to contribute to the plan to 100% of the first 5% of compensation. Mr. Lougee, Ms. Harker and Mr. Mayman receive matching contributions under the higher match formula, and Ms. Beall receives matching contributions under the old formula. Beginning in 2018, Ms. Beall will be eligible to receive matching contributions under the higher matching formula due to her SERP benefit being frozen effective as of December 31, 2017. The Company also makes additional employer contributions to the 401(k) Plan on behalf of certain employees; Mr. Mayman has been eligible for such a contribution equal to 1.5% of his cash compensation. Beginning in 2017, these additional contributions are being made to the TEGNA Deferred Compensation Plan for certain participants who are eligible to receive this additional contribution, including Mr. Mayman. For purposes of the 401(k) Plan and subject to Internal Revenue Code limits, compensation generally includes a participant’s base salary, performance-based bonuses, and pre-tax contributions to the Company’s benefit plans. Company contributions under the 401(k) Plan vest 25% after one year of service, 50% after two years of service and 100% after three years of service. As of the date of this Proxy Statement, Company contributions are 100% vested for each of the NEOs. Effective January 1, 2018, the matching contribution rate was changed to 100% of the first 4% of compensation that an employee elects to contribute to the plan and such Company contributions are immediately vested when they are made, without regard to years of service.

TEGNA Deferred Compensation Plan (DCP)

Each NEO who participates in the DCP may elect to defer all or a portion of his or her compensation under the DCP, provided that the minimum deferral must be $5,000 for each form of compensation (base salary and bonus) for the year of deferral. The amounts deferred by each NEO are vested and will be deemed invested in the fund or funds designated by such NEO from among a number of funds offered under the DCP.

		35		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

The DCP provides for Company contributions on behalf of certain employees whose benefits under the 401(k) Plan are capped by Internal Revenue Code rules that limit the amount of compensation that can be taken into account when calculating benefits under a qualified plan. Generally, Company contributions to the DCP are calculated by applying the same formula that applies to an employee’s matching and additional employer contributions under the 401(k) Plan to the employee’s compensation in excess of the Internal Revenue Code compensation limit. Additional employer contributions that would normally be made to the 401(k) Plan may instead be made to the DCP to comply with IRS testing requirements that apply to the 401(k) Plan. Participants are not required to make elective contributions to the DCP to receive an employer contribution under the DCP. Company contributions under the DCP vest 25% after one year of service, 50% after two years of service and 100% after three years of service. Mr. Lougee, Ms. Harker and Mr. Mayman each has been credited with Company contributions to the DCP. Each of Mr. Lougee, Ms. Harker and Mr. Mayman was immediately vested in his or her Company contribution when it was made. Executives who have continued to accrue benefits under the SERP for calendar years after August 1, 2008, including Ms. Beall, have not been eligible to receive Company contributions under the DCP. However, beginning in 2018, Ms. Beall will be eligible to receive Company contributions due to her SERP benefit being frozen effective as of December 31, 2017.

Amounts that a participant elects to defer into the DCP are generally paid at the time and in the form elected by the participant, provided that if the participant terminates employment before attaining age 55 and completing five years of service, benefits are paid in a lump sum amount upon such termination (although for pre-2005 deferrals the Committee may pay such deferrals in five annual installments). The DCP permits participants to receive in-service withdrawals of participant contributions for unforeseeable emergencies and certain other circumstances. Prior to when the deferrals are made, a participant may make a special election as to the time and form of payment for benefits that become payable due to the participant’s death or disability if payments have not already commenced, and deferrals will be paid in accordance with such elections under those circumstances. Company contributions to the DCP are generally paid in the form of a lump sum amount when a participant separates from service. The payment of post-2004 Company and participant DCP contributions is accelerated in the event that the Company undergoes a change in control.

TEGNA Transitional Compensation Plan (TCP)

The TCP is a legacy plan that provides severance pay for some of our NEOs and other key executives upon a change in control of the Company. Ms. Harker, Ms. Beall and Mr. Mayman participate in the TCP. Ms. Harker first participated in the TCP after April 15, 2010. Although Mr. Lougee first participated in the TCP before April 15, 2010, following the completion of the Cars.com Spin-off, Mr. Lougee ceased participation in the TCP and became a participant in the CIC Severance Plan.

On December 8, 2015, the Company, consistent with its practice of updating its plans and programs from time to time in light of evolving market trends, froze participation in the TCP and, effective December 15, 2016, additional service credit accruals for existing participants.

The TCP assures the Company that it would have the continued dedication of, and the availability of objective advice and counsel from, key executives notwithstanding the possibility, threat or occurrence of a change in control. As a result, we believe the TCP helps promote the retention and continuity of certain key executives for at least one year after a change in control. The Board believes it is imperative that the Company and the Board be able to rely upon key executives to continue in their positions and be available for advice, if requested, in connection with any proposal relating to a change in control without concern that those individuals might be distracted by the personal uncertainties and risks created by such a proposal. Change in control arrangements also facilitate the Company’s ability to attract and retain management as the Company competes for talented employees in a marketplace where such protections are common.

With those goals in mind, the TCP provides that participants would be entitled to compensation following a change in control if (1) within two years from the date of the change in control the participant’s employment is terminated by the Company other than for “cause,” or by the employee for “good reason”, or (2) in the case of executives participating in the TCP before April 15, 2010 (but not those who first participate in the TCP on or after that date), within a 30-day window period beginning on the first anniversary of the change in control, the executive terminates his or her employment voluntarily.

Following is a summary of several key terms of the TCP:

		36		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

A NEO entitled to compensation under the TCP would receive:

		37		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

TEGNA 2015 Change in Control Severance Plan

On December 8, 2015, the Company adopted the TEGNA 2015 Change in Control Severance Plan (CIC Severance Plan). The CIC Severance Plan provides severance pay for certain key executives, including Mr. Lougee, upon a change in control of the Company in order to assure the Company that it will have the continued dedication of, and the availability of objective advice and counsel from, key executives notwithstanding the possibility, threat or occurrence of a change in control. The Board believes it is imperative that the Company and the Board be able to rely upon key executives to continue in their positions and be available for advice, if requested, in connection with any proposal relating to a change in control without concern that those individuals might be distracted by the personal uncertainties and risks created by such a proposal. Change in control arrangements also facilitate the Company’s ability to attract and retain management as the Company competes for talented employees in a marketplace where such protections are common.

With those goals in mind, the CIC Severance Plan provides that a participant would be entitled to compensation if the participant is terminated prior to and in connection with a change in control or if within two years from the date of the change in control the participant’s employment is terminated by the Company other than for “cause,” or by the participant for “good reason”.

Following is a summary of several key terms of the CIC Severance Plan:

A NEO entitled to compensation under the CIC Severance Plan would receive:

		38		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

Benefits are subject to the participant executing a release and agreeing to certain restrictive covenants.

TEGNA Executive Severance Plan (TESP)

On December 8, 2015, the Company adopted the TEGNA Inc. Executive Severance Plan (TESP). Each of the NEOs participate in the TESP. The plan provides severance payments to each of the NEOs and other executives of the Company approved by the Committee in the event of certain involuntary terminations of employment. Under the TESP, a participant who experiences an involuntary termination of employment without cause would receive a lump-sum cash severance payment equal to the product of (a) a severance multiple; and (b) the sum of the participant’s (1) annual base salary and (2) average annual bonus earned for the three fiscal years immediately preceding the termination. The severance multiple is 2.0 for a participant who is the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, 1.5 for a participant who is a member of the Company’s executive leadership team who reports directly to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, and 1.0 for all other participating executives. In addition, participating executives would receive a lump sum amount equal to the sum of (1) any unpaid base salary or bonus through the date of termination; and (2) a prorated annual bonus for the portion of the fiscal year elapsed prior to the termination. The severance payment is contingent upon the participant’s execution of a separation agreement containing a release of claims in favor of the Company and its affiliates and covenants restricting the participant’s competition, solicitation of employees, disparagement of the Company and its affiliates, and disclosure of confidential information. The separation agreement also contains a release of claims by the Company and its affiliates in favor of the participant and a covenant restricting the Company’s disparagement of the participant. The severance multiples for Mr. Lougee, Ms. Harker, Ms. Beall and Mr. Mayman are 2.0, 1.5, 1.5 and 1.5, respectively.

In May 2017, the Company entered into a letter agreement with Ms. Harker pursuant to which she was entitled participation in the TESP or a plan that provides substantially similar benefits through February 28, 2018. Following that date, Ms. Harker is permitted to terminate her employment with the Company voluntarily and receive the benefits contemplated by the TESP or such other severance plan, subject to her compliance with certain notice requirements and the terms of such plan (including the execution of a release of claims) and provided that circumstances have not arisen entitling the Company to terminate her employment for cause.

Additional information regarding severance benefits for the Company’s NEOs is set forth in the section of this Proxy Statement entitled “Other Potential Post-Employment Payments.”

Other Compensation Policies

RECOUPMENT POLICY

The Company has adopted a recoupment or “clawback” policy that applies to cash-based and equity-based incentive compensation awards granted to the Company’s employees, including the NEOs. Under the policy, to the extent permitted by applicable law and subject to the approval of the Committee, the Company may seek to recoup any incentive based compensation awarded to any employee subject to the policy, if (1) the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, (2) the fraud or intentional misconduct of an employee subject to the policy contributed to the noncompliance that resulted in the obligation to restate, and (3) a lower award of incentive-based compensation would have been made to the covered employee had it been based upon the restated financial results. The policy is in addition to any other remedies the Company may have, including those available under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended.

HEDGING, SHORT-SELLING AND PLEDGING POLICY

The Company has adopted a policy that prohibits the Company’s employees and directors from purchasing financial instruments that are designed to hedge or offset any fluctuations in the market value of the Company’s equity securities they hold, purchasing the Company’s shares on margin and selling any securities of the Company “short.” The policy also prohibits the Company’s directors and executive officers from borrowing against any account in which the Company’s equity securities are held or pledging the Company’s equity securities as collateral for a loan. These prohibitions apply whether or not such equity securities were acquired through the Company’s equity compensation programs.

		39		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

Tax Considerations

Effective January 1, 2018, Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code generally disallows a tax deduction to public corporations for compensation over $1,000,000 paid to an individual who was the company’s CEO, CFO or one of the company’s next three other most highly compensated executive officers in any year after 2016 (“covered employee”). Prior to January 1, 2018, Section 162(m) provided for an exception to the deduction limit for qualifying performance-based compensation if specified requirements were met, and the deduction limit did not apply to the CFO or an individual who was not the company’s CEO or one of the company’s three most highly compensated employees as of the last day of the fiscal year. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amended Section 162(m) by eliminating the performance-based exception and expanding the individuals who are treated as covered employees.

Prior to 2018, the Committee structured Performance Shares and annual bonuses to executive officers in a manner that was intended to satisfy the performance-based compensation exception. Because of ambiguities and uncertainties as to the application and interpretation of Section 162(m) and the regulations issued thereunder, no assurance can be given, notwithstanding the Committee’s efforts, that compensation intended by the Company to satisfy the requirements for deductibility under Section 162(m) does in fact do so. For 2017, $584,565 of the compensation paid to Mr. Lougee and $42,557 of the compensation paid to Mr. Mayman was not deductible under Section 162(m).

After 2017, subject to limited transition relief for certain written binding contracts in effect on November 2, 2017, the Company will generally not be able to obtain a tax deduction for compensation paid to a covered employee in excess of $1,000,000. As was true for years prior to 2018, the Committee reserves the right to award non-deductible compensation as it deems appropriate.

2018 Compensation Outlook: The Company’s Long-term Incentive Program

Following the Cars.com Spin-off, the Committee, with the assistance of its independent compensation consultant, Meridian and Company management, engaged in a seven-month review of the Company’s long-term incentive program (the “LTI Program”). The purpose of the review, which included an assessment of the design, structure and competitiveness of the LTI Program, was to (1) determine whether the LTI Program was competitive with the programs of the Company’s peer group, (2) confirm that the LTI Program continued to create appropriate incentives to motivate long term financial and operational performance, and (3) address the continuing consolidation in the media industry which had created challenges in creating a meaningful TSR peer group for the Company. Company management, on behalf of the Committee, also solicited input from the Company’s shareholders regarding the changes to the LTI Program it was considering.

Following this review, during which the Company received positive shareholder feedback regarding its proposed changes to the LTI Program, the Committee decided to continue the use of RSUs in the LTI Program, but determined that it was in the best interests of the Company’s shareholders and employees to modify the Company’s Performance Share awards as follows:

The Committee determined that using the Company’s total shareholder return as a performance metric had become increasingly difficult because of the significant amount of M&A activity that had taken place in the Company’s peer group, reducing the number of potential peer group members. For additional information regarding such M&A activity, see “Impact of Certain Transactions on Performance Share Awards Involving 2015-2017 TSR Peer Group Members.”

The Committee chose a 2-year performance period for the Performance Shares in order to address the significant cyclical revenue increase the Company experiences in even-numbered years as a result of (1) political spending during mid-term and presidential election years as a result of the Company’s strong political footprint, and (2) the summer and winter Olympic games, resulting from the Company being the largest group owner of stations affiliated with NBC, which broadcasts the Olympic Games.

		40		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

cycle 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2018-2019 Political & Olympic Off Year

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

How the Committee Determines NEO Compensation

For each year of the two-year performance period, the target performance goals will be based on the Company’s budgeted goals for such year, with the target performance goals for the first-year of the two-year performance period set prior to the grant date and the target performance goals for the second year of the two-year performance period set during the first 60 days of the second year.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Executive Compensation Committee met with management to review and discuss the Compensation Discussion and Analysis disclosures included in this Proxy Statement. Based on such review and discussion, on February 22, 2018 the Committee recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement and incorporated by reference in the Company’s Form 10-K for its 2017 fiscal year, and the Board has approved that recommendation.

Executive Compensation Committee

Howard D. Elias, Chair

Lidia Fonseca

Marjorie Magner

Scott K. McCune

		41		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Summary Compensation Table

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

		42		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Summary Compensation Table

		43		2018 PROXY STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Grants of Plan-based Awards

GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

The following table summarizes grants of plan-based awards in 2017. See the table entitled “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year End” for the number of plan-based awards outstanding on December 31, 2017.