Dak’s Take: Scale alone will not save local television

The Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 on Aug. 6 to repeal the 39% national ownership cap, the rule that has kept a single company from owning stations reaching more than 39% of U.S. television households since 2004. In its place: a case-by-case review process, run by the same commission that just decided the old rule no longer served its purpose.

Broadcasters have wanted this for two decades, and the industry is framing the vote as the moment local television finally competes on equal footing with national platforms.

FCC repeals 39% national ownership cap, opens door to case-by-case review

Here is the fatal flaw in that framing: broadcasters are treating scale as though it were a strategy for relevance.

It is primarily a strategy for lowering costs and increasing leverage. Those are not nothing. They are also not the same thing as a plan for why anyone under 40 should care about a local television station in 2030.

A financing strategy, not a product strategy

The industry has argued the ownership cap kept it from competing with national platforms and unregulated tech giants. That argument isn’t fabricated.

Chairman Brendan Carr called the repeal a correction, not a giveaway, arguing national programmers already reach every household through streaming while station owners remained capped.

“It’s time to restore balance to the broadcast airwaves,” he said.

Commissioner Anna Gomez dissented, calling the move “unlawful on its face” and arguing Congress stripped the commission of authority to touch a cap it wrote into law in 2004. Legal challenges are expected.

Advertisement

That fight is real, but it’s a distraction from the harder question, which has nothing to do with statutory authority: broadcasters have identified scale as their answer to a declining linear business because they have not developed a convincing replacement for it.

Consolidation is what an industry reaches for when it hasn’t figured out the product problem yet. Nexstar has already secured a waiver to combine with Tegna, creating a roughly 260-station group covering 80% of the country, a deal now tangled in litigation after a federal judge found states and DirecTV likely to prove it violates antitrust law.

That’s a company solving a balance-sheet problem. It says nothing about whether Nexstar’s stations will produce better journalism.

Local is not a transmitter location

The conceptual center of this whole debate is a single distinction the industry keeps blurring: local content is content created because of a specific community, not merely content distributed within it. A newscast doesn’t become more local because a group’s logo sits in the corner and a station license says so.

Localism has to live in the reporting and judgment behind the broadcast.

That distinction should also sort what consolidation is actually allowed to touch. Shared infrastructure can reasonably be centralized without doing much damage. Editorial judgment, sourcing and market knowledge cannot be centralized without losing something, because that knowledge only exists inside a specific newsroom covering a specific place.

Gomez described the failure mode at her press conference: “Some of these station groups farm out content that is not really changed. It’s the exact same thing that gets read in every local news programming throughout the country.”

Even Carr, who voted for the repeal, warned about the same thing from the other side, saying stations that become “undifferentiated pass-throughs for national programming produced in Hollywood and New York” — or “dumb pipes for the national feed” — only accelerate their own decline.

That’s a rare point of agreement. Where the two commissioners differ is whether removing the cap makes it more or less likely.

The test for any centralized function should be simple: does it fund another reporter in the field, or does it just let the company run the station with fewer people and call the difference margin improvement? Efficiency can support local journalism. Efficiency is not, itself, local journalism.

The private equity mentality

The likely counter is that consolidation brings investment, and investment means more journalists. Maybe. But head count is a weak proxy for localism. A company can add regional investigative units and centralized digital producers while every newscast in the group starts sounding more like its neighbors than the community it’s licensed to serve.

The number that matters isn’t how many people the company employs group-wide. It’s how many are working a beat in a given market, developing sources there, producing coverage that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Advertisement

That distinction matters because head count grows fastest under exactly the ownership structure that gives localism the least protection.

Not every consolidated group is literally private-equity owned. But plenty behave like it anyway: acquire, combine, strip duplication, protect margins, use each round of scale to justify the next acquisition.

Gomez pushed this further at her press conference, describing owners who “pull network programming to please this administration” while overriding editorial judgment when currying favor “cuts the other way” — both moves, she said, “come from the same playbook.”

Carr would dispute the framing; he casts the FCC’s separate content proceedings as enforcement of obligations broadcasters accepted in exchange for free spectrum. But the structural point survives the disagreement: fewer independent owners means fewer independent incentives, and it matters which direction those incentives point.

Both commissioners, notably, reached for the same newspaper industry as a warning, Carr as proof regulatory inaction kills a legacy medium, Gomez as proof consolidation does. Scale may let broadcasting manage decline more efficiently. That isn’t the same as reversing it.

The real problem isn’t ownership structure

This is the part consolidation lets everyone avoid. Local television’s core linear audience is aging and shrinking. Younger viewers increasingly encounter video through phones, connected TVs and social clips instead of appointment newscasts.

Commissioner Olivia Trusty made the industry’s best case that scale can fund the fix, arguing it “can provide additional resources to invest in local journalism, emergency coverage, investigative reporting, and community programming.”

That’s the theory. What the industry has actually built with the resources it already has is mostly distribution: put the same evening newscast on more platforms, more apps, more FAST channels.

That is not reinvention.

It’s the same product with a longer reach and no new reason for anyone under 40 to seek it out. The industry has not answered what a local news service looks like when the newscast isn’t its center, what people would use daily rather than watch occasionally, or how a station builds a direct relationship with its audience instead of depending on a cable bill or a platform algorithm. Consolidation postpones those questions. It does not answer them.

Advertisement

What scale could actually do

None of this is a blanket case against consolidation. Scale could genuinely strengthen local media if groups used it to fund reporters embedded in individual markets, share infrastructure without homogenizing editorial decisions, and invest in mobile, connected TV and newsletter products instead of pouring every dollar back into linear.

The test isn’t whether every function stays inside every station. It’s whether consolidation makes distinctive local work possible or makes distinctiveness economically unnecessary.

The FCC can remove a national ownership limit. It cannot remove the underlying audience and product problem local television has circled for a decade.

A group can reach 50%, 70% or 80% of U.S. households and still matter less within each one. The industry may now get the scale it spent 20 years demanding. Unless that scale funds distinctive local reporting and genuinely new products, rather than a leaner version of the same declining business, broadcasters will have consolidated the industry without saving the medium.