By Frank Macek
As someone who's spent a good part of my career inside local television stations, I’ve seen firsthand how decisions made in Washington D.C. ripple across our newsrooms. When the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) talks about relaxing ownership rules, it’s not just an abstract policy shift—it’s something that could affect every aspect of what we do on the ground. And while the issue is complex, I think it's worth stepping back to look at both the opportunities and the challenges this kind of change presents.
Let’s talk about the potential benefits of relaxing these rules. One of the strongest arguments in favor is that increased consolidation could help struggling local stations stay afloat. With declining ad revenue and rising production costs, it’s becoming harder for independently owned or smaller groups to survive. Allowing ownership groups to operate more stations in a market—or across multiple platforms—could mean pooling resources, sharing technology, and achieving economies of scale that make these operations more sustainable.
From a purely operational standpoint, that’s a pretty compelling argument. I’ve seen stations where combining newsrooms or backend systems led to improved efficiency. Things like shared master control rooms, centralized graphics hubs, or consolidated engineering departments can cut costs without necessarily sacrificing content quality. And in an ideal world, savings from these efficiencies could be reinvested in local journalism—in hiring more reporters, expanding coverage, or improving technology.
Another point in favor is the potential for innovation. Larger station groups tend to have the resources to experiment with new formats, invest in digital tools, and develop stronger brand consistency across markets. That’s not always possible when stations are operating in silos. When you have a parent company with deep pockets and a national vision, they can introduce initiatives that a single local owner could never afford. Think of things like mobile news labs, AI-enhanced editing, or even localized OTT (over-the-top) streaming channels.
But of course, there are downsides—and I’ve witnessed some of those too. One of the biggest concerns is the loss of localism. When ownership gets too concentrated, decision-making often shifts further away from the communities being served. Instead of local managers making calls based on what their viewers need, you may end up with executives in another city dictating content strategy. That can lead to homogenized coverage and a lack of responsiveness to local issues.
I’ve also seen how consolidation can result in job losses. As companies combine operations, there are often overlapping roles—and that typically means cuts. It's hard to celebrate efficiencies when you're also saying goodbye to talented colleagues who brought unique perspectives and historical knowledge of their communities. And when a newsroom is stretched thin, it’s harder to do deep, meaningful reporting that holds local power to account.
Another concern is editorial independence. While most station groups do their best to respect journalistic integrity, there’s always a risk that fewer owners mean fewer editorial voices. It’s not just about the number of stations—it’s about who controls the message. Critics worry that large corporations might prioritize certain agendas or economic interests over the public’s right to a diverse, independent media.
So where does that leave us? Personally, I believe there’s a middle ground. The reality is that the media world of 2025 isn’t the same as it was in 1975, and the rules need to reflect that. Local stations are competing not just with each other but with TikTok, YouTube, national cable channels, and a seemingly endless stream of content. If relaxing ownership rules helps keep local broadcasters alive and relevant, that’s worth considering. But we also can’t lose sight of the mission—to serve our communities with integrity, accuracy, and authenticity.
I’d love to see reforms that come with built-in safeguards. If ownership caps are lifted, let’s pair that with strong commitments to local news production, transparency, and community engagement. Maybe stations that benefit from consolidation could be required to maintain a minimum level of locally produced content—or even support journalism fellowships to grow the next generation of reporters.
We can also explore new ways to measure media diversity. It’s not just about who owns what—it’s about the stories being told, the voices being heard, and the communities being represented. Are we covering marginalized neighborhoods? Are we offering meaningful political discourse? Are we reflecting the full spectrum of our audience?
Ultimately, the FCC’s moves will have long-term implications. They’re shaping not just how many stations a company can own, but how well those stations can fulfill their public service mission. And as someone who cares deeply about the future of local journalism, I’ll be watching closely. Not with blind optimism or fear—but with hope that the industry can adapt while still holding on to the values that matter most.
Because in the end, the story isn’t about policy. It’s about people. The viewers who rely on us. The journalists who work tirelessly every day. And the communities we all strive to serve. If any regulatory change—whether large or small—can help us do that better, then it’s a conversation worth having.
I welcome your feedback. Email me at fmacek@gmail.com