Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Media cross-ownership in the United States
View on Wikipedia
Media cross-ownership is the common ownership of multiple media sources by a single person or corporate entity.[1] Media sources include radio, broadcast television, specialty and pay television, cable, satellite, Internet Protocol television (IPTV), newspapers, magazines and periodicals, music, film, book publishing, video games, search engines, social media, internet service providers, and wired and wireless telecommunications.
Much of the debate over concentration of media ownership in the United States has for many years focused specifically on the ownership of broadcast stations, cable stations, newspapers, and websites. Some have pointed to an increase in media merging and concentration of ownership which may correlate to decreased trust in 'mass' media.[2]
Ownership of American media
[edit]Over time, both the number of media outlets and concentration of ownership have increased, translating to fewer companies owning more media outlets.[3]
Digital
[edit]Also known as "Big Tech," a collection of five major digital media companies are also noted for their strong influence over their respective industries:
- Alphabet
- Owns search engine Google, video sharing site YouTube, proprietary rights to the open-source Android operating system, blog hosting site Blogger, Gmail e-mail service, and numerous other online media and software outlets.
- Amazon
- Owns the Amazon.com e-commerce marketplace, cloud computing platform AWS, video streaming service Amazon Prime Video, music streaming service Amazon Music, and video live streaming service Twitch. Amazon also owns Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), Orion Pictures, MGM Television, premium cable channel and direct-to-consumer streaming service MGM+, and extensive film and television content libraries via MGM Holdings,[4] now known as Amazon MGM Studios.[5]
See:List of assets owned by Amazon MGM Studios - Apple
- Produces iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and Apple TV products, the iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and tvOS operating systems, music streaming service Apple Music, video streaming service Apple TV+, news aggregator Apple News, gaming platform Apple Arcade, and film/TV studio Apple Studios.
- Meta
- Owns social networks Facebook and Instagram, messaging services Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp, and virtual reality platform Reality Labs, formerly Oculus VR.
- Microsoft
- Owns business-oriented social network LinkedIn, web portal MSN, search engine Bing, cloud computing platform Microsoft Azure, Xbox gaming consoles and related services, Office productivity suite, Outlook.com e-mail service, Skype video chat service, and Windows operating system. Microsoft is also the largest US video game publisher with its ownership of Xbox Game Studios, ZeniMax Media and Activision Blizzard See: List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft.
Video
[edit]- The Walt Disney Company
- Owns the ABC television network, cable networks Disney Channel, Disney XD, Freeform, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, Disney Mobile, Disney Music Group, Disney Publishing Worldwide, production companies Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, Lucasfilm, Marvel Studios, 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures, ABC Audio (including three AM radio stations), Disney Consumer Products, and Disney Parks theme parks in several countries. Along with Disney Streaming operating Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. In partnership with Hearst Corporation, Disney co-owns A&E Networks (History, A&E and Lifetime) and ESPN Inc. (the latter also co-owned by the National Football League, and which owns the ESPN suite of channels and NFL Network). Though still bearing the name of its founder Walt Disney, the Disney family is no longer involved in the publicly traded corporation.
See: List of assets owned by The Walt Disney Company. - Netflix
- Owns the largest subscription over-the-top video service in the United States; it also owns many of the films and television series released on the service. Netflix also owns DVD Netflix (dvd.netflix.com), a mail-order video rental service. Netflix also has close ties to Roku, Inc., which it spun off in 2008 to avoid self-dealing accusations but maintains a substantial investment and owns the Roku operating system used on a large proportion of smart televisions and set-top boxes.
See: List of assets owned by Netflix Inc. - NBCUniversal
- Owns the NBC television network, Telemundo, a Spanish television network, Universal Pictures, Illumination, Focus Features, DreamWorks Animation, 26 television stations in the United States and cable networks USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, MSNBC, Syfy, NBCSN, Golf Channel, E!, and NBC Sports Regional Networks. Owns free-to-air and digital multicast networks, Cozi TV, NBC American Crimes, Oxygen, and TeleXitos. NBCUniversal is a subsidiary of Comcast, which operates the Peacock streaming service, in turn controlled by the family of Ralph J. Roberts (with Ralph's son Brian L. Roberts being the largest shareholder).
See: List of assets owned by NBCUniversal. - Warner Bros. Discovery
- Owns The CW television network (a joint venture with Paramount Global and Nexstar Media Group), cable networks HBO, CNN, Cinemax, Cartoon Network, Adult Swim, HLN, NBA TV, TBS, TNT, TruTV, Turner Classic Movies, Discovery Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, HGTV, Food Network, Magnolia Network, Cooking Channel, Travel Channel, ID, Oprah Winfrey Network, Science, production companies Warner Bros. Pictures, New Line Cinema, Castle Rock, Warner Bros. Television, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, publishing company DC Entertainment, sports media companies Motor Trend Group, Turner Sports (owns Bleacher Report), streaming service HBO Max (operated through the Warner Bros. Discovery Streaming & Studios division), and digital media company Otter Media (Owns Fullscreen, and Rooster Teeth). It also owns and operates Eurosport and TVN Group in Europe.
See: List of assets owned by Warner Bros. Discovery. - Paramount Skydance Corporation
- Owns the CBS television network and The CW (a joint venture with Warner Bros. Discovery and Nexstar Media Group), digital multicast networks Dabl, Start TV (both owned by Paramount, operated by Weigel Broadcasting), and Fave TV, cable networks CBS Sports Network, Showtime, Pop; CBS News and Stations (which operates 30 stations); CBS Studios; MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, TV Land, VH1, BET, CMT, Comedy Central, Logo TV, Paramount Network, Paramount Pictures, Paramount Home Entertainment, their streaming service Paramount+, and FAST streaming television service, Pluto TV. Along with its UK & Australia network division owning the 5 in the UK and Network 10 in Australia. The Ellison family (which in turn has strong ties to Oracle Corporation) holds the controlling stake in Paramount Skydance since 2025, with minority stakes held by the National Football League and RedBird Capital Partners.
See: List of assets owned by Paramount Skydance. - Fox Corporation
- Owns the Fox television network, broadcast syndication service MyNetworkTV, digital multicast network Movies! (a joint venture between Fox Television Stations and Weigel Broadcasting), Fox News Group (Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Weather, Fox News Radio, Fox News Talk, Fox Nation), Fox Sports (FS1, FS2, Fox Deportes, Big Ten Network (51%), Fox Sports Radio), Fox Television Stations, Bento Box Entertainment, their streaming service Fox One, and FAST streaming service, Tubi. Australian-American media magnate Rupert Murdoch and his family are the major stakeholders in Fox.
See:List of assets owned by Fox Corporation - Sony Pictures Entertainment
- Owns Sony Pictures Entertainment Motion Picture Group (including Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, and Sony Pictures Animation) , Sony Pictures Television, and Crunchyroll. Operates cable networks, Game Show Network and Sony Movie Channel, and digital multicast networks, Get. and Game Show Central. Sony Pictures Entertainment is a subsidiary of Sony, a Japanese conglomerate.
See:List of assets owned by Sony - Lionsgate
- Owns Lionsgate Films, Lionsgate Television, Lionsgate Interactive, and a variety of subsidiaries such as Summit Entertainment, Debmar-Mercury, and Starz Inc.
See:List of assets owned by Starz Entertainment - AMC Networks
- Owns cable networks AMC, IFC, SundanceTV, WeTV, and 49.9% of BBC America. Owns film studios IFC Films and RLJE Films, and streaming services AMC+, Shudder, HIDIVE, Sundance Now, Allblk, and Acorn TV, and a minority stake in BritBox. James Dolan and his family have 67% voting power over the company.
See:List of assets owned by AMC Networks
Due to cross-ownership restrictions in place for much of the 20th century limiting broadcasting and print assets, as well as difficulties in establishing synergy between the two media, print companies largely stay within the print medium.
- The New York Times Company
- In addition to The New York Times, the company also owns The New York Times Magazine, T: The New York Times Style Magazine, The New York Times Book Review, The New York Times International Edition, Wirecutter, Audm, and Serial Productions. Although publicly traded, its controlling Class B shares are privately held by the descendants of Adolph Ochs who acquired the newspaper in 1896.
- Nash Holdings
- Owns The Washington Post, whose subsidiaries include content management system provider Arc Publishing and media monetization platform Zeus Technology. Nash is owned by Jeff Bezos.
- News Corp
- Owns Dow Jones & Company (Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, and MarketWatch), the New York Post, and book publisher HarperCollins. See: List of assets owned by News Corp. Both News Corp and Fox Corporation are controlled by the family of Rupert Murdoch.
- Bloomberg L.P.
- Owns Bloomberg News (Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Markets, Bloomberg Television, and Bloomberg Radio) and produces the Bloomberg Terminal which is used by financial professionals to access market data and news. Bloomberg is owned by and named after Michael Bloomberg.
- Advance Publications
- Owns magazine publisher Condé Nast (The New Yorker, Vogue, Bon Appétit, Architectural Digest, Condé Nast Traveler, Vanity Fair, Wired, GQ, and Allure), American City Business Journals, and a chain of local newspapers and regional news websites. The company also holds stakes in cable television provider Charter (which operates the Spectrum News and Spectrum Sports regional cable channels), the social news aggregation website Reddit, and Warner Bros. Discovery (see above). Advance is controlled by the descendants of S.I. Newhouse.
- Hearst Communications
- Owns a wide variety of newspapers and magazines including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Houston Chronicle, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, and King Features Syndicate (print syndicator). See: List of assets owned by Hearst Communications. Hearst was founded by William Randolph Hearst, whose descendants remain active in the company.
- Gannett
- Owns the national newspaper USA Today. Its largest non-national newspaper is The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, Arizona. Other significant newspapers include The Indianapolis Star, The Cincinnati Enquirer, The Tennessean in Nashville, Tennessee, The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Kentucky, the Democrat and Chronicle in Rochester, New York, The Des Moines Register, the Detroit Free Press and The News-Press in Fort Myers. The company also previously held several television stations, which are now the autonomous company Tegna Inc., and syndication company Multimedia Entertainment (the assets of which are now owned by Comcast). In November 2019, GateHouse Media merged with Gannett, creating the largest newspaper publisher in the United States, which adopted the Gannett name.[6][7] Through the merger, Gannett is currently controlled by New Media Investment Group, which is owned by SoftBank Group through Fortress Investment Group. See: List of assets owned by Gannett.
- Tribune Publishing
- Second-largest owner of newspapers in the United States by total number of subscribers, which owns the Chicago Tribune, the New York Daily News, the Denver Post, The Mercury News, among other daily and weekly newspapers. Tribune Publishing is controlled by Alden Global Capital.
Record labels
[edit]- Universal Music Group
- Largest of the "Big Three" record labels. The company is majority-owned by public, with Tencent and Vivendi owning their minority stake.
- Sony Music Group
- Second-largest of the "Big Three" record labels. The company is owned by Sony.
- Warner Music Group
- Third-largest of the "Big Three" record labels. The company is majority-owned by Len Blavatnik's Access Industries, with Tencent owning a minority stake.
Video Gaming
[edit]- Electronic Arts
- Largest video game publisher in the United States.
- Take-Two Interactive
- Second-largest video game publisher in the United States.
- Microsoft Gaming
- Microsoft became one of the largest gaming companies, the third-by revenue and the largest by employment.[8][9]
Radio
[edit]- Sirius XM Radio
- Owns a monopoly on American satellite radio, as well as Pandora Radio, a prominent advertising-supported Internet radio platform. 72% of Sirius XM is owned by Liberty Media, which is controlled by John Malone.
- iHeartMedia
- Owns 858 radio stations, the radio streaming platform iHeartRadio, Premiere Networks (which in turn owns The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, The Sean Hannity Show, The Glenn Beck Program, Coast to Coast AM, American Top 40, Delilah, and Fox Sports Radio, all being among the top national radio programs in their category), and previously held a stake in Live Nation and Sirius XM Radio as well as several television stations (later under the management of Newport Television, and now owned by separate companies). Also owns record chart company Mediabase.
- Audacy
- Owns 235 radio stations across 48 media markets and internet radio platform Audacy.
- Cumulus Media
- Owns 429 radio stations, including the former assets of Westwood One (which includes Transtar Radio Networks and Mutual Broadcasting System), Jones Radio Networks, Waitt Radio Networks, Satellite Music Network (all of the major satellite music radio services intended for relay through terrestrial stations), most of ABC's radio network offerings and stations, most of Watermark Inc. (except the American Top 40 franchise), a significant number of radio stations ranging from small to large markets, and distribution rights to CBS Radio News and National Football League radio broadcasts.
- Townsquare Media
- Owns 321 radio stations in 67 markets, including the assets of Regent Communications, Gap Broadcasting, and Double O Radio.
Local television
[edit]- E. W. Scripps Company
- Owns hundreds of television stations and networks Ion Television, Laff, Court TV, Ion Mystery, Grit, Bounce TV, Ion Plus and FAST news channel Scripps News. Ion Media, LLC, (formerly known as Paxson Communications Corporation and Ion Media Networks), which operates 48 stations. Digital assets include United Media, Cracked.com, and Stitcher. Scripps previously held assets in radio, newspapers and cable television channels but has since divested those assets.
- Gray Media
- Owns television stations in 113 markets, including the assets of Hoak Media, Meredith Corporation, Quincy Media, Raycom Media, and Schurz Communications. Also co-manages the digital network Circle with the Grand Ole Opry. : See: List of stations owned or operated by Gray Television.
- Hearst Television
- Owns 29 local television stations. It is the third-largest group owner of ABC-affiliated stations and the second-largest group owner of NBC affiliates. Parent company Hearst Communications owns 50% of broadcasting firm A&E Networks,[10] and 20% of the sports broadcaster ESPN—the last two both co-owned with The Walt Disney Company. : See: List of assets owned by Hearst Communications.
- Nexstar Media Group
- The largest television station owner in the United States owning 197 television stations across the U.S., most of whom are affiliated with the four "major" U.S. television networks. It also owns The CW (joint venture with Paramount Global via CBS and Warner Bros. Discovery), NewsNation (formerly WGN America), digital networks Antenna TV and Rewind TV, and political newspaper and website The Hill. : See: List of stations owned or operated by Nexstar Media Group.
- Sinclair Broadcast Group
- It owns or operates a large number of television stations across the country that are affiliated with all six major television networks, including stations formerly owned by Allbritton Communications, Barrington Broadcasting, Fisher Communications, Newport Television (and predecessor Clear Channel) and Bally Sports. Other assets include the Tennis Channel, digital networks Comet, Charge!, The Nest and Roar. : See: List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group.
- Tegna Inc.
- Owns or operates 66 television stations in 54 markets, and holds properties in digital media. Comprises the broadcast television and digital media divisions of the old Gannett Company.
- Operates free-to-air networks MeTV, MeTV+, MeTV Toons, Catchy Comedy, Dabl, Heroes & Icons, Movies!, Start TV, Story Television, and WEST. Operates 46 stations, and FM radio station WRME-LD 87.7 FM in Chicago (branded as "MeTV FM")
History of FCC regulations
[edit]The First Amendment to the United States Constitution included a provision that protected "freedom of the press" from Congressional action. For newspapers and other print items, in which the medium itself was practically infinite and publishers could produce as many publications as they wanted without interfering with any other publisher's ability to do the same, this was not a problem.
The debut of radio broadcasting in the first part of the 20th century complicated matters; the radio spectrum is finite, and only a limited number of broadcasters could use the medium at the same time. The United States government opted to declare the entire broadcast spectrum to be government property and license the rights to use the spectrum to broadcasters. After several years of experimental broadcast licensing, the United States licensed its first commercial radio station, KDKA, in 1920.
Prior to 1927, public airwaves in the United States were regulated by the United States Department of Commerce and largely litigated in the courts as the growing number of stations fought for space in the burgeoning industry. In the earliest days, radio stations were typically required to share the same standard frequency (833 kHz) and were not allowed to broadcast an entire day, instead having to sign on and off at designated times to allow competing stations to use the frequency.
The Federal Radio Act of 1927 (signed into law February 23, 1927) nationalized the airwaves and formed the Federal Radio Commission, the forerunner of the modern Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assume control of the airwaves. One of the first moves of the FRC was General Order 40, the first U.S. bandplan, which allocated permanent frequencies for most U.S. stations and eliminated most of the part-time broadcasters.
Communications Act of 1934
[edit]The Communications Act of 1934 was the stepping stone for all of the communications rules that are in place today. When first enacted, it created the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).[11] It was created to regulate the telephone monopolies, but also regulate the licensing for the spectrum used for broadcasting. The FCC was given authority by Congress to give out licenses to companies to use the broadcasting spectrum. However, they had to determine whether the license would serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity".[12] The primary goal for the FCC, from the start, has been to serve the "public interest". A debated concept, the term "public interest" was provided with a general definition by the Federal Radio Commission. The Commission determined, in its 1928 annual report, that "the emphasis must be first and foremost on the interest, the convenience, and the necessity of the listening public, and not on the interest, convenience, or necessity of the individual broadcaster or the advertiser."[13] Following this reasoning, early FCC regulations reflected the presumption that "it would not be in the public's interest for a single entity to hold more than one broadcast license in the same community. The view was that the public would benefit from a diverse array of owners because it would lead to a diverse array of program and service viewpoints."[14]
The Communications Act of 1934 refined and expanded on the authority of the FCC to regulate public airwaves in the United States, combining and reorganizing provisions from the Federal Radio Act of 1927 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. It empowered the FCC, among other things, to administer broadcasting licenses, impose penalties and regulate standards and equipment used on the airwaves. The Act also mandated that the FCC would act in the interest of the "public convenience, interest, or necessity."[12] The Act established a system whereby the FCC grants licenses to the spectrum to broadcasters for commercial use, so long as the broadcasters act in the public interest by providing news programming.
Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC, wanted to establish high fees for broadcasting licenses, but Congress saw this as a limitation upon free speech. Consequently, "the franchise to operate a broadcasting station, often worth millions, is awarded free of charge to enterprises selected under the standard of 'public interest, convenience, or necessity.'"[15]
Nevertheless, radio and television was dominated by the Big Three television networks until the mid-1990s, when the Fox network and UPN and The WB started to challenge that hegemony.
Cross-ownership rules of 1975
[edit]In 1975, the FCC passed the newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership rule.[16] This ban prohibited the ownership of a daily newspaper and any "full-power broadcast station that serviced the same community".[14] This rule emphasized the need to ensure that a broad number of voices were given the opportunity to communicate via different outlets in each market. Newspapers, explicitly prohibited from federal regulation because of the guarantee of freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, were out of the FCC's jurisdiction, but the FCC could use the ownership of a newspaper as a preclusion against owning radio or television licenses, which the FCC could and did regulate.
The FCC designed rules to make sure that there is a diversity of voices and opinions on the airwaves. "Beginning in 1975, FCC rules banned cross-ownership by a single entity of a daily newspaper and television or radio broadcast station operating in the same local market."[17] The ruling was put in place to limit media concentration in TV and radio markets, because they use public airwaves, which is a valuable, and now limited, resource.
Telecommunications Act 1996
[edit]The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was an influential act for media cross-ownership. One of the requirements of the act was that the FCC must conduct a biennial review of its media ownership rules "and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition." The Commission was ordered to "repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest."[18]
The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition, actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a trend which still continues.[19] Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership of TV stations dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began tracking such data in 1990.[20]
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, restrictions on media merging have decreased. Although merging media companies seems to provide positive outcomes for the companies involved in the merger, it might lead to negative outcomes for other companies, viewers and future businesses. The FCC even found that they were indeed negative effects of recent merges in a study that they issued.[3]
Since 21st century
[edit]In September 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating that the Commission would re-evaluate its media ownership rules pursuant to the obligation specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[14][21] In June 2003, after its deliberations which included a single public hearing and the review of nearly two-million pieces of correspondence from the public opposing further relaxation of the ownership rules[22] the FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban and to make changes to or repeal several of its other ownership rules as well.[14][23] In the order, the FCC noted that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule was no longer necessary in the public interest to maintain competition, diversity or localism. However, in 2007 the FCC revised its rules and ruled that they would take it "case-by-case and determine if the cross-ownership would affect the public interest.[14] The rule changes permitted a company to own a newspaper and broadcast station in any of the nation's top 20 media markets as long as there are at least eight media outlets in the market. If the combination included a television station, that station couldn't be in the market's top four. As it has since 2003, Prometheus Radio Project argued that the relaxed rule would pave the way for more media consolidation. Broadcasters, pointing to the increasing competition from new platforms, argued that the FCC's rules—including other ownership regulations that govern TV duopolies and radio ownership—should be relaxed even further. The FCC, meanwhile, defended its right to change the rules either way."[17] That public interest is what the FCC bases its judgments on, whether a media cross-ownership would be a positive and contributive force, locally and nationally.
The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one forum was needed.[24]
In 2003 the FCC set out to re-evaluate its media ownership rules specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period.
- Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.
- Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.
- All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.
- Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest" considerations.
The decision by the FCC was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC in June, 2004. The Majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered the Commission to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. The Supreme Court later turned down an appeal, so the ruling stands.[25]
In June 2006, the FCC adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR)[26] to address the issues raised by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and also to perform the recurring evaluation of the media ownership rules required by the Telecommunications Act.[27] The deliberations would draw upon three formal sources of input:(1) the submission of comments, (2) ten Commissioned studies, and (3) six public hearings.[14]
The FCC in 2007 voted to modestly relax its existing ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.[28] The FCC voted December 18, 2007 to eliminate some media ownership rules, including a statute that forbids a single company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin circulated the plan in October 2007.[25] Martin's justification for the rule change is to ensure the viability of America's newspapers and to address issues raised in the 2003 FCC decision that was later struck down by the courts.[29] The FCC held six hearings around the country to receive public input from individuals, broadcasters and corporations. Because of the lack of discussion during the 2003 proceedings, increased attention has been paid to ensuring that the FCC engages in proper dialogue with the public regarding its current rules change. FCC Commissioners Deborah Taylor-Tate and Robert McDowell joined Chairman Martin in voting in favor of the rule change. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, both Democrats, opposed the change.[30]
UHF discount
[edit]Beginning in 1985, the FCC implemented a rule stating that television stations broadcasting on UHF channels would be "discounted" by half when calculating a broadcaster's total reach, under the market share cap of 39% of U.S. TV households. This rule was implemented because the UHF band was generally considered inferior to VHF for broadcasting analog television. The notion became obsolete since the completion of the transition from analog to digital television in 2009; the majority of television stations now broadcast on the UHF band because, by contrast, it is generally considered superior for digital transmission.[31][32]
The FCC voted to deprecate the rule in September 2016; the Commission argued that the UHF discount had become technologically obsolete, and that it was now being used as a loophole by broadcasters to contravene its market share rules and increase their market share through consolidation. The existing portfolios of broadcasters who now exceeded the cap due to the change were grandfathered, including the holdings of Ion Media Networks, Tribune Media, and Univision.[33]
However, on April 21, 2017, under new Trump administration FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, the discount was reinstated in a 2-1 vote, led by Pai and commissioner Michael O'Rielly. The move, along with a plan to evaluate increasing the national ownership cap, is expected to trigger a wider wave of consolidation in broadcast television.[34][35] A challenge to the rule's restoration was filed on May 15 by The Institute for Public Representation (a coalition of public interest groups comprising Free Press, the United Church of Christ, Media Mobilizing Project, the Prometheus Radio Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and Common Cause), which requested an emergency motion to stay the UHF discount order – delaying its June 5 re-implementation – pending a court challenge to the rule. The groups re-affirmed that the rule was technologically obsolete, and was restored for the purpose of allowing media consolidation. The FCC rejected the claims, stating that the discount would only allow forward a regulatory review of any station group acquisitions, and that the Institute for Public Representation's criteria for the stay fell short of meeting adequate determination in favor of it by the court; it also claimed that the discount was "inextricably linked" to the agency's media ownership rules, a review of which it initiated in May of that year.[36][37][38]
The challenge and subsequent stay motion was partly filed as a reaction to Sinclair Broadcast Group's proposed acquisition of Tribune Media (announced on May 8), which – with the more than 230 stations that the combined company would have, depending on any divestitures in certain markets where both groups own stations – would expand the group's national reach to 78% of all U.S. households with at least one television set with the discount. On June 1, 2017, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a seven-day administrative stay to the UHF discount rulemaking to review the emergency stay motion.[39][40] The D.C. Court of Appeals denied the emergency stay motion in a one-page memorandum on June 15, 2017, however, the merits of restoring the discount is still subject to a court appeal proceeding scheduled to occur at a later date.[41][needs update]
Following this, in November 2017, the FCC voted 3-2 along partisan lines to eliminate the cross-ownership ban against owning multiple media outlets in the same local market, as well as increasing the number of television stations that one entity may own in a local market. Pai argued the removal of the ban was necessary for local media to compete with online information sources like Google and Facebook.[42] The decision was appealed by advocacy groups, and in September 2019, the Third Circuit struck down the rule change in a 2-1 decision, with the majority opinion stating the FCC "did not adequately consider the effect its sweeping rule changes will have on ownership of broadcast media by women and racial minorities." Pai stated plans to appeal this ruling.[43] The FCC petitioned to the Supreme Court under FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2021 to reverse the Third Circuit's ruling, stating that the FCC's rule changes did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, and that there was no Congressional mandate for the FCC to consider the impact on minority ownership of its rulemaking, thus allowing the FCC to proceed with relaxation of media cross-ownership rules.[44]
Local content
[edit]A 2008 study found that news stations operated by a small media company produced more local news and more locally produced video than large chain-based broadcasting groups.[14][45] It was then argued that the FCC claimed, in 2003, that larger media groups produced better quality local content. Research by Philip Napoli and Michael Yan showed that larger media groups actually produced less local content.[14][46] In a different study, they also showed that "ownership by one of the big four broadcast networks has been linked to a considerable decrease in the amount of televised local public affairs programming"[14]
The major reasoning the FCC made for deregulation was that with more capital, broadcasting organizations could produce more and better local content. However, the research studies by Napoli and Yan showed that once teamed-up, they produced less content. Cross ownership between broadcasting and newspapers is a complicated issue. The FCC believes that more deregulation is necessary. However, with research studies showing that they produced less local content - less voices being heard that are from within the communities. While less local voices are heard, more national-based voices do appear. Chain-based companies are using convergence, the same content being produced across multiple mediums, to produce this mass-produced content. It is cheaper and more efficient than having to run different local and national news. However, with convergence and chain-based ownership you can choose which stories to run and how the stories are heard - being able to be played in local communities and national stage.
Media consolidation debate
[edit]Robert W. McChesney
[edit]Robert McChesney is an advocate for media reform, and the co-founder of Free Press, which was established in 2003.[47] His work is based on theoretical, normative, and empirical evidence suggesting that media regulation efforts should be more strongly oriented towards maintaining a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints in the media environment. However, his viewpoints on current regulation are; "there is every bit as much regulation by government as before, only now it is more explicitly directed to serve large corporate interests."[48]
McChesney believes that the Free Press' objective is a more diverse and competitive commercial system with a significant nonprofit and noncommercial sector. It would be a system built for the citizens, but most importantly - it would be accessible to anyone who wants to broadcast. Not only specifically the big corporations that can afford to broadcast nationally, but more importantly locally. McChesney suggests that to better our current system we need to "establish a bona fide noncommercial public radio and television system, with local and national stations and networks. The expense should come out of the general budget"[49]
Benjamin Compaine
[edit]Benjamin Compaine believes that the current media system is "one of the most competitive major industries in U.S. commerce."[50] He believes that much of the media in the United States is operating in the same market. He also believes that all the content is being interchanged between different media.[51]
Compaine believes that due to convergence, two or more things coming together, the media has been saved. Because of the ease of access to send the same message across multiple and different mediums, the message is more likely to be heard. He also believes that due to the higher amount of capital and funding, the media outlets are able to stay competitive because they are trying to reach more listeners or readers by using newer media.[52]
Benjamin Compaine's main argument is that the consolidation of media outlets, across multiple ownerships, has allowed for a better quality of content. He also stated that the news is interchangeable, and as such, making the media market less concentrated than previously thought, the idea being that since the same story is being pushed across multiple different platforms, then it can only be counted as one news story from multiple sources. Compaine also believed the news is more readily available, making it far easier for individuals to access than traditional methods.[53]
American public distrust in the media
[edit]A 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans' distrust in the mass media had hit a new high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust had increased since the previous few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in the years before 2004.[54]
Music industry
[edit]Critics of media consolidation in broadcast radio say it has made the music played more homogeneous, and makes it more difficult for acts to gain local popularity.[55] They also believe it has reduced the demographic diversity of popular music, pointing to a study which found representation of women in country music charts at 11.3% from 2000 to 2018.[55]
Critics cite centralized control as having increased artist self-censorship, and several incidents of artists being banned from a large number of broadcast stations all at once. After the controversy caused by criticism of President George W. Bush and the Iraq War by a member of the Dixie Chicks, the band was banned by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel Communications, which also organized pro-war demonstrations.[56] After the Super Bowl XXXVIII wardrobe malfunction, CBS CEO Les Moonves reportedly banned Janet Jackson from all CBS and Viacom properties, including MTV, VH1, the 46th Annual Grammy Awards, and Infinity Broadcasting Corporation radio stations, impacting sales of her album Damita Jo.[57]
News
[edit]Critics point out that media consolidation has allowed Sinclair Broadcast Group to require hundreds of local stations to run editorials by Boris Epshteyn (an advisor to Donald Trump), terrorism alerts, and anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor, and even to force local news anchors to read an editorial mirroring Trump's denunciation of the news media for bias and fake news.[58]
See also
[edit]- Alternative media
- Big Three television networks
- Concentration of media ownership
- Fourth television network
- Mainstream media
- Major film studios
- Media bias
- Media conglomerate
- Media democracy
- Media imperialism
- Media manipulation
- Media proprietor
- Media transparency
- Monopolies of knowledge
- Old media
- Politico-media complex
- Propaganda model
- State controlled media
- Telecommunications Act of 1996
- Western media
- Television in the United States
References
[edit]- ^ "FCC Broadcast Ownership Rules". Federal Communications Commission. February 10, 2011. Retrieved March 29, 2019.
- ^ "Americans' Trust in Mass Media Sinks to New Low". Gallup.com. Retrieved March 29, 2019.
- ^ a b Shah, Anup (January 2, 2009). "Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership". globalissues.org. Retrieved October 13, 2017.
- ^ Maas, Jennifer (March 17, 2022). "Amazon Closes $8.5 Billion Acquisition of MGM". Variety. Retrieved April 22, 2022.
- ^ de la Fuente, Anne Marie (October 3, 2023). "Amazon Studios Now Called Amazon MGM Studios, Exec Pablo Iacoviello Reveals in Iberseries Keynote". Variety. Retrieved October 3, 2023.
- ^ Tracy, Marc (November 19, 2019). "Gannett, Now Largest U.S. Newspaper Chain, Targets 'Inefficiencies'". The New York Times.
- ^ "New Media and Gannett Complete Merger, Creating Leading U.S. Print and Digital News Organization" (Press release). Business Wire. November 19, 2019.
- ^ Vlessing, Etan (October 24, 2023). "Xbox Sales Drop But Microsoft's Gaming Division Grows in Revenue". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved November 14, 2023.
- ^ Taylor, Mollie (January 18, 2022). "Microsoft to acquire Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on November 14, 2023. Retrieved November 14, 2023.
- ^ "Hearst family". Forbes. Retrieved August 22, 2017.
- ^ The Telecommunications Act of 1934, 4 & 47 U.S.C. 154 Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf (2011)
- ^ a b "Communications Act of 1934" (PDF). Retrieved October 14, 2017.
- ^ Robb, Margo. "Community Radio, Public Interest" (PDF).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i Obar, Jonathan (2009). "Beyond cynicism: A review of the FCC's reasoning for modifying the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule". Communication Law & Policy. 14 (4): 479–525. doi:10.1080/10811680903238084. S2CID 144522043.
- ^ Thomas I. Emerson (1970). The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Vintage Books. pp. 654–655.
- ^ Amendment of §§73.34, 73.240 and 73.636 of the Commission's Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 50 F.C.C. 2d 1046 (1975).
- ^ a b FCC's review of the Broadcast Ownership Rules. (2011) FCC. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.pdf
- ^ FCC. "The Telecommunications Act of 1996" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 19, 2005. Retrieved May 7, 2011.
- ^ "Adbusters : The Magazine - #72 The Fake Issue / Fighting For Air: An interview with Eric Klinenberg". Retrieved June 29, 2007.
- ^ "Speak Out for Media Democracy: Why isn't the FCC doing its job?". Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. March 9, 2003. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
- ^ "FCC Initiates Third Biennial Review Of Broadcast Ownership Rules: Cites Goal Of Updating Rules To Reflect Modern Marketplace" (Press release). Federal Communications Commission. September 12, 2002.
- ^ See Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d 372, 386 (3d Cir. 2004).
- ^ For example, the local television multiple ownership rule and the national television ownership cap (among others). See R&O/NOPR 2003,supra note 21, at 3-4.
- ^ Casuga, Jay-Anne. "Not Enough: FCC public hearing allows only one hour for citizen input". Richmond.com.
- ^ a b Labaton, Stephen (October 18, 2007). "Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners". The New York Times. Retrieved December 10, 2007.
- ^ Federal Communications Commission, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2006), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-93A1.pdf [hereinafter FNPR]
- ^ Pub. L. No. 104-104, §202(h), 110 Stat. 56, 111-112 (1996)
- ^ FCC's Review Of Broadcast Ownership Rules. 2007. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/reviewrules.html
- ^ "Chairman Kevin J. Martin Proposes Revision to the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule" (PDF) (Press release). FCC. November 13, 2007.
- ^ ""FCC Votes to Relax Cross-Media Ownership Rule". CNN. December 18, 2007. Retrieved December 18, 2007.
- ^ Flint, Joe (September 26, 2013). "FCC proposes eliminating UHF discount from TV ownership rules". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 19, 2014.
- ^ "FCC Proposes Elimination Of UHF Discount". TVNewsCheck. September 26, 2013.
- ^ "Regulators Tighten TV-Station Ownership Curb by Cutting Discount". Bloomberg. Retrieved April 22, 2017.
- ^ "FCC Takes Lid Off National Station Ownership". TVNewsCheck. Retrieved April 20, 2017.
- ^ "FCC Eases Media Ownership Restrictions in Vote to Restore UHF Discount". Variety. Retrieved April 22, 2017.
- ^ Ted Johnson (June 1, 2017). "Sinclair-Tribune Merger Faces Roadblock as Court Puts Hold on FCC Station Ownership Rule". Variety. Penske Media Corporation. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
- ^ John Eggerton (May 28, 2017). "Free Press Seeks Emergency Stay of UHF Discount Return". Broadcasting & Cable. NewBay Media. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
- ^ John Eggerton (June 1, 2017). "Federal Court Stays FCC UHF Discount Decision, for Now". Broadcasting & Cable. NewBay Media. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
- ^ Jessell, Harry (May 15, 2017). "Groups File To Block Return Of UHF Discount". TVNewsCheck. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
- ^ Ben Munson (June 2, 2017). "D.C. Appeals Court halts return of FCC's UHF discount for TV broadcasters". FierceCable. Retrieved June 6, 2017.
- ^ Mark K. Miller (June 15, 2017). "Court Rejects Request To Stay UHF Discount". TVNewsCheck. NewsCheck Media.
- ^ Kang, Cecilia (November 19, 2017). "F.C.C. Opens Door to More Consolidation in TV Business". The New York Times. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
- ^ "U.S. court deals setback to FCC push to revamp media ownership rules". Reuters. September 23, 2019. Retrieved September 23, 2019.
- ^ Cullins, Ashely (April 1, 2021). "Supreme Court Allows FCC to Move Forward With Changes to Media Ownership Rules". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved April 1, 2021.
- ^ David K. Scott; Robert H. Gobetz; Mike Chanslor (2008). "Chain Versus Independent Television Station Ownership: Toward An Investment Model Of Commitment To Local News Quality". Communication Studies. 59 (1): 84. doi:10.1080/10510970701648624.
- ^ Philip M. Napoli; Michael Z. Yan (2007). "Media Ownership Regulations and Local News Programming on Broadcast Television: An Empirical Analysis". Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 51: 39.
- ^ "An Interview with Free Press Founder Bob McChesney". 2010.
- ^ McChesney, Robert (2009). "Understanding the Media Reform Movement". International Journal of Communication. 3.
- ^ McChesney, Robert. "The U.S. Left and Media Politics". para.33
- ^ Baker, Edwin (2002). "Media Concentration: Giving Up On Democracy". Florida Law Review. 839. 54.
- ^ Compaine, Benjamin (January 2004). "Domination Fantasies". Retrieved May 3, 2011.
- ^ Compaine, Benjamin (January 2004). "Domination Fantasies". p. 2, para. 9. Retrieved May 3, 2011.
- ^ Compaine, Benjamin (January 2004). "Domination Fantasies". p. 3, para. 16. Retrieved May 3, 2011.
- ^ "U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High". Gallup. September 21, 2012.
- ^ a b Marissa Moss (June 7, 2019). "One More Scoop Of Vanilla: A New Proposal Looks To Loosen Radio Ownership Rules". NPR.
- ^ Paul Krugman (March 25, 2003). "Channels Of Influence". The New York Times.
- ^ Yashar Ali (September 7, 2018). "Exclusive: Les Moonves Was Obsessed With Ruining Janet Jackson's Career, Sources Say".
- ^ Timothy Burke (March 31, 2018). "How America's Largest Local TV Owner Turned Its News Anchors Into Soldiers In Trump's War On The Media".
Media cross-ownership in the United States
View on GrokipediaDefinitions and Scope
Core Concepts and Legal Framework
Media cross-ownership refers to the ownership of multiple media outlets across different platforms—such as newspapers, broadcast television stations, and radio stations—by a single entity, typically within the same geographic market.[9] This structure contrasts with ownership concentrated solely within one medium and raises concerns about potential reductions in viewpoint diversity, as consolidated control may limit the range of editorial perspectives and local news coverage available to audiences.[10] Regulators have historically viewed such ownership as risking undue concentration of influence over public discourse, though proponents of deregulation argue that market competition, including from digital alternatives, mitigates these effects.[11] The primary legal framework governing media cross-ownership stems from the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority under Title III of the Communications Act of 1934, which empowers the agency to license broadcast facilities and regulate them to serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. This includes promoting competition, localism (community-focused content), and diversity of voices, principles embedded in FCC rulemaking to prevent monopolistic control over information flows. Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates quadrennial reviews of ownership rules, requiring the FCC to assess whether they remain necessary in light of competitive market conditions and repeal or modify those deemed no longer in the public interest. Key historical restrictions included the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, adopted by the FCC in 1975, which barred entities from owning a daily newspaper alongside a television or radio station serving the same community to foster independent news sources and avert "one voice" dominance in local markets.[10] This prohibition, along with the radio-television cross-ownership rule established in variations since 1970 (limiting combined ownership to prevent overlap in audience reach), exemplified efforts to balance efficiencies of scale against diversity risks.[12] In 2017, the FCC repealed both rules as part of its 2014 quadrennial review implementation, citing evidence that cross-ownership could enhance local journalism viability amid declining revenues, a move unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project on May 3, 2021, which affirmed the agency's reasoned analysis under arbitrary-and-capricious review standards.[13] Under the current framework, while explicit cross-media bans have been eliminated, residual limits persist through local ownership caps—such as allowing an entity to own up to two television stations in markets with at least eight independently owned stations, or a tiered radio ownership structure (e.g., up to eight stations in the largest markets)—to curb excessive concentration without prohibiting cross-platform holdings.[1] These rules apply to attributable interests (e.g., equity or voting control exceeding specified thresholds) and exempt non-broadcast media like online platforms, reflecting adaptations to a multimedia landscape where traditional cross-ownership scrutiny has diminished. The FCC retains case-by-case waiver authority and continues to evaluate rules in ongoing quadrennial cycles, as reaffirmed in its 2018 order and subsequent 2022 review, prioritizing empirical evidence of market impacts over presumptive restrictions.[5]Distinctions from Vertical Integration
Media cross-ownership in the United States pertains to the common control of multiple media outlets operating within the same geographic market, particularly across distinct platforms such as broadcast stations and newspapers, with the primary regulatory goal of preserving viewpoint diversity and local competition. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(d) and adopted in 1975, prohibits a single entity from owning both a full-power commercial broadcast station and a daily newspaper if the station's signal contour encompasses the newspaper's city of publication, as this structure risks consolidating local information sources and diminishing independent voices. Approximately 50 such combinations were grandfathered upon adoption, with only four permanent waivers granted, reflecting the rule's stringent application to horizontal-like consolidation at the dissemination level. In contrast, vertical integration involves a single entity controlling successive stages of the media production and distribution chain, such as owning content creation facilities (e.g., studios or program networks) alongside delivery mechanisms (e.g., broadcast affiliates or cable systems), which can streamline operations but raises concerns over potential foreclosure of rivals through content withholding or leverage of market power across levels.[14] FCC oversight of vertical arrangements, evaluated under a rule-of-reason framework akin to the Department of Justice's 1984 Vertical Merger Guidelines, requires evidence of concentrated markets (e.g., Herfindahl-Hirschman Index exceeding 1,800 in primary and secondary lines) and barriers to entry before deeming them anticompetitive, often outweighed by efficiencies like eliminated double marginalization and reduced transaction costs.[14] For instance, historical vertical rules such as the financial interest and syndication (fin-syn) restrictions, imposed on the major networks from 1970 to 1993, barred ownership of rerun rights to encourage independent program suppliers but were repealed by the FCC in 1993 after findings that they stifled efficiencies without commensurate diversity benefits.[15] The core distinctions lie in structural focus and policy objectives: cross-ownership targets horizontal aggregation of end-user outlets in local markets to safeguard pluralism, as concentrated ownership at this level empirically correlates with viewpoint homogeneity per FCC analyses, whereas vertical integration addresses supply-chain dynamics where harms stem more from underlying horizontal power than the integration itself, prompting lighter-touch regulation post-1996 Telecommunications Act deregulations.[14] Cross-ownership rules remain market-specific and viewpoint-oriented, with relaxations in the 2003 and 2017 FCC orders allowing mergers if independent media voices exceed certain thresholds (e.g., eight independently owned outlets), while vertical policies emphasize antitrust scrutiny over blanket prohibitions, recognizing that integration often enhances coordination in fragmented production-distribution chains without necessitating diversity mandates.[16] Empirical reviews, including FCC quadrennial assessments, indicate that vertical structures rarely foreclose competition absent pre-existing monopoly, unlike cross-ownership's direct impact on local outlet multiplicity.[14]Current Ownership Landscape
Broadcasting Sector (Television and Radio)
In the United States, the television broadcasting sector features significant consolidation among a few major group owners, who collectively control a substantial portion of local stations affiliated with major networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and The CW. Nexstar Media Group, the largest owner, operates or services more than 200 stations across 116 markets, reaching approximately 39% of U.S. television households under FCC national ownership caps.[17] Sinclair Broadcast Group ranks as a close second, managing 178 stations in 81 markets, often through local marketing agreements and joint sales agreements that effectively extend control beyond direct ownership.[18] Other prominent groups include Gray Television, with stations in over 100 markets, and TEGNA, which Nexstar agreed to acquire in August 2025 for $6.2 billion, potentially further concentrating ownership in key demographics.[19] This structure has evolved through mergers and divestitures, with group revenues driven by retransmission consent fees, political advertising, and local sales; for instance, Nexstar reported $5.4 billion in 2024 revenue, while Sinclair generated $3.1 billion.[19] Cross-ownership within television manifests in duopolies and triopolies, where single entities control multiple stations in the same designated market area (DMA), permitted under FCC rules if fewer than eight independently owned stations exist and the top-four rated stations are not both acquired. Nexstar and Sinclair exemplify this, with Nexstar holding dual affiliations in markets like Dallas-Fort Worth and Sinclair in Baltimore-Washington, enhancing operational efficiencies but raising concerns over viewpoint diversity. Beyond pure broadcasting, these groups extend into adjacent media: Sinclair acquired the Baltimore Sun Media Group in January 2024, integrating print journalism with its television assets for combined local news production, while Nexstar owns The Hill, a national political newspaper, alongside its stations.[20] Such integrations leverage shared content creation but are subject to FCC scrutiny for potential anticompetitive effects.| Television Group | Stations Owned/Operated | Key Markets | 2024 Revenue (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexstar Media Group | >200 | 116 | $5.4 billion[19] |
| Sinclair Broadcast Group | 178 | 81 | $3.1 billion[19] |
| Gray Television | ~150 | >100 | $3.5 billion[19] |
| TEGNA (pre-Nexstar acquisition) | ~64 | 51 | $3.1 billion[19] |
Print and Publishing
In the United States, the print media sector, encompassing newspapers and magazines, has undergone substantial consolidation, resulting in a high degree of ownership concentration among a limited number of corporate chains. As of 2025, the five largest local newspaper chains control over 15% of the nation's dailies and weeklies, reflecting a trend toward centralized ownership that has accelerated amid declining print revenues and digital disruptions.[25] This concentration is particularly pronounced among daily newspapers, where the 25 largest chains own approximately one-third of all U.S. newspapers—up from one-fifth in 2004—and two-thirds of all dailies, driven by mergers and acquisitions that prioritize cost efficiencies over local editorial diversity.[26] Gannett Co., Inc., the dominant player, owns more than 200 daily newspapers, roughly 175 weeklies, and the national publication USA Today, accounting for a significant share of print circulation.[27] Other major chains include Alden Global Capital (operating as MediaNews Group after acquiring Tribune Publishing in 2021), McClatchy (owner of about 30 dailies including The Miami Herald), Hearst Corporation (with titles like the Houston Chronicle), and Lee Enterprises, which collectively hold sway over more than half of the 672 major daily newspapers tracked by the News Media Alliance.[28] Seven investment-focused groups operate over 1,000 newspapers across 42 states, representing nearly 15% of all American papers, often employing cost-cutting strategies such as staff reductions and centralized news production that critics argue diminish local coverage.[29] The proportion of independently owned newspapers has declined sharply, especially for smaller rural outlets, falling from 54% in 2005 to 47% by 2025, as family-owned or standalone operations succumb to financial pressures and are absorbed by hedge funds or public companies seeking scale.[25] Magazine publishing shows similar patterns, with conglomerates like Dotdash Meredith (formerly Meredith Corporation) controlling titles such as People and Better Homes & Gardens, though the sector faces steeper declines due to advertising shifts, leading to fewer independent voices.[27] Cross-ownership between print and broadcast entities, once restricted by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules prohibiting common ownership of a daily newspaper and a television or radio station in the same market since 1975, became permissible following the rule's repeal in the FCC's 2017 quadrennial review order.[4] The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this deregulation in 2021, affirming the FCC's rationale that evolving media economics, including the rise of digital platforms, rendered the prohibition outdated and potentially harmful to struggling print outlets by blocking synergies with more viable broadcast assets.[30] Despite this, actual instances of print-broadcast cross-ownership remain limited, as broadcasters like Sinclair or Nexstar have prioritized television acquisitions over print acquisitions amid newspapers' revenue drops—print ad spending fell from $60 billion in 2000 to under $10 billion by 2023—reducing the incentive for integration.[10] Entities such as News Corporation, which owns The Wall Street Journal and New York Post alongside broadcast interests via Fox Corporation (spun off in 2013), exemplify rare cases where diversified holdings persist, but these are exceptions in a landscape dominated by intra-print consolidation rather than broad media synergies.[31]Digital, Streaming, and Online Platforms
In the digital, streaming, and online media landscape, traditional media conglomerates have increasingly consolidated ownership of platforms to distribute content across broadcast, cable, and internet-based channels, enabling vertical integration without the ownership caps applied to terrestrial broadcasting. As of 2025, major players like Disney, Comcast's NBCUniversal, and Warner Bros. Discovery control significant streaming services that repurpose their linear TV libraries, while tech firms such as Alphabet and Amazon extend into media production and distribution. This cross-ownership facilitates synergies in content licensing and audience retention but raises concerns about reduced viewpoint diversity, as the same entities control production, aggregation, and delivery.[32] Disney exemplifies this trend, owning Disney+, ESPN+, and fully controlling Hulu following a June 2025 payment of $438.7 million to Comcast for its remaining stake, integrating Hulu's adult-oriented content into the Disney+ app by late 2025. These platforms cross-leverage Disney's ABC broadcast network and ESPN cable channels, with Disney+ subscriber numbers exceeding 150 million globally as of mid-2025, bolstered by exclusive sports and film rights. Similarly, Comcast's NBCUniversal operates Peacock, which streams NBC and MSNBC content, reaching integration with over 100 million U.S. households quarterly via Comcast's broadband infrastructure, despite a 2024 announcement to spin off certain cable assets while retaining core streaming operations.[33][34][35] Warner Bros. Discovery maintains Max as its flagship streaming service, aggregating HBO, Warner Bros. films, and Discovery nonfiction, with cross-ownership extending to CNN's digital news operations and linear networks; the company announced a potential split into separate streaming/studios and networks entities in June 2025 amid strategic reviews, though it retained unified control through October 2025. Paramount Global's Paramount+ similarly bundles CBS broadcasts and MTV properties, reflecting a pattern where six primary conglomerates—Disney, Comcast, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, Fox Corporation, and Sony—dominate U.S. streaming output tied to traditional media. Online news extensions, such as NBC News digital sites (249 million monthly reach) and Fox News platforms (833 million), further entrench this, often prioritizing proprietary content over independent voices.[36][31][37] Tech platforms amplify cross-ownership dynamics, with Alphabet's YouTube serving as the dominant online video host (over 2 billion monthly users) while producing original content and hosting news from cross-owned outlets like ABC and CNN. Amazon's Prime Video, integrated with its e-commerce ecosystem, acquired MGM Studios in 2022 for $8.45 billion, enabling ownership of film libraries streamed alongside retail data-driven recommendations. This convergence contrasts with lighter regulatory oversight for pure-play streamers like Netflix, which operates independently but licenses from conglomerates, allowing market concentration without FCC-imposed limits on audience reach. Empirical data from 2024 indicates digital platforms captured 43% of U.S. political ad revenue, up from 32% in 2020, underscoring their growing influence relative to traditional media.[31][38]| Streaming Service | Primary Owner | Key Cross-Owned Media Assets |
|---|---|---|
| Disney+ / Hulu / ESPN+ | Disney | ABC networks, ESPN cable, Marvel/Fox film libraries[34][33] |
| Peacock | Comcast / NBCUniversal | NBC broadcast, MSNBC, Universal Studios films[35] |
| Max | Warner Bros. Discovery | HBO, CNN, Discovery channels[36] |
| Paramount+ | Paramount Global | CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon[37] |
| Prime Video | Amazon | MGM Studios, Washington Post (via Jeff Bezos)[31] |
| YouTube | Alphabet (Google) | Google News aggregation, Android distribution[31] |
Other Industries (Music, Gaming, Film)
The film industry in the United States is characterized by ownership concentration among a handful of major studios controlled by multinational media conglomerates, enabling vertical integration with television broadcasting, cable networks, and digital distribution. The Walt Disney Company dominates through subsidiaries such as Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, Marvel Studios, and Lucasfilm, which produced films generating over $11 billion in global box office revenue in 2023 alone, cross-promoted via ABC broadcasts and Disney+ streaming.[40] Comcast's NBCUniversal owns Universal Pictures, responsible for franchises like Jurassic World and Fast & Furious, integrated with NBC television and Peacock for synergistic content pipelines.[35] Warner Bros. Discovery operates Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group, handling DC Comics adaptations and other titles, with rights to extensive film and television music catalogs managed through joint ventures exceeding $1 billion in value as of 2024.[41] Paramount Pictures, under Paramount Global following its 2025 merger with Skydance Media, focuses on IPs like Transformers and Mission: Impossible, leveraging broadcast assets like CBS for promotion and exploring gaming tie-ins.[42] Cross-ownership in music centers on the "Big Three" labels—Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group (WMG)—which accounted for approximately 68% of global recorded music revenues in 2024, totaling $36.2 billion industry-wide.[43] UMG, the largest with a leading share driven by artists like Taylor Swift and Drake, operates independently but distributes through media partnerships, including soundtracks for films from its former parent Vivendi's networks.[44] Sony Music, holding about 25% market share, benefits from Sony Group Corporation's broader portfolio, enabling seamless integration of music into Sony Pictures films and PlayStation game soundtracks, as seen in collaborations for titles like Spider-Man. WMG, with around 18% share, spun off from what became Warner Bros. Discovery in 2020, limiting direct ties but retaining licensing deals for media placements.[44] In the gaming sector, media conglomerates have expanded through acquisitions and IP extensions amid industry consolidation, where top firms controlled over 50% of market value by mid-2024.[45] Sony Interactive Entertainment, via PlayStation, generates billions in annual revenue and crosses into film with adaptations like HBO's The Last of Us series, derived from its exclusive games, under Sony Group's unified entertainment strategy. Disney leverages its film IPs into gaming through Disney Interactive Studios and a 9% stake in Epic Games acquired in 2024, supporting Fortnite integrations with Marvel and Star Wars content.[46] Paramount Skydance, post-merger, secured rights to Call of Duty mobile publishing in 2025, building on successes like the Sonic the Hedgehog film franchise to bridge gaming and cinema.[47] These integrations allow conglomerates to monetize IPs across mediums, though antitrust scrutiny, as in the FTC's challenge to Microsoft's Activision Blizzard deal (cleared in 2023 for $68.7 billion), highlights risks of reduced competition.[48]Historical Regulatory Development
Origins in the Communications Act of 1934
The Communications Act of 1934, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934, consolidated federal regulation of wire and radio communications, replacing the Federal Radio Commission with the newly created Federal Communications Commission (FCC).[49] The Act granted the FCC broad authority under Section 303 to classify broadcast stations, prescribe operating rules, and regulate in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity," providing the foundational legal basis for subsequent policies addressing ownership concentration in broadcasting.[50] This mandate implicitly targeted risks of monopolistic control over scarce spectrum resources, as the Act emphasized equitable distribution of licenses to foster diverse voices rather than allowing unchecked aggregation by dominant entities.[51] Section 310 of the Act imposed initial restrictions on license ownership, prohibiting grants to foreign governments or their representatives and requiring FCC approval for any transfer of control exceeding 20% domestic or 25% total ownership by non-citizens, thereby establishing early safeguards against concentrated foreign or alien influence in U.S. media.[52] While the Act itself contained no explicit prohibitions on domestic multiple or cross-ownership, its public interest standard enabled the FCC to investigate and curb practices that could undermine competition, such as network dominance in radio affiliations.[53] This authority directly informed the FCC's first forays into ownership limits, culminating in the 1941 Chain Broadcasting Report, which scrutinized National Broadcasting Company (NBC) and Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) for controlling over 80% of evening network time and owning multiple stations, leading to rules barring single-entity ownership of more than one network and restricting affiliates from exclusive contracts.[54][55] These early regulations, rooted in the 1934 Act's framework, marked the onset of federal efforts to prevent "chain broadcasting" monopolies, where networks like NBC operated up to 30 owned or affiliated stations by 1940, potentially stifling independent outlets.[56] The FCC's subsequent adoption of a "one-to-a-market" rule in 1941 for radio and television further operationalized the Act's principles, prohibiting entities from owning multiple stations in the same service area if it would unduly concentrate control.[4] By embedding regulatory power to evaluate ownership transfers and affiliations against public interest criteria, the Act laid the groundwork for viewing cross-ownership not merely as economic consolidation but as a threat to informational pluralism, influencing decades of policy evolution despite lacking contemporaneous data on media diversity impacts.[57]Establishment of Cross-Ownership Restrictions (1975 Rules)
In 1975, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule as part of its broader multiple ownership regulations, imposing an absolute prohibition on common ownership of a full-power commercial television or radio station and a daily newspaper serving substantially the same area.[58] This rule marked a shift from prior case-by-case evaluations, formalizing a blanket ban to address concerns over concentrated control of local media outlets.[59] The FCC's action followed its 1965 Policy Statement on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, which had already articulated a preference for diversified ownership to maximize viewpoint diversity in licensing decisions, but the 1975 measure extended this into a structural restriction applicable market-wide.[60] The rationale centered on promoting competition and preventing undue influence by a single entity over news dissemination in local markets, where broadcast and print media were primary information sources at the time.[11] Empirical assessments by the FCC indicated that cross-owned entities often exhibited content overlap, reducing independent journalistic perspectives and potentially harming public discourse.[61] Existing cross-ownerships predating the rule—numbering around 80 newspaper-television and 20 newspaper-radio combinations—were grandfathered, allowing them to persist unless financial distress warranted waivers, but new acquisitions were barred, with the FCC issuing divestiture orders in select cases to enforce compliance.[62] These restrictions complemented earlier limits, such as the 1970 radio-television cross-ownership caps, reflecting the Commission's statutory mandate under the Communications Act of 1934 to regulate broadcasting in the public interest by curbing monopolistic tendencies without stifling operational efficiencies. Waivers were permitted only under exceptional circumstances, like a newspaper's imminent failure where divestiture would eliminate local coverage, but such approvals remained rare and required demonstrated public interest benefits.[63] The rule's adoption underscored a regulatory philosophy prioritizing structural separation over antitrust alone, though subsequent court reviews, including FCC v. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting (1978), upheld it as a reasoned exercise of agency discretion.[60]Deregulation via the Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by President Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, fundamentally altered U.S. media regulation by relaxing broadcast ownership restrictions to encourage competition and economies of scale in an evolving telecommunications landscape.[64] Section 202 directed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to eliminate national numerical caps on radio station ownership—previously limited to 40 stations total under 1992 rules—and replace them with market-specific local limits, such as permitting up to eight commercial stations in the largest markets (those with 45 or more outlets).[65] [66] For television, the Act raised the national audience reach cap from 25% of U.S. households to 35%, while initially preserving the 50% discount for UHF stations in reach calculations to account for their weaker signal propagation.[65] These changes directly facilitated cross-ownership within broadcasting by easing barriers to acquiring multiple radio and television outlets, though local radio-television cross-ownership limits were retained with modifications tied to market size.[65] The Act also repealed the FCC's financial interest and syndication rules, dating to the 1970s, which had barred networks from holding financial interests in or syndicating programs they produced, thereby enabling greater vertical integration between content creation and distribution.[67] Additionally, Section 202(f) mandated the elimination of prohibitions on cross-ownership between national broadcast networks and cable systems, further blurring lines between traditional broadcasting and emerging multichannel video platforms.[68] While the Act did not immediately repeal the 1975 newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, it required the FCC under Section 202(h) to conduct quadrennial reviews of all ownership rules, repealing or modifying those deemed unnecessary amid competitive pressures from technologies like direct broadcast satellite.[69] The deregulation triggered swift consolidation, particularly in radio, where independent station ownership declined from about 5,100 entities in 1996 to 3,800 by 2001, concentrating control among fewer firms.[70] Clear Channel Communications, for instance, expanded from 40 stations in 1996 to over 1,200 by 2001, capturing significant market share through acquisitions enabled by the absence of national caps.[70] In the first year alone, roughly 20% of commercial radio stations changed hands, amplifying scale advantages for large operators while reducing the number of local voices.[71] Television saw moderated but notable effects, with the higher reach cap supporting mergers that increased common ownership of affiliates across networks, though FCC enforcement of local duopoly rules tempered immediate cross-market expansion.[72] Proponents argued these shifts harnessed efficiencies to counter rising costs and digital alternatives, yet empirical patterns showed heightened market concentration, with the top five radio groups controlling over two-thirds of stations by the early 2000s.[73]Post-2000 Reforms, Court Challenges, and Adjustments
In June 2003, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted an order modifying its media ownership rules as part of its biennial review mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, including targeted relaxations to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban.[4] The revised rule permitted a party to own a daily newspaper and a full-power commercial broadcast station in the same market within the top 20 designated market areas (DMAs), provided the combination met criteria such as not resulting in excessive audience reach, ensuring at least one local TV or radio voice remained post-merger, and including independent voices among owners.[4] These changes aimed to foster operational efficiencies while preserving competition and diversity, but the FCC retained outright prohibitions in smaller markets and on combinations involving the top four TV stations' affiliates.[4] The 2003 reforms prompted swift legal challenges from public interest groups concerned about reduced media diversity. In Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (373 F.3d 372, 3d Cir. 2004), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld some aspects, such as national ownership caps, but remanded the cross-ownership modifications and local television ownership rule changes, ruling that the FCC failed to demonstrate with substantial evidence how the rules would adequately protect viewpoint diversity, localism, and competition amid empirical data showing concentrated markets.[74] The court required the FCC to better quantify impacts on minority and female ownership and provide reasoned analysis beyond outdated assumptions about media scarcity.[75] Subsequent FCC attempts in 2006 and 2008 to refine these rules—such as retaining the cross-ownership bans with limited waivers for failing stations or public interest showings—faced similar scrutiny, prolonging litigation and effectively stalling deregulation through multiple remands.[4] By 2017, amid a transformed media environment with widespread digital streaming and online platforms eroding traditional broadcasters' dominance, the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai repealed the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule entirely and eliminated the radio-television cross-ownership restrictions.[1] The Commission justified these actions by citing record evidence of abundant viewpoint diversity from non-broadcast sources, negligible remaining synergies justifying the bans, and the need to allow efficiencies for local stations facing competitive pressures, without requiring case-by-case reviews that had proven administratively burdensome.[76] It also modified the local television ownership rule to account for multicasting but retained core prohibitions on top-four station mergers in smaller markets.[4] These 2017 repeals were contested in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC (373 F.3d 372, 3d Cir. 2019), where the Third Circuit vacated parts of the order, arguing the FCC inadequately addressed diversity harms, shared services agreement rules, and the rationale for exempting the smallest markets from certain analyses.[77] On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project (592 U.S. ___, 2021) unanimously reversed, holding that the FCC's evidence-based conclusion—that the rules no longer served statutory goals given market evolution—was rational and entitled to agency deference under the Administrative Procedure Act, without mandating exhaustive quantification of every potential effect.[76][75] The decision reinstated the repeals, enabling adjustments like Tribune Media's merger with Sinclair Broadcast Group (ultimately abandoned) and facilitating newspaper-broadcast combinations, such as those pursued by Gannett and others in subsequent years.[30] Post-2021, the FCC has maintained these deregulated cross-ownership frameworks in its quadrennial reviews, though ongoing debates persist over reinstating safeguards amid concerns about local news viability.[4]Evolution of Specific Mechanisms (e.g., UHF Discount)
The UHF discount mechanism, introduced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1965, permitted broadcasters to attribute only 50% of a UHF television station's audience reach toward the national ownership cap, reflecting the technical limitations of UHF signals at the time, which suffered from poorer propagation and reception compared to VHF channels. This adjustment facilitated greater station ownership by compensating for UHF's weaker market penetration, indirectly supporting consolidated media structures amid the expansion of UHF allocations under the All-Channel Receiver Act of 1962. The rule complemented the FCC's seven-station ownership limit, later tied to a 25% national audience reach threshold. Following the suspension of the national audience cap from 1985 to 1994 amid deregulation efforts, the UHF discount was reinstated in 1995 when the cap returned at 25% (elevated to 35% by Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), preserving its role in calculating attributable reach for compliance. In 2004, the FCC eliminated the discount as part of its comprehensive ownership rule revisions, asserting that the ongoing transition to digital broadcasting had equalized UHF and VHF signal capabilities, rendering the discount obsolete and inconsistent with competitive market realities.[58] This change aimed to simplify ownership calculations but faced immediate legal scrutiny; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remanded aspects of the rules, and Congress intervened via the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004, capping national reach at 39% and temporarily restoring the discount to avert disruptions. The discount's status fluctuated further in the digital era. In 2010, the Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act extended the discount through 2014, but the Obama-era FCC terminated it in 2016, citing empirical evidence from digital operations showing no persistent UHF disadvantage, which inadvertently placed several broadcasters over the 39% cap based on full UHF counting.[78] Challenges from entities like Sinclair Broadcast Group prompted the FCC to reinstate the discount prospectively in 2017 for future transactions, while grandfathering existing holdings, to balance deregulation with rule certainty.[38] As of the 2022-2026 quadrennial review initiated in 2023, the FCC continues to evaluate the discount's relevance amid streaming competition and spectrum repacking, with proposals to retain, modify, or eliminate it alongside the 39% cap to reflect converged media markets.[79][80] Parallel evolutions in FCC attribution rules, which define attributable interests for ownership limits, have similarly influenced cross-ownership feasibility. Originally focused on controlling equity stakes under 1980s guidelines, the rules expanded in 1999 to include joint sales agreements (JSAs) for television stations where a broker sold over 15% of advertising time, treating such arrangements as cognizable ownership to prevent de facto control circumvention. The 2014 FCC order lowered this threshold to capture more shared-services agreements, but the 2017 repeal under the Trump administration reverted to the 15% benchmark, citing overreach and insufficient evidence of competitive harm from JSAs in fragmented markets.[12] These adjustments, reviewed quadrennially per Section 202(h) of the 1996 Act, underscore ongoing tensions between preventing undue concentration and enabling operational efficiencies in local markets.[81]Economic and Competitive Dynamics
Efficiencies and Scale Benefits of Cross-Ownership
Cross-ownership arrangements permit operational synergies by enabling shared infrastructure, such as combined newsrooms, equipment, and sales forces between newspapers and broadcast stations, which minimize duplication and lower per-unit production costs. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in its 2017 repeal of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership prohibition, determined that such collaborations enhance local news output, with cross-owned entities producing roughly 50 percent more local news content than independent counterparts, according to data from the News Media Alliance.[82] Examples include the Cox Media Group's operations in Dayton, Ohio, where integrated newspaper and television resources facilitated exclusive coverage of national stories with local implications, demonstrating improved efficiency in resource allocation.[82] These efficiencies support increased investment in journalism and infrastructure, particularly for smaller broadcasters and declining newspapers contending with digital rivals and falling ad revenues. By pooling capital and expertise, cross-ownership preserves outlets' viability, allowing upgrades like high-definition broadcasting or expanded digital platforms, as seen in joint sales agreements that fund equipment improvements for minority-owned stations.[82][83] The FCC emphasized that rule relaxations enable financially troubled entities to attract new capital, thereby sustaining local reporting rather than leading to closures, with small and medium-sized market operators particularly poised to benefit from cost reductions and revenue enhancements.[82][12] Scale advantages from broader ownership consolidation amplify these gains through economies in programming procurement and advertising negotiations, where larger groups exert greater leverage with networks and suppliers. Consolidated television ownership, for instance, heightens bargaining power, yielding lower costs for content and enabling reinvestment in public interest programming amid multichannel competition. In radio-television markets, common ownership has been linked to expanded news and public affairs programming, balancing operational scale with community service obligations.[82] Such dynamics, per FCC assessments, foster innovation and adaptability in fragmented media landscapes, though empirical outcomes vary by market size and competition levels.[82]Market Competition from Digital Disruption
The advent of digital platforms has significantly eroded the market dominance of traditional media outlets, fostering heightened competition that challenges the rationale for stringent cross-ownership restrictions in broadcasting and print. Since the early 2000s, consumer shift toward online news aggregation, social media, and streaming services has fragmented audiences, with U.S. newspaper circulation declining 8% in 2022 to 20.9 million combined print and digital daily readers. Advertising revenues for U.S. newspapers plummeted nearly 60% over the decade ending in 2023, reflecting a broader 66% drop in industry revenues over the prior two decades as advertisers migrated to digital channels offering targeted reach and lower costs.[84][85][86] Television broadcasting has faced analogous disruption from cord-cutting and streaming alternatives, with U.S. traditional pay TV subscribers projected to fall below 50 million households by 2025, amid a decline in cable and satellite penetration from 63% in 2022 to 49% in 2025. Broadcast TV advertising expenditures are forecasted to contract annually through 2029, while online video ad spending surges at 8.52% yearly, underscoring digital's capture of market share. Globally, digital platforms already command 72% of advertising revenue in 2024, expected to reach 80.4% by 2029, with U.S. streaming video revenues anticipated to expand 33% to over $112 billion by 2029.[87][88][89][90][91] This disruption lowers entry barriers for new entrants, enabling independent digital publishers, user-generated content on platforms like YouTube, and niche streaming services to proliferate without the capital-intensive infrastructure of legacy media. Social video consumption has risen from 52% to 65% across markets between 2020 and 2025, amplifying viewpoint diversity through algorithmic distribution rather than centralized ownership. In the context of cross-ownership, these dynamics imply reduced anticompetitive risks from traditional media mergers, as consolidated entities operate in shrinking submarkets overshadowed by digital behemoths and fragmented alternatives; the FCC's ongoing quadrennial reviews explicitly query whether digital media constitutes viable competition to over-the-air broadcasting, signaling regulatory acknowledgment of this shift.[92][93] Empirical trends indicate that while cross-ownership may yield scale efficiencies for surviving traditional players amid revenue erosion—such as newspaper publishing's annualized 2.7% decline to $30.1 billion in 2025—the overall media ecosystem exhibits robust contestability, with low switching costs for consumers driving innovation and price discipline. Critics of deregulation argue digital concentration in gatekeepers like Google and Meta poses parallel risks, yet evidence shows these platforms enhance rather than supplant local and niche competition, as traditional outlets' market power wanes irrespective of ownership structure.[94][95]Empirical Data on Consolidation Trends
In the radio sector, deregulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which removed national ownership caps and eased local market limits, spurred marked consolidation, resulting in fewer station owners nationally and locally.[96] FCC staff analyses confirmed this pattern, with ownership structures shifting toward dominant clusters controlled by a handful of firms like iHeartMedia, which by the early 2000s held over 1,200 stations after acquiring hundreds post-1996.[97] Television ownership has similarly concentrated, particularly in local markets, where the three leading groups—Sinclair Broadcast Group, Nexstar Media Group, and Gray Television—command 40% of news-producing stations and maintain a presence in more than 80% of U.S. designated market areas (DMAs).[98] From 2010 to 2020, these entities executed 216 station acquisitions across 204 DMAs, amplifying their cross-market reach and enabling synergies in programming and operations.[98] Nationally, FCC adjustments to rules like the audience reach cap (raised to 39% in 2004) and the UHF discount facilitated this, with transaction volumes exceeding $23 billion in broadcast TV deals since 2014.[98] Newspaper ownership trends mirror this contraction, with chain dominance rising as independents eroded; group-owned dailies constituted 59% of the total in 1975, when 176 groups existed, but subsequent mergers reduced the pool of distinct owners while expanding chain portfolios.[99] By 2020, entities like Gannett, post its 2019 merger with GateHouse Media, oversaw one-sixth of local dailies, reflecting a broader pattern where six major chains accounted for a third of U.S. newspapers amid a decline from over 1,300 independents in 1953 to far fewer today.[98][100] Cross-ownership between print and broadcast, restricted until FCC relaxations in the late 1990s and early 2000s (e.g., permitting combos in markets outside the top 20 initially), contributed to these dynamics, though aggregate counts of such holdings remain sparse in post-2010 data; studies indicate cross-owned outlets often sustain higher news output volumes compared to non-cross-owned peers.[101][4] Overall, from 1996 to the 2020s, unique media owners across sectors halved in key segments, yielding Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) rises signaling reduced competition, even as outlet counts grew modestly due to format proliferation.[98]Impacts on Content and Diversity
Evidence on Viewpoint and Ideological Diversity
Empirical studies examining the impact of media cross-ownership on viewpoint diversity in the United States have generally found minimal or context-dependent effects, challenging assumptions that common ownership inherently homogenizes content. In an analysis of over 1,600 editorial positions from 25 major newspapers between 1988 and 2004, Ho and Quinn observed no consistent reduction in viewpoint diversity following ownership consolidations, such as mergers; instead, patterns of stability, convergence, or even divergence emerged depending on the specific circumstances and pre-existing editorial policies.[102] Similarly, Pritchard's content analysis of news coverage for the 2000 presidential campaign across 10 cross-owned newspaper-television combinations in nine markets showed no uniform slant attributable to shared ownership; in half the cases, television and newspaper slants diverged noticeably, indicating preserved diversity despite cross-ownership.[103] Research on local television reinforces these findings. Rennhoff and Wilbur's FCC-commissioned study, using a market-based Viewpoint Diversity Index derived from 2005–2009 ratings data across 132 markets, estimated elasticities of viewpoint diversity with respect to cross-ownership and co-ownership variables as effectively zero, with 95% confidence intervals excluding effects larger than 1–4% in magnitude.[104] In newspapers, chain ownership—often a product of broader consolidation trends—has been linked to enhanced rather than diminished diversity. A 2023 study of U.S. dailies found chain-affiliated papers offered significantly more political viewpoint diversity than single-owned counterparts, with larger chains and market-leading outlets showing even greater pluralism, as measured by slant indices.[105] Exceptions occur when owners actively impose ideological preferences, as in Sinclair Broadcast Group's expansion. Acquisitions by Sinclair, a conservative-leaning entity, resulted in acquired stations increasing national politics coverage by approximately 25% at the expense of local news, while incorporating more right-leaning phraseology (e.g., "death tax" over "estate tax") in segments, shifting overall content rightward independent of local audience preferences.[106] A scoping review of 56 empirical studies from 2000–2023 on ownership's broader influence concluded that it affects journalistic content in most instances (46 studies), including ideological elements, primarily through owners' political instrumentalism rather than structural cross-ownership alone; however, seven studies detected no systematic impact.[107] Collectively, this evidence indicates that viewpoint and ideological diversity are more robustly shaped by audience demands, journalistic norms, and competitive pressures than by cross-ownership restrictions, with rare owner interventions representing outliers rather than the norm.Localism, Community Coverage, and Content Quality
Cross-ownership arrangements, particularly between newspapers and television stations, have historically correlated with enhanced local news output and quality. A five-year study of local television newscasts across 50 U.S. markets found that stations under cross-ownership produced more local news content and higher-quality broadcasts compared to those without, attributing this to synergies in shared resources and journalistic expertise between print and broadcast operations.[108] Similarly, analysis of newspaper-television cross-ownership indicated positive associations with the quantity of local public affairs coverage, as integrated ownership facilitated coordinated reporting on community issues.[109] However, broader media consolidation through acquisitions by large conglomerates has often diminished community-focused coverage. Acquisitions by groups like Sinclair Broadcast Group led to reduced emphasis on local events, with stations shifting toward syndicated national content and centralized news production, resulting in fewer unique local stories per broadcast.[110] Empirical examination of over 200 station acquisitions revealed that conglomerate ownership decreased local political and business reporting by up to 20-30% in affected markets, prioritizing cost efficiencies over tailored community journalism.[111] This trend accelerated post-1996 deregulation, with local news hours declining in consolidated markets as shared newsrooms across multiple stations homogenized content to minimize duplication.[106] Content quality under cross-ownership and consolidation presents mixed outcomes, with efficiencies enabling professional enhancements but risking uniformity. Mergers have slightly improved overall production values through economies of scale, yet they foster content homogenization, reducing viewpoint diversity in local programming and eroding investigative depth on regional issues.[112] Locally owned stations, by contrast, air more community-relevant news than those under distant corporate control, underscoring how cross-ownership's benefits may wane when scaled to multi-station groups detached from market specifics.[113] These dynamics challenge the Federal Communications Commission's localism mandate, which emphasizes stations' obligations to ascertain and serve community needs, as evidenced by persistent gaps in coverage of local government and civic affairs amid rising ownership concentration.[114]Bias, Objectivity, and Journalistic Standards
Media cross-ownership has prompted debates over whether concentrated ownership erodes journalistic objectivity by incentivizing outlets to prioritize corporate agendas over impartial reporting. Critics argue that when newspapers, television stations, and radio outlets in the same market fall under single ownership, editorial decisions may homogenize to reflect owner preferences, potentially amplifying ideological slants or suppressing dissenting views to avoid internal conflicts.[115] However, empirical analyses of cross-owned media pairs, such as newspapers and co-located broadcast stations, reveal no substantial evidence of a "one owner, one voice" effect, where content converges toward uniform bias or reduced objectivity.[116] Studies on media slant in U.S. daily newspapers indicate that political bias is predominantly shaped by audience demand rather than ownership structure. After accounting for geographic and market factors, variations in slant—measured via word choice alignment with partisan phrases—show minimal influence from corporate owners, with firms responding to consumer ideologies to maximize circulation.[117][118] Similarly, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) examinations of local television news find no statistically significant association between ownership concentration and diminished viewpoint diversity, with effects likely under 10% even in concentrated markets.[119] These findings hold across datasets spanning the 2000s to 2010s, suggesting cross-ownership does not systematically impair standards of factual balance or source diversity in reporting. Consolidation via cross-ownership can indirectly affect journalistic standards through operational efficiencies and cost pressures. Post-merger analyses of local TV stations show slight improvements in overall content quality metrics, such as production values and story depth, but accompanied by homogenization, where outlets increasingly mirror national formats over unique local perspectives.[112] Large acquirers like Sinclair Broadcast Group have reduced local content by up to 25% in acquired stations, prioritizing centralized feeds that may embed consistent editorial tones, though direct evidence of heightened partisan bias remains elusive.[120] Reviews of broader ownership effects confirm that while private conglomerates exhibit higher slant in valence toward political figures compared to public or nonprofit entities, this stems more from profit motives aligning with audience preferences than deliberate owner intervention.[121] Chain ownership, often involving cross-media holdings, correlates with greater political viewpoint diversity in newspapers than single-owner independents, as scale enables investment in varied opinion sections and investigative teams.[105] Yet, systemic challenges persist: resource constraints from consolidation have contributed to a 50% decline in investigative journalism capacity since 2000, per industry tracking, potentially weakening accountability mechanisms that underpin objectivity.[107] Academic consensus, drawn from meta-analyses of over 50 studies, underscores that ownership influences content less than regulatory environments or market competition, with no robust causal link to degraded standards absent advertiser or political pressures.[122] This body of evidence challenges assumptions of inherent bias amplification from cross-ownership, emphasizing instead the role of competitive incentives in maintaining, if imperfectly, pluralistic reporting.Regulatory Debates and Perspectives
Criticisms Emphasizing Diversity Loss and Power Concentration
Critics of media cross-ownership in the United States contend that it diminishes viewpoint diversity by consolidating control over multiple outlets within the same markets, thereby reducing the plurality of independent perspectives available to audiences.[123] This consolidation often results in homogenized content, where local stations or newspapers under common ownership prioritize syndicated or corporate-mandated programming over unique, market-specific reporting, eroding the variety of news sources that historically fostered robust public discourse.[107] For instance, empirical analyses of ownership changes have linked increased cross-ownership to narrower coverage of local issues, with stations shifting resources toward national or repetitive segments that align with owner priorities rather than community needs.[7] A prominent example is the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which, as of 2023, operated over 185 television stations reaching approximately 40% of U.S. households through cross-ownership structures facilitated by regulatory relaxations.[124] Sinclair has faced scrutiny for requiring affiliates to air uniform "must-run" commentary, which critics argue suppresses diverse local viewpoints and amplifies a singular ideological slant across disparate markets, effectively turning independent stations into extensions of centralized editorial control.[125] Studies examining Sinclair acquisitions found that affected stations reduced airtime for local politics by up to 20% in some cases, replacing it with standardized national content that limits exposure to varied political narratives.[124] [125] Regulatory changes exacerbating these issues include the Federal Communications Commission's 2017 rollback of newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership bans and local TV ownership caps, which permitted mergers that further concentrated market share in fewer hands.[12] Post-relaxation, cross-owned entities in mid-sized markets saw a measurable decline in content diversity metrics, such as the range of topics covered and source attribution variety, according to automated text analysis of news outputs.[126] Opponents, including public interest advocates and some academics, assert that such power concentration enables a handful of corporations to shape national agendas disproportionately, as evidenced by coordinated coverage patterns during election cycles that prioritize owner-aligned themes over pluralistic debate.[127] [126] Beyond viewpoint uniformity, critics highlight risks to democratic pluralism from the economic leverage gained by cross-owners, who can cross-subsidize outlets to marginalize competitors and entrench dominant narratives.[121] In markets with high cross-ownership, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index—a standard measure of concentration—often exceeds thresholds associated with reduced innovation in content, correlating with fewer investigative pieces and more echo-chamber effects.[126] This dynamic, they argue, contravenes first-order principles of media policy aimed at preventing monopolistic control over information flows, potentially amplifying echo chambers that undermine informed civic engagement.[123] While some empirical reviews find mixed impacts on overt bias, the overarching concern remains the structural incentives for owners to minimize dissent across their portfolios, fostering a landscape where power resides with entities capable of dictating terms to advertisers, regulators, and audiences alike.[107][127]Defenses Highlighting Market Efficiency and Innovation
Proponents of media cross-ownership in the United States argue that it generates substantial economies of scale, enabling firms to streamline operations and allocate resources more efficiently across platforms such as broadcast television, radio, and newspapers within the same market.[128] By consolidating ownership, companies can centralize news gathering, administrative functions, and technical infrastructure, thereby reducing duplicative costs like separate reporting staffs or facilities, which in turn lowers per-unit production expenses and enhances financial viability amid declining traditional advertising revenues.[129] Empirical analyses of broadcast mergers indicate that such efficiencies manifest in operational savings, with consolidated entities achieving productivity gains through automation and shared services, allowing sustained investment in infrastructure despite competitive pressures from digital alternatives.[128][129] These scale benefits, according to deregulation advocates, foster innovation by freeing capital for technological upgrades and content experimentation, countering the narrative that consolidation stifles creativity. Larger media conglomerates can leverage synergies to develop integrated digital platforms, invest in data-driven personalization, and expand into streaming services, as evidenced by post-merger enhancements in content delivery systems following the relaxation of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules in the early 2000s.[95] For example, cross-owned outlets have demonstrated improved content quality metrics after mergers, with slight increases in journalistic output attributable to reinvested efficiencies rather than cost-cutting alone.[112] Economists emphasizing market dynamics contend that such structures mirror efficiencies in other industries, where mergers enable risk-sharing and resource pooling to accelerate adoption of innovations like AI-assisted reporting or multi-platform distribution, ultimately benefiting consumers through diversified offerings in a fragmented media landscape dominated by tech giants.[130][129] In the context of digital convergence, defenders highlight that restrictive cross-ownership rules, such as those prohibiting newspaper-broadcast combinations, outdatedly impede broadcasters' ability to compete with unregulated online platforms, arguing for further deregulation to promote adaptive innovation.[95] The National Association of Broadcasters has advocated eliminating national ownership caps, positing that this would strengthen negotiating power in retransmission consent deals and enable investments in local content innovation, as fragmented ownership currently disadvantages stations against vertically integrated streaming services.[22] Studies on merger effects in dynamic sectors support this view, showing that horizontal integrations often yield innovation spillovers, with acquiring firms exhibiting higher patenting rates or technological advancements post-consolidation, a pattern applicable to media's shift toward hybrid models blending linear and on-demand delivery.[130][131] While critics question long-term diversity impacts, these efficiency-driven defenses underscore that market forces, not regulatory caps, best ensure responsive innovation in an era where consumer choice via internet access mitigates monopoly risks.[132]Public Distrust and Empirical Polling Data
Public confidence in U.S. mass media has declined to historic lows, with a Gallup poll from September 2025 reporting that only 28% of Americans express a "great deal" or "fair amount" of trust in newspapers, television, and radio to report news fully, accurately, and fairly.[133] This figure represents a sharp drop from 68% in 1972, the first year Gallup measured the metric, and follows a peak of 55% in 1998-1999 before steady erosion amid perceptions of bias and inaccuracy.[133] The decline is uneven across demographics: trust stands at 51% among Democrats, 27% among independents, and just 8% among Republicans, highlighting deep partisan divides that have widened since the mid-2010s.[133] Historical trends underscore the persistence of low trust, as shown in Gallup's longitudinal data:| Year Range | Trust Level (%) |
|---|---|
| 1972-1976 | 68-72 |
| 1997-2001 | 53-55 |
| 2017-2021 | 32-36 |
| 2022-2025 | 28-31 |
