Before diving in, I want to make clear that what motivates me to write this post isn’t ABC’s decision to suspend Jimmy Kimmel nor the ending of Stephen Colbert’s show by CBS. My interest in watching late night network television ended when Craig Ferguson left the "Late Late Show" at the end of 2014 followed in mid-2015 by the departure of David Letterman from the Late Show. I tried watching their late-night replacement for a while as well as the other offerings, but I didn’t find the content to be sufficiently entertaining or compelling enough to hold my interest.
What motivates this is reading this blog post from NAB President and CEO Curtis LeGeyt. He makes some great points about the protection of the First Amendment and the propensity for government to try and pressure broadcasters to a particular slant on their coverage. As Mr. LeGeyt points out, it is nothing new and it is wrong and I agree wholeheartedly with him on these two statements. He concludes that protecting the First Amendment is “essential for the health of our democracy” which I also agree with.
Where I have concern is in the change in “local station” ownership. While I started working in local radio broadcasting in the 1970’s, I spent most of my career working in local television broadcasting beginning in 1982 so I’m going to focus my comments on local television.
The 1980’s were an interesting time for local television. Prior to 1985, a single entity could only own seven television stations nationwide which was part of the 7-7-7 rule (7 AM stations, 7 FM stations, 7 television stations). In 1985 the cap was raised to 12-12-12 and the collective reach of the 12 television stations could not exceed 25% of the total television households nationwide.
The percentage of households covered was increased to 39% sometime later and thanks to maintaining the UHF discount (a curious holdover from the 1985 ownership rules update), an entity can now own multiple stations in the same market and potentially cover significantly more than 39% of television household nationally.
So where we currently stand is that according to the FCC’s latest tally (June, 2025), there are 1,384 commercial television stations in the United States. As best as I can determine by searching the web, as of 2020/2022 about 30 owners’ control more than 1,000 of these stations. Currently there is a move to revise or eliminate the ownership caps and assuming that happens, I expect that most of the smallest owners and many of the mid-sized owners will be acquired by the largest owners and significantly fewer than 30 owners will control significantly more than 1,000 of the commercial television stations.
Threatening license renewal at the national level on a few large organizations that own and directly control the vast majority of local stations could certainly negatively impact the real or perceived shareholder value and profitability of the organization.
So what does all this have to do with concern over the First Amendment? Well, if you peruse the business plans and reports of most large companies, the metrics of success for the company and its leadership are often shareholder value and profitability. The reports often include plans for consolidation or centralization of services as a means of reducing operating costs and improving operational efficiency.
In a structure such as this, government pressure like Mr. LeGeyt describes becomes potentially easier and more effective. Threatening license renewal at the national level on a few large organizations that own and directly control the vast majority of local stations could certainly negatively impact the real or perceived shareholder value and profitability of the organization. This in turn could potentially generate a climate of national owners telling their local stations’ leadership to get in line with what they cover and how they cover it regardless of local community needs or sentiment.
I understand the need for broadcasting companies to grow to stay competitive with Big Tech but as we have seen in many businesses that consolidate, the mission and commitment to serving the customer is often diluted or completely abandoned in favor of the bottom line. It’s not hard to imagine maintaining shareholder value being in direct opposition to maintaining First Amendment rights.
When I started working in broadcasting, stations were licensed to operate in the public interest. Station ownership was limited to ensure that there were diverse voices in the market. Stations were required to regularly and proactively engage with the communities they served and document those findings.
While the media ecosystem has certainly changed, maybe broadcast station owners need to relook at those metrics and find a way to ensure that the local stations they own meet the needs and expectations of the communities they serve. Local stations may be “the most trusted source of information” but only as long as the local community sees them as local and worthy of their trust.
