|
There is something oddly familiar about the argument for greater consolidation of local television. Broadcasters are under pressure. Their business is being disrupted. Local journalism is expensive. Therefore, the reasoning goes, station owners need to become larger so they can operate more efficiently — and somehow emerge with more resources for the newsrooms those efficiencies are supposed to protect.
Perhaps. But American media has conducted versions of this experiment before.
Local newspapers consolidated as their economics deteriorated, producing giant chains increasingly controlled by financially driven owners such as Alden Global Capital, adept at extracting profit from shrinking local institutions. Radio underwent its own consolidation revolution after the Telecommunications Act of 1996, creating enormous national groups whose histories include billions in debt and repeated trips through bankruptcy court.
So before assuming bigger television companies will necessarily produce stronger local journalism, it is worth asking: Why would this time be different?
Broadcasters have legitimate reasons to want scale. Local TV faces declining audiences, advertising pressure, cord-cutting, reverse-compensation obligations and competitors with vastly greater resources. Bigger groups can spread costs, centralize technology and negotiate more effectively with networks and distributors.
But somewhere between “scale creates efficiencies” and “scale strengthens local news,” the argument makes a convenient leap.
|
