How does cross-ownership of TV networks, cable channels, and local stations affect news diversity in the US?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Cross-ownership—when the same company controls TV networks, cable channels, and local stations—has been linked by scholars and advocacy groups to reduced local outlet diversity and consolidated editorial power, while regulators argue changing technology and market conditions complicate those harms [1] [2] [3]. The FCC has long regulated cross‑ownership with rules such as the newspaper/broadcast ban (repealed in 2017) and periodic quadrennial reviews; critics say rule loosening and industry practices like shared services agreements make independent local voices rarer [3] [4] [5].
1. How cross‑ownership concentrates editorial reach
When a single owner holds multiple platforms in a market—networks, cable brands and local stations—that owner controls distribution pipelines and advertising relationships across formats, increasing its ability to shape which stories get resources and airtime. Historical FCC rules were designed to prevent one corporate voice dominating a community because regulators concluded such dominance would reduce viewpoint diversity [1] [4]. Free Press and other critics argue decades of consolidation mean women and people of color own only a small share of outlets, which narrows who sets editorial agendas [6].
2. Regulatory tug‑of‑war: rules, reviews and repeals
The FCC built five rule categories to limit concentration—local TV, local radio, radio/TV cross‑ownership, newspaper/broadcast cross‑ownership, and the dual network rule—and it has repeatedly reviewed and revised them [4]. Notably, the newspaper/broadcast cross‑ownership rule was repealed in 2017 after the agency judged the multiplicity of online sources reduced the need for that ban; opponents say that repeal and other relaxations weaken structural protections for local diversity [3] [1]. The FCC has also grappled with whether shared services agreements (SSAs) should be treated as attributable ownership because those contracts can effectively centralize control [5] [4].
3. Evidence is mixed: consolidation ≠ uniform content
Academic studies and recent literature underline a core debate: ownership concentration raises the risk of homogenized coverage, but causal proof that diverse ownership always yields diverse content is limited. Some research flags homogenization and digital isolation of independent outlets under shared owners [7] [2]. Other scholarship concludes there is no simple causal link showing that more owners automatically produce more varied content—market forces and editorial choices also matter [2].
4. Localism and newsroom capacity: the efficiency trade‑off
Publishers and broadcasters defend cross‑ownership on efficiency grounds: shared operations can keep struggling local newsrooms afloat through pooled reporting resources and lower costs. Critics counter that those same efficiencies often result in centralized newsrooms, fewer reporters per market, and less locally produced journalism—trends visible in longstanding analyses of media deserts and newsroom decline [8] [9]. The Economic Policy Institute’s historical account of the newspaper/broadcast rule emphasizes the aim of preventing a single corporate voice from becoming dominant in a community, precisely because efficiency gains can come at the cost of diverse local coverage [1].
5. Who benefits and who loses: equity and representation
Advocacy groups frame cross‑ownership as a civil‑liberties and representation problem: structural consolidation has left ownership disproportionately in the hands of a few, reducing opportunities for minority and female ownership and diminishing perspectives from underrepresented communities [6] [10]. The ACLU and library associations have specifically warned that weakening ownership rules risks further eroding minority ownership and local cultural resources [11] [10].
6. Practical implications for news consumers and policymakers
For audiences, consolidation can mean fewer independent local outlets to check errors or carry community concerns; it can also mean consistent, professionally produced reporting in markets where independent outlets would otherwise vanish [8] [9]. For policymakers, the choice is a trade‑off: keep ownership caps to preserve outlet plurality and encourage minority ownership, or relax them to allow economies of scale that may sustain some newsrooms. The FCC’s ongoing attribution questions around SSAs illustrate regulators’ awareness that contractual control—beyond formal ownership—matters to diversity outcomes [5] [4].
Limitations and open questions: available sources do not provide definitive, causal measurements tying specific cross‑ownership transactions to changes in particular local coverage outcomes; scholars note mixed empirical evidence and call for more market‑level, longitudinal studies to settle whether structural plurality reliably produces substantive viewpoint diversity [2] [7].