Be Careful What You Wish For: The Hidden Risks Of Broadcast Deregulation
Broadcasters have long clamored for deregulation, arguing that fewer rules will foster innovation, reduce costs, and help them compete in an evolving media landscape. Now, with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr’s recent performative Kabuki theater push to “Delete, Delete, Delete” outdated regulations, the industry may finally get what it wants. But broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. If history has taught us anything, it’s that aggressive deregulation often carries unintended — and sometimes irreversible — consequences.
Lessons From The Past
Broadcasters don’t have to look far to see what happens when regulation is dismantled without careful consideration. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which relaxed media ownership rules, was supposed to increase competition and diversity. Instead, it led to massive media consolidation, with companies like iHeartMedia swallowing up hundreds of radio stations. Localism suffered, independent voices were drowned out, and programming became more homogenized — all the things the law was supposed to prevent.
Or take the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That move paved the way for the hyper-partisan media environment we have today, where broadcasters are no longer required to present multiple perspectives on controversial issues. The result? A fractured, polarized public discourse that many now lament.
Broadcasters should ask themselves: Is more deregulation really going to help their industry, or is it just going to hand even more power to a few large corporations while further eroding the foundations of localism and diversity?
The Real Risks Of Gutting Regulations
Localism Will Suffer: Broadcasters have always touted their role in serving local communities, but that mission is increasingly in jeopardy. The 2017 elimination of the Main Studio Rule, which once required stations to maintain a physical presence in their local markets, was a clear warning sign. Stations can now operate from distant hubs, cutting off their ties to local communities. If the industry pushes for even more relaxed rules, it will be hard to argue that it still prioritizes localism.
Content Diversity Will Shrink: Fewer regulations typically mean more consolidation. And when ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few, content inevitably becomes more uniform. Local programming gets cut, minority and independent voices get pushed aside, and the media landscape becomes even more monotonous. If broadcasters genuinely value diversity in programming, they should think twice before cheering for rules that allow mega-mergers and monopolistic control.
Small Broadcasters Will Be Pushed Out: The argument for deregulation is often framed as reducing burdens on broadcasters. But let’s be honest — removing ownership caps and other restrictions overwhelmingly benefits the biggest players — not the small, independent stations struggling to survive. If the rules are relaxed too much, large companies will consolidate even further, leveraging their size and resources to outcompete smaller stations. In the long run, this will shrink the number of truly independent broadcasters to a limited few.
The Need For Smart Regulation, Not ‘No Regulation’
Yes, some outdated regulations may need to go, but not all rules are unnecessary red tape. Many exist for a reason — to protect local communities, ensure fair competition, and maintain a diverse media ecosystem. Broadcasters should be advocating for smart, targeted regulatory reform rather than blindly cheering for a deregulation free-for-all.
Instead of gutting protections wholesale, the FCC and industry leaders should take a more measured approach:
Engage With All Stakeholders, Not Just The Largest Players: Local broadcasters, public interest groups, and independent voices need a say in how the industry is shaped.
Phase Out Outdated Rules Gradually: Abrupt deregulation can have unforeseen consequences. Implementing changes incrementally allows for course correction.
Ensure Local And Diverse Content Doesn’t Become An Afterthought: If certain rules are eliminated, new safeguards or incentives should be mandated to maintain localism and diversity.
Broadcasters may think deregulation is the key to survival in a rapidly changing media landscape, but history suggests otherwise. The industry should be asking whether removing protections will truly help in the long term — or if it will just accelerate trends that have already put local TV and especially radio in such precarious positions.
Regulation isn’t inherently bad. It’s what has kept broadcasting accountable to the public for decades. Instead of racing to erase the rule book, broadcasters should be thinking critically about what they actually need — and what they might regret losing once it’s gone.
Local News To Peruse
Apollo Exploring Potential $4 Billion Sale Of Cox Media Group - Michelle F Davis & Christopher Palmeri [Bloomberg]
Local TV Station Future Prognosis: Headed To Rehab? - Wayne Friedman [MediaPost]
The Case For Network Affiliate Groups’ Independent Content - Tom Sly [TVNewsCheck]
FCC Chair Threatens To Block M&A For Companies That Embrace DEI Policies - Lucas Manfredi [TheWrap]
What’s Up With The FCC’s 'Delete, Delete, Delete' Initiative? - Gregg Skall [TVTech]
ABC Affiliation Moving From WPLG To WSVN In Miami Market - Matthew Keys [TheDesk.net]
Surveying The Landscape Ahead For Miami's WPLG - Kirk Varner [TVND.com]
Reps. Flood, Alford, Boyle, And Soto Relaunch The Broadcasters Caucus - George Winslow [TVTech]
