Washington D.C. – The future of local television is being reshaped not in the glare of cable news studios, but within the corridors of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). A potentially significant shift in broadcast ownership rules is gaining momentum, spearheaded by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, and the implications for how Americans receive their news are substantial.
For years, industry lobbyists have argued that the FCC’s ownership cap – a regulation limiting how many media outlets a single company can own – stifles competition and hinders the ability of struggling local news operations to thrive. Critics, however, warn that lifting this cap will accelerate media consolidation, leading to fewer independent voices and diminished local coverage. The stakes are particularly high given that local TV news remains a widely consumed and generally trusted source of information for many Americans.
Chairman Carr’s approach, however, isn’t easily categorized. While publicly advocating for deregulation under the banner of a “free market,” his actions have also appeared to directly benefit specific media companies and align with conservative political goals. This has led some observers to suggest his strategy is less about strict ideology and more about leveraging influence over the media landscape.
The debate recently played out in a congressional hearing, where Senator Ted Cruz, chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, expressed skepticism about the FCC unilaterally changing the ownership cap. While not taking a firm position, his opening remarks, described as “almost journalistic” by Steven Waldman, founder of the media-policy group Rebuild Local News, traced the history of broadcast media from its golden age to the current era of fragmentation. Democratic senators also offered nuanced perspectives, with Waldman noting their sympathy for both sides of the argument.
A surprising element of the discussion was the bipartisan support for local journalism. Waldman shared a particularly friendly exchange with Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, who expressed a strong appreciation for the importance of community media. This mirrored a broader trend of Republican lawmakers in certain states quietly pushing bills to revive flagging local outlets, even as their party engages in a national-level critique of mainstream media.
The focus on local journalism isn’t limited to print media; local TV news, with its wider reach and generally higher trust levels, is a key component. A notable trend has even seen local news anchors leveraging that trust to launch political careers, highlighting the influence these figures wield within their communities.
Carr himself claims to value local news, pointing out the alternative – shutting down broadcasters and selling their spectrum to wireless carriers. He has consistently advocated for deregulating the airwaves, including in his contribution to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump term, where he called for eliminating “heavy-handed FCC regulations.” The FCC, under his leadership, even launched an initiative titled “In re: Delete, Delete, Delete,” inviting comment on all agency regulations.
However, Carr’s most impactful maneuvers have been far from conventional. He has revived and reinterpreted regulations, and wielded the threat of regulation, in ways that appear to steer broadcast TV toward Trump’s objectives. A prime example is the case involving Stephen Colbert and Texas State Representative James Talarico. Colbert revealed on The Late Show that CBS lawyers advised him against airing an interview with Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate, citing concerns about potential scrutiny from the FCC regarding the agency’s “equal time” rule.
Under federal law, broadcast television and radio stations are generally required to provide comparable airtime to opposing political candidates. The incident sparked a political dispute over how federal regulators police campaign coverage, with Colbert suggesting the FCC’s increased scrutiny was a factor in the decision.
Craig Aaron, co-C.E.O. Of Free Press, a media-advocacy group opposing the lifting of the ownership cap, believes Carr’s seemingly divergent actions are part of a cohesive strategy. He describes it as a “merger” of approaches, where leverage is the primary currency. Carr has described his goal not only in free-market terms but also as a way to “empower” smaller competitors to stand up to major networks, potentially giving them the leverage to control programming decisions, like keeping a particular comedian off the air.
Carr explicitly stated to The Times Magazine that a “realignment” is underway in how conservatives approach using government power. He acknowledged the long-standing conservative complaints about media bias and the previous reliance on the free market to address it, but asserted that “this sort of libertarian free-market answer isn’t working.”
The implications of Carr’s strategy extend beyond individual cases like Colbert’s interview. It represents a fundamental shift in how conservatives view the role of government in shaping the media landscape, moving away from a hands-off approach toward a more interventionist one. The outcome of this shift will likely determine not only the future of local television but also the broader flow of information to the American public.
