The Nexstar-Tegna merger is exactly the type of sensible, growth-oriented agreement that should be embraced rather than bogged down by legal challenges and political drama.
Both Nexstar and Tegna are prominent players in the local television market. Over the years, local stations have faced intense competition not just from other stations but from giant tech firms, streaming services, social media, and the trend of cord-cutting that has diminished advertising revenue for these outlets. The days of three dominant networks and a few local stations are long gone.
Yet, local television is currently struggling to reach audiences. The competitive landscape is fierce.
This makes the Nexstar-Tegna deal critical.
It’s more than just a merger; it’s a measure of policymakers’ understanding of the modern economy, or if they prefer to cling to outdated regulations that no longer apply.
Nexstar has claimed that this acquisition will bolster local journalism by providing the necessary resources and technology for broadcasters to thrive. CEO Perry Sooke mentioned that a combined company would enhance local journalism through improved capabilities and talent.
To put it simply, newsrooms need funding, skilled personnel, technology, and stability. Scale offers that. A lack of resources does not.
However, some state attorneys general, along with DirecTV, are attempting to block the merger, arguing it would give Nexstar too much power in local television markets. This argument feels outdated, almost reminiscent of debates from decades ago. Just consider how Americans consume information today.
Local stations aren’t merely competing with nearby channels; they’re up against the likes of Google, Facebook, Netflix, TikTok, and a flood of digital content.
This is the reality of the marketplace, not a nostalgic theory.
The 39% limit on local television ownership is an outdated regulation that belongs in a museum alongside rotary phones. It was established during an era that barely resembles today’s broadcasting landscape. Applying these rules rigidly today would be akin to enforcing horse-and-buggy regulations on automobiles.
Recognizing the need for broadcasters to adapt, the FCC has taken a necessary stance. In today’s environment, size can actually support competition. Scale is vital for the survival of local journalism.
The current administration has aptly prioritized growth and deregulation, making efforts to eliminate unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. This merger aligns perfectly with that aim, enabling American media to evolve and compete.
Blocking this deal won’t foster competition. It would weaken local broadcasters at a time when they most need support. This, in turn, would hinder their ability to provide essential services like investigative journalism and community updates that larger networks often overlook.
Local news is crucial—it’s part of the urban infrastructure.
It keeps communities informed about severe weather, school closures, local crime, and important public affairs. If local newsrooms decline, the potential for corruption grows unchecked. As information diminishes, community interests are often sidelined.
The public interest should guide this debate, not the vested interests of competitors or politically motivated attorneys general.
It’s worth scrutinizing DirecTV’s role in opposing the merger. As a major player with its own objectives, its legal action shouldn’t be mistaken for a genuine concern for local journalism. It may very well be driven by self-interest in bargaining power and profit margins. While corporations are free to advocate for their interests, regulators and courts must differentiate between these motives and the broader national interest.
Ironically, opponents of the merger claim to support local news, yet their position could endanger local stations’ ability to compete against larger digital entities that are effectively draining the resources from community journalism.
This resistance to merger reminds one of the flawed thinking that led Washington to intervene in the JetBlue-Spirit merger, a move that only recently highlighted Spirit’s struggles within a bankruptcy situation.
This isn’t about consumer protection—it’s more like economic negligence.
The Nexstar-Tegna merger represents a path to more robust local stations and a chance for community journalism to endure. In today’s media landscape, having scale, capital, and technological strength is essential for survival against powerful platforms.
Washington should not cling to outdated policies while local news outlets fade away.
The government knows that a thriving industry is one that can modernize, merge when necessary, and effectively compete with the leading forces of today’s economy. Supporting this merger would send a compelling message—that the U.S. won’t let antiquated regulations or political maneuvering obstruct necessary progress.
Local journalism is far too important to risk being sacrificed for the sake of outdated rules.
The decision is significant. We can support broadcasters in gaining the scale required to survive or watch more local newsrooms go dark.
