Déjà news
Joint-services agreements allow multiple stations in the same market to pool resources. The deals vary widely from agreement to agreement, and often include only marketing or sales teams, which seems harmless enough. But many include sharing news operations.
A subcategory of joint-services agreements are called shared-services agreements, and they always involve the sharing of newsgathering resources. The resources shared can vary from news scripts and story packages, to reporters and the merger of entire newsrooms—so that communities end up with fewer local voices, less information overall, and only the illusion of choice. Outlet owners, meanwhile, can end up with more power than the spirit of Federal Communications Commission rules on media ownership consolidation would seem to warrant, as joint-services agreements are excluded from the FCC’s ownership limitations. In an address last February, Ajit Pai, a current FCC commissioner, took a strong stance against the argument that stations should count these agreements toward media ownership limits in individual markets—a decision that would likely put an end to most joint-services agreements.
“If the FCC effectively prohibits these agreements, fewer stations in small-town America will offer news programming, and they will invest less in newsgathering,” Commissioner Pai said. “And the economics suggest that there likely will be fewer television stations, period.”
Steve Waldman, a former FCC adviser supports the idea of joint-services agreements in some situations. But, he said, the lack of information about them makes it impossible to determine which agreements reflect sensible attempts at efficiency, and which are driven by cost cutting and outsourcing. “The promise of shared services agreements is that we’ll use shared services to eliminate duplicate investment, and then we’ll invest them in investigative reporting and boots on the ground,” he said. “And that isn’t what happened. It’s evolved in some cases into outsourcing the news.”