How to fix the media ownership debate

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s proposed media ownership rules changes: a newspaper and a TV station in the same town would be allowed to merge if the station is number five in the ratings or worse and if it is also in one of the top 20 markets in the country and if there would still be at least eight media voices left in the town. Not exactly radical stuff.

Internet has increased the number of voices and provided many other benefits, but at the same time undermined the economic models that had previously subsidized local journalism. Newspapers are still laying off reporters by the thousands. So, if an occasional merger can save a local newspaper, we shouldn’t automatically rule it out just because it is a merger. The FCC is considering the reasonable step of lifting the ban on newspapers owning radio stations in the same town. Yes, this change allows “consolidation,” but permitting a newspaper to buy a radio station—perhaps to create a local radio news channel—could actually help communities. After all, commercial news radio has been declining: only 30 all-news commercial radio stations are left, down from 50 in the 1980s.

Instead of having a theological debate about consolidation—“good” vs. “evil”?—is it possible to create media policy that allows mergers that are likely to help the local media ecosystems and blocks those that are not?