As a society, we’ve made significant headway in our discourse around diversity in media and entertainment. While much of the conversation has focused on who’s in front of — or behind — the camera, another important focus should be on who owns the camera and the platforms that distribute its content.
Diverse ownership leads to diverse decisions in hiring, casting, programming and production. Unfortunately, it’s ownership where we see stark disparities across all major media platforms — and especially in television. Consider that of the nearly 1,400 commercial TV stations in America, just 12 of them are owned by people of color. This dearth of representation can be attributed to a variety of factors, but a critical one is the intense competition for capital in an increasingly consolidated media landscape.
That’s why the few remaining minority-owned media outlets have inked deals with corporations that promise greater access to financial resources and connections to the “old (white) boys’ club” that’s dominated the industry for decades. Recognizing this reality and responding to consumer demand for diverse programming, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other regulators have made strides to encourage minority-owned media companies.
But as with even the most well-intentioned policies, the largest and most powerful media players have found their way around them. As the owner of three of the nation’s 12 minority-owned stations, I’ve experienced this first hand.
My company, Marshall Broadcasting Group (MBG), recently filed a lawsuit in New York’s Supreme Court against one of those mega-media corporations—Nexstar Broadcasting, America’s second-largest TV station operator. The suit details how Nexstar sold three stations to MBG to meet an FCC mandate to promote diversity in media ownership, and then worked to sabotage the financial health of these stations in the hopes of reacquiring the stations under more liberal station ownership rules for pennies on the dollar.
The lawsuit sheds light on the ongoing struggle to meet FCC’s stated goal of maintaining diversity of viewpoints in local media markets as big media corporations like Nexstar and Sinclair continue to consolidate and exert influence over local markets. Nexstar is on its way to becoming the largest TV station group owner through its proposed acquisition of Tribune Broadcasting, while Sinclair Broadcasting Group, the largest owner of local television news stations in the United States, is forcing its stations to air “must run” political segments.
At stake is the regulators’ honorable efforts to increase diversity and promote localism in ownership of media companies. MBG’s lawsuit, among other signs of the growing influence of big corporate media, should encourage consumers, regulators and other minority broadcast owners to carefully analyze and monitor deals that are positioned as pro-diversity.
For its part, the federal government must be vigilant, developing policies that block corporations from pushing deals through under the guise of diversity and inclusion. The impact of these actions does not just cause financial pain; it also works against the FCC’s diversity goals at a time in which consumers are clamoring for more inclusive content and perspectives on screen, not less.
First, consider the chilling effect that the Nexstar dispute — if left unchecked and unpunished — will have on minority entrepreneurship in traditional media. We know that the commercial television industry is slow to innovate, hampered by regulation and hemorrhaging advertisers. The threat of getting overrun by a corporate owner like Nexstar serves as a further deterrent to minority investment – as if the industry needed one. Think about it: of all the games you could play, why would you choose one that you know is rigged?
This exodus could be a death knell for traditional TV, which is struggling to compete with video streaming and on-demand services in meeting consumers’ demand for diverse perspectives and representation. And, as opportunities for emerging entrepreneurs and content creators with these platforms abound, audiences have even more reason to cut the cord and discover programming that resonates with them online. Without diverse owners at the helm, our media landscape will continue to fragment — empowering the next Oprah or Shonda Rhimes to take their talents (and legions of fans) elsewhere. As regulators examine the potential blowback of inaction on the MBG case, they’d be wise to consider how it might be the proverbial nail in traditional TV’s coffin.
We know that our views of the world are shaped by what we see and hear, especially in media. Diverse representation matters on screen, off screen, and in the corner offices key decision-makers. If regulators are fulfilling their obligation to the public interest, they should promote and provide more incentives for diverse ownership. Central to that is the promise that the system will be fair, accountable and guided by the interests of consumers – not the greed of corporate monoliths.
