Key Points
- The NAB warned lawmakers that opposing looser broadcast ownership rules could carry political consequences, citing a poll it commissioned showing voter support for fewer restrictions.
- Critics say the NAB-backed survey used misleading language about “competition” while avoiding the issue of consolidation, which other polls show voters broadly oppose.
- Public interest groups argue lifting ownership caps would accelerate consolidation and harm local media diversity, despite NAB claims it would strengthen local journalism.
The public interest group that represents many commercial radio and television broadcasters has issued a veiled threat to members of Congress, warning that their jobs could be on the line if they side against proposals to loosen rules that are meant to prevent mass consolidation in the broadcast sector.
The threat was issued last month in a letter sent to “interested parties” by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and two pollsters, Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward, which largely focused on a survey of more than 1,000 registered voters who expressed positive sentiments toward the idea of fewer government restrictions on private enterprises.
The outcome of the poll was used to justify the view that eliminating federal ownership restrictions afflicting local TV and radio broadcasters would lead to positive outcomes and had wide support from constituents across the country.
For several years, the NAB has called for lawmakers and federal regulators to lift ownership caps and loosen restrictions so local radio and TV broadcasters can own more licensed stations outright.
Currently, local TV broadcasters are not allowed to own stations that reach more than 39 percent of the American viewing audience. Radio broadcasters are limited to the number of local stations they can control based on how many stations are licensed to a given market. The FCC is weighing proposals on whether to relax or eliminate its ownership rules as part of a broader effort called “Delete, Delete, Delete.”
The poll released by the NAB found more than half of registered voters felt “station owners should be able to compete without government-set limits, just as national cable networks and streaming companies are allowed to do.” The survey also found widespread support for local news programming aired by TV and radio stations in their communities.
“There is both a political reward and price to pay for members of Congress, depending on how
they address the issue of allowing local TV station owners to compete,” Fabrizio and Ward wrote in their letter last month.
Fabrizio and Ward — who are known to conduct polls on behalf of Republican-led causes and were closely aligned with President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2024 — claimed voters were less likely to vote for Congressional candidates who “opposed local TV station owners being allowed to compete nationally for advertising against cable networks,” while current and prospective lawmakers were more likely to curry favor with voters if they supported “local TV station owners being allowed to compete nationally for advertising against cable networks.”
But when asked specifically about the topic of broadcast consolidation, nearly 80 percent of Americans said they oppose allowing radio and TV station companies to acquire other players or merge their operations, according to a similar poll conducted by advocacy groups like the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) and Defend the Press Campaign last year.
That poll found 89 percent of Democrats and 74 percent of Republicans opposed reforming media ownership rules, while 77 percent of independents said the same. The survey consisted of 1,000 Americans who are likely to vote in the upcoming midterm election, the organizations said.
A review of both surveys by The Desk found Americans were likely persuaded by the specific questions asked during each panel. In Fabrizio and Ward’s survey, voters were told that cable networks are allowed to reach all Americans without restraint, while broadcasters were hamstrung by a 1940s-era law that capped the reach of local TV station owners to under 40 percent of the American viewing audience.
As written, the question was misleading: The 1941 law restricted local TV broadcasters from owning more than one licensed station in a given market. The anti-market duopoly provision was eliminated years ago.
While the law did institute a mandate that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) impose a cap regarding national reach, that provision has been amended several times, with the FCC raising the cap to 39 percent as of 2004 — a point that wasn’t noted in Fabrizio and Ward’s poll. Similarly, the poll didn’t use the word “consolidate” at all, based on excerpts provided to The Desk by NAB, choosing instead to focus on whether local broadcasters should be able to “compete” against cable and streaming operations.
That phrasing was repeated when Fabrizio and Ward asked prospective voters how they’d feel if “your member of Congress opposed local TV station owners being allowed to compete nationally for advertising against cable networks and internet streamers,” without cluing survey participants in on the fact that the NAB’s proposal for competition is allowing mass-consolidation throughout the broadcast sector.
By comparison, the poll conducted by NHMC, Defend the Press and other public interest groups last December asked survey participants if they’d “heard anything about large national broadcast corporations buying up or merging with local TV stations” and whether they believed “corporate mergers usually lead to” higher or lower prices. The phrasing “higher prices” and “lower prices” were rotated among survey panelists so as not to influence the outcome of the poll, according to weighted results reviewed by The Desk.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, when voters were clued in to the fact that the NAB’s proposal for allowing competition in the broadcast space was consolidation, they weren’t in favor of the practice. Still, the NAB touted the Fabrizio and Ward survey as proof that Americans favor mass consolidation in the sector, despite other surveys that prove the opposite.
“Voters are sending a clear message: The government should not impose arbitrary limits on trusted local broadcasters while Big Tech platforms face no such restrictions,” Curtis LeGeyt, the CEO of NAB, said on Monday. “Ending the arbitrary national ownership cap, which applies to no other form of media, is about fairness and competition, but it’s also about ensuring local stations have the scale they need to invest in strong local journalism, emergency information and service to their communities.”
