x
x
This comprehensive investigation examines the contemporary media landscape organized around Designated Market Areas (DMAs), revealing a complex ecosystem characterized by increasing corporate consolidation, regulatory evolution, the rise of digital distribution, and fundamental shifts in how audiences consume content. The research demonstrates that while DMAs remain essential geographic units for understanding local television and radio markets, the definition of "local" media has been fundamentally transformed by technological innovation, ownership concentration, and the migration of viewership to streaming platforms. The investigation uncovers critical tensions between regulatory frameworks designed to protect localism and viewpoint diversity, the economic pressures driving media consolidation, the role of public broadcasting in underserved markets, and the emergence of digital platforms as competitors to traditional broadcast media. These findings suggest that the traditional DMA-based media system faces existential pressures from both structural economic forces and technological disruption, even as it remains institutionally central to how the FCC, advertisers, and broadcasters conceptualize American media markets.
Designated Market Areas represent one of the most fundamental organizing principles of American broadcast media, yet their definition and purpose have evolved considerably since their inception. A Designated Market Area is a proprietary geographic region defined by Nielsen Media Research that encompasses counties grouped based on television viewing areas.The United States comprises exactly 210 distinct DMAs that collectively cover the entire continental United States, Hawaii, and parts of Alaska, with each DMA representing an area where local television stations capture a dominant share of viewing audiences.These non-overlapping geographic regions enable the television industry to standardize audience measurement, advertising planning, and media buying across the nation, functioning as the fundamental currency through which broadcasters, advertisers, and media researchers understand local television markets.The concept of DMAs emerged in the 1950s when television began to dominate the American media landscape and proliferated across the country, making it necessary for marketers and broadcasters to have a standardized geographic framework for understanding where audiences could receive local television signals.
The hierarchical structure of DMAs creates a tiered system of media markets that directly reflects population density and economic value. New York occupies the top position as DMA #1, representing the largest television market with 7,726,580 homes as of 2023, generating the highest advertising costs due to sheer audience size.Los Angeles ranks as the second-largest market, followed by Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Philadelphia, and Houston rounding out the top positions, with each of these markets commanding substantially higher advertising rates than smaller regional markets.Conversely, the smallest markets occupy the bottom tier of DMA rankings, with Glendive, Montana, serving as DMA #210 with only 3,920 television homes representing just 0.003 percent of all American television households.The dramatic disparity between the largest and smallest markets illustrates fundamental inequalities in media resources, advertising investment, and content production capacity, with New York's market being nearly two thousand times larger than Glendive's market.These DMAs directly determine advertising costs and audience reach, meaning that television advertisements in New York cost exponentially more than advertisements in Montgomery, Alabama, or smaller markets, a cost differential that fundamentally shapes media strategy for national and regional advertisers.
The technical and economic mechanisms underlying DMAs reveal how broadcast geography shapes content distribution and audience access. DMAs are determined by the Nielsen Company based on metropolitan areas, with suburbs often combined within contiguous market boundaries, though market regions may overlap geographically at their edges, meaning residents on the periphery of one DMA may sometimes receive signals from adjacent markets.Only those living within the confines of the broadcast signal can turn on their televisions and view the local evening news, and only those within the geographic boundaries of designated media markets can listen to local radio programming, making DMAs not merely statistical constructs but physical realities determined by broadcast transmission technology and geographic signal propagation.Each DMA is ranked based on the number of television households in that market, with Nielsen annually reviewing all DMA regions to determine whether counties should be added or removed based on changing viewing patterns and market dynamics.This annual review process reflects the reality that DMAs remain dynamic geographic constructs responsive to population shifts, technological changes in broadcast coverage, and evolving patterns of media consumption, though the overall framework has remained relatively stable since Nielsen's systematic development of the DMA concept.
The ownership landscape of American broadcast media has undergone profound transformation over the past four decades, characterized by progressive regulatory deregulation that enabled unprecedented consolidation and the rise of media conglomerates controlling hundreds of stations across multiple DMAs simultaneously. Prior to the 1980s, the Federal Communications Commission maintained relatively strict ownership limitations designed to preserve localism and viewpoint diversity, including a one-to-a-market rule that prohibited entities from owning more than one broadcast station in any given media market.The regulatory landscape shifted fundamentally beginning in 1985 when the FCC began making exceptions to these ownership limits, gradually loosening restrictions that had protected independent ownership and local control of broadcast stations.The Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed by President Bill Clinton, represented a watershed moment in media deregulation, extending television and radio station license terms from five to eight years, enabling corporations to acquire unlimited numbers of television and radio stations nationally, lifting the limit of a broadcaster's national audience reach from twenty-five percent to thirty-five percent of U.S. households, and allowing cross-ownership of television and radio stations in the top fifty markets.This deregulatory moment unleashed what researchers characterize as the largest wave of media consolidation in American history, fundamentally transforming the ownership structure of local television and radio broadcasting.
The consequence of this deregulation has been the emergence of massive media conglomerates wielding unprecedented control over local news and information distribution across vast geographic regions and multiple DMAs. Sinclair Broadcast Group has become the largest television station operator in the United States, owning or operating two hundred ninety-four local television stations across eighty-nine media markets, representing ownership that dwarfs any competing broadcaster and grants Sinclair editorial influence over programming reaching millions of American households.Gray Television operates one hundred eighty-one television stations across eighty-six markets, with the company holding number-one ranked stations in seventy-seven of its one hundred two markets and number-two ranked stations in sixteen markets, demonstrating concentrated ownership of the most-watched local news broadcasts in its service areas.Nexstar Media Group operates hundreds of television stations, as does iHeartMedia in the radio sector, operating eight hundred seventy radio stations that collectively dominate radio listening across the United States.These ownership structures represent a dramatic consolidation from the 1980s when approximately ninety percent of United States media was controlled by fifty companies, to 2011 when ninety percent was controlled by just six companies, a trend that has accelerated further in subsequent years.The regulatory apparatus permits television broadcasters to own up to two television stations in a single DMA under most circumstances, though recent court decisions have struck down the prohibition on owning two top-four rated stations, potentially enabling even greater local consolidation.
The economic and editorial consequences of this ownership consolidation manifest in reduced local newsroom capacity, decreased investment in community journalism, and the substitution of local reporting with nationally syndicated or pre-packaged content. Research documenting media consolidation's effects reveals that in communities served by Sinclair stations, residents often rate their local news as lower in quality, show less awareness of pressing issues like climate change, and demonstrate increasing political alignment with Republican perspectives propagated through Sinclair's editorial practices.Local television news stations have experienced devastating budget cuts and staff reductions as ownership groups prioritize profit extraction over newsroom investment, with many local news operations operating with skeleton crews responsible for covering multiple counties across sprawling geographic territories.The substitution of local beat reporters with national syndicated news has become standard practice in consolidated markets, with national stories receiving prominence over local coverage of city council meetings, school board decisions, or accountability journalism investigating local government dysfunction.Studies indicate that the quality and quantity of local journalism directly correlates with civic participation, including voting behavior and volunteerism, suggesting that consolidation-driven reductions in local reporting have downstream consequences for democratic participation and community engagement.
Public broadcasting represents an alternative media ecosystem that operates under fundamentally different ownership and governance structures, though it too faces profound funding pressures and existential challenges in the contemporary media landscape. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), a private nonprofit corporation established by Congress through the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, served as the steward of federal government investment in public broadcasting until its shutdown in July 2025 following new U.S. government legislation halting all funding to CPB.As of 2025, CPB had distributed more than seventy percent of its funding to more than fifteen hundred locally owned public radio and television stations, including PBS and NPR stations, with rural stations receiving forty-five percent of the CPB appropriation despite representing a smaller percentage of total U.S. population.Public television consists of more than three hundred forty individually owned and operated stations, with some markets containing multiple public television stations, though local and regional interests play key roles in program purchasing and scheduling strategies for individual stations, distinguishing public broadcasting from the centralized control exercised by commercial broadcast conglomerates.The public broadcasting model emphasizes educational content, cultural programming, and service to underserved audiences, particularly children and minorities, operating under regulatory requirements that public stations maintain open meetings, open financial records, community advisory boards, and equal employment opportunity policies that exceed commercial broadcaster obligations.
The Federal Communications Commission, established by the Communications Act of 1934, functions as the primary regulatory authority governing American broadcast media and has historically balanced deregulatory pressure with statutory obligations to ensure that broadcasters serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.The FCC's foundational mandate rests on the principle that broadcasters are stewards of public spectrum, receiving exclusive licenses to broadcast at designated frequencies in exchange for commitments to serve community interests and provide diverse viewpoints on matters of public importance.This regulatory bargain has progressively eroded since the 1980s as deregulatory philosophy gained influence within the FCC and Congress, fundamentally shifting the balance between public interest obligations and commercial broadcaster prerogatives.The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which had required broadcasters to present diverse viewpoints on issues of public importance, represented a symbolic moment in this deregulatory transition, removing regulatory mandates that broadcasters provide balanced coverage of controversial issues and enabling the emergence of partisan cable news networks and ideologically aligned local broadcasting.
Contemporary FCC media ownership rules, though weakened significantly from their historical stringency, still attempt to preserve some degree of competition and viewpoint diversity through multiple limitations on corporate concentration. The Local Radio Ownership Rule limits the total number of radio stations that an entity may own within a local market and the number of radio stations within a market that an entity may own in the same service (AM or FM), with limits ranging from four to eight stations depending on market size and the total number of commercial and noncommercial radio stations operating in the market.The Local Television Ownership Rule prohibits an entity from owning more than two television stations in the same Designated Market Area, though the rule permits entities to own two top-four rated television stations if they meet specific criteria regarding signal overlap or if the FCC finds that the common ownership would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.Following a July 2025 Court of Appeals decision in Zimmer Radio v. FCC, the prohibition on owning two top-four television stations in a single market was struck down, enabling broadcasters to acquire two top-four stations in any DMA, with the court finding the FCC's retention of this prohibition arbitrary and capricious.The Dual Network Rule prohibits television stations from affiliating with an entity owning two or more of the "Big Four" broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX), preventing mergers among these dominant networks though not preventing their common ownership of streaming platforms.
The FCC's regulatory processes include quadrennial reviews mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, requiring the Commission to evaluate media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they remain necessary in the public interest as a result of competition.The FCC's 2022 Quadrennial Review, initiated through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in 2025, explicitly seeks comment on whether the Local Radio Ownership Rule, the Local Television Ownership Rule, and the Dual Network Rule remain necessary, reflecting potential willingness to relax ownership restrictions further.The NPRM raises fundamental questions about competitive market dynamics, asking whether traditional broadcast radio and television remain distinct markets from streaming services and non-broadcast video distribution platforms, with profound implications for whether ownership restrictions designed for an era of broadcast dominance remain appropriate in an era of streaming ubiquity.These regulatory developments suggest ongoing tension between broadcasters seeking to eliminate ownership caps to achieve economies of scale and compete with national and global streaming giants, and public interest advocates concerned that further deregulation will accelerate the erosion of local journalism, viewpoint diversity, and community-focused programming.
The emergence and explosive growth of digital and streaming media platforms has fundamentally transformed the American media landscape, displacing broadcast and cable television as the dominant forms of video consumption and creating unprecedented competition for advertising revenue and audience attention traditionally captured by local television stations. Streaming platforms reached a historic milestone in May 2025, accounting for 44.8 percent of total television usage, surpassing the combined share of broadcast (20.1 percent) and cable (24.1 percent) television for the first time ever, while streaming usage has increased seventy-one percent since May 2021.YouTube's Main service, excluding YouTube TV, has demonstrated particularly dramatic growth, increasing more than one hundred twenty percent since 2021 and representing 12.5 percent of all television viewing in May 2025, becoming the highest share of television viewing held by any individual streaming platform.Free services have driven much of streaming's success, with Free Ad-Supported Television services (FAST), including PlutoTV, Roku Channel, and Tubi, collectively capturing 5.7 percent of total television viewing in May 2025, a share larger than any individual broadcast network.This dramatic shift in viewing patterns reflects fundamental changes in consumer preferences and viewing behaviors, as traditional linear television viewing characterized by scheduled programming at fixed times has been displaced by on-demand access to vast content libraries available across multiple devices and distribution platforms.
The advertising market implications of streaming's dominance have proven devastating for local television broadcasters, with local television accounting for only six percent of total media spending through June 2025, less than half of the thirteen percent share that local television commanded in 2017.Digital video advertising has captured advertising spending that formerly flowed to local television, growing from fifteen percent of total advertising spending in 2017 to fifty percent in the first half of 2025, a fundamental reallocation of resources that reflects advertising agencies' and brand marketers' recognition that streaming and digital platforms provide superior targeting, measurement, and effectiveness compared to broadcast television.Network television's advertising share has declined from seventy-two percent in 2017 to forty-four percent in 2025, though this decline is substantially smaller than the collapse of local television advertising, suggesting that national broadcasters retain greater advertiser value than local stations despite cord-cutting and streaming displacement.Certain product categories have experienced particularly severe declines in local television advertising spending, with automotive down 15.7 percent, entertainment and media down 20.4 percent, financial services down 19.3 percent, and technology down 20.7 percent year-over-year, demonstrating that local television's decline is not evenly distributed but concentrated in the highest-value advertising categories.
Local television broadcasters have responded to streaming competition and cord-cutting by developing hybrid distribution strategies that leverage both traditional broadcast distribution and over-the-top (OTT) streaming platforms to reach audiences and capture advertising revenue outside traditional broadcast programming. Local broadcasters including WDRB-TV in Louisville, Kentucky, KHQ-TV in Spokane, Washington, and others have launched streaming channels that provide twenty-four-hour video content through their station websites, mobile applications, branded OTT applications, and FAST channels distributed through platforms like Pluto TV and Roku Channel.These OTT initiatives enable local broadcasters to produce original content that extends beyond their traditional evening newscast, creating new advertising inventory and sponsorship opportunities that generate revenue beyond traditional broadcast advertising.However, local broadcasters recognize that OTT distribution and FAST channels, while providing revenue, also create strategic risks by making stations dependent on platforms controlled by external entities that may modify distribution terms, reduce revenue sharing, or prioritize competing content.Local television newsrooms have fundamentally restructured their operations to support continuous content production for both broadcast and digital distribution, with journalists producing stories throughout the day rather than concentrating efforts on evening newscast production, though this transition has strained newsroom resources and altered news judgment toward prioritizing shareable social media content over sustained accountability journalism.
Social media platforms have emerged as critical channels through which local television stations distribute content and engage audiences, though their role has evolved as platform algorithms and business models have changed. Local television creative services directors and marketing professionals cite social media as essential for audience development, though many acknowledge that conversion from social media followers to linear broadcast viewers remains minimal, suggesting that social media functions primarily as a distribution channel and marketing tool rather than as a pathway to traditional television viewership.Facebook remains the dominant social media platform for local television audience development, though Instagram and increasingly TikTok receive investment as stations attempt to reach younger audiences through platforms they actively use.Behind-the-scenes content, station personality profiles, and user-generated content have become staple elements of local television social media strategies, with stations encouraging reporters and talent to build personal brands on social media platforms separate from institutional station accounts.However, stations note that Facebook's changing algorithm represents an impediment to organic reach, reducing the effectiveness of paid advertising on the platform and requiring constant strategic adjustment to maintain visibility and engagement.
The historical trajectory of American broadcasting reflects a fundamental transformation from a system organized around locally controlled, community-responsive stations to an increasingly centralized system dominated by national media conglomerates pursuing profit maximization over public service obligations. During the early days of television in the mid-twentieth century, analog broadcast signals had limited geographic range, necessitating the creation of networks of local affiliates that broadcast content from coast to coast while maintaining significant local autonomy in news production, programming decisions, and community engagement.Local populations increasingly turned to these local television news shows produced by community-based affiliates to obtain information about their communities, leading to the development of strong audience trust in local news organizations that persisted for decades and exceeded audience trust in national news organizations.These local stations operated under regulatory assumptions that emphasized public service, localism, and the provision of programming addressing community needs, with FCC licensing decisions and license renewal processes reflecting public interest considerations alongside commercial viability.The regulatory regime that governed this era, while certainly imperfect and rife with its own biases and limitations, nonetheless created incentives for local broadcast stations to invest in community journalism and maintain local news operations that addressed community concerns and held local institutions accountable.
The deregulatory transformation that commenced in the 1980s and accelerated dramatically with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 fundamentally disrupted this system by removing ownership restrictions that had protected local control and independence of broadcast stations. The 1985 Capital Cities-ABC merger, though technically violating the one-to-a-market rule, received FCC approval following Capital Cities' commitment to enhance localized television service in Delaware and southern New Jersey through the opening of news bureaus in Trenton, Harrisburg, and Wilmington, demonstrating that regulatory pressure could compel media companies to make public service investments regardless of corporate incentive structures.By the 1996 Telecommunications Act era, regulatory philosophy had fundamentally shifted, with FCC Commissioner Susan Ness endorsing Disney's acquisition of ABC by claiming that "big is not inherently bad and big is not inherently good," obscuring the reality that while corporate size might not be inherently problematic, regulatory pressure had traditionally compelled large media companies to act in the public interest regardless of their corporate incentive structures.As deregulation removed these pressures, large broadcasters abandoned public service investments and community news operations, recognizing that profit maximization required cost reduction rather than service expansion.The period from the 1980s through the early 2000s witnessed unprecedented media consolidation, with Time Inc. merging with Warner Bros. in 1989 for fourteen billion dollars, Westinghouse acquiring CBS in 1995 for 5.4 billion dollars, Disney acquiring Cap Cities/ABC in 1996 for nineteen billion dollars, Ted Turner merging Turner Broadcasting System with Time Warner in 1996 to create the largest media conglomerate to date, and Viacom acquiring CBS in 1999 for thirty-seven billion dollars.
The contemporary consequence of this transformation has been the emergence of extensive "news deserts" across America, where communities lack local news organizations capable of covering municipal government, schools, public safety, and other matters requiring sustained local journalism. Research documenting the decline of local newspapers and local television news operations reveals that newspapers in America have shrunk dramatically over the past decade, with many communities losing their primary source of local accountability journalism.Decades of research on the decline of local news demonstrates the relationship between local journalism and civic participation, ranging from volunteerism to voting habits, with the elimination of local news sources undermining the information citizens require to make informed decisions about community issues and evaluate the performance of local elected officials.The same consolidation processes affecting local television and newspapers have impacted local radio, with deregulation enabling companies like iHeartMedia to accumulate massive numbers of radio stations within single markets and regions, replacing locally-produced programming with centralized, syndicated content that bears no connection to community-specific concerns or information needs.Rural and smaller metropolitan areas have been particularly devastated by news desert expansion, with smaller markets lacking the population base to support news-gathering operations that can justify profitability under the consolidation-driven business model.The phenomenon of "double deserts"—counties lacking both adequate internet service and local news sources—presents particular challenges for digital equity, since providing broadband access without strengthening local news may simply provide high-speed access to low-quality information and national partisan media rather than facilitating civic participation grounded in local information.
Regulatory responses to news deserts and journalism's decline have proven inadequate, with the FCC's quadrennial reviews failing to reverse deregulation or implement rules that would protect local journalism or incentivize newsroom investment. The erosion of public interest obligations has been particularly consequential, as deregulation has removed the regulatory leverage that previously compelled broadcasters to invest in local news operations even when such operations reduced near-term profitability.The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and the subsequent removal of other public interest requirements gradually eliminated regulatory tools that the FCC could deploy to require localism or viewpoint diversity.Proposals to strengthen local news, including the Rebuild Local News initiative's recommendation that digital equity programs should specifically invest in strengthening local news, have gained advocacy support but have not resulted in significant regulatory or legislative action.Public television, though declining due to the shutdown of CPB funding in 2025, had historically served smaller markets and rural areas with educational and cultural programming when commercial stations abandoned these markets, though its reach remained limited compared to the gap left by commercial broadcasting's retreat from local programming investment.
The future viability of the DMA-based media system appears increasingly uncertain as technological change, economic disruption, and regulatory transformation combine to destabilize the assumptions upon which DMAs were constructed and continue to function. Streaming platforms increasingly operate on national or global distribution models rather than local DMAs, with viewers able to access identical content regardless of geographic location, suggesting that the geographic specificity of DMAs may become less relevant to advertisers and media companies as viewing patterns diverge further from geographic markets.The migration of audiences and advertising to streaming platforms and digital media has fundamentally challenged the economic model that sustained local television stations dependent on broadcast advertising revenue, with no clear path toward sustainable revenue generation for local news operations in the contemporary media environment.The FCC's quadrennial review process, though mandated by Congress to occur every four years, has become a venue through which broadcasters seek to eliminate remaining ownership restrictions rather than a mechanism through which regulators can strengthen localism or viewpoint diversity.
The concentration of media ownership in the hands of massive broadcast conglomerates has fundamentally transformed the character of local news and information, with national editorial priorities and centralized corporate decision-making displacing local journalists' autonomy in determining what stories matter to their communities.Research documenting that residents of communities served by consolidated media companies report lower perceptions of local news quality and demonstrate reduced awareness of pressing issues suggests that consolidation has degraded the informational environment available to citizens attempting to understand and engage with their local communities.The substitution of local accountability journalism with pre-packaged national content has created information vacuums that have been filled by national partisan media and social media rumors, undermining the shared factual foundation required for democratic deliberation.The decline of local journalism simultaneously represents both an economic problem—the destruction of sustainable news business models—and a democratic crisis, as the loss of local news correspondingly diminishes citizens' capacity to hold local institutions accountable and participate effectively in local governance and civic life.
The possible futures for the DMA-based media system remain ambiguous and contested, with different stakeholders advancing competing visions of how American media should be regulated and organized. Broadcast industry advocates continue pushing for the elimination of remaining ownership restrictions and further deregulation, arguing that consolidation enables economies of scale necessary to compete with global streaming giants and that ownership limits are anachronistic in an era of multiplatform competition.Public interest advocates and journalism researchers counter that deregulation has catastrophically damaged local journalism and community media ecosystems, arguing for regulatory restrictions on ownership concentration, reinvestment in public broadcasting, and specific policies targeting the support and sustainability of local news operations.Technological disruption offers unclear implications, as local broadcasters' adoption of OTT streaming and hybrid distribution strategies may represent paths toward sustainable local media ecosystems, or alternatively may represent merely temporary adjustments that ultimately result in the complete displacement of local broadcast television by streaming and digital platforms.The shutdown of CPB funding in 2025, following new U.S. government legislation, eliminates the federal funding stream that has historically sustained public broadcasting in smaller and rural markets, potentially accelerating the contraction of non-commercial media services in communities already underserved by commercial broadcasting.
The contemporary media landscape organized around Designated Market Areas reflects a system in profound tension between its historical design emphasizing local journalism and community service, and contemporary economic and technological realities that undermine the viability of locally-focused media operations. Regulatory deregulation beginning in the 1980s and dramatically accelerated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act has enabled unprecedented media consolidation, with massive conglomerates now controlling local television and radio stations across multiple DMAs while pursuing profit maximization strategies that prioritize corporate earnings over local news investment and community engagement. The emergence of streaming platforms and digital media has further destabilized the DMA-based system, as viewers migrate to on-demand content distributed nationally or globally regardless of geographic market boundaries, undermining the geographic specificity that once made DMAs essential organizing principles for understanding media markets and audience behavior. The consequences of these transformations include the emergence of extensive news deserts particularly affecting rural and small metropolitan areas, the degradation of local journalism's quality and quantity, and the corrosion of the informational infrastructure required for meaningful democratic participation at the local level.
Future sustainability of local media and community journalism will require either dramatic regulatory intervention to restrict media ownership concentration and re-establish public interest obligations on broadcasters, or alternatively, the emergence of new business models and technological platforms capable of sustaining local news operations in an era of streaming and digital distribution. The potential shutdown of public broadcasting following CPB funding elimination eliminates an alternative institutional mechanism through which non-commercial, community-serving media could be provided, potentially accelerating the transition to a media system entirely dependent on commercial advertising and corporate ownership for financial sustainability. The FCC's ongoing quadrennial review processes and the continued legal and regulatory contests surrounding media ownership rules will likely determine whether the next phase of American media development involves regulatory strengthening to protect localism or further deregulation enabling accelerated consolidation. Regardless of regulatory direction, the economic incentives facing media companies, the technological capabilities enabling national or global distribution, and the changing nature of audience attention and engagement suggest that the future of American media will bear increasingly limited resemblance to the local, community-focused broadcasting system that defined American television and radio for the mid-to-late twentieth century. The challenge confronting policymakers, journalists, and citizens is determining whether this transformation represents inevitable technological and economic evolution requiring adaptation, or rather a reversible policy choice whose consequences for democracy and community engagement warrant serious regulatory and institutional intervention to restore local media ecosystems.
Key Trends: The increasing dominance of digital media (streaming video, social media, online news), especially among younger audiences. Older demographics still allocate more time to traditional television and radio, but these patterns are eroding as multi-device usage rises. The overall time devoted to media is stabilizing, suggesting market saturation.
Notable Trends: The media environment is highly fragmented, with individual mixes of live, on-demand, social, podcasts, and user-generated content. Trust in mainstream media is declining, and social platforms are now a primary news and entertainment source, especially among younger users.
| Channel | Usage/Reach | 2025 Ad Spend Change | Key Audience Trends |
|---|---|---|---|
| Linear TV | Largest weekly hours, but declining | −13.3% | Older audiences, slow shift to digital |
| Digital (including Streaming & Social) | Now >39% of total media; majority in many DMAs | +11.5% | Dominant for Gen Z/Millennials; on-demand, mobile-centric |
| Radio | 11–13% share of time, highly stable | −1.5% | Cross-generational; transitioning to digital audio |
| Declining penetration | Declining | Mostly older audiences, advertisers shifting out | |
| Out-of-home | Moderate, post-pandemic growth | +3.7% | Urban, mobile populations |
Data drawn primarily from PQ Media, Nielsen, Deloitte, and Scale Marketing studies for 2024–2025, reflecting national DMA trends. Local or specific-DMA breakdowns will closely mirror these patterns, with variations according to regional demographics.
| Demographic | Media Trust (2025) | Media Preferences/Trends |
|---|---|---|
| Age 65+ | 43% | Greater trust in all media; prefer TV and print; still adopt online sources |
| Ages 18-29 | <30% | Least trustful; favor online, social, and podcasts over TV/radio/print |
| Ages 30-49 | <30% | Hybrid consumption; strong digital lean; declining trust |
| Partisanship | Democrats: 51% Independents: 27% Republicans: 8% |
Democrats prefer mainstream and national outlets; Republicans prefer alternative sources or have exited legacy media; Independents split |
| Gender | Not significantly different | Similar consumption patterns; women slightly higher engagement with social/non-traditional media |
| Socioeconomic Status | Higher education/income linked to marginally higher trust | Higher SES consume a broader variety of sources; rely more on online and national outlets |
| Format | Share of TV Time |
|---|---|
| Streaming | 44.8% |
| Broadcast | 20.1% |
| Cable | 24.1% |
Note: DMA (Designated Market Area) level specifics are rarely published in public reports, but the data above reflects broad market trends representative of most top US DMAs in 2025.
