x
x
The media landscape within Designated Market Areas (DMAs) represents a complex ecosystem shaped by historical regulatory frameworks, concentrated corporate ownership, and rapidly accelerating digital transformation. This comprehensive analysis reveals that the American television market has experienced fundamental structural changes over the past several decades, driven by deregulation in the 1990s, the rise of digital platforms, and a dramatic consolidation of media ownership in the hands of a small number of large corporations. Today's DMA media environment reflects these competing dynamics: traditional broadcast and cable television continue to serve large audiences, particularly older demographics, while streaming platforms have begun to eclipse traditional television's market share, social media has become a critical news source for millions of Americans, and the public broadcasting system faces existential funding challenges. Understanding this landscape requires examining how private corporations dominate media ownership across DMAs, how regulatory bodies like the Federal Communications Commission attempt to balance market forces with public interest obligations, how internet technology and social media have fundamentally altered media consumption patterns, and how historical policy decisions have created the current concentration of media power in American communities.
The private sector dominates media ownership across America's 210 designated market areas, with a small number of massive corporations controlling the vast majority of television stations, radio stations, and newspaper properties.Nexstar Media Group stands as the largest television station owner in the United States, owning 197 television stations across the country, making it far more powerful than any other broadcast entity in terms of sheer geographic reach and audience access.This remarkable concentration represents the culmination of decades of mergers and acquisitions that have fundamentally restructured the American media industry. Sinclair Broadcast Group, another dominant player, owns over 100 broadcast stations across the nation, with significant presence in multiple DMAs simultaneously.These two companies alone control approximately 20 percent of all ABC local affiliates nationwide, exemplifying how concentrated ownership has become within individual network affiliate categories.The acquisition and merger history of Nexstar itself demonstrates the trajectory of consolidation: the company acquired WJET-TV in Erie, Pennsylvania in 1997, expanded significantly in 1998 through purchases of multiple stations, and most dramatically, merged with Tribune Media in 2018 for $6.4 billion, a transaction that would have created an entity controlling 216 stations in 118 markets had regulatory requirements not mandated certain divestitures.This consolidation pattern extends beyond television into radio and newspaper industries, where ownership has become equally concentrated among a handful of major corporations controlling hundreds of stations and publications across the nation.
The concentration of media ownership has reached levels that academic researchers and media advocacy organizations describe as presenting fundamental threats to democratic discourse and local community representation. Free Press, a media advocacy organization, has documented that just six companies account for up to 90 percent of American media output, a remarkable decrease from 1983 when 50 companies controlled 90 percent of media.These six mega-corporations—Comcast NBCUniversal, The Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Global, Fox Corporation, and Sony—control vast networks of local television stations, cable networks, streaming services, and entertainment properties that collectively reach virtually every American household.Within individual DMAs, this consolidation is even more pronounced: in New York City, for example, Nexstar and Sinclair collectively operate multiple network affiliates and stations, ensuring their editorial and programming decisions reach millions of viewers across the three New York DMAs.The economic implications of this consolidation mean that decisions about local news coverage, programming selections, advertising rates, and editorial positions are increasingly made by distant corporate headquarters rather than by local management with ties to community concerns.Smaller DMAs face even more pronounced consolidation effects, with media ownership sometimes controlled entirely by one or two companies, leaving residents with limited access to diverse viewpoints or competing news sources within their local markets.
Despite network affiliation rules that technically limit cross-ownership of network affiliates within individual DMAs, corporate conglomerates have developed sophisticated structures to maximize their market position while remaining compliant with FCC regulations.The key FCC rule states that there can only be one of each network affiliate in each DMA, meaning Chicago, despite being the 3rd largest DMA in the country, has only one TV station per network affiliation (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox each have one station).However, ownership groups circumvent these limitations by owning different network affiliates in the same market or by owning multiple stations in different markets where they can exercise coordinated programming and advertising strategies.This differentiation between ownership and network affiliation has created a complex landscape where corporations like Nexstar and Sinclair operate as de facto networks themselves, establishing consistent programming priorities, advertising standards, and editorial approaches across their hundreds of stations, even though technically each station maintains its broadcast network affiliation.New York City provides an example of this structure: NBC operates through NBCUniversal Local, Fox operates through Fox Television Stations LLC, ABC operates through ABC Owned Television Stations, and CBS operates through CBS News and Stations, with each technically holding only one primary affiliate in the New York City DMA proper, though the corporate entities behind these affiliates control multiple stations across the region's various markets.
The audience reach of these privately-owned stations remains substantial despite the rise of streaming platforms and cord-cutting trends. Broadcast television still reaches approximately 7.3 million households in New York City (DMA #1), the largest market in the nation, while even small markets like Glendive, Montana (DMA #210) serve approximately 3,900 TV households.The combined 210 DMA regions across the United States reach a total of 120 million TV homes, representing the vast majority of American households.However, this traditional television audience is aging significantly and declining in absolute numbers. The median viewer age for cable and broadcast television has reached 64.6 years, with younger demographics increasingly abandoning traditional television in favor of streaming platforms and digital media sources.This demographic shift creates a business challenge for traditional television broadcasters who face declining advertising revenue as advertisers follow younger audiences to digital platforms, yet the substantial remaining audience of older viewers continues to rely on traditional television for entertainment, news, and information, particularly for local content including weather, sports, and community news that remains unavailable on streaming platforms.
Content diversity within DMAs has declined as corporate consolidation has increased, with programming decisions increasingly made by distant corporate entities rather than by local stations responsive to community needs and interests. Local television stations, which historically produced substantial amounts of local news content, increasingly air national news content culled from wire services and network feeds rather than investing in expensive local reporting.The economic pressures created by declining viewership and advertising revenue mean that many stations have reduced newsroom staffs and reporting budgets, transitioning toward cheaper national content even when local news represents a significant portion of their schedule.This hollowing out of local news production extends across the country: between 2008 and 2021, legacy newsroom employment dropped by 26 percent, representing a loss of approximately 30,000 newsroom personnel who previously produced original local reporting.The result has been the emergence of "news deserts"—geographic areas with no local newspaper and minimal local television news production—and the transformation of remaining outlets into "ghost newspapers" and "ghost stations" that operate with only a fraction of their previous reporting capacity.In some cases, corporate-owned stations have reduced local news production to such minimal levels that they effectively ceased serving their communities' information needs, despite retaining broadcast licenses that theoretically obligate them to serve the public interest.
Content diversity has also been affected by the editorial pressures and political alignments that large ownership groups impose on their stations. Sinclair Broadcast Group has been particularly noted for requiring its stations to air corporate-produced segments and adopt editorial positions favoring conservative political viewpoints, a practice that has generated controversy and criticism from press freedom advocates.Nexstar, while less overtly ideological than Sinclair, nonetheless exercises centralized control over major editorial and programming decisions, meaning that stations across disparate geographic markets may receive similar directives about coverage priorities and editorial approaches.This centralized control undermines the principle of localism that has historically justified broadcast television's unique regulatory status and public interest obligations.The diversity of viewpoints available through local television within any given DMA has declined as programming decisions have become concentrated in the hands of corporate owners rather than distributed among multiple independent operators who might present different perspectives and editorial philosophies. This consolidation of control has coincided with increasing political polarization in American society, raising questions about whether corporate-controlled local television stations serve to amplify or ameliorate these divisions through their editorial and programming choices.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) represents the primary federal regulatory agency responsible for overseeing broadcast television, radio, cable, and telecommunications within designated market areas across the United States.The FCC was established pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the previous Federal Radio Commission, and has maintained jurisdiction over communications by radio, television, wire, internet, Wi-Fi, satellite, and cable across the entire nation.The FCC's statutory mandate, as specified in the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, directs the agency to make available to all people of the United States rapid, efficient, nationwide communications services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, without discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.The agency's estimated fiscal-2022 budget of $388 million supports a workforce of 1,433 federal personnel organized into seven bureaus, each responsible for different aspects of communications regulation.The Media Bureau specifically develops, recommends, and administers policy and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including cable television, broadcast television, and radio, and handles both initial licensing decisions and post-licensing matters affecting these industries.This regulatory structure represents a substantial government commitment to overseeing a privately-owned media industry, though the FCC's enforcement authority and policy preferences have shifted dramatically over different historical periods, particularly following the deregulatory movement that began in the 1970s.
The FCC's specific authorities over broadcast stations within DMAs include the power to grant and renew broadcast licenses based on whether licensees serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity—a vague standard that has been interpreted differently across different regulatory eras.When broadcasting licenses come up for renewal, typically every eight years for television stations, the FCC must determine whether the incumbent licensee has provided adequate service to the community and whether license renewal serves the public interest.In theory, this renewal process provides an opportunity for citizen input and community advocacy regarding whether local stations have served community needs.However, in practice, license renewals have become largely routine, with the FCC rarely denying license renewal applications or imposing substantial conditions on license renewals.The FCC also possesses authority to regulate media ownership within and across markets, setting limits on how many stations any single corporation can own in the same market (local ownership caps) and limits on how many stations any single corporation can own nationally (national ownership caps).These ownership regulations represent attempts to prevent excessive concentration that might limit viewpoint diversity and local responsiveness, though the FCC has significantly relaxed these restrictions over the past two decades in response to court challenges and political pressure from broadcasters seeking consolidation opportunities.
The FCC also maintains authority over specific content standards, enforcing prohibitions on obscenity and indecency during certain hours, regulating political broadcasting to ensure fairness and equal access, and establishing technical standards for broadcast signals.However, the FCC's content regulatory authority has been significantly constrained by First Amendment considerations and by the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, which upheld certain content regulations as consistent with First Amendment protections but did so on grounds that have become less persuasive as media technology has evolved.The FCC previously enforced the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation requiring broadcasters to cover controversial issues of public importance in a balanced manner, but the FCC eliminated this requirement in the mid-1980s, arguing that the doctrine violated broadcasters' First Amendment rights and that market forces would ensure adequate coverage of diverse viewpoints.The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine represented a significant shift in FCC policy, transforming broadcast television from a medium subject to content-based fairness requirements to a medium with essentially no obligations to present balanced coverage of public issues, a change that has profound implications for the quality and diversity of political discourse within local DMAs.
The regulatory framework governing DMAs and their media structures has undergone dramatic transformation since the FCC's creation in 1934, with the most significant changes occurring through the deregulatory movements of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.Prior to the 1970s, the regulatory model was characterized by what scholars describe as the "regulated monopoly" approach, wherein the FCC and state regulators supervised incumbent telecommunications and broadcast companies, allowing limited competition but in exchange imposing strict requirements regarding rates, service quality, and public interest obligations.This regulatory regime recognized that broadcasting and telecommunications represented natural monopolies requiring government supervision to prevent excessive prices and inadequate service while ensuring that public interest obligations were met.However, beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the 2000s, a powerful deregulatory movement transformed telecommunications and broadcasting policy, arguing that government regulation was inefficient and that market competition would better serve consumer interests than government oversight.This philosophical shift represented a fundamental change in how policymakers understood the appropriate role of government in media markets, moving away from public interest protections toward market-based approaches that assumed competition would naturally serve the public good.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 represented the first significant overhaul of United States telecommunications law in more than sixty years, and it fundamentally restructured the regulatory framework governing DMAs and their media landscapes.The 1996 Act's stated intention was to "let anyone enter any communications business—to let any communications business compete in any market against any other," reflecting the deregulatory philosophy that had come to dominate telecommunications policy.However, in practice, the 1996 Act's relaxation of ownership restrictions and its elimination of many regulatory barriers to entry precipitated one of the largest consolidations in telecommunications history, achieving precisely the opposite outcome from what its framers had ostensibly intended.The Act eliminated the cap on radio station ownership that had previously prevented any single corporation from owning more than a limited number of stations, leading to explosive consolidation in radio where companies like iHeartMedia came to own more than 1,200 stations nationwide.The Act also significantly relaxed ownership restrictions in television, allowing single corporations to own stations reaching a larger share of the national television audience than had previously been permitted.Critically, the 1996 Act created regulatory distinctions between telecommunications services (subject to common carrier regulation) and information services (subject to much lighter regulation), and these distinctions have become increasingly difficult to maintain as technology has converged and as the internet has become integrated into broadcasting and telecommunications.
The practical consequences of the 1996 Act and the broader deregulatory movement have been severe consolidation of media ownership, reduction of local news production, and the emergence of business models dependent on centralized content distribution rather than locally-produced programming.Media companies have used the deregulation to acquire vast networks of stations that previously would have been owned by multiple independent operators, creating economies of scale that allow corporations to reduce staffing and increase profits through operational consolidation rather than through increased investment in quality programming or community service.The FCC's decisions regarding media ownership in the period following the 1996 Act have generally continued the deregulatory trajectory, with ownership caps being repeatedly relaxed and enforcement of existing rules becoming increasingly lax.In the Supreme Court case FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, the Court sided with the FCC and upheld its relaxation of local ownership rules despite evidence that those relaxations would further reduce minority and women ownership of broadcast properties, suggesting that courts have adopted a permissive stance toward FCC deregulation efforts.This regulatory history demonstrates that the FCC, rather than serving as a check on media consolidation, has actively facilitated consolidation through deregulatory policies that have reduced the agency's own authority to restrict ownership and to enforce public interest obligations.
Public broadcasting represents a crucial alternative to private commercial media within the American media landscape, providing non-commercial, educational, and diverse programming through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which distributes federal funding to approximately 1,500 locally-owned public radio and television stations across the nation.As of 2015, the CPB had distributed more than 70 percent of its funding to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations, including PBS and NPR stations, making it the primary federal mechanism for supporting non-commercial broadcasting in America.However, public broadcasting has faced decades of political attacks and funding threats, with opponents arguing that government should not fund broadcasting services and that the internet eliminates any rationale for public broadcasting funding.These attacks have intensified dramatically in recent years, culminating in a crisis that has fundamentally transformed public broadcasting's future. In July 2025, Congress rescinded $1.1 billion in previously-allocated funding for public broadcasting, representing the largest victory in nearly 60 years of conservative efforts to eliminate government support for public media.This action essentially ended the CPB's operations, as the organization announced in August 2025 that it would lay off the majority of its staff and wind down all operations by the end of January 2026.
The elimination of CPB funding represents a catastrophic blow to local communities, particularly rural areas and smaller DMAs where public broadcasting had provided essential educational, cultural, and informational programming that private commercial stations could not profitably provide.For fiscal year 2025, the CPB's operating budget of $535 million had been allocated for direct grants to local public television and radio stations, programming support, and system-wide services.A 2007 Government Accountability Office report and 2025 Congressional Research Service analysis both found that public broadcasting stations in smaller and rural media markets had significantly greater dependence on federal funding, with rural stations receiving 45 percent of the CPB appropriation and CPB grants accounting for at least 25 percent of station revenue for half of rural stations and more than 50 percent of revenue for some stations.Without this federal support, many smaller public stations face closure, and larger urban stations must significantly reduce their programming and staffing. The elimination of CPB funding also threatens the production of nationally-distributed programming through organizations like PBS and NPR, which rely on system support funding to produce major documentary series, children's educational programming, and news coverage.Organizations like GBH in Boston, which produces nationally broadcast shows including the science program "Nova" and the investigative journalism program "Frontline," have had to make immediate cuts as previously allocated funds were rescinded.
The crisis in public broadcasting reflects broader questions about government's role in supporting media that serves the public interest when market forces alone cannot sustain such programming.Online news outlets are suffering from the same market forces devastating the broader media industry, with declining readership due to artificial intelligence summaries on search websites creating what is now dubbed a "traffic apocalypse" that has led readers away from original news sites.Billionaire owners of news outlets have stripped much rigor and value from their investments, while what remains of online news is largely nationally focused rather than locally focused.The end of CPB funding is not absolute, however, as some public media stations have successfully mobilized their communities to provide financial support: WFPL and its sister stations easily made up a gap of just under $400,000 in a single day through listener donations, and other stations have reported significant increases in community support since the funding cuts were announced.However, whether this surge of community support can be sustained across the entire system is highly uncertain, and many smaller stations lack the donor base and staff resources needed to conduct effective fundraising campaigns.The long-term consequence will likely be uneven public media across the country, with stronger public media in larger urban markets with wealthier donor bases while smaller communities are left without access to non-commercial educational and news programming.
The rapid growth of internet adoption and broadband penetration has fundamentally transformed the American media landscape and the way residents within DMAs access news, entertainment, and information. Today, 96 percent of U.S. adults say they use the internet, representing a dramatic increase from 2000 when only 52 percent of adults were online, and this growth has been even more pronounced among older adults who were historically the last to adopt the technology.As of 2024, global internet penetration had reached 66.2 percent of the world's total population, with 5.35 billion internet users worldwide and 97 million new users coming online during the past year alone.Within the United States, internet adoption has become nearly universal among younger demographics, with 99 percent of adults aged 18-29 using the internet, while even among adults 65 and older, 90 percent now use the internet as of 2024, up from just 14 percent in 2000.This nearly universal internet adoption has created unprecedented opportunities for media distribution outside traditional broadcast and cable channels, as anyone with internet access can theoretically reach global audiences through social media platforms, streaming services, and digital publishing outlets.
However, internet access and broadband adoption remain unevenly distributed across different regions and demographic groups, creating persistent digital divides that affect how residents in different DMAs access media and information. While home broadband adoption rates are substantially high in most American communities, those with lower levels of income and educational attainment are significantly less likely to subscribe to broadband services at home.Rural areas face particular challenges in obtaining high-speed broadband access, a problem that has been partially addressed through various government programs and private investment but remains a significant barrier to digital media access in some regions.The digital gender gap represents another persistent barrier, with women globally 7.7 percent less likely to use the internet than men, and particularly significant disparities in lower- and middle-income countries where 900 million women remain offline despite increasing mobile internet availability.These digital divides mean that while most Americans theoretically have access to diverse digital media sources, actual access varies significantly based on geographic location, income, and demographic characteristics, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities in media access and information quality.
Social media platforms have become extraordinarily powerful media distribution channels and sources of information for American consumers, with most major platforms showing remarkably high adoption rates among American adults and particularly high adoption rates among younger demographics. YouTube by and large is the most widely used online platform measured in recent surveys, with roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (83%) reporting ever using the video-based platform, while Facebook remains a dominant player with 68 percent of Americans reporting using it, and roughly half of U.S. adults (47%) saying they use Instagram.Beyond these three dominant platforms, TikTok has shown explosive growth, with 33 percent of U.S. adults now using the platform, up 12 percentage points from 2021, while smaller shares use platforms including Pinterest, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and Snapchat, each used by 27-35 percent of Americans.Age represents the most significant differentiator in social media platform use, with adults under 30 far more likely than older adults to use platforms including Instagram (78% of 18-29-year-olds vs. 15% of those 65 and older), Snapchat (65% of those under 30 vs. 4% of those 65 and older), and TikTok (62% of those under 30 vs. 10% of those 65 and older).YouTube and Facebook are the only platforms that majorities of all age groups use, though substantial age gaps remain even for these platforms, indicating that social media use remains heavily concentrated among younger Americans despite growing adoption among older demographics.
The role of social media as a news source has grown dramatically, with approximately 53 percent of U.S. adults saying they at least sometimes get news from social media, and 21 percent saying they regularly get news from social media platforms.Among the various social media platforms, Facebook and YouTube outpace all others as destinations for regular news consumption, with 38 percent of U.S. adults saying they regularly get news on Facebook and 35 percent saying the same about YouTube.Smaller shares of Americans regularly get news on Instagram (20%), TikTok (20%), or X/Twitter (12%), with even smaller percentages regularly accessing news through Reddit (9%), Nextdoor (6%), WhatsApp (5%), or other smaller platforms.Notably, among users of particular platforms, news consumption rates vary dramatically: 57 percent of X users get news on the platform, as do 55 percent of Truth Social users and 55 percent of TikTok users, suggesting that certain platforms function primarily as news sources for their users while others are used primarily for entertainment and social connection.The demographic profile of social media news consumers reveals significant patterns, with women more likely than men to regularly get news from Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, while men are more likely to get news from YouTube, X, and Reddit, and with younger people, Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans all showing different patterns of news consumption across platforms compared to older and white American demographics.
Streaming has undergone explosive growth and has now surpassed traditional broadcast and cable television in terms of overall television viewing time, representing a fundamental shift in how Americans consume video entertainment and news. Streaming reached a historic milestone in May 2025 as its share of total television usage outpaced the combined share of broadcast and cable for the first time ever, with streaming representing 44.8 percent of TV viewership while broadcast (20.1%) and cable (24.1%) combined to represent only 44.2 percent of TV. This represents the culmination of a four-year trend tracked by Nielsen's monthly report of The Gauge, which debuted in May 2021 when streaming represented only 26.2 percent of television viewing.Over these four years, streaming usage has increased by 71 percent while broadcast and cable viewing have declined by 21 percent and 39 percent respectively.Among the streaming platforms, Netflix has maintained its position as the leading subscription video-on-demand provider for four straight years, with viewership up 27 percent since May 2021, while YouTube remains the dominant overall streaming platform due to its combination of short-form user-generated content, official music videos, and longer-form programming.Amazon Prime Video leads the U.S. streaming market in terms of market share with 22 percent, while Netflix holds 21 percent, Max (formerly HBO Max) holds 13 percent, Disney+ holds 12 percent, and Hulu holds 11 percent, with remaining market share divided among Paramount+, Apple TV+, and numerous smaller services.
Cord-cutting—the practice of canceling traditional pay-TV subscriptions and replacing them with streaming services or free over-the-air television—has accelerated dramatically, with 59.6 million households in the United States estimated to have switched to non-pay TV, and 4.9 million people cutting the cord just in the past year, bringing the total number of cord-cutters to 39.3 million.The primary reason cited by cord-cutters for abandoning traditional television is price, with 86.7 percent of cord-cutters reporting that high costs motivated their decision, followed by preference for streaming (39.7%), switching to antenna television (23%), preference for binge-watching (15.9%), and moving and not wishing to renew service (13%).Pay TV penetration fell to 34.4 percent in 2024 as cord cutting fueled the sector's ninth consecutive year of decline, and projections suggest that fewer than 6 in 10 U.S. households will have cable by 2030, compared to current adoption of about 81 percent.These trends represent an extraordinary reversal of the cable television dominance that began in the 1980s and 1990s, when cable television expanded from serving only 10-20 percent of American households to become the nearly universal standard for television service.The economic consequences of cord-cutting are severe for traditional television companies: pay TV revenue decreased from $100.09 billion in 2017 to $86.21 billion in 2022, a decline of $13.88 billion over five years, while traditional TV advertising revenue declined from $68.47 billion to $62.28 billion during the same period.
Despite streaming's ascendance in overall television viewing, traditional broadcast and cable television retain particular strengths in live event programming and local news content that remain unavailable on streaming platforms. Cable television continues to dominate coverage of live sports events, major awards shows, and breaking news, as these formats require viewers to tune in at specific times rather than consuming content on-demand.Local television news represents a particular strength of traditional broadcasting, with older viewers continuing to rely on local stations for weather, local sports, and community news that remains unavailable on streaming platforms and that streaming services have shown no financial incentive to produce.The future of television appears likely to involve continued stratification, with traditional television serving an aging audience increasingly concentrated among older Americans over 65, while younger Americans continue to shift toward streaming platforms for entertainment and toward social media platforms for news and information.However, the economics of streaming remain uncertain, as platforms have struggled to achieve profitability despite their audience growth, leading to speculation that the industry may consolidate into a smaller number of dominant players similar to how the airline industry consolidated after deregulation in the 1980s.
The digital advertising industry has become extraordinarily large and powerful, eclipsing traditional television and print advertising in terms of total revenue and capturing an increasingly large share of advertisers' budgets. Digital advertising revenue reached a record $259 billion in 2024, representing a 15 percent year-over-year increase from 2023.Google dominates digital advertising, expected to generate $190.5 billion in online advertising revenue globally in 2024, followed by Meta with $146.3 billion and Amazon with $52.7 billion, with these three companies collectively capturing a dominant share of the global digital advertising market.This digital advertising dominance has fundamental implications for media production and distribution, as the majority of advertising dollars now flow to social media platforms rather than to traditional broadcast, cable, or print news outlets, creating severe financial pressures on traditional media while simultaneously providing extraordinary financial resources to social media companies to invest in content, technology, and global expansion.
Artificial intelligence and algorithmic content curation have become central features of how digital media platforms deliver content to users, with profound implications for information diversity, media consumption patterns, and the spread of misinformation. Social media algorithms determine what content appears in users' feeds based on previous online behavior, using sophisticated machine learning models to predict user preferences and deliver content that is likely to generate engagement, keeping users on the platform longer and generating advertising impressions.These algorithms consider user engagement signals including likes, shares, and comments; content relevance including keywords and hashtags; timing and frequency of posts; user interactions including followed accounts and click-through rates; profile authority including follower counts; location and demographics; content type including video preference; virality and shares; and watch time for video content.However, these algorithms create what researchers call "filter bubbles" or "echo chambers" in which users see an incomplete view of available content, with material challenging or opposing their existing beliefs systematically hidden, potentially consolidating people's existing ideologies and sometimes leading to radicalization as algorithms incrementally deliver more subversive and divisive content.Research has shown that misinformation spreads more rapidly on social media than truthful information, with posts containing misinformation reaching more users, receiving higher engagement, and spreading more quickly than factual posts, in part because misinformation is more novel and thus more likely to trigger algorithmic amplification.
The financial incentives embedded in social media platforms and digital advertising create powerful incentives for the spread of misinformation and sensationalism, as both content creators and platforms are financially rewarded for generating user engagement. Content creators earn income from social media through user views, through promoting their own products, and through partnerships with brands who pay them to market products, with brands paying more to creators with larger followings and higher engagement.This creates a direct financial incentive for creators to produce sensational or misleading content that generates high engagement regardless of whether the content is accurate or serves the public interest.Simultaneously, platforms make greater profits from users spending more time on social media and through collecting user data that can be monetized, so platforms have direct financial incentives to keep users engaged regardless of content accuracy.The result is what researchers describe as a "vicious cycle" in which both creators and platforms are financially incentivized to spread misinformation, with neither party having a direct incentive to correct false information once it has been widely distributed.This problematic dynamic has been particularly evident during public health crises, where medical misinformation has spread rapidly on social media, and during political elections, where false claims about voting procedures, candidates, and election integrity have proliferated despite fact-checking efforts and platform moderation attempts.
The emergence of television as the dominant medium for mass communication in American society in the 1950s precipitated the creation of the Designated Market Area system and fundamentally transformed the media landscape. Television was first officially broadcast in the United States when President Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech at the opening of the 1939 World's Fair in New York was televised, but the public did not immediately begin purchasing television sets.The watershed moment came with coverage of World War II by television journalists, which gave Americans visual images and maps that enhanced their understanding of distant events, and this compelling coverage combined with dropping television prices led to explosive adoption during the 1950s.By the 1950s, television prices had dropped substantially, more television stations were being created across the nation, and advertisers were eagerly purchasing advertising slots on television stations.The need for DMAs emerged in the 1950s when television began to dominate the media landscape, as television stations proliferated across the country and marketers and advertisers faced a growing need to understand and define television markets for more targeted advertising purposes.
The creation of the Nielsen DMA system represented an attempt to impose geographic and market-based order on the emerging television landscape, providing both broadcasters and advertisers with a standardized framework for understanding and reaching television audiences. Each DMA was defined as a non-overlapping geographic region grouping counties based on television viewing areas, with each DMA representing an area in which local television stations captured a dominant share of viewing.There are currently 210 DMA regions in total, covering the entire continental U.S., Hawaii, and parts of Alaska, with each DMA ranked by the number of TV households in each market.Nielsen reviews all DMA regions annually to determine if counties should be added or removed based on changing viewing patterns, ensuring that the system remains responsive to evolving television consumption geography.The DMA system became a widely used resource for marketers and advertisers seeking to understand regional audience patterns and to plan media buys at the local market level, and over time, the system became the industry standard for defining television markets and understanding media consumption within discrete geographic areas.This standardization proved enormously valuable to the broadcast industry, as it created a common language for discussing television markets that could be used across different regions and allowed national advertisers to purchase television time on local stations by simply referencing DMA numbers and demographic characteristics rather than needing to negotiate individually with hundreds of local stations.
The deregulation movement that began in the 1970s and accelerated through the 1980s and 1990s fundamentally transformed the television industry, eliminating many long-standing restrictions on broadcast and cable television and precipitating the rise of cable as the dominant television delivery mechanism for most Americans. Prior to deregulation, broadcast television had been the primary television delivery mechanism for American households, with three major networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) dominating the landscape and local broadcast affiliates serving as the primary television stations in individual markets.Cable television existed but was relatively limited in scope, and many local broadcast stations remained independently owned or owned by regional broadcasting chains rather than by the massive national corporations that would later come to dominate the industry.The FCC's deregulatory policies included the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, which previously had required broadcasters to cover controversial public issues in a balanced manner but which the FCC argued was an unconstitutional restriction on broadcaster speech rights.The elimination of the Fairness Doctrine removed a requirement that had historically pushed broadcasters toward balanced coverage and had constrained the ability of individual stations to adopt overtly partisan editorial positions.
The most fundamental deregulatory change came with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which represented the first significant overhaul of U.S. telecommunications law in more than sixty years and which eliminated the radio station ownership cap that had previously limited corporate ownership to a relatively small number of stations nationwide.This regulatory change precipitated immediate and massive consolidation, with companies like iHeartMedia coming to own more than 1,200 radio stations across the country, far exceeding what would have been possible under the previous ownership cap.The 1996 Act also significantly relaxed television ownership restrictions, allowing companies to own television stations reaching a larger share of the national television audience and contributing to the wave of television consolidation that followed.Perhaps more importantly for the modern DMA landscape, the 1996 Act clarified that cable television operators and broadband internet service providers would be classified as "information services" rather than common carriers, subjecting them to much lighter regulation than traditional telecommunications companies and allowing them to develop integrated service offerings combining cable television, internet, and telephone service.
The emergence of the internet as a mass medium in the 1990s and 2000s, combined with the development of mobile internet access through smartphones in the 2000s and 2010s, has fundamentally challenged the traditional broadcast and cable television model and has created new opportunities for media distribution outside traditional geographic markets. The internet eliminated the geographic limitations that had previously confined media distribution to local television markets, as anyone with internet access could theoretically reach global audiences through websites, social media, podcasts, and digital video platforms.This had the paradoxical effect of simultaneously reducing the importance of geographic market definitions while simultaneously creating new geographic targeting capabilities through digital advertising and social media platforms, which could target users based on their geographic location, demographics, browsing behavior, and social network connections.Social media platforms emerged as extraordinarily powerful new media distribution mechanisms, with Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok collectively reaching billions of people globally and becoming crucial sources of news and information for billions of people worldwide, including Americans seeking information about local, national, and global events.
The rise of digital media and the internet has had devastating consequences for traditional local journalism and local television news production, as advertising dollars have migrated from traditional media to digital platforms and as younger audiences have increasingly abandoned traditional television in favor of digital platforms. Approximately 2.5 newspapers are shutting down each week in the United States, with over one-fourth of American newspapers going out of business in the past 15 years, and over 200 U.S. counties now having no local newspaper at all, with these closures concentrated in less affluent communities that have no alternative source of reliable local news.Between 2008 and 2021, legacy newsroom employment dropped by 26 percent, representing a loss of approximately 30,000 newsroom personnel, many of whom previously produced original local reporting that is now no longer being produced.The loss of local journalism has had documented consequences for democratic governance, as research has demonstrated that the loss of local newspapers is associated with increased government borrowing costs, increased corruption, and reduced civic participation in affected communities.The collapse of local news has created a vacuum that is being filled by social media, talk radio, national cable television news, and "pink slime"—networks of shady websites pretending to be objective local news outlets but actually backed by political dark money from the left and right.This phenomenon represents a fundamental challenge to the American system of local governance and community information needs, as communities lose access to reliable local reporting and increasingly rely on national sources, social media algorithms, and partisan outlets for information about local issues requiring community knowledge and investigation.
The COVID-19 pandemic, beginning in 2020, dramatically accelerated the adoption of streaming services and digital media platforms as lockdowns confined Americans to their homes and reduced out-of-home entertainment and information-seeking opportunities. Streaming service adoption increased significantly during the pandemic as Americans spent more time at home and sought entertainment options, and this accelerated adoption has continued even as pandemic-related lockdowns have ended, suggesting that the pandemic may have created a lasting shift in media consumption patterns.The financial condition of traditional television broadcasters deteriorated during the pandemic as advertising revenue declined and as viewers continued shifting toward streaming platforms and away from traditional television, creating ongoing financial pressures that have resulted in continued consolidation and cost-cutting in the broadcast television industry.Public broadcasting also faced particular challenges during the pandemic, as station budgets were strained by increased operating costs while fundraising became more difficult due to economic disruption and as viewership patterns shifted in ways that made it more difficult to predict funding needs and plan programming.The pandemic appears to have accelerated trends that were already underway—the migration from traditional television toward streaming, the aging of the traditional television audience, the decline of local journalism, and the rise of social media as a news source—rather than creating fundamentally new trends.
The media landscape within America's 210 Designated Market Areas represents a complex ecosystem in the midst of profound transformation, shaped by historical regulatory decisions, contemporary corporate consolidation, digital technological disruption, and ongoing audience migration from traditional media toward digital platforms. Private corporations have consolidated control over vast networks of broadcast and cable television stations, radio stations, and newspaper properties within individual DMAs and across the nation, with implications for content diversity, local responsiveness, and editorial independence that continue to generate concern among press freedom advocates and academic researchers. The Federal Communications Commission, despite its substantial regulatory authority, has largely facilitated rather than constrained this consolidation through deregulatory policies that have relaxed ownership restrictions and eliminated content requirements. Simultaneously, the dramatic elimination of federal funding for public broadcasting in 2025 has threatened the existence of a crucial alternative to private commercial media, potentially leaving significant segments of the American population without access to non-commercial educational and news programming. Digital technology, internet adoption, and social media platforms have transformed how Americans access media and information, with streaming platforms now exceeding traditional broadcast and cable television in terms of viewing time, and with social media platforms serving as news sources for approximately half of American adults. Historical policy decisions—including the creation of the DMA system, the deregulation movement of the 1970s-1990s, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act—have created the current media landscape in which geographic markets remain salient for television distribution but in which digital platforms have become increasingly important for news consumption and entertainment delivery. The future media landscape within DMAs will likely continue to be characterized by tension between traditional geographic market definitions rooted in broadcast television technology and new digital distribution mechanisms that transcend geographic boundaries, with ongoing implications for local journalism, community information access, and the diversity of voices and viewpoints available to American citizens seeking information about their local communities and the world.
| Demographic | Media Trust Level | Genre Preferences |
|---|---|---|
| Age 65+ | 43% trust media; higher trust in local and print news | Local news, national news, print, television |
| Age 18–49 | < 28% trust media; prefer digital sources | Entertainment, sports, online news, streaming content |
| Democrats | 51% trust media; trust varies widely by outlet | National news, financial news, opinion programming |
| Republicans | 8% trust media; high skepticism, prefer specific outlets | Financial news, sports, select cable/online channels |
| Independents | 27% trust media | Entertainment, sports, local news |
| Urban | Generally higher trust in media than rural | News, entertainment, digital formats |
| Rural | Lower trust overall; prefer local outlets | Local news, radio, television |
| Socioeconomic Status | Higher SES: More media consumption, greater trust in business/financial outlets | Financial, business, national news |
