The current administration’s political pressure against aimed at television journalism is real. But the regulatory system governing broadcast licenses has evolved in ways that make rapid, politically driven punishment extraordinarily difficult.

In this episode of In The Vicinity, local media veterans Tim Hanlon and Jim Wilson explore why the digital transition has proven so difficult—and what it will take for broadcasters to evolve from traditional stations into true multi-platform local media companies.

The recent surge of games returning to broadcast television may represent something closer to a transitional solution than a permanent one.

In this episode of In The Vicinity, local media veterans Tim Hanlon and Jim Wilson have a candid conversation about the pros and cons of consolidation.

Is Indianapolis a narrow exception tailored to unique facts? Or is it an early indicator that triopolies — whether through ownership or ecosystem influence — are becoming normalized?

In the premiere episode of In the Vicinity, Vertere Group founder Tim Hanlon sits down with Madhive CEO Jim Wilson—former founder of Premion at Tegna, board chair of GSTV, and board member at Audacy—for a candid look at the future of local media.

Video podcasts will not reverse cord-cutting or restore the economics of peak syndication. But they may represent a pragmatic bridge between legacy linear TV and the conversational, multiplatform media environment that now defines viewer behavior.

TikTok’s local turn could become a powerful distribution partner for revitalized journalism. Or it could further platformize and fragment an already stressed ecosystem.

Sinclair’s Mark Aitken offers a rebuttal to Tim Hanlon’s recent column “Weigel Says The Quiet Part Out Loud” about ATSC 3.0

For much of the industry, the primary appeal of ATSC 3.0 is not better television. It is the ability to monetize broadcast spectrum for non-broadcast uses — even if that comes at the expense of free TV.

Boston’s fledgling LocalTV+ is a reminder that the long-standing promise of free broadcast television is increasingly at odds with how Americans actually watch TV — and with how the law treats modern distribution.

The sharp divide — between most large commercial station groups on one side and public broadcasters, multichannel pay-TV providers, and small station owners on the other — reveals a classic regulatory clash: who bears the cost of progress, and who stands to profit from it?

Disbanding the FCC would not usher in a neutral, market-driven utopia. It would privatize governance, weaken accountability, and accelerate the erosion of already fragile media institutions.

CPB functioned as a national stabilizer — negotiating rights, sharing infrastructure, smoothing disparities between rich and poor markets. Without it, public media begins to resemble the very commercial ecosystem it was designed to counterbalance.

Stations that once relied on PBS for national programming, interconnection infrastructure, and brand recognition now face three unattractive options: raise unprecedented levels of private funding, dramatically scale back operations, or reinvent themselves entirely.

The CW risks becoming a network whose primary purpose is to serve the strategic and financial interests of its parent companies — not the needs of viewers, creators, or its local affiliates.

The distinction between owned-and-operated stations (O&Os) and network affiliates has never been more consequential — and with the FCC signaling openness to loosening ownership rules, it may soon determine which stations thrive and which struggle.

Any implied or proposed Sinclair–Scripps merger runs headlong into the realities of the regulatory framework that exists today.

The U.S. pay TV market is nearing a tipping point where traditional cable and broadcast television can no longer deliver reliable mass reach for advertisers — a shift that could upend the economic foundation of local and national TV advertising alike.

Without enforceable accountability, the move to ATSC 3.0 risks becoming ATSC 1.0 “2.0” — another costly cycle of broken promises, obsolescence, and squandered public value.

Automation and AI together threaten to replace human journalists, hollow out local newsrooms, and erode the trust and civic value audiences rely on.

Gray may not have solved every problem left by the demise of RSNs, but it has charted a direction worth emulating.

Smartphones, streaming, creators, and AI aren’t existential threats — they’re the raw materials for a next-generation local news model.

Radio’s 2025 culling of signals may only be the prelude to what’s ahead for TV.

The Jimmy Kimmel spectacle may have grabbed headlines, but it was a sideshow compared to the real story: the accelerating obsolescence of the broadcast TV model itself.

If Brendan Carr’s vision prevails, local TV risks becoming both homogenized and politicized — consolidated into a few large conglomerates, and pressured to avoid programming that might displease those in power.

The real question is whether broadcast ownership rules written for a world of media scarcity can still make sense in a world of communications abundance.

“KidVid” rules were born of good intentions — to ensure children weren’t shortchanged by profit-driven commercial broadcasters. But three decades later, they’ve morphed into an outsourced compliance exercise dominated by a single producer.

Broadcasters seeking regulatory support, legislative goodwill, or community backing — whether for NextGen approvals or large-scale mergers — can achieve it by dedicating some spectrum and revenues to a durable, modernized system of public access.

Should broadcasters be allowed to bulk up to compete with tech platforms, even if it means fewer owners controlling the bulk of local stations? Or should ownership caps remain a bulwark against consolidation, even if that risks leaving broadcasters weaker in the face of digital disruption?