Who gets to decide what Americans can watch? California Attorney General (AG) Rob Bonta’s effort to block Paramount’s deal with Warner Bros. turned that question into a fight with national consequences. The lawsuit was framed as a defense of competition, but it raised a harder question. Can California decide what happens in Iowa, Montana and other states around the nation?
Thankfully, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird and Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen took that concern to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they argued that blocking the transaction would burden state economies nationwide. They stood up for the 38 states not on the lawsuit, and made the case that a 12-Democratic state coalition attempting to block Paramount-Warner Bros. transaction should not have consequences on the rest of the nation. The Paramount case has since moved toward a proposed settlement, though a judge has asked for more information before approving it.
More broadly, AG Bird and AG Knudsen point to a concern that has been growing, and that is Democratic state attorneys general engaging in dangerous overreach. Another blatant example is the effort to block the Nexstar-TEGNA integration, once again spearheaded by AG Bonta.
Though Nexstar and Paramount are different cases with different opposition and supporting arguments, the same broader concern applies: California is seeking to use litigation to shape the future of a media market that reaches far beyond its borders. AG overregulation, in its clearest form.
A broadcast television merger is not a typical consolidation threat in the way one may assume. The way Americans watch television has changed. A local broadcaster’s competition is not limited to the news stations down the road. Viewers find news through websites, apps, and social platforms—alongside streaming services and digital video from companies with national reach and resources. So, when we think about this deal, it is not merely whether two broadcast companies should be allowed to merge. Instead, it is what will happen if these companies continue to operate separately and compete with digital platforms with unlimited reach.
The attorneys general on this case seem to miss that point, further making the case that Democrat attorneys general focus on flashy headlines than litigating important public interest matters.
That does not mean every merger is good or every concern about a deal is wrong. But competition has to be judged in the real media market Americans use, not an old version of it. Blocking Nexstar’s integration with TEGNA will not shrink the reach of digital platforms or give viewers more online choices.
The deal will strengthen local newsrooms across the country. So, when state attorneys general threaten this with litigation, they’re really risking ramifications beyond their borders. That should not be the role of attorneys general, but is a trend from AG Bonta’s actions.
No single state should be able to define competition for the rest of America while ignoring the scale and influence of the digital platforms reshaping the industry.
Local news, severe-weather coverage, emergency information, and candidate debates all depend on broadcasters being able to serve audiences in a changing market. If states want strong local journalism, they should be careful not make it harder for local broadcasters to compete. Nexstar-TEGNA is a bet that local television can meet this moment if it has the ability to compete for viewers and the means to put local reporting in front of them.
California does not speak for every state, and it should not decide the future of local television for the rest of the country. State leaders should stand up for a future in which local broadcasters can grow, compete, and keep serving their communities.
