Media


Newsmax Fights Bid to Liſt TV Ownership Cap


Loosening the current rules will stifle diversity and consolidate power in a few corporate players.


I BY JONATHAN HAYMEIER


n a forceful filing submitted in July to the Federal Commu- nications Commission, Newsmax is strongly opposing any eff ort to


raise or eliminate the national TV own- ership limit — commonly known as the “Horizontal Ownership Cap.” Newsmax says that loosening cur-


rent rules would stifl e media diversity, diminish local news coverage, and con- solidate political power over informa- tion distribution in the hands of a few major corporate players. In June, the FCC said it would seek


new public comment on whether to retain, modify, or eliminate the cur- rent ownership cap which restricts any single broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of U.S. television households. The cap has long served as a regula-


tory fi rewall against nationwide media monopolies. But recent lobbying eff orts by major


broadcast conglomerates, almost all of them with liberal-leaning news divi- sions, have renewed calls to raise or eliminate the limit. Newsmax has called the eff ort “dan-


gerous” and in direct confl ict with Congress’ intentions to keep media conglomerates from dominating every local market in the nation.


PUBLIC CHALLENGE Newsmax’s fi ling is not only a regulato- ry argument — it is a political warning. “Americans of every political per-


suasion, demographic, and location would be harmed by any weakening of the current national television multiple


46 NEWSMAX | SEPTEMBER 2025


ownership limit,” the company wrote in its formal comments to the FCC. Christopher Ruddy, CEO of News-


max, personally signed the 33-page document, which outlined a detailed case for preserving the current owner- ship structure and eliminating the so- called “UHF discount” — an outdated loophole that allows broadcasters to underreport their national reach by discounting UHF station coverage. Due to digital broadcasting advance-


ments, UHF signals now match or sur- pass VHF in quality, rendering the dis- count technologically obsolete.


REAGAN’S RULE First adopted in the 1980s under Presi- dent Ronald Reagan’s FCC, the Hori- zontal Ownership Cap was designed to prevent excessive media consolidation. The cap has shifted over time — from 25%, to 35% in 1996, and fi nally to 39% in


2004. At that point, Congress removed the FCC’s discretion to adjust the cap, codifying the limit into federal law. The rule’s core purpose, according


to Newsmax, was and remains to pre- serve the diversity of viewpoints and protect local journalism from being swallowed by national media giants. Newsmax — a conservative media


outlet often critical of federal regula- tory overreach — says the Reagan-era ownership cap was created to block liberal-leaning networks from owning local stations and completely control- ling the news fl ow. “If left-leaning broadcast networks


like CBS, ABC, and NBC acquired a high enough concentration of sta- tions,” the company argued, “net- works would have even less incentive to produce programming that refl ects the views of local audiences.” Newsmax believes that if these con-


If these conglomerates gain too much reach, executives in New York and Los Angeles could dictate cultural and political narratives across the nation, especially in heartland and rural areas.


DICKERSON/JOHN PAUL FILO/CBS VIA GETTY IMAGES /MUIR/ HEIDI GUTMAN/ABC VIA GETTY IMAGES LLAMAS/GENARO MOLINA/LOS ANGELES TIMES VIA GETTY IMAGES / DUBOIS/ MICHAEL LOCCISANO/GETTY IMAGES


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100