Nope. That's why I didn't say or even imply that.
The point was that when you have more stations in fewer hands, it is far more likely that there will be decisions made that sweep more broadly than if there were more operators in the overall marketplace.
If ONE operator with 100 stations decides to syndicate or VT middays and nights, that's 200 positions lost.
If those same 100 stations are owned by 5 operators, while some may syndicate or VT or both, there's a chance some won't. Maybe then you only lose 50-100 jobs instead of 200 on those same 100 stations.
On the other hand, the "more owner" scenario may result in the loss of critical mass, economies of scale, and higher individual costs leading to none/few of them being able to survive... and, then, all positions lost completely.