The last of the joint operating agreements between two daily newspapers was quietly dissolved at the end of 2025, closing a half-century era in which newspapers in 28 cities, including Honolulu, were granted exemptions from anti-trust laws to allow merging their business operations while maintaining separate newsrooms.
The last of the JOAs between the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News, was voluntarily dissolved on December 28, 2025. Both newspapers have continuing publishing after the dissolution of their JOA.
In Hawaii, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser formed a joint operating agreement in May 1962 after a determination that the Advertiser was a “failing newspaper” and was unlikely to survive without the cost savings brought about by a merger with the Star-Bulletin. At that time, the Star-Bulletin, the evening newspaper, was much larger and financially healthy, while the morning Advertiser was struggling.
A separate company, the Hawaii Newspaper Agency, was formed to operate the joint printing, distribution, and business side of the merged newspapers.
But in 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court found a similar JOA in Arizona violated federal anti-trust laws, a blow to newspapers across the country.
In response, Hawaii’s senior senator, Daniel K. Inouye, introduced S 1520, the Newspaper Preservation Act, which was quickly passed into law. At the time, there were 22 JOAs involving 44 daily newspapers.
One of the joint agreements covered by Inouye’s bill was between the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and the Honolulu Advertiser dated back to May 1962. Both newspapers were locally owned at that time. The Star-Builletin was the evening newspaper, and public reading habits at the time meant it had a considerably larger circulation than its morning rival, the Advertiser.
About a year after passage of the Newspaper Preservation Act, the Star-Bulletin was purchased by Gannett, a large national newspaper chain.
During the heyday of the Hawaii JOA, the two newspapers were reportedly sharing about $50 million per year in profit.
I was recruited to join the Star-Bulletin staff as an investigative reporter in 1992, after publishing my own newsletter about Hawaii politics for two years.
But at the same time, public habits were changing and readers moving toward morning newspapers, prompting Gannett to buy the Advertiser, which had become the larger newspaper, in 1992, soon after I received the offer to join the SB. At the same time, Gannett sold the Star-Bulletin to Liberty Newspapers, a Tennessee-based chain owned by publisher Rupert Phillips.
In early 1993, when it became clear that the Star-Bulletin would survive the transition, I belatedly accepted the offer and started as a Star-Bulletin reporter about March 1993.
The Honolulu JOA ended with the sale of the Star-Bulletin to Black Press, owned by Canadian publisher David Black. The first issue of the “new” Star-Bulletin was published on March 15, 2001.
According to Wikipedia:
The Newspaper Preservation Act was touted as a relief measure to allow multiple newspapers competing in the same market to cut costs, thus ensuring that no one paper could have supremacy in the market by driving the other(s) out of business. However, mounting evidence suggests the passage of the Act was less about protecting editorial diversity within community newspaper markets than about inflating the profit margins of national newspaper chains.[3] Large newspaper chains were able to sustain high profits while driving independent newspapers out of business, or forcing them to sell their stake to a chain.[3] In fact, President Richard M. Nixon initially opposed the passage of the act (as had his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson) as being antithetical to the essential practices and character of free market capitalism.
He reversed himself upon receiving a letter from Richard E. Berlin, CEO of the Hearst chain of newspapers and magazines.[4] In the 1969 letter, Berlin intimated that failure of the law to pass would carry political consequences and hinted that support from Nixon would conversely help the President and his allies. The Nixon Administration supported the Act’s passage, and in the 1972 Presidential Campaign, every Hearst newspaper endorsed Nixon for reelection.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Isn’t it unethical for newspapers to endorse candidates?
That Wikipedia entry misstated the situation, apparently, implying that Nixon and “the President” were two different entities:
[Nixon] “… reversed himself upon receiving a letter from Richard E. Berlin, CEO of the Hearst chain of newspapers and magazines.[4] In the 1969 letter, Berlin intimated that failure of the law to pass would carry political consequences and hinted that /support from Nixon would conversely help the President and his allies/. The Nixon Administration supported the Act’s passage, and in the 1972 Presidential Campaign, every Hearst newspaper endorsed Nixon for reelection.[3][4]”
Regardless, with the current crescendo of Trump admin open corruption and bullying (teetering on the brink of dissolving NATO because HE DIDN’T GET A NOBEL) it’s hard not to feel like this is just another example of We, The People taking it in the shorts.
I don’t think Wikipedia treated Nixon and “the president” as different entities.
Rewrite those two sentences, replacing “the president” with Nixon, and it makes sense. I think “the president” was used to avoid redundancy in the sentence using Nixon’s name twice.
n the 1969 letter, Berlin intimated that failure of the law to pass would carry political consequences and hinted that /support from Nixon would conversely help
the PresidentNixon and his allies/. The Nixon Administration supported the Act’s passage, and in the 1972 Presidential Campaign, every Hearst newspaper endorsed Nixon for reelection.”So the threat was that continuing to oppose the law would have “consequences,” but Nixon got the message and reversed himself, subsequently receiving full backing from Hearst’s newspapers.
The loss of alternative press ( Honolulu Weekly) dovetails into, alternative media struggling against billionaire financed legacy media.
Interesting history. There always seems to be political intrigue behind the big decisions that get made in our society. Black Press made a brilliant move to buy Midweek along with the Star Bulletin, which gave him instant ad revenue and a printing press. Even with that, it must have been tough sledding. Increasingly, news print newspapers seem to be going the way of the horse and buggy.
I didn’t know this, but I had always suspected newspaper endorsements of being purchased in one way or another, and paid little attention to them. How interesting to see how true that was at that point, anyway.
One thing is certain: Hawaii’s JOA enriched the Thurston Twigg-Smith family who had the good sense to sell at the right moment before newspaper valuations tanked. How much two ostensibly competing editorial voices benefited Hawaii is an open question. Based on our eternally sclerotic politics it would appear that the benefit was negligible. Another question: how much longer will the Star-Advertiser continue to publish a physical paper? And will they eventually come to rely on just one overworked reporter? They seem to be down to just four or five now.
Did Betty Farrington sell the SB to Gannett or had she already sold the paper by then?