A long time ago, I wrote the plan to run ITV News in London (replacing LNN), modelled on the operating structure for Five News. It involved reformatting shows and cutting staffing to the bare minimum required to get on air.

Nothing wrong with that. It was a more efficient use of resources.

But it wasn’t really designed to involve the process you and I would know as journalism. It was intended to produce a happy simulation of a television news broadcast to a standard adequate enough to satisfy regulators.

Five News shared resources – as did the new ITV London when it started – with the rest of ITN. The biggest and most expensive of these resources were the satellite trucks and needless to say, the deployment of said trucks went to the people paying the most money – ITV’s national news and Channel 4 News.

The editorial decision-making process played second-fiddle to the negotiation and horse-trading around satellite dishes, technicians’ overtime and working hours without which stories and guests (even cheaper!) couldn’t make it on air.

Now I love television news, but it’s an impressionistic not an informative medium. Its poetry is images not ad-libbed studio conversations. ITV’s regional news programmes – produced from studio hubs far removed from the politically and geographically diverse areas they serve, and manufactured to a process I had a hand in shaping – have, by force of that process, become hybrid forms of factual entertainment.

And there’s nothing wrong with that either. But in its current emaciated form ITV regional news is not really worth saving as an instrument of ‘public service’ news information. So why have the BBC and ITV signed a memorandum of understanding to share resources?

Well, the BBC is desperate to use partnership as a line of defence against the predations of Channel 4 and others who might question the casuistry that sees its populist and entertaining mainstream TV programmes labelled as ‘public service’. Partnership proposals beats enforced budget cuts. The BBC shows willing. Refusal to partner looks churlish.

But in the case of ITV’s regional news, partnership simply sustains something that neither the market, nor the term ‘public service’ really support.

One BBC regional news head lamented to me recently that no one covered court cases in his area – not the local papers, not ITV, not the agencies – no one. He also pointed out that he could have used his multimedia newsroom to produce hyperlocal sites, and even newspaper copy – but he wasn’t allowed to, because the local newspaper lobby had weighed in to point out that he would drive them out of business.

It’s easy to feel sympathy for both sides. The commercial local news media and the BBC regional journalists who just want to do a better job.

But they’re not really the issue.

The issue is bigger and it affects all of us, not simply journalists. It’s about the collapse of plurality of media provision and how we adjust to that. Because plurality has collapsed.

And the BBC can’t take its place, and the partnerships the BBC offers are simply life support machines for local news companies caught in a downward spiral of cost-cutting, audience decline, and share price collapse.

Allowing the BBC in to hyperlocal would have killed those companies quicker. Partnership will ease their dying. Yet the question of how (or if ) we use public money to inform citizens about the governance and the good times in their localities in a way that isn’t simply puff and spin goes unasked. And the political and popular will to address it is almost entirely absent.

So expect partnerships – or rather forced marriages – with all the happiness associated with relationships born of expediency…

[Thanks to Paul Bradshaw for kicking me to write something. More at the Online Journalism Blog.]