That's a false equivalence. Facebook has an inordinate amount of power over person-to-person communication. TV and print media is not even in the same ballpark of influence.
False equivalence definition: "A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
It is hard to see the equivalence between a traditional media company such as Sinclair that produce content for distribution and a social platform for individuals to share their thoughts such as Facebook.
When we are talking about potential effects on personal communication it does not make sense to compare the magnitude between a traditional mass media platform product and a social media platform, because the latter focus is entirely on personal communication and the former is a mass media company.
Private interests and public have always interacted. Whether this fact matters is open to debate, but I find dealing with current reality more useful.
As someone unfamiliar with Australian politics, is The Guardian AU a reputable source for this story? I don't generally consider that domain, granted a .uk, very useful to provide information.
And it’s not false equivalence in my mind, just worth noting the difference in magnitude and considering the difference that might make.