Times blog gatekeeper Kate Phillips confides that, "I almost wish we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices."
Cognitive dissonance noted.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2004012064_cowned14.html
Media consolidation, still alive and growing
CHANGES to media-ownership rules proposed by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin do nothing to promote a vigorous and free press. Martin’s plan does the opposite by encouraging media conglomerates to augment their substantial holdings through cross-ownership.
The proposal is a crafty piece of policy that tries to masquerade as a compromise. This is no compromise, but rather a path for media giants to own a newspaper, television station and radio station in the same market. Martin cleverly says that cross-ownership can happen only in the 20 largest media markets, and that the television station would have to fall out of the top four in the market to be included.
Any thought that these are only minor changes that do not have a damaging effect on diversity of media voices is blown away by a provision that allows the FCC to consider exceptions. It is probable that these exceptions would allow for FCC approval of cross-ownership in markets outside the top 20, and for dominant stations.
If the proposal were not bad enough, it does not address two issues at the heart of media consolidation: The changes do not touch the idea of localism — how well broadcasters serve their communities through news operations; Martin has also shockingly dropped any consideration about the lack of women- and minority-owned media outlets.
Martin is not only thumbing his nose at good policy, he is trashing the public, which has demonstrated at every FCC hearing during the past year that more media consolidation is not wanted or needed.
snip