Media cross-ownership ban restored (handful of large corp. could be detrimental to democracy)

Boston.com ^ | 7/08/11

[Libloather]

Media cross-ownership ban restored
July 08, 2011
By Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A federal Appeals Court has restored a long-standing ban that prevents media companies from owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same market.

The 3d US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia said yesterday that the Federal Communications Commission didn’t give the public adequate opportunity to comment on new rules that lifted the ban in the 20 largest media markets. The Appeals Court sent the rules back to the FCC to be rewritten.

The so-called cross-ownership ban dates back to 1975 - a time when newspapers dominated the media industry.

In 2007, then-FCC chairman Kevin Martin, a Bush administration appointee, moved to ease those restrictions in the biggest media markets. He argued that the ban no longer made sense in a media landscape where the Internet had left many daily newspapers struggling for survival.

Public interest groups challenged the changes and warned that too many media outlets falling under the ownership of a handful of large corporations could be detrimental to democracy, which relies on a vibrant press with many voices.

[Libloather]

...when newspapers dominated the media industry.

I wonder what this court would have to say about Commiecare™.

[the invisib1e hand]

Public interest groups challenged the changes and warned that too many media outlets falling under the ownership of a handful of large corporations could be detrimental to democracy, which relies on a vibrant press with many voices.

"Could be? You mean, "could be when when it's not our favorite corporations that are doing the owning."

[MestaMachine]

War on Fox?

[raccoonradio]

In the 90s in Boston, the cross-ownership ban caused problems for Rupert Murdoch/Fox. He couldn’t own both Fox25 and the Boston Herald. I remember tuning in to the Jerry Williams (radio) show and an arrogant Ted Kennedy called in about it—naturally he was FOR the ban because he wanted to force Murdoch to sell or shut down (IIRC) the Boston Herald, which was not kind to him. I think eventually the paper was sold to Pat Purcell.

(Just looked up on Wikipedia, under Boston Herald):
>>In February 1994, Murdoch’s News Corporation was forced to sell the paper, in order that its subsidiary Fox Television Stations could legally consummate its purchase of Fox affiliate WFXT (Channel 25). Patrick J. Purcell, who was the publisher of the Boston Herald and a former News Corporation executive, purchased the Herald and established it as an independent newspaper.