Should media ownership rules be relaxed?
Wikimedia Commons
The Federal Communications Commission could consider a change as early as next month in a rule that now prevents the owner of a television broadcast station from owning a newspaper in the same city or town, according to the Washington Post.
The issue is getting a lot of attention because Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News Channel, is reportedly interested in buying the company that owns the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski says the proposed rules change would not allow that merger to occur. He said he also would preserve a rule that forbids ownership of more than one of the top four TV stations in a particular market.
Advocates of the change say that the old rules don’t work well in the rapidly-changing media market in which consumers get their news from computers, iPads, smart phones and who knows what else in the future. They also argue that struggling media companies need the ability to pool resources in order to survive.
Opponents say media conglomerates will squeeze out local news, eliminate competition and reduce diversity.
What do you think?
December 7, 2012 - 1:52 PM
NO! Murdoch alone proves why the rule remains important. Media outlets need to be MORE varied, with wider coverage and broader perspectives not less. Keep the rules by all means!
Reuters and the Associated Press, and other “wire” services as well as freelancers serve those “struggling media companies” well enough IMO.
The words “Media Empire” should scare anyone who knows the meaning of propaganda.
You know what I think about this! I’m sure Murdoch would be very interested in buying the L.A. Times. I imagine he’d turn it into a rag like he did the Wall Street Journal.
Having said that, I don’t care about the politics of the person doing the consolidation. I’d be just a leery if a liberal owned as many newspapers, TV stations, etc. as Mr. Murdoch does.
While I would no doubt agree with the standing and points of a total left wing media empire, I agree, that is not a good thing for the nation either. I support diversity of valid opinions. I do not support or respect propaganda.
#3 You would not “support or respect propaganda”….you would “agree with the standing points”. (?)
“diverity of valid opinions”? How are they defined? By whom?
No doubt you will claim nit-picking. Your words Mrs. Saunders.
I will claim that I assume intelligent people can read and comprehend what I write.
#5 Agreed.
No.