Comments on: Should media ownership rules be relaxed?

By: Art Hill

Art Hill — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:55:45 +0000

No.

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:22:00 +0000

#5 Agreed.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 20:21:29 +0000

I will claim that I assume intelligent people can read and comprehend what I write.

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 01:03:03 +0000

#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.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:20:21 +0000

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.

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 20:03:50 +0000

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.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 19:54:42 +0000

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.