Ban media cross-ownership

The U.S. House of Representatives needs to take a stand against media consolidation.

The U.S. House of Representatives has a chance to do what it would not in 2003: take a stand against media consolidation, which is one of the greatest threats to democracy.
The resolution was introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, and Dave Reichert, R-Auburn. The resolution currently has 45 sponsors, of which Reichert is the only Republican. Full Story »

Posted by Ben Ross
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Ben Ross - Aug 16, 2008 - 9:18 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - Aug 16, 2008 - 10:01 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dan Kennedy
2.4
by Dan Kennedy - Oct. 1, 2008

How can an editorial published in 2008 argue against media cross-ownership without at least acknowledging that newspaper websites now offer video news, television websites publish text-based stories, and radio stations are competing on both fronts? The editorial isn't so much wrong as it is missing crucial context.

See Full Review » (8 answers)
Jeanne Roberts
4.1
by Jeanne Roberts - Oct. 1, 2008

For a very short editorial, it says all that needs saying on the role of unconsolidated media in the preservation of democracy. Lifting the ban on cross-media ownership will guarantee a hundred Fox News networks and not one Seattle Times. People who are aware of this issue should be prodding their representatives to act against the FCC rule that would allow such consolidation, or some morning they will wake up to the same broadcast on every TV, radio and Internet news site in existence. Welcome to dystopia!

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Ben Ross
4.4
by Ben Ross - Oct. 1, 2008

Snap shot at the very important issue ....as well cognition of the gatekeeping in congress, by mostly republican, designing government as a vehicle for big business.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
James Canning
4.8
by James Canning - Oct. 1, 2008

This brief editorial is a must-read for those who have not been paying attention to the dangerous consolidation of media ownership in this country. The Seattle Times, and the Blethen family, have been trying to prevent things getting even worse.

See Full Review » (13 answers)
Randy Morrow
3.2
by Randy Morrow - Oct. 1, 2008

The media industry is really pushing for cross ownership. The main argument being that in order to survive and compete in the internet age the various current types of media (especially newspaper and radio) must band together to merge their revenue streams. They of course down play (or ignore) the idea of limiting access and free speech as well as the job losses that occur with consolidation. FYI the claim was that the Telecom Act of '96 would create jobs--it did not, this further consolidation won't either, but the industry will say we must do it in order to survive.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Leonard Brabant
3.2
by Leonard Brabant - Oct. 1, 2008

We should all be concerned as to who owns the media we go to for our "news".

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.7

Good
from 6 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.3
Fairness
4.3
Information
3.7
Sourcing
3.6
Style
3.7
Accuracy
4.0
Balance
4.3
Context
3.5
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.8
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!