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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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