Too bad it involves deregulating the media, so that they can stay relevant.

If it takes a big man to admit he was wrong, said man needn't be quite so magnanimous to concede that changing circumstances have altered his outlook.

The perils of media consolidation have been a longstanding concern. Even during a stint working for Tribune Co. as they futilely attempted to squeeze synergies out of TV-print combinations, I banged the drum against allowing TV, radio stations and newspapers coagulate in too few hands, fearing ethical abuses or the nagging appearance of them, as well as the loss of independent voices to watchdog government and the media itself.

And wouldn't it be spiffy if that watchdog actually would watch the government come 1-20-09? Anyway....

Today, though, amid daily waves of depressing economic news, conflicted voices sound preferable to neutered or, worse, deceased ones.

Why not start by allowing opposing views in the editorial rooms and on the staff? But I guess I'll wear a size 2 cocktail dress before that happens.

Without some kind of action, more broadcasters, newspapers and magazines are going to die off. Local news coverage -- the essence of public service, however quaint and dated that might sound -- has already been seriously compromised, as TV and print cut back on newsgathering resources. ...

The bottom line is that unless newspapers and smaller-market stations become not-for-profit ventures (and based on recent cuts at National Public Radio, even that offers no assurance of success), something's got to give -- beginning, perhaps, with restrictions that prevent enterprises from pooling resources in a way that might help them survive.

So, nit only should The Deciders become less consolidated (an issue I caould care less about either way), but should they all just become equivalents of the local NPR station or that Not For Profit Public Access that plays nothing but Zappa Tunes all day? (NTTAWWT).

To me, this strikes me as yet another plea for public subsidizing/bailout/management of ALL of the media, you know, for the public good. And the children. And puppies.

And if the Government takesover all of the media, doesn't that just seem a bit inefficient and scary to you?

Posted by: eddiebear at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 3 kb.