Today, a newspaper is not allowed to own a radio or television station within the market area it serves. That rule is scheduled to go out the window.
Further, today, a network is not allowed to own radio or television stations that serve more than 35% of the population of the country. That rule is also scheduled to be tossed out.
There are several things about these actions that I do not understand. First, I do not understand why the FCC would even consider making changes like this. Where is the benefit? It seems intuitively obvious to me that it is unconditionally a Bad Thing to have a single company serving news and content to more than a third of the nation. Besides corporate pandering, what is the point?
Second, where is the outrage? I'm guessing these rule changes will slip right by, under the guise of "deregulation is the universal good", but the fact is that most deregulation benefits corporate executive boards much more than it benefits middle America.
The first amendment ensures that the government cannot interfere with a free press, but there are no constitutional protections against corporate interference with a free press. To me, that single statement is a compelling argument for the continuted regulation of the media markets by the FCC.
Are they asking me to believe that corporate America has my best interest at heart? Haven't Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom, and Martha Stewart all provided thorough and complete counter-examples against that claim?
