Today, the Federal Communications Commission changed media ownership rules not in the interest of the public good or democracy but in the interest of greed. And it did so with a minimum of disclosure and public hearings.
Allowing greater media consolidation is clearly a bad idea. The FCC Chairman, Michael Powell, and his cronies would like us to believe this is not the case. Yet the last change to ownership rules (Telecommunications Act of 1996) resulted in Clear Channel being able to blossom from 40 stations to 1,200 overnight.
But you know this already. The issue moving forward, barring any reversal, would be the significant impact on the online media ecosystem.
The top news site are already owned by giant media firms. They have been, traditionally, the story starters setting the agenda in a maturing blogosphere and elsewhere online. But the FCC says that this new consolidation will preserve many voices. Commonsense says this is not so.
"So to say there’s all this diversity, yes, there are many voices all coming from the same ventriloquist. Frankly it’s not healthy.” - Sen. Byron Dorgan (PBS Online NewsHour)Check out the two dissenting opinions from Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.
Clay Shirky’s The FCC, Weblogs, and Inequality:
"The one incoherent view is the belief that a free and diverse media will naturally tend towards equality. The development of weblogs in their first five years demonstrates that is not always true, and gives us reason to suspect it may never be true. Equality can only be guaranteed by limiting either diversity or freedom."
you have a such a good purpose of launching this journalism-oriented weblog. One problem of your blog is that you are quite lazy in keeping it daily.
Please let me see more frequent update of yours.
Cheers! participatory journalism!!!