Ease cross-media ownership rules

  • Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 17, 2013 - 7:53 PM

FCC rules should reflect news media's rapid transformation.

  • 13
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
barefootpaulJan. 17, 1311:33 PM

Horrible idea. We already have to go to independent sources to learn about "bury the lead" issues that the corporate media decides are either not titillating enough, or reflect poorly on their corporate values. As a current example, how many know about Jan Shakowsky's reintroduction of the public option as a bill to reduce the deficit? How much more uninformed would we be with a single corporation controlling all of the outlets we rely on for information?

luzhishenJan. 18, 13 7:31 AM

No, no, no. We've seen how TV has gone into the tank when the FCC changed the rules about ownership of stations - the last thing we need are stronger versions of FOX, MSNBC, etc..

twspt7Jan. 18, 13 7:32 AM

In 1980, there were 50 independent news organizations in this country. Now 6 corporations own 90% of all media produced, news included. Further consolidation will result in a monolithic media system in which all the news that doesn't fit corporate aims will be deemed unfit to print. While the challenges the Strib faces in today's media market are real, boiling all media down to one or two massive conglomerates hardly seems to serve the public interest.

jitterjeppJan. 18, 13 7:38 AM

Absolutely the worst idea ever. Hey lets have our media be entirely control by a tiny handful of people. That way they can ignore dissent when it suits them and show it when it benefits them. You could totally manufacture consent for things like a publicly funded football stadium and two wars but at the same time not manufacture consent for things like living wages or healthcare reform.... Oh, wait. Forget it.

marketing guyJan. 18, 13 8:26 AM

Could this be a more self serving opinion? Besides, I don't think, in the long run a broadcast media company is going to be the savior of the newspaper industry.

elmore1Jan. 18, 13 8:42 AM

This is a terrible idea. In a one newspaper town like like Mpls we already get an extreme liberal bias set by the editorial board. We need to leverage other news sources to get a balanced perspective. For the people who don't search out objective news sources, this is introducing a dangerous bias to the masses.

fanofcaribouJan. 18, 13 1:42 PM

IF there were no Rupert Murdochs in the world, I might consider your arguements. Unfortunately, there are Rupert Murdochs in this world who not only want to control all of the media in one country, they want to control all of the media in the entire world. Keep the current regs in place.

liora51Jan. 18, 13 1:56 PM

elmore1: I gave you a thumbs up because it is important that conflicting views be aired by the people who hold to them passionately. But I really get tired of your apparent inability to conceive of a more nuanced approach that "Conservative vs Liberal."

elmore1Jan. 18, 13 3:08 PM

liora51, thanks. I have been reading the Strib for 50 years and I can't think of a better word than liberal to describe it. You travel to bigger cities with multiple papers and europe and you get a much broader perspective I would like to see a moderate approach to the news (good and bad on both sides).

raddmann99Jan. 18, 13 9:45 PM

the media is already concentrated in too few hands. This is about as self serving an editorial as it gets. Shame on Strib !


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters