Re: Donna gets heard - and seen! (on Nightline, of course)

["A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>]

On 29 May 2003 at 11:14, Dan Billings wrote:

> If the cross ownership rules had never been in place, I think we would
> have a lot fewer one newspaper towns today.  The cross ownership
> prohibition eliminated the most likely buyers of a failing paper in many
> towns.  Would the Herald still exist if Murdoch had not bought it and kept
> it alive?  I don't think we'll see any papers coming back if the rule is
> eliminated, but it might help keep papers alive in the few places where
> there are still two.
 
I must say, I've never particularly seen the need for the newspaper cross-ownership rule.  It's 
domination of one market that I don't like.  Some participation in more than one market 
seems fine to me.  And, since it's clear that loss of the WHDH-TV license killed the Boston 
Herald, we have an example close to home of the benefits of business diversification.

-- 
A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                           617.367.0468
 15 Court Square, Suite 210                 lawyer@attorneyross.com
Boston, MA 02108-2503           	         http://www.attorneyross.com