why media consolidation is NOT a good thing

[Sean Smyth]

Steve O. writes:
> But something like this was more relevant 20 or more years 
> ago...before 
> Dish network, before the majority of households had cable tv (not to 
> mention the abundance of cable-only channels that didn't exist back 
> then).  There are so many other sources for news than just the local 
> channel...this was not true in the old days.

Let's also remember that many of the markets where Sinclair owns ABC
affiliates aren't major markets. Of course, I don't have the list of ABC
affiliates it owns in front of me but I'm guessing it's no more than 5
percent of the nation.

I see your point, Steve, but also remember that most cable systems/dish
operators are gonna feed their subscribers the local ABC affiliate. In some
rare cases, you'll get a second ABC affiliate on your cable system
(fortunately Penn State gets two ABC, Altoona/Johnstown and Scranton, and
two NBC, Altoona/Johnstown and Pittsburgh, affiliates) but the days of that
frequently happening seem to be long gone. (I must be getting older; I still
vividly remember Cablevision carrying ALL the Providence stations on its
Boston system lineup, in addition to WGN.) 

I think the point Donna was making was that one person (or, in this case,
one company) can make a decision that affects a greater number of viewers in
many more far-flung markets without any local input. In the old days, a
local owner who heard from local advertisers, viewers, etc., every day would
cave in to public pressure on something like this. Of course there were
plenty of bad local owners out there (can anyone say Channel 9?).