why media consolidation is NOT a good thing

[Dan Billings]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Fybush" <scott@fybush.com>
To: "A. Joseph Ross" <lawyer@attorneyross.com>; "Garrett Wollman"
<wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@rolinin.BostonRadio.org>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:09 AM
Subject: RE: why media consolidation is NOT a good thing


> In any event, one suspects that a heavy corporate hand on the editorial
> tiller would, in that era, have caused problems for the network's O&Os at
> license renewal time. Certainly the two stations in Jackson, Mississippi
> that regularly pre-empted network newscasts during the struggle for civil
> rights paid the price in the end - both ultimately lost their licenses for
> that and other reasons. And wasn't that (corporate ownership's influence
on
> the news product) one concern that quashed ITT's bid to buy ABC in the
late
> sixties?

You have suggested in earlier posts that you object to station owners
playing to those in power, but in the post above, you seem to be endorsing a
station losing its license for doing something that does not fit with the
political views of those in power.

You also seem to be suggesting that when a station signs up with a network,
they give up any editorial control.  Why should that be?  Officials at ABC
decide what should and shouldn't be run.  Didn't ABC veto a Toby Keith
performance on a July 4th special?  If ABC can veto something for content,
why is it wrong for the station owner to do the same thing?

It seems like your position is it is wrong when you don't agree with the
editorial decision.

If I had to picked between the networks, the government, or the station
owners as the final decisionmakers on what's run, I would go with the
station owners.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine