RE: Read All About Me...

Although I hate to admit it, maybe this is the reason to lift the FCC newspaper/ broadcast cross ownership ban, or at least loosen the rules even further. In the last Quadrennial Review and Order, adopted at the end of 2007, the FCC partially lifted the cross ownership ban which had been in place since the mid 70's. The rule simply prevented the same company from owning a local daily paper and a local broadcaster in the same media market.

On Dec 18, 2007 the FCC changed their cross ownership rules and allowed for partial cross ownership in top 20 markets. They allowed radio and newspaper cross-ownership, and TV and newspaper cross-ownership as long as the TV station was not one of the top four stations and after the two combined there would still be at least eight "major media voices in the market."

Originally I thought that allowing for cross-ownership and consolidation of voices would be a horrible and would go againt the "Public Interest" of diversity and localism. However, due to the failure of so many newspapers and small broadcasters across the country I think it is time to re think these rules. Most people would probably agree that having one company control the newspaper and the television station in a small town is better for the public interest than having no media outlet at all.

Takuan is right when he says the industry is resilient. Look at radio. It was supposed to disappear with the invention of television. The question is, can all the new forms of media and technology create a business model to support newspapers into the future. I like reading a physical newspaper rather than using the funny scroll button on my mouse, but if I cannot somehow finagle a free NYTimes from a coffee shop table, there is a fat chance that I will pay for a paper that I can get for free online.

What is the public interest? That is the question. And what can we do from here on out to save these papers and broadcasters that have been serving the public interest for decades?