Not that I really feel that way. I’m just trying to make a point. But let’s say I’m very rich and I want you to only listen to me. For starters I buy all the newspapers in town. Then I buy all the radio stations. And since I’m really rich, I’ll buy all the television stations.
Then my voice will be the only voice heard. No opposing points of view will be allowed. No information will be given that contradicts my agenda.
Wait a minute, you say. The government would never allow that. There’s some kind of law requiring media outlets to provide both sides of the story. Not anymore is there a Fairness Doctrine. Nobody is required to present opposing views.
But surely the government would never allow for one individual or corporation to monopolize the media outlets in a community. That would be akin to what the robber barons did in the late 1800's. But with monopolization of the media you could easily have clobber barons whose agenda was not serving the greater good but serving their greed and lust for power.
If this scares you then you have bipartisan company. Senators Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) have introduced the "Media Ownership Act of 2007" (S. 2332). The likes of Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) are cosponsoring the bill which would:
establish a 90 day period for public comment on any proposed FCC media ownership rules
require the FCC to determine how media consolidation impacts a community with input from the community
establish an independent panel on female and minority ownership
Show support of this legislation by sending a message to your Senator and Congressmen asking for quick action on this legislation and for them to exert their influence to prevent the FCC from allowing media monopolization. Freedom of speech: use it or loose it.