There was a teleconference yesterday by civil rights groups, unions, and public interest groups urging the F.C.C. not to do it. Radio Online has the details.
And then, there was this impassioned plea by Charles P. Pierce at Esquire Magazine, who pointed out that relaxing this rule is a gift to the one person that shouldn't be given the gift of further media ownership: Rupert Murdoch.
He writes: "There is simply no reason for any country anywhere in the world ever to do favors for Rupert Murdoch ever again. His British operation has been exposed engaging in outright criminality. (And anyone who thinks that criminality stopped in the UK is fooling themselves.) His television network in the United States has turned to outright buffoonery and is starting to stagger in the ratings. He is the Bhopal in any media ecosystem in which he is allowed to flourish. There never has been a better time to break what power he has left. Instead, it appears that we are going to streamline ourselves right into enhancing his power in minor markets like Chicago and Los Angeles. It appears to me that this ought to be of some concern to an administration on which Mr. Murdoch has painted a bulls-eye since January of 2009. Vengeance is not always a bad thing."
I don't know if anyone is hearing these voices, but I'm happy that they are out there. I was starting to feel a little lonely on this soapbox.
