http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=359261

Would you take removal of indecency reulations, if you also had to take removal of ownership limits?

No

Maybe. I don't know. But how and why are those two choices related? I mean, other than they are talked about in the same article. Maybe I misread it. That last paragraph smacked of legislation add-ons that have nothing to do with the original bill. " I'll give you a tax break on income if you build a fancy tech-park in my district." Is it a back scratching tactic or something? Is it so obvious that I can't even see it for what it is? It just screams " I will do what you ask. Not because I agree with it, but because I can make more money over HERE if you give me this other thing." Those kinds of deals always seem to nail the little guy. We end up paying for both projects anyway. I hate that.

Like I said though, I may be misunderstanding something or succombing to a blind spot in the comprehension of the article.

I'm TERRIBLE at Wheel of Fortune too.

"How and why are those two choices related?"

Great question! I see that we have eased ownership limits already to the point where the industry is eating itself. "No censorship" in a market controlled by a handful of companies is akin to saying, "no burritos" in Chinatown. The First Amendment is only as good as the number of voices it truly protects.

Overall, I agree with our native son when he says, "Paternal government is back." It also makes me disappointed. I like the idea that child-rearing as a shared full-time job becomes a priority, not censorship. It is far better than a group of willy-nilly regulators trying to save kids with passive parents. Bad parents don't pay attention either way, and their children are already threatened by this box in front of us. A box with more influence than television or radio could ever imagine -- even on adults.

"Walden himself is a broadcaster, owning five stations."

Wasn't the transaction done long enough before the deadline for them to check the facts?

I used to watch Monk. He would do a funny thing and I think it should be employed here. To the question "Would you take removal of indecency reulations, if you also had to take removal of ownership limits?" he would respond with a compromise, " Tell ya what. You remove indecency regulations."

That's it.

They are related, because both would give industry more freedom. But, the article really didn't link them in that way. This is like, have your cake and we'll let you eat it too.

A consolidated marketplace with no restrictions on content is neither truly free to say what it wishes, nor is it truly free to broaden the knowledge of the audience, nor is it truly free to be reflective of a community or a nation. In fact, it is only truly free to sell to the lowest common denominator.

That sort of freedom only fosters a sense of rampant, sensationalist, centralized dumbing down. The mass media can simply say, "have your fucking Twinkies, your goddamn mealworm burgers and the shitty fries that are now the only vegetable on the menu."

If you are hungry for anything that is not offered, they will simply say, "our figures indicate that most Americans are only hungry for our food, so we are happy to give them the freedom to choose us." The numbers will back them up, because it is all that anyone can get, and so, by the numbers, it will be all anyone chooses.

Of course, turned off by the programming, the audience will desperately seek choice, diversity and local content. They will fill their iPods with songs, bookmark their news sources for a daily dose on the internet and enjoy every medium except the broadcasters. A handful of companies will have exercised the freedom to kill the whole market dead, instead of gravely wounding it, as they have done already.