Should a company be able to own a Television station AND a newspaper in the same market?

[Texmaster]

There is a 25 year old ban on owning both in the same market however some companies are already doing it in anticipation of this law being recended.

Some cities have already reported bias like in Chicago the Sun Times also owns a Television Station. On the tv station, anything from the Sun Times is read "And from the Sun Times this morning...." but when it comes to stories from the Tribune its read "and from the morning paper..."


Personally, I think its a Horrible idea for one company to own television and newpapers in the same town. It just invites sensorship and will drastically hurt the creativity of the two media outlets because companys always have their own agenda.

Of course NPR is its spirit of unbaised reporting mentioned the "two" cable news outlets of CNN and MSNBC but conviently forgot to mention the #1 Cable news in ratings, Fox News when discussing national cable news sources lol

What do you think? Is it ok for companies to own 2 different media outlets in the same city?

 

[StageLeft]

Seems kind of restrictive not allowing it; I'm surprised you're for not allowing it!

 

[Lucky]

Some cities have already reported bias like in Chicago the Sun Times also owns a Television Station. On the tv station, anything from the Sun Times is read "And from the Sun Times this morning...." but when it comes to stories from the Tribune its read "and from the morning paper..."


Personally, I think its a Horrible idea for one company to own television and newpapers in the same town. It just invites sensorship and will drastically hurt the creativity of the two media outlets because companys always have their own agenda.


The situation you described above is not exclusive to chicago, if what you are reporting is true. Happens in columbus, pittsburgh, and in the smaller cities around where I live-with one difference-the paper and TV station are not owned by the same folks. I would venture to say its pretty common for TV stations and newspapers to partner up like this even when they aren't owned by the same folks. Sometimes with competing papers, 2 different TV stations will each partner up with one of them.

I would like you to expand on your idea that it invites sensorship <sic>. Can you please elaborate on how and why you feel this to be the case?

 

[Texmaster]

Some cities have already reported bias like in Chicago the Sun Times also owns a Television Station. On the tv station, anything from the Sun Times is read "And from the Sun Times this morning...." but when it comes to stories from the Tribune its read "and from the morning paper..."


Personally, I think its a Horrible idea for one company to own television and newpapers in the same town. It just invites sensorship and will drastically hurt the creativity of the two media outlets because companys always have their own agenda.




<< The situation you described above is not exclusive to chicago, if what you are reporting is true. Happens in columbus, pittsburgh, and in the smaller cities around where I live-with one difference-the paper and TV station are not owned by the same folks. I would venture to say its pretty common for TV stations and newspapers to partner up like this even when they aren't owned by the same folks. Sometimes with competing papers, 2 different TV stations will each partner up with one of them. >>




I never said it was exclusive to Chicago, it was only meant as an example.

And you are right it is not uncommon for television and say radio to team up in an unholy alliance.



<< I would like you to expand on your idea that it invites sensorship <sic>. Can you please elaborate on how and why you feel this to be the case? >>



The case and point in Chicago is my first example of a television limiting their coverage or specifically omitting a paper's name but giving another. Thats a real problem because if people here one name and not the other, it can influence their selection at a local newstand. Its subtle advertizing. You have to not believe advertizing to excuse that.

I see problems down the road as well. And just so I wont be accused of bias, say a conservative paper in a local conservative market buys a teleivison station and the customers start seeing the station advertized in their paper. They might (and do) assume that the station is a conservative station because its being advertized in their paper. So they go to it. Now lets say the television station is fair and balanced and does not have a sway towards conservatives or liberals. The company could begin to receive complaints and would see a drop in their television audience from those who feel they have been tricked which could lead to the newspaper loosing customers who felt mislead. So the company approaches the station and makes them lean more towards conservatives. Right there journalistic integrity is lost because the company put its own finantial goals over the journalists ethical obligation to its viewers.

 

[piku]

Or how about owning the number one internet provider, many major network TV stations (including news and entertainment), many major record labels, many major movie studios, many major book publishing companies, many major magazine companies, many major sports teams, etc.

And actually, now that I think about it, our local market here has exactly what you are talking about. One company (Shamrock Communications I think) owns newspapers, radio stations, and two local network affiliates.