"Is more media consolidation what we need right now," Drum plaintively asks. You are too nice, Unf, this is just weak.
I've never exactly figured out what "media consolidation" was supposed to threaten in a world of 3,000 magazines, 150 channels and scads of daily newspapers. It's usually invoked as a magic charm by afficianados of Zinn and Chomsky as explanation for why their gimcrack foregin policy fantasies don't get wider discussion. No doubt the Post will muzzle the transgressive scoops of Tim Noah, and those hilarious "bushisms" to cater favor with the power elite. Feh!
Well, since the WaPo is bigger than MSN (they own newsweek and a bunch of smaller papers) isn't this media consolidation?
My post was just some top-of-the-head noodling, but even so I would have thought my point was clear.
Obviously Microsoft is a huge company, but it's not a media company. As a media entity, Slate is pretty independent.
The Post, on the other hand, is part of a media empire, and Slate would just be one more "outlet" for its "product." It might end up better and more professional, but somehow I feel like I'd still like it better if it were independent.
And for what it's worth, I can assure you that I know exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about media consolidation. Honest. And as I've posted in the past, I'm generally not very worried about it.
I still kinda like Slate the way it is, though.
Oh, will our precious antitrust laws always protect us from a high level of consolidation the same way that our criminal procedure laws always prevent the government from detaining suspects without access to counsel or any sort of hearings?
Especially when Powell, the head of the FCC is an antitrust lawyer himself and seems to think increasingly higher levels of concentration of the media is not a problem but a solution?