3 ms·

This is about local TV stations getting gobbled up by a single company, Sinclair. I don't see what Twitter/FB/Google have to do with this.

threeseed 9y ago
Exactly. This has absolutely nothing to do with internet companies. It's all about Sinclair, Tribune and lots of political donations and favours.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> I don't see what Twitter/FB/Google have to do with this Why are "religious rights" and low taxes in the same envelope? Because they're the same constituency. There is no underlying sense to it other than political sense. Media mergers of the kind Sinclair or TWC have pursued, or are pursuing, have traditionally been argued against by Google et al's lobbyists. There just isn't another organized constituency who cares about local radio. But the precedents from local radio spilling into ISPs? Now there's a worry. Those same lobbyists now represent politically wounded clients. When the cats are away, the mice come out to play.
- turndown 9y ago
  You mean Google, a company that was founded in the late 90s, is responsible for an FTC rule originating 42 years ago? Your entire premise is incredibly flawed; religious rights and low taxes may be part of the same constituency, but opposition to media mergers is not a strict left or right issue.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > You mean Google, a company that was founded in the late 90s, is responsible for an FTC rule originating 42 years ago? So nobody who wasn't around when the Constitution was written can be instrumental in defending it today? > opposition to media mergers is not a strict left or right issue Pardon me, I did not intend to imply it is. My point was in coalitions not always have logical sets of views. There is no organized coalition against local radio consolidation. For a while, nobody bothered defeating it. Now Sinclair has. Opposition is needed. Unfortunately, nobody cares about local radio. At least not enough to organize. The only ones defending the old rule--at least when it's come up in New York, California or Arizona, or the limited D.C. circles I'm privy to--are companies fearing its creep. The dominant constituency amongst those companies are the tech majors.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  It seems like you're saying they're removing merger barriers so TV stations can compete more effectively against internet companies by becoming larger traffickers of information? And that Google or similar lobbying interests have been trying to keep local broadcasting fragmented? Your premises seem weirdly flawed. Maybe I've misinterpreted you or overlooked some trend but I think you need to establish your underlying claims a lot better before drawing such a conclusion.

threeseed 9y ago

Exactly. This has absolutely nothing to do with internet companies. It's all about Sinclair, Tribune and lots of political donations and favours.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> I don't see what Twitter/FB/Google have to do with this Why are "religious rights" and low taxes in the same envelope? Because they're the same constituency. There is no underlying sense to it other than political sense. Media mergers of the kind Sinclair or TWC have pursued, or are pursuing, have traditionally been argued against by Google et al's lobbyists. There just isn't another organized constituency who cares about local radio. But the precedents from local radio spilling into ISPs? Now there's a worry. Those same lobbyists now represent politically wounded clients. When the cats are away, the mice come out to play.

turndown 9y ago
You mean Google, a company that was founded in the late 90s, is responsible for an FTC rule originating 42 years ago? Your entire premise is incredibly flawed; religious rights and low taxes may be part of the same constituency, but opposition to media mergers is not a strict left or right issue.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > You mean Google, a company that was founded in the late 90s, is responsible for an FTC rule originating 42 years ago? So nobody who wasn't around when the Constitution was written can be instrumental in defending it today? > opposition to media mergers is not a strict left or right issue Pardon me, I did not intend to imply it is. My point was in coalitions not always have logical sets of views. There is no organized coalition against local radio consolidation. For a while, nobody bothered defeating it. Now Sinclair has. Opposition is needed. Unfortunately, nobody cares about local radio. At least not enough to organize. The only ones defending the old rule--at least when it's come up in New York, California or Arizona, or the limited D.C. circles I'm privy to--are companies fearing its creep. The dominant constituency amongst those companies are the tech majors.
anigbrowl 9y ago
It seems like you're saying they're removing merger barriers so TV stations can compete more effectively against internet companies by becoming larger traffickers of information? And that Google or similar lobbying interests have been trying to keep local broadcasting fragmented? Your premises seem weirdly flawed. Maybe I've misinterpreted you or overlooked some trend but I think you need to establish your underlying claims a lot better before drawing such a conclusion.