<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FCC&#8217;s Martin: Weapon of mass seduction?</title>
	<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/02/12/fccs-martin-weapon-of-mass-seduction/</link>
	<description>Just another Blogs.reuters.com weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Truman</title>
		<link>http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/02/12/fccs-martin-weapon-of-mass-seduction/#comment-137222</link>
		<dc:creator>Truman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/02/12/fccs-martin-weapon-of-mass-seduction/#comment-137222</guid>
		<description>Robert, while these types of lobbying efforts are "fun", the cuteness only serves to mask a basic fallacy in the argument.  The video encourages viewers to not let "big media swallow up even more local outlets" because the public "wants more diverse voices and points of view", yet studies such as the one that appeared in the LA Times have shown that media consolidation actually results in more diversity of programing and opinion.  We are in an age when local broadcasters no longer simply compete with one another -- instead they must compete with cable, satellite, numerous variations of radio, and the Internet for the advertising dollars on which they rely.  Without the resources afforded by corporate franchising, these local stations stand little chance of survival and many would be forced to close their operations, depriving the public of an invaluable commodity and resource.  And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do some consulting work with the NAB, an organization that has not historically supported consolidation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Robert, while these types of lobbying efforts are &#8220;fun&#8221;, the cuteness only serves to mask a basic fallacy in the argument.  The video encourages viewers to not let &#8220;big media swallow up even more local outlets&#8221; because the public &#8220;wants more diverse voices and points of view&#8221;, yet studies such as the one that appeared in the LA Times have shown that media consolidation actually results in more diversity of programing and opinion.  We are in an age when local broadcasters no longer simply compete with one another &#8212; instead they must compete with cable, satellite, numerous variations of radio, and the Internet for the advertising dollars on which they rely.  Without the resources afforded by corporate franchising, these local stations stand little chance of survival and many would be forced to close their operations, depriving the public of an invaluable commodity and resource.  And in the spirit of full disclosure, I do some consulting work with the NAB, an organization that has not historically supported consolidation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
