Amazon.com Widgets

Should stricter legal limits be placed on media consolidation?

  • News should not be a monopoly.

    Yes, I think that we should provide stricter laws against media consolidation efforts going on. In order for people to be fairly and sufficiently informed, we require a diversity of voices reporting the news. Consolidating the media makes corporations too powerful, with the ability to smother any dissent by simply not reporting on it.

  • We Need More Media Companies Not Less.

    Several mergers of existing media companies have decreased the number of companies that provide the news to the public. This consolidation means that there are fewer views presented and fewer voices presenting them. This trend is not a healthy one for a democratic society that prides itself on the diversity and the freedom of speech.



  • Yes, we need diversity of ownership in the media.

    In order for democracy to prosper we need a press which is free to investigate and expose politicians. It would be very dangerous for the media to end up being owned by only a small group of powerful corporations. There needs to be wide ownership of the media, and consolidation is the enemy of this.

  • Yeah, there should be.

    Stricter limits should be placed on media consolidation. The reason for this is because there is too much monopolizing taking place, and then you end up having news outlets that cater to nothing but one ideology and a certain set of biases. This isn't real media. It's a gigantic farce.

  • No, we should deserve the truth.

    There should not be stricter legal limits on media unless it is porn or a vulgar sense of broadcasting ideas. The truth should be observed through nothing but the truth, and no matter what the laws say, we deserve to know what is going on no matter how graphic it is.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.