I live in Chicago, and as you no doubt know, Chicago is home to the Tribune Company, which has been among the leading advocates of increased media concentration– precisely because the company has banked its future on the evisceration of media ownership rules.

I’ve been particularly active on the issue with the group Chicago Media Action — tesifying at the FCC hearing last year in Chicago, and at the 2003 Midwest Hearing on Media Ownership. Chicago Media Action has also organized public protests against these rule changes, including one in Tribune Plaza, one when former FCC chair Michael Powell had visited Chicago, and this past December with a public singalong in front of the Tribune Tower.

My thanks for your work on the issue of media concentration. I was particularly impressed by your past questioning of Commissioner Kevin Martin. I encourage you to continue your work in this regard, and I look forward to your continuing work.

Sincerely,
Mitchell Szczepanczyk
Chicago, IL

It is admirable to see you defending citizens in light of the public interest. You have taken a leadership role in protecting the public, and hopefully others will follow suit. It is important that these issues are brought to a round table discussion that is accessible by many.

I am a senior at UMass, and a communications major, and these issues are very important to me. Please continue the fight for a democratic media.

M.A. Petti
Northampton, MA

We applaud your leadership on this issue. The FCC decision last year grandfathered or waived in Media General co-ownership arrangements in Tampa and Panama City, as well as Tribune Company holdings in Ft. Lauderdale and Miami.

Time magazine once praised Florida for having “The Best Newspapers Underthe Sun.” Cross-ownerships are reducing newsroom staffs here, threatening that proud traditon, and lessening the amounts of local TV news coverage provided by other stations in the those markets.

Congress should reverse the FCC decision.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Hart
Tampa, Fla.

Thank you for your leadership and your protection of the American people through a clear and simple statement of the facts, which directly contradict what some might say are the FCC’s attempts at obscuring clear evidence.

Sincerely,
JHull
Atlanta, GA

I worry that the FCC’s talking points - asserting that this is nothing more than a modest change in the rules - is swaying people. The waivers the FCC has already given as part of their Dec. 18th rule change are evidence that this will have implications for communities well beyond the top 20 media markets - how can we be sure that the full Senate understands the deeply flawed nature of this rule change?

Thanks for reaching out to people on this forum.

JStearns
Northampton, MA