Now that the FCC is restricting your access to opposing viewpoints and rewarding CEOs, it makes me wonder: If the media is so damn liberal as the Joe Scarboroughs and Ann Coulters of the world want us to think, then why does our Republican government want the media companies to have a larger reach, thus unifying their message?

Let's look at the big four mentioned in the above linked article.

Viacom has the most liberal slant of the bunch, I will not deny. They employ Dan Rather and Gideon Yago. (I've always applauded MTV News as the best part of that network, discussing significant issues to young people in ways that are informative, applicable, and not insulting, even if they have to spend most of their time over-hyping talentless hacks like 50 Cent and Staind.)

General Electric's NBC is pretty damned conservative. Tom Brokaw extoled The Greatest Generation, that generation being old people who fought a war. They are increasingly employing people like Joe Scarborough and Michael Savage. Hell, they hired safe, white-bread Jay Leno over innovative David Letterman (see Viacom).

Disney's ABC News often goes for the stories that criticize our government, no doubt about it. And Disney's pretty well known for having very liberal employee practices pertaining to gay rights. What I'm concerned about with Disney is their persistent smackdown on copyright laws and their litigious history.

And then there's News Corp., owner of Fox. Despite continuing with The Simpsons, a very liberal show, I don't think I have to mention Fox News.

Currently, all the news organizations have given Bush a fairly free ride, not reporting on his less-than-honorable transgressions as stubbornly as they reported on Clinton's. With a vaguely defined war to root for (eerily similar to 1984, as I've noted before), our country will continue to root for him. Loosening media consolidation restrictions ensures that the cheering will be louder and in unison.