Media monopolists were dealt a rare setback when the Philadelphia-based US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit blocked implementation of last year's decision by the Federal Communications Comm
A federal appeals court rejects FCC rule changes that eased limits on media monopoly.
On May 26 the New York Times finally hitched up its pants, took a deep breath and issued an editorial declaration of moderate regret for its role in boosting the case for war on Iraq.
The highbrow literary magazine has re-emerged as a combative political actor.
The Sinclair Broadcast Group, a Maryland-based media company whose
holdings include sixty-two TV stations, did the country a favor when it
refused to air the April 30 special edition of Nigh
Grover Norquist, the right's premier political organizer, once told
me that the most significant difference between liberal journalists
and conservative journalists is that the former are jou
When George W.
The beast will not die.
Because of space constraints and incautious wording in my column last week, I referred to the Times's "Jayson Blair/Gerald Boyd problem." I intended to refer to those attacks on the Times that had asserted or implied that Boyd had in some way been responsible for overlooking Blair's shortcomings and that this pattern somehow reflected on the Times's affirmative-action policies. I did not mean to imply that there was any truth to these accusations. Indeed, there is none on the record as far as I am aware. I apologize to Mr. Boyd for any misimpressions I may have created. --Eric Alterman
The conduct of our major newspapers in the run-up to the Iraq war calls to mind William Hazlitt's famous appraisal of the Times of London.