Bobert - I agree with most of your points but I have two "ammendments" of my opinion.

Michael Powell is not the problem with the FCC. He is the easy target because of his father, but this issue has been building for years. I agree with you that it will make it harder for third parties and progressives to get their voice heard, but the problem is that corporations like Clear Channel and the networks you mentioned have gained their market share BECAUSE the smaller third parties have sold out because the business just isn't there.   The American people have, as a majority, always gone with the bland. Even our beer is marketed to a taste that will please the most people.   The same with radio.   Our music and news is programmed to reach the most ears, and the public as a whole (or is that hole) does not want anything different.

The same with candidates like Nader.   Yes, you are right, Wallace was a voice of hate and the media jumped on it - because that is what the public wanted to hear.   Nader is a voice from another generation, and he is not the slick media image that appeals to the general public. Trust me, the media jumps on charismatic voices no matter what their point of view.   The problem with the progressive movement is they do not have their version of Rush Limbaugh. Nader does not sell soap powder or beer, and that is the lifeblood of the media.   While it may sound that is lining the pockets of some executives, it is much deeper than that.   Having worked at a network for 12 years I can tell you that many people make their living through selling those commercials.   The media always covers stories when layoffs occur in the auto or airline industry, but is anybody protesting when respectively equivelant numbers lose their jobs in the media?

Sorry to rant and ramble and deviate from the path of this discussion.

Ron