I agree with some of what Postman writes. Journalists should not work on political campaigns. I do not view media consolidation in the same realm as a political campaign, though. For me, consolidation falls more into the First Amendment category, a place where journalists have long voiced their opinions. The most recent example being the cry for a reporter's shield law.

Postman is also right that the editorial page, owners, press organization, and unions have a place in the media consolidation debate. Problem is many of the above mentioned have been silent. The Guild has been vocal at times. I was happy to see a Times advertising employee and guild member speak at the FCC hearing at Town Hall. Some of the minority journalist associations have been active, especially NAHJ.

Journalists on editorial pages need to write more about this topic. At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing FCC commissioner Michael Copps said that editorial page editors have told him that they have a green light on any topic except media consolidation. That should be enough to rile up editorial journalists around the country.

Obviously, journalists on the news side who cover the media, or Congress, should stay away. But why should the vast majority of reporters and editors who cover the arts, transportation, sports, and the suburbs be silent while their profession is dismantled?

This is a non-partisan issue that is at the heart of American democracy. At the very least I believe journalists can speak out on media concentration in general terms. There is no need to get into the mechanics of why or how media concentration happened or can be fixed. If a journalist is not comfortable doing so individually, they need to be pushing their union, or other groups like IRE, SPJ, or ASNE to get involved.