Cross-ownership in the media business is a growing threat to the independence and diversity of the press. Numerous studies have demonstrated that when newspapers and television stations in the same market are owned by the same parent corporation, balanced coverage and local reporting suffer. One such study that was originally commissioned by the FCC was suppressed and ordered destroyed because it didn’t support the conservative chairman’s prejudice. Yet media conglomerates obsessed with expanding their power continue to lobby for weakening regulations.

The Los Angeles Times, an asset of the Tribune Company of Chicago, has been engaged in a full-court press to aid its parent in the fight to deregulate. The February 19, edition of their Business section contains an article that is nothing more than testimony on behalf of Tribune’s financial interests – at the expense of the public interest.

This is at least the third article that the Times has published on this subject in five months. There is nothing new to the arguments presented in this column. It mostly repeats the same old arguments made previously, and on which I reported here and here. They even trot out a fantasized tale of Richard Nixon’s involvement in stemming cross-ownership. Despite the fact that there is no objective truth to that claim, the Times has now inserted it into its articles twice. Both times they confessed that there was no basis for the claim, but both times they still managed to muddy the waters with it.

The new wrinkle is that they are now whining about how hard it is to find a buyer for the company which has been on the block for several months. After draconian cuts in the budget and staff (reducing the newsroom by 50%) didn’t motivate buyers, they now blame their woes on the fact that a waiver they received from the FCC to operate both the Times and KTLA-TV would not transfer to a new owner. Prospective buyers, therefore, would have to divest one of those properties, making the acquisition less attractive. Well, how about revoking the waiver now, forcing Tribune to make the divestment, then sell the slimmed-down company?

One revealing observation about this latest piece of self puffery is that the author, Jim Puzzanghera, quoted nine sources for the article. Seven of them supported the Big Media position on media policy. Is this an example of their commitment to be fair and balanced?

It’s not particularly surprising that the Times would allow itself to be used in this way by Tribune. The Times recently fired its editor and publisher and replaced them both with loyal corporate cronies from the Chicago nest. Now they are carrying out a self-serving agenda that is in itself the best argument against deregulation. While not surprising, it is still distressing to see a local paper being manipulated like a puppet by a distant master. If what’s left of the staff at the Times had any self-respect, they would yank Tribune’s arm from its ass and start to speak for itself and its community. Just who do they think they are here to serve?

A new WE Media/Zogby Interactive poll surveyed members of the public and the media for their views on contemporary journalism. The results offer an interesting perspective on both the regard for which the press is held and the variance of that regard by each group:

It’s encouraging to see that majorities of both groups consider the press out of touch. Although it does raise an obvious question: If the media professionals feel that way, why aren’t they doing something about it?

A divergence occurs over the level of satisfaction, with the public overwhelming unsatisfied and the media straddling the fence. This is also a curious finding because it suggests that the media folks are fairly satisfied despite their belief that the press overall is out of touch.

The surprising response is the media’s acknowledgement of the role bloggers will play going forward. With virtual unanimity they are conceding the impact of what happens to be their biggest threat. And while just a little over half of the public agrees, a much larger percentage (76%) view the Internet as having had a positive impact on the overall quality of journalism. This seems to be a recognition of the watchdog effect that the Internet has. Both the people and the press know that stories that are inaccurate or incomplete are going to be challenged. And issues that don’t get carried in mainstream outlets are going to be hammered on in new media channels until they get the attention they deserve.

That is the power of citizen journalism and as long as we protect it from the encroachment of Big Media, it will be there to keep them honest.

Paul R. La Monica, CNNMoney.com editor at large, says that “Old media isn’t dead.” The following is my response:

Dear Paul,

As the publisher of News Corpse, I have to take issue with the premise of your article this morning that “old media isn’t dead.”

You make the argument that because old media isn’t going away, that it isn’t dead. That’s a flawed argument because there is no reason that the media can’t die and still stink up the place with its corpse. But eventually, someone’s going to have to call the Health Department and have the body carted away.

To borrow from the Terri Schiavo debate, we might want to define what constitutes life. Most of the examples in your column refer to blips on the financial screen. But there is also the matter of quality of life. While there is still money to be made in the old media marketplace, many informed observers will tell you that it is in a persistent vegetative state, i.e. brain dead. In the past week alone, three major newspapers were caught making the same mistakes they made four years ago by dutifully transcribing unsourced government claims, this time about Iran. And though you quoted Rupert Murdoch’s comments about the fiscal health of newspapers, were you aware of his admission last month that he tried to use his media empire to shape the agenda on Iraq? And as if that weren’t bad enough, he made similar comments about his upcoming business channel being “business friendly.” That doesn’t sound like the kind of life that’s worth living.

You correctly point out that old media is moving into new media spaces. I view this as deathbed desperation. Although terminal, old media is still aware of the doom that the future holds and they are trying to cling to the new out of fear. Ultimately, all media will be delivered via the Internet. The part old media plays depends on whether they can discover a miracle cure and recover, or simply and gratefully slip into the void.

There is one other possible outcome that I would call the Vampire Scenario. This is where old media buys up massive chunks of new media, successfully bribes Washington’s legislators and regulators to give themselves more power, and emerges undead from its own grave.

That was meant to sound scary.

When the White House Press Stenographers Association is too afraid of losing access to challange those they cover; when corporations that profit from war and other government enterprises control the mass media; when Congress is disinclined to rein in the monopolistic tendancies of the big media’s five families; how can anyone seriously view old media as anything but a stiff, lifeless hulk that, if not dead, is praying for someone to pull the plug.