Ownership

On March 19, AT&T and the Justice Department are expected to head to court to decide the future of Time Warner in what could be a historic legal showdown over a massive $85 billion merger. The timing of the trial could put AT&T in an uncomfortable position as it seeks to buy up one of the world's most valuable media and entertainment conglomerates, known for popular TV channels such as CNN and hit film franchises like the “Harry Potter” series.

What's President Trump hearing when he watches Fox News? He's hearing that special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is "illegitimate and corrupt." That it's led by a "band of merry Trump-haters" who are trying to reverse the results of the election. And that it must be stopped. He's also hearing that the FBI is becoming "America's secret police," akin to the KGB in Russia, full of "sickness" and "corruption." These are all actual quotes from some of the president's favorite pro-Trump talk shows. The overarching message from "Fox & Friends" and "Hannity" is unmistakable: Mr.

AT&T’s bid to buy Time Warner is blurring some of the ideological lines that usually split free-market conservatives from liberal skeptics of big business. On the left, some Democratic US senators who questioned the deal earlier have avoided addressing the issue since the Justice Department sued to stop the $85 billion combination. State attorneys general who joined a similar campaign against Comcast’s 2011 takeover of NBCUniversal have likewise sat out the latest government effort to thwart corporate concentration, at least for now.

Scorching criticism of internet service providers over their stance on net neutrality for much of 2017 hasn’t hurt their standing with US consumers — though some weren’t that popular to begin with. For Comcast, there was practically nowhere to go but up. Thirty-two percent of respondents had a very or somewhat favorable view of Comcast the day Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai announced his repeal plans; 26 percent had an unfavorable opinion. By Nov.

Free Press, United Church of Christ, and the almost half dozen others who are challenging the Federal Communications Commission's decision to reinstate the UHF discount, have told a federal court that nothing in the arguments from the government and broadcasters has changed the relevant facts.  That came in its reply brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

While many agree the government does have a legitimate antitrust case against the megamerger between AT&T and Time Warner — the combined, vertically integrated company could potentially freeze out competitors, withhold or increase the price of premium content, and in turn harm consumers — President Donald Trump's ongoing public battle with Time Warner’s CNN has cast a heavy political shadow over the deal and the government’s objection to it. I reached out to eight experts on antitrust matters and megamergers to find out whether they think Trump’s public comments, specifically when it co

Our present panics tend to arrive just as new parts of our economy, culture and politics are reconstituted within platform marketplaces — shifts that have turned out to be bigger than anyone anticipated. Aggravation about “fake news” followed the realization that the business and consumption of online news had been substantially captured by Facebook, which had strenuously resisted categorization as a media company. Children’s entertainment has migrated to new and unexpected venues faster and more completely than either parents or YouTube expected or accounted for.

The Federal Communications Commission’s anticipated decision on net neutrality has (rightfully) garnered a lot of publicity and scrutiny. The FCC’s repeal of different regulations earlier this fall, however, could reshape a news source often left out of predictions of the industry’s future: local TV newsrooms.

[Commentary] A few weeks ago, representatives from Facebook, Google and Twitter came to town to testify before Congress. But let’s look beyond the narrow scope of those hearings and explore a broader conceptual issue, a massive and thorny topic: the role and responsibility of technology companies that began as platforms and transformed, I believe, into publishers. These are two very different things, with different roles in society. Are they merely platforms and tech companies, or are they publishers with social and legal responsibility for what they publish?