4 sentences each opinion based 1. I think the value of local autonomy for journalists and producers comes from the fact that local news stories would essentially be "easier" to investigate and report on. If there was local autonomy, journalists and producers could feel more confident in fulfilling their duty to providing a public service by reporting local news stories truthfully because they could work hand-in-hand to report the facts to the public. In addition to that, I feel it would add to network and journalist credibility because journalists may feel even more motivated to thoroughly investigate the truth behind local stories and confer with credible sources, and it also allows the public an option to view multiple news networks but trust they are getting the same, true story. I think local autonomy in this way has the potential to build public trust and faith in their reporting which would ultimately ensure journalists and producers remain in business. I also think there can be value in local autonomy when something is deemed vital for the public to know by local constituents, and the story actually gets reported and not ignored. As far as seeing a difference in mergers that involve journalism and mergers that are largely about entertainment, I do not see much. I understand the argument made by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin when he essentially states that having ownership of too many networks could "threaten diversity and localism in broadcasting,... and harm competition," and that is the same argument that can be and is made about mergers such as AT&T/Time Warner and Disney/ Fox. Essentially it is argued that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing and both types of mergers having ownership of too much can have bad consequences, so ultimately I do not think there is much of a difference between the two. 2.A journalists job is to put out information in news that everyday people benefit, learn, and understand from. If the information they put out isn't helping citizens, factual, and can be trusted; it is useless and damaging. They have a high value of making sure their facts and stories are correct without causing damage to themselves and us as citizens.  I do not see a difference between the Sinclair merger with Tribune or AT& T and Time Warner or Disney and Fox. 3.There’s not a difference between the Sinclair merger with Tribune and Disney/FOX and AT& T/ Time Warner. They all own a majority of the media, such as newspapers and broadcast. The value of local autonomy for journalist and producers are serving the public. Most journalist and producers are worried about protecting their “brand” than giving the readers what they need. Most consumers don’t trust these corporations because they are just looking to make money than to be credible. For example, critics argue that Sinclair uses its television stations to promote right wing propaganda. Sinclair also required their anchors and reporters to read positive messages supporting .

1. 4 sentences each opinion based
1. I think the value of local autonomy for journalists and
producers comes from the fact that local news stories would
essentially be "easier" to investigate and report on. If there was
local autonomy, journalists and producers could feel more
confident in fulfilling their duty to providing a public service
by reporting local news stories truthfully because they could
work hand-in-hand to report the facts to the public. In addition
to that, I feel it would add to network and journalist credibility
because journalists may feel even more motivated to thoroughly
investigate the truth behind local stories and confer with
credible sources, and it also allows the public an option to view
multiple news networks but trust they are getting the same, true
story. I think local autonomy in this way has the potential to
build public trust and faith in their reporting which would
ultimately ensure journalists and producers remain in business. I
also think there can be value in local autonomy when something
is deemed vital for the public to know by local constituents, and
the story actually gets reported and not ignored. As far as
seeing a difference in mergers that involve journalism and
mergers that are largely about entertainment, I do not see much.
I understand the argument made by Democratic Sen. Dick
Durbin when he essentially states that having ownership of too
many networks could "threaten diversity and localism in
broadcasting,... and harm competition," and that is the same
argument that can be and is made about mergers such as
AT&T/Time Warner and Disney/ Fox. Essentially it is argued
that too much of a good thing can be a bad thing and both types
of mergers having ownership of too much can have bad
consequences, so ultimately I do not think there is much of a
difference between the two.

2. 2.A journalists job is to put out information in news that
everyday people benefit, learn, and understand from. If the
information they put out isn't helping citizens, factual, and can
be trusted; it is useless and damaging. They have a high value
of making sure their facts and stories are correct without
causing damage to themselves and us as citizens.
I do not see a difference between the Sinclair merger with
Tribune or AT& T and Time Warner or Disney and Fox.
3.There’s not a difference between the Sinclair merger with
Tribune and Disney/FOX and AT& T/ Time Warner. They all
own a majority of the media, such as newspapers and broadcast.
The value of local autonomy for journalist and producers are
serving the public. Most journalist and producers are worried
about protecting their “brand” than giving the readers what they
need. Most consumers don’t trust these corporations because
they are just looking to make money than to be credible. For
example, critics argue that Sinclair uses its television stations to
promote right wing propaganda. Sinclair also required their
anchors and reporters to read positive messages supporting
president Bush’s campaign against terrorism after 9/11. Sinclair
owned more than 200 stations and reached up to 72 percent of
households, which just like Disney, for example, also owns a lot
of stations on television, such as the history channel, ESPN and
a lot more.