But there's hardly any news coverage of NBC-Universal merging with Comcast or commentary on FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker cashing out to become Comcast's chief lobbyist right after approving the merger?
Doesn't it seem that the latter story is what the 4th estate should be doing in order to protect a functioning democracy?... or am I missing something?
Are you familiar with the implications to the future of the Internet regarding the merger between the largest ISP (Comcast) in the United States merging with the largest content provider (NBC-U)?
Probably not, because there was no real news coverage of it...
But I bet you can tell me a lot about Congressman Anthony Weiner... And that's my point.
Mind you, a lot of HN readers (about half IIRC) are not in the US. Please have some mercy on us. I completely accept that fact that HN news are biased to US, because that's where most web startups are. But I'm sure there are many other forums where you can discuss American politics.
For comparison, a series of uprisings in the Arab world is a very big thing. Even conceding the extremely large importance of US in world politics, yet another case of conflict of interest in American politics is not that new or interesting. The fact that people pay more attention to sensationalistic news than to important stuff is not new either.
since when is the merging of mega-corporate mergers of media conglomerates "political gossip" and not just "news"? And how regional can it be dismissed as, when US media domination is global in reach and scope? This is super relevant to an open media and a neutral net.
Folks outside the US are not as insular as Americans and don't struggle with centuries of "isolationism" so are far more interested (and frankly far more aware) of issues in American politics and economy, understanding that it will both indirectly and directly affect them...
or perhaps policing the internet is more important.
