Is europe a good example of perfection here? It seems to me that rules on media ownership are a good thing. Here in the Czech republic, our prime minister owns all but one major newspapers, two TV stations, and a radio station. https://vergecampus.com/2016/09/andrej-babis-and-the-separat...

The point is that Sinclair is very pro-Trump, to the point that all affiliates nationwide are forced to run pro-Trump editorial content while CNN publishes things Trump doesn't like.

So you should be happy that they're not merging?

The FCC always does the wrong thing. After eight decades of constant efforts to retard progress and competition in media and radio technology, we can't really be surprised now. I for one am not sad to see other regulators attempt to pick up the slack. I'd certainly like to see a more active FTC, for example.

CNN is extremely anti-Trump

But only one of those companies is suspected of a quid-pro-quo deal with Trumps son in law from before the election.

What does the EU have to do with this?

Seems intended to indicate a lack of influence from the Trump administration, and that this behavior is not unusual in other political bodies such as the EU.

Comparison to the EU shows that this is not an incongruous combination of decisions, as OP implies.

It shows that this is not a controversial decision at all and similar decision would be probably made in all western countries. Whether there is some Trump vendetta as driver for this decision is not very relevant if the decision is correct.

But that is completely negating that the media markets in EU and the US are completely different.

For instance, a number of european countries have a strong public broadcaster to provide a neutral source of news. PBS or NPR aren't really comparable in most cases.

And in many cases, local stations aren't owned by a corporate entity, completely making such rules irrelevant.

Isn't providing a "Neutral" source of news basically impossible? Even if you could somehow address all sides of a story (e.g. besides actual scientists let's also interview some flat earthers to allow them to explain how the Earth is flat) the mere fact that there's too much to report and the channel invariably needs to choose what goes on air mean that it's no longer neutral.

Public channels are also funded by the government, so there can be institutional pressure to present the government actions in a good light. Even if there isn't, a change in public policy might mean less spending on the public channel, which might mean journalists lose their jobs, which is significant incentive to promote pro-status quo viewpoints on the channel.

> Isn't providing a "Neutral" source of news basically impossible? Even if you could somehow address all sides of a story (e.g. besides actual scientists let's also interview some flat earthers to allow them to explain how the Earth is flat) the mere fact that there's too much to report and the channel invariably needs to choose what goes on air mean that it's no longer neutral.

Giving air time to flat-earthers isn't neutral, it's pandering to idiots.

Neutral is clear and factual reporting on issues, regardless of where on the political spectrum that lands you.

The german TV station Das Erste is quite good at being impartial and neutral.

Reports are factual, there is little to no opinion and government issues are frequently included. Atleast in my experience they have been very good at keeping neutral.

Media ownership rules exist in plenty of other countries though e.g. UK, Australia and would never have allowed this.

And no one could argue that the US media market needed more centralisation.

Neither of those countries has a categorical ban like the U.S. had. They have market share-based restrictions, with e.g. certain restrictions kicking in where the newspaper has 20% national market share. I'm not sure any U.S. newspaper would hit that number.

Last I heard Australia was getting rid of some media ownership restrictions. I think one reason is the dismal performance of media companies in Australia.