<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207&mode=thread&tid=25">http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/25/153207&mode=thread&tid=25</a> I forgot to include this link of him on Democracy Now! a few days ago.  It gives a good overview of the book.  I think you're right that the description may be rock-solid -- and in itself a service -- more than the proposals, which do harken back to a Golden Age of Media that I don't think is quite as rosy as many media reform types think.  There might also be a real small/grassroots=good equation, which as WBAI shows, is not always so... <div>On 2/2/07, Carrol Cox <<a href="mailto:cbcox@ilstu.edu">cbcox@ilstu.edu</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Auguste Blanqui wrote: > > Has anyone read it?  <<a href="http://www.freepress.net/news/20256">http://www.freepress.net/news/20256</a>>  I seem to > recall Doug and others questioning the concentration = bad hypothesis > a few months back, and I myself generally find such analysis > simplistic.  But Klinenberg's first book, Heat Wave, was quite > phenomenal, and I have been looking forward to this one for some > time... > Interesting. One problem: even when the _description_ of current media is persuasive, the historical argument is weak because there is _no_ historical argument: that is, such critiques seldom try to offer any concrete and well-grounded account of (implied) "better days" before concentration. At a minimum, I would like to see such a study take seriously Upton Sinclair's _Brass Check_. Carrol ___________________________________ <a href="http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk">http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk</a> </blockquote></div>