My own #.2 opinion, as I've implicitly, if not explicitly, made clear on my blog is that it is not in the public interest to have the majority of major media outlets in a town, or state, or country, all owned by a single entity, or only two entities.
Monopoly, or duopoly, or oligopoly, is not a "free" market, even if it is not government-mandated, and, additionally, even though I certainly view free markets as a good, they are also, like all other goods, to be balanced against all other goods, and not the One Overriding Cause.
Meanwhile, for all the good of the internet, the power of a single or two newspapers, or three or so local tv stations, in any given market, is still overwhelming compared to other news media, and is something that the public, and the government as its agent, has an interest in maintaining some diversity in, rather than leaving it all up to, say Rupert Murdoch, or, as is best illustrated, pick someone whose ideology you truly dislike and imagine that person owns all or most of the tv/newspapers in your town, and if you think that would serve the public interest.
Amen to that. But I think the question, at least as Unf and I are tossing it around, is whether anti-trust laws are sufficient to keep the market from un-freedom. Unf, the capitalist running dog [how many years has it been since I've called you that?], seems to think they are. I've had no luck disabusing him. I suppose it would kill me too if I were working until midnight at a fancy-schmancy law firm but all the best stuff on TV and radio was free.