I must take issue with Raymond Price's article entitled "Kennedy's Abuse of Power Mugs Murdoch" (Op-Ed Page, Jan. 7), referring to last-minute legislation attached to a year-end budget bill by the senator. Regardless of how Rupert Murdoch or The Boston Herald feel about Kennedy or his actions, the law is the law. I would like to know why Murdoch feels he should continue to be the only publisher in America who can own both a TV station and a newspaper in a major market in violation of anti-trust laws. I think citizens all too well understand the danger of "bully media" if cross ownership in cities was allowed to flourish.
If the public thinks Gary Hart had his problems with the media, imagine the potential for abuse if Murdoch owned a major paper and TV station in, for example, Los Angeles. I bet there would be a few politicians here that felt the same way Kennedy does in Boston.
I believe it's immaterial to ask why Kennedy acted in "the dark of the night" (perhaps to avoid a Murdoch-instigated filibuster). Rather, we should ask if the author of the article, a former speech-writer for Richard Nixon, had some personal gain at heart rather than the nation's best interests.