BOWLING GREEN, Ky. - Comcast and Time Warner Cable are two of the largest cable TV and internet providers in the nation, and Comcast wants to acquire Time Warner. Sprint and T-Mobile are the third and fourth-largest wireless providers in the U.S., and Sprint pursued a merge with T-Mobile until abandoning the idea late last week.

John Bergmayer, senior staff attorney with the media watchdog group Public Knowledge, is skeptical of the end result for the public should 'super-size' corporate deals like these come to pass. He says the primary reason is these proposed mega-deals would reduce the competition that keeps prices down, service decent and content diverse.

"As the Department of Justice and the FCC found when they blocked the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, you need a certain number of competitors to ensure a market is actually competitive," says Bergmayer.

Other consumer advocates point out that mergers seldom address the needs of communities of color, which are historically under-represented in media ownership and control. Bergmayer predicts with enough public pushback, government agencies could be convinced to block attempts at media "empire-building."

Betty Yu, Media Action Grassroots Network coordinator with the Center for Media Justice, says her organization takes the general view media mergers are always bad for consumers, and customers are always on the losing side.

"People of color make up about 30 percent of the population, but we barely own any real media infrastructure," says Yu. "We know how this affects how issues like labor and education or health care and the environment are covered for poor people, working people and people of color."

Bergmayer says the merger that "frightens" him the most is Comcast and Time Warner Cable. He says with NBC and NBC News already owned by Comcast, their domination of cable would affect everything from news coverage to entertainment programming.

"Comcast plus Time Warner will be so big they can essentially make or break any independent programming," says Bergmayer. "You're creating a single gatekeeper that really determines what's going to be the successful video content, nationwide."


get more stories like this via email

Concerns about potential voter intimidation have spurred several states to consider banning firearms at polling sites but so far, New Hampshire is not among them.

Only a dozen states and Washington, D.C., prohibit both open and concealed-carry weapons at voting locations.

Emma Brown, executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said most of the bans were enacted after the 2020 election, when unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud took hold.

"The risk of gun violence at the polls is heightened," Brown contended. "Which means that legislation at the state level is even more critical than it ever has been."

Brown argued America's elections are free and fair, and prohibiting guns at polling sites and government locations is constitutional. Opponents countered the bans unfairly disarm law-abiding gun owners.

Recent surveys reveal election workers have faced increased threats and harassment since the 2020 election with one in three reporting some form of abuse. And nearly half of election workers said they are concerned for their colleagues' safety.

Brown pointed out armed intimidation tactics disproportionately target people of color and add to the growing exodus of election workers.

"This is a threat that we can't ignore," Brown stressed. "These attacks have also served as a deterrent to Black and brown election workers, who've historically been a really key part of ensuring that our democracy endures on Election Day."

As state legislatures consider banning guns at voting sites, legislation in Congress known as the "Vote Without Fear Act" would place a nationwide ban on weapons within 100 feet of a federal election facility, with exceptions for on-duty law enforcement and security personnel. It has been languishing in a House committee for a year.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Nassau County's executive wants to deputize residents who hold gun permits.

County Executive Bruce Blakemen's plan involves training 100 residents for "the protection of human life and property during an emergency." Little else has been made public about the plan but it has been met with widespread opposition and concern.

Delia DeRiggi-Whitton, minority leader of the Nassau County Legislature, said there are many ways it can go wrong.

"Emergencies are very chaotic situations by nature and all of a sudden, someone shows up that a police officer might not recognize or isn't identified correctly," DeRiggi-Whitton pointed out. "We're just waiting for a disaster to happen."

She added some Nassau County police officers are against the plan and, like many others, feel it's unnecessary. Blakeman said he is relying on New York State County Law 655, which grants sheriffs authority to deputize added personnel for emergencies.

DeRiggi-Whitton noted legal options are being pursued to stop the plan from being enacted.

The lack of information has made residents anxious about what the plan would do. Some have said the effort, along with Blakeman's ban on female trans athletes in county athletic facilities, are solutions without problems.

Susan Gotthrer, director of the Nassau Regional Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said more pressing issues need to be addressed.

"We have real problems in Nassau County," Gotthrer argued. "We have housing shortages, we have lack of opportunities, we have education issues, high taxes. We would really like to see Mr. Blakeman putting his energies towards real governing issues and not imaginary ones like this."

Blakeman is not alone in pushing to deputize gun owners. Support for militias is growing among conservative politicians. Some residents are worried the armed people will be used to intimidate voters at or after the 2024 election. Nassau County is considered one of the safest counties, not just in the state but in the nation.


get more stories like this via email

April is National Volunteer Month, and Nebraskans rank high nationwide for their willingness to volunteer.

In the most recent Census Bureau/AmeriCorps report, Nebraska ranked seventh in the nation for formal volunteering and second for informal volunteering.

However, many nonprofits still need more help.

Central Nebraska Community Action Partnership in Loup City serves 21 counties with programs in housing, early childhood, family outreach and community health. It serves 72 counties with its veterans programs.

Executive Director Cheryl Holcomb said it would struggle to offer these services without volunteers.

"Throughout our agency, it is vital - vital that we have volunteers that provide services as well," she said. "We always have a need for more."

Holcomb explained that for their Head Start programs, volunteers do more than help the teachers and children. Their hours also contribute to the 25% match the program's grant funding requires. Volunteer time is valued at nearly $32 an hour, and most grants count volunteer hours as an "in-kind" match. Nationally, women volunteer at a slightly higher rate than men, and Gen-Xers have the highest percentage by age group.

Like other nonprofits providing food assistance, Holcomb said they've seen an increase in need without an accompanying increase in volunteers. She added that the funding for its Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which serves people 60 and older, isn't sufficient to support the program.

"So, relying on volunteers to help offset that program is crucial," she said. "They rely on volunteers to come in and package the food; they rely on volunteers to make deliveries in the specific community."

Central Nebraska Community Action Partnership also relies on volunteers at its two food pantries, a quarterly mobile food pantry and four food warehouses.

There are nine Community Action agencies across the state. Although their programs vary, Holcomb said, all rely on volunteers.