He "seems to think." In other words, he didn't say it. You made it up.
What Sullivan *did* say about commercial radio is that it is commercial-laden,
censored, lowest-common-denominator, and that satellite radio offers its
subscribers more varied listening options. And I don't hear you denying it.

Satellite radio's customer is the subscriber, while commercial radio's
customer is the advertiser. Satellite radio competes with the internet and hard
media as an entertainment and information source. Terrestrial commercial radio
competes with billboards as a purchase-influencing spin-for-hire medium.

Even with just one source for broadband, I can use Time Warner to criticize
Time Warner, but I can't use terrestrial radio to criticize terrestrial radio.
So anybody who fixates on a medium's ownership entities rather than the choices
it offers will be frustrated by the facts in evidence. Sullivan didn't do this;
he is a prominent libertarian-conservative. You did, and attempted to put the
words in his mouth.

Jerome

"Kimba W. Lion" wrote in message
...
"Mike Terry" wrote:

The spectrum of satellite radio expands the choices to a
dizzying degree. You can now have talk radio channels for conservatives,
liberals, Hispanics,
gays, or new agers. You can have Vatican-approved Catholic radio or WISDOM
radio, with Deepak Chopra sending karma to your car.

The writer seems to think there is some sort of openness to satellite
radio; not that it is all under the control of two corporations. Yet, he
contends that "consolidation in the radio industry" is what's wrong with
terrestrial radio.