Your May 13 editorial rejects widespread concern that further media consolidation will lead to monopolies that restrict the public's access to information. But this issue isn't just about access to information, it's about defending the public interest principles of competition and diversity in local news.

It's true that people are increasingly turning to the Internet and other outlets for news, but a vast majority of Americans still get their local news from local newspapers and TV stations.

The examples you list -- cable, Internet news sites and YouTube -- rarely report on local news. If we let media companies merge under the theory that the Internet will save us, we're relying on a false premise. And we're doing an injustice to civic engagement and democracy. Numerous studies show that quality local journalism leads to more informed voters. The Federal Communications Commission's long-standing ban on "newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership" is vital because it ensures a minimal level of viewpoint diversity, something the Supreme Court has recognized is critical to the health of our democracy.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have implored Congress and the FCC to maintain the ban on cross-ownership. In fact, a mere 1% of public comments received by the FCC support further consolidation.

Why such overwhelming public opposition to more media consolidation? Because people want more critical journalism and local news. If President Bush vetoes Mr. Dorgan's bill, it would be a slap in the face to both.