Open Letter from John Santos: NARAS Oblivious to the Obivious – Feb. 18, 2012
The epic and historical blunder committed last April by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences was etched into the archives last week by the conspicuous absence of the 31 categories they pulled from Grammy consideration, and the musically vacuous telecast they promoted (at $800,000 per 30 second commercial) as the best that American music has to offer. We hope that sooner than later, NARAS will understand that pretending to not know what all the fuss is about, infinite procrastination, and two tons of lip service are not solutions to their unethical practices and offensive actions. They obviously have no idea that undermining and eliminating a huge portion of the most culturally diverse and creative music in our country is a form of violence against communities that historically have had to deal with this kind of mentality for much too long.
Thanks to the ill-advised and totally disrespectful suggestions of a handful of uninformed individuals, hundreds of thousands of musicians, music industry workers of all kinds, students, teachers, and fans of the 31 eliminated categories have been negatively affected. This is far from acceptable. It would have been fairly simple for NARAS to avoid this huge problem had they handled the delicate prospect of eliminating categories in an ethical and fair manner, as opposed to the secret committee of trustees who made the short sighted recommendations. It’s still a pretty easy fix if that was their intention. But they are unwilling to officially admit their mistake and saving face has become their priority. Not to mention they are so beholding to the entities that provide the big money for them, making CEO Neil Portnow’s 1.4 million dollar yearly salary possible among other extravagances.
If as they claim, they were concerned about relatively low numbers of entries in certain categories, they clearly should have consulted members and non-members from within the threatened categories and the communities they represent. NARAS easily could have informed the local governors, chapters and members that decisions of such major impact were being considered, in order to get valuable input and suggestions from those for whom they supposedly advocate.
Two of the most disturbing aspects of this travesty are 1.) NARAS announced changes in policy regarding minimum entries required to have a category after dropping categories that did not meet the new requirements, and 2.) They did so in April of 2011, seven months after the beginning of the eligibility year. Those actions were either totally thoughtless, or chillingly calculated, as they dealt a severe blow to all the musicians and independent labels in the eliminated categories that released projects after September 30th, 2010, or planned to release projects through the 2011 eligibility year, and they undermined the chances of reversing the decision.
Over 23,000 signatures, most of which were gathered nationally in the last few days before the February 12, 2012 CBS telecast, were dropped off at the NARAS headquarters in Los Angeles on Thursday, February 9, 2012 and the only comment NARAS president Neil Portnow could muster was “It seems they lack general support.” That bit of brilliance from the president of a non-profit organization that is supposed to honor excellence in American music and advocate for us, the membership. NARAS should lose that position and invest the 1.4 million every year into sensitivity training for administration and staff, and for outreach into the eliminated communities to truly enrich the organization and the Grammys.
This is ultimately a battle for the rights of youth as well as to honor our ancestors. It would be easy to say “Farm those mother-truckers – they’ve never had our backs and never had other intentions than extreme profits all along – why would I want to be associated with them at all?” But they are sending a terrible message to youth and to the world – that only the most commercial art is worth recognizing. They are aligning themselves with the worst aspects of our society, not only in that they have no tolerance, but they also have no idea what the terms diversity and mutual respect mean. As they slice off a huge chunk of non-commercial music and continue to dumb down the images and representations of music that the vast majority of Americans will see, they are applauded by the big music industry and most pop artists who through their silence on the issue are strongly complicit. Their killer capitalist instincts do not allow them to celebrate all American music of historical importance. They are on a mission to completely dominate the musical horizon, not only economically, but even in terms of recognition and honor.
This is a complex issue and it goes beyond questions of race. But neither can the racist implications of what has been done be swept under the rug as they have been traditionally. Racism is pervasive. It is firmly imbedded in the psyche of most Americans of all colors despite centuries of claims to the contrary. Most of us do not understand the subliminal power of internalized racism. Hiding racism behind profits is lesson #1 in the capitalism-gone-berzerk handbook. But the folks who perpetuate it are always in denial and actually think they are slick, not realizing that they are trying to hide an elephant behind a fire hydrant.
For example, Rap has got to be one of the industry’s worst nightmares. Ten or twelve years ago, LL Cool J was one of several Rappers who boycotted the Grammys for their lack of inclusion. They knocked the door down and firmly planted Rap and Hip Hop in the Grammys and in mainstream America. The only thing worse for the folks who tried to deny them would be if Latin Jazz, Native American, Blues, Instrumental Rock, Contemporary Jazz, R&B, World Music, Zydeco, Cajun, Hawaiian, Polka, and all the categories they recently deemed unworthy, continued cutting into the mega billions pie. The fact that greed trumps racism does not negate the existence of racism.
NARAS’ dastardly action is right in step with the greed that has so completely inundated and contaminated every aspect of our society. This type of thinking and movement to deny equal access is not new, but those who invent and benefit by it used to be concerned about their actions being clandestine, for fear of their obvious evil being exposed. Not any more – It’s been in our faces since George W was propped up as leader of the free world, with the inability to speak in complete sentences and the clear goal to grease the wheels for only the most right wing economic and military elements. Everything from war crimes to the boldfaced rip-off of our own citizens in every way imaginable from housing to healthcare, education and social security has been exposed with hardly a slap on the wrist handed to anyone. So it is not totally surprising that in this atmosphere, this decree by NARAS raises its ugly head with unmitigated support by the folks at the top of the economic ladder and those who have been brainwashed by that power machine.
They cannot be allowed to stomp on us like this and go unchallenged, as history shows clearly that they will not stop disrespecting us until we who defend equality and human rights stop them. Let it also be clear that we stand united with all the eliminated categories and with Herbie Hancock, Eddie Palmieri, Carlos Santana, Paul Simon, the Reverend Jess Jackson, Cornel West, Bill Cosby, Chick Corea, Stanley Clark, Pete Escovedo, Larry Vuckovich, Oscar Hernandez, Dr. John Calloway, Larry Harlow, David Amram, Wayne Wallace, Bobby Sanabria, Randall Kline, Clayton Leander, Bobby Matos, Ramon and Tony Banda, Rene Camacho, Professor Dartanyan Brown, Mark Levine, Dr. Ben Lapidus, Dr. Chris Washburne, Sandy Cressman, Gary Eisenberg, San Francisco Supervisors Eric Mars and John Avalos, the San Francisco Arts Commission, Presente.org, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Institute for Latino Policy, Democracy Now, Urban Music Presents, and so many other musical, academic and community leaders as well as with hundreds of thousands of musicians, fans, supporters and industry workers in opposing this disastrous decision by NARAS. We’ve met with them, written and re-written proposals at their request, and jumped through hoop after hoop and they’ve stonewalled us every time.
1000 thanks to all of you who have spread the word. Please continue to forward this urgent and viral movement to get NARAS moving once again, in the right direction. Check in regularly with GrammyWatch.org to keep abreast of what’s happening, as related stories are emerging daily. Keep writing to the NARAS brass at the addresses found on GrammyWatch.org.
It is only the constant and growing public pressure and outcry that has gotten their attention and that of NARAS supporters. Know that everything works out in the end. If it hasn’t worked out, it’s not the end.
http://www.grammywatch.org for updates, addresses, and info, and please let Grammy broadcaster CBS know your thoughts directly with the link below, . . . .
CBS comment form:
http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.php
In solidarity . . . .
js 2/18/12
John Santos
Five-time Grammy nominee, educator, composer, producer, percussionist, bandleader, US Artist Fontanals Fellow, 25 year NARAS member
"My FCC" lets users set up a personalized page to manage their interactions with the sprawling agency. The open source content-sharing effort allows users to create full "dashboards of widgets to share with friends and colleagues".
All are encouraged to provide feedback and suggestions on where we go from here.
Life with Archie #16, with featured the marriage of gay character Kevin Keller, has sold out,.
The issue was the target of a boycott threat aimed at Toys R Us by the American Family Association's One Million Moms project,
which threatened that its members would stop shopping there unless the
store removed the issue from its shelves. Unfortunately for AFA, it looks as though customers did the store's work for them.
Archie Comics, the home to some of the
world’s most recognizable characters -- including Archie, Jughead,
Betty and Veronica, Josie and the Pussycats and Sabrina, the Teenage
Witch -- is proud to announce that the company has sold out of LIFE
WITH ARCHIE #16.
“Kevin will always be a major part of
Riverdale, and we’re overjoyed, honored and humbled by the response to
this issue,” said Jon Goldwater, Co-CEO of Archie Comics. “Our fans
have come out full force to support Kevin. He is, without a doubt, the
most important new character in Archie history. He’s here to stay.”
Earlier this week, Goldwater released a statement about the boycott threat.
“We stand by Life with Archie #16. As
I’ve said before, Riverdale is a safe, welcoming place that does not
judge anyone. It’s an idealized version of America that will hopefully
become reality someday. We’re sorry the American Family
Association/OneMillionMoms.com feels so negatively about our product,
but they have every right to their opinion, just like we have the right
to stand by ours. Kevin Keller will forever be a part of Riverdale, and
he will live a happy, long life free of prejudice, hate and
narrow-minded people.“
Spot.us, a crowd sourcing funding model for investigative journalism began life as a Knight Foundation digital challenge. Some years later, it becomes a part of the public broadcasting system by merging with the Public Insight Network, a project of American Public Media. The producer and distributer of Marketplace, APM operates the Public Insight Network as a 130,000-person database of people who make themselves available as sources to respond to journalistic queries that are looking for individuals with certain experiences, characteristics or areas of expertise.
The crowdsourcing project of PIN held some promise for countering the often default journalistic position of consulting a narrow band of authoritative experts over and over again. However it is not clear how often PIN-generated sources are used and how often they appear in significant roles in the final stories that are generated by PIN-posting writers and editors. The PIN website featured 2 stories featuring sources from PIN, one on a November 2012 vote on gay marriage in Minnesota and another on the lifting of a Sunday hunting ban in Pennsylvania. Current queries from reporters requested Iraq vets to opine on their job hunting results and working class men to comment on their declining salaries.
Spot.us provided (usually) microdonations from donors, who clicked on the website to express a desire to support independent, investigative journalism and could select from an assortment of story pitches from journalists to directly support with donations, often in the $5-$25 range, although some donated larger amounts. Spot.us also developed surveys for advertisers and on the completion of a survey, site visitors got a small amount of free bonus bucks to donate to the story of their choice. Most Spot.us pitches ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars and took 1-6 months on the site to attract the desired level of support. Spot.us cites 6.000 donors and 2,500 multiple donors.
With crowd sourced funding joining crowd sourced expertise, the question now is whether content creation will be the next journalistic piece to dabble with a crowd sourcing model. Best of 3 potential writers voted on with a click?
Anything is possible within a framework of enormous change.
As newsrooms across the country shave off staff due in part to slipping ad revenue and corporate media conglomeration, The Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity,
is rushing to fill the gap. The group has 43 state news websites, with
writers in over 40 states. Its reporters have been given state house
press credentials and its news articles are starting to appear in
mainstream print newspapers in each state. Who funds Franklin and what
is its agenda?
The Funding Trail Leads to Bradley, Koch, and Other Right-Wing Groups
The websites started sprouting up in 2009. Some of these new sites go by the moniker "Reporter" as with the Franklin Center's Wisconsin Reporter that was launched in January as a website and wire-like service. Others have taken the shared name of "Watchdog.org," or "Statehouse News."
The websites all offer their content free to local press -- many of the
news bureaus send out their articles to state editors every day. The
sites also offer free national stories that media can receive daily by
subscribing.
The websites are coordinated and funded by a new non-profit group that
calls itself the "Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity."
The Franklin Center told the Center for Media and Democracy that it does
not disclose its funders, but some of its funding can been uncovered
from foundation reports. Franklin acts as a hub that distributes funding
that it receives from right-wing institutions such as the
Wisconsin-based Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and the Chicago-based Sam Adams Alliance. The North Dakota and DC-based center works with reporters embedded in conservative think tanks and others who have their own news bureaus.
According to Media Transparency,
a media watchdog group that was acquired by Media Matters Action
Network in 2008, the Bradley Foundation's clear political agenda and
network has allowed it to have extensive influence on public policy. The
media group notes that while the Foundation's "targets range from
affirmative action to social security, it has seen its greatest
successes in the area of welfare 'reform' and attempts to privatize
public education through the promotion of school vouchers." The Bradley
Foundation gave the Franklin Center $190,500 last year.
The Franklin Center was launched with the help of Sam Adams Alliance, which calls itself "SAM." The CEO of SAM, Eric O'Keefe, has been featured at events funded by David Koch's right-wing group called "Americans for Prosperity" (AFP). As the Center for Media and Democracy/PRWatch.org has previously noted, O'Keefe frequently and positively profiles the Tea Party and attacks health care reform and other progressive ideas. He also helped launch the "American Majority" group which trains conservatives to run for office. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth Wisconsin,
which ran divisive ads in support of Scott Walker's radical overhaul of
collective bargaining rights for Wisconsin workers. He previously
worked for David Koch's AFP predecessor group named "Citizens for a Sound Economy," among other roles.
O'Keefe's latest enterprise, SAM, gets part of its funding from the State Policy Network (SPN), which ispartially funded by The Claude R. Lambe Foundation. Charles Koch, one of the billionaire brothers who co-own Koch Industries, and his wife and children, along with long-time Koch employee Richard Fink,
comprise the board of this foundation. SAM is named after Founding
Father Sam Adams, one of the leaders in the Boston Tea Party tax
protests.
In its first year, the Franklin Center had a budget of $2.9 million, much of it from O'Keefe's SAM.
"Franklin Center" Staffed by Right-Wing Activists
Many Franklin staffers have ties to conservative activist groups and the GOP. The Franklin Center’s president, Jason Stverak, is the former Regional Field Director for SAM, and former Executive Director of the North Dakota Republican Party.
In late July, Erik Telford, the Director of Membership Online Strategy
for Koch's AFP, announced that he would take on the position of Vice
President for Strategic Initiatives Outreach for the Franklin Center. He
had worked at AFP for four and a half years. In his farewell letter,
he minced no words in explaining the activist role he will play in his
new position, "As I move on to a new challenge, I look forward to
staying involved with AFP, but now in an even more important capacity:
that of a member and grassroots activist."
The Franklin Center's Director of Donor Relations, Matt Hauck, is a former Associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The center's Chief of Staff, Gwen Beattie, is the former Director of Development and Operations at America's Future Foundation,
an organization committed to "identify and develop the next generation
of conservative and libertarian leaders." The Franklin Center's 2009 IRS
990 form lists Rudie Martinson as director and secretary. He formerly worked as the assistant state director for North Dakota's chapter of Koch's Americans for Prosperity.
The Franklin Center was one of the sponsors
of the Western Republican presidential candidate debate in Las Vegas
this month, along with Americans for Prosperity and other right-wing
groups.
Interestingly, unlike traditional journalistic outlets, the screening process for writing for websites like the Wisconsin Reporter asks
applicants ideological questions. As the Poynter Institute, a
Florida-based school and resource for journalists, has reported, Wisconsin Reporter applicants must answer questions
like: “How do free markets help the poor?” and “Do higher taxes lead to
balanced budgets?” Such queries likely have optimal answers to a group
like the Wisconsin Reporter, just as some of its stories have
been criticized for being results-oriented in ways that are consistent
with its funders' world view.
The address listed on the Franklin Center's 2011 nonprofit disclosure form is a UPS Store Post Office box, as reported
by a North Dakota political blog. The North Dakota phone line on the
Franklin Center contact page is re-routed to the DC office.
"The Franklin Center" Supports the American Legislative Exchange Council
At the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) annual conference in New Orleans, The Franklin Center was listed
as a "Vice-Chairman" level sponsor of the ALEC conference. In 2010,
this equated to a gift of at least $25,000. It was also one of about 60
companies and institutions represented in the conference exhibition
hall. ALEC brings corporations, such as Koch Industries, and state
legislators together in task forces to vote on so-called “model
legislation” that benefits the corporate bottom line or ALEC's
ideological agenda. These bills are then introduced by legislators in
state houses across the country, without any mention that corporations
previously approved such legislation behind closed doors, as the Center for Media and Democracy has reported.
Sloppy Reporting, or Manufacturing News?
In August 2010, the West Virginia Watchdog
blog reported that an unnamed source said that the former Democratic
Governor Joe Manchin's office had been subpoenaed as part of a federal
grand jury investigation. The story said that the subpoenas asked for
contracts and records for businesses that have done work at the
governor’s mansion. "The target may be Manchin himself, according to a
source who asked to remain anonymous," the original story said.
The governor’s office responded saying that “Neither subpoena was
directed to Governor Manchin or the Governor’s Office. No individual in
the Governor’s Office was served with a subpoena…. The State has not
been informed that Governor Manchin or any other state employee is under
investigation.” The West Virginia Watchdog updated its site with these statements then reported
that their "source was ultimately wrong about the purpose of the
subpoenas." But the damage had been done. The article was picked up by
the Associated Press, Charleston CBS affiliate, Charleston Daily Mail, and other news sites. The story also was reported in outlets like Politico and CNN.
The reporter who broke the story is stationed at the Public Policy
Foundation of West Virginia. While this group does not disclose its
funders, some outlets have alleged it to be linked to the Koch brothers.
The timing was convenient. Manchin had announced in July of that year
he would run to fill the unexpired term of U.S. Senator Robert Byrd, who
passed away in 2010. Despite the controversy, Manchin did end up taking
Byrd's seat.
In February, the Franklin Center's Wisconsin Reporter sponsored a questionable poll
asserting that 71% of state residents thought Wisconsin Governor Scott
Walker's budget proposal to cut the collective bargaining rights of most
of the state's public sector workers was "fair." Several local and
national news outlets cited the poll without investigation, including
MSNBC. The result seemed completely out of whack with other polling
leading some to question the source. The same month, We Ask America, largely owned by the Illinois Manufacturing Association, a leading business organization in the region, conducted a similar poll surveying 2,400 Wisconsin residents and found that 52 percent opposed Walker's plan. The Franklin Center's poll was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research.
In 2009, the New Mexico Watchdog reported that based on data from Recovery.gov,
millions of dollars were spent in non-existent congressional districts
in the state. The story picked up steam among reporters, even turned
into a Colbert Report segment called "Know your Made-up District." The
Franklin Center released a national report
that said $6.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent in hundreds of
“phantom” congressional districts. There was truth to the New Mexico Watchdog report, but it turned out, as reported by the Associated Press,
that the culprit was an error-ridden government database. The funds
were actually distributed to the right recipients, but errors, such as
zip codes entered incorrectly, accounted for the "phantom districts."
The money had not, as the report suggested, been unaccounted for or
misused.
Even with this new information on the shortfalls of the Recovery.gov
site, the Franklin Center failed to set the record straight. In its 2010
Annual report, the Center boasted it broke the story that federal
stimulus money was allocated to 440 non-existing congressional
districts. It did not mention the errors in the database, but let the
record stand as a story of government waste.
Franklin Center Comes Under Fire From Journalism Watchdogs
The journalistic integrity of these sites has been called into question
by media watchdog groups. Laura McGann, assistant editor at the Nieman
Journalism Lab at Harvard University, wrote in a 2010 piece in the Washington Monthly, that the Franklin Center sites are engaging in distorted reporting across the country.
"As often as not, their reporting is thin and missing important
context, which occasionally leads to gross distortions," wrote McGann,
who pointed to several instances where the Watchdog websites wrote
stories that turned out to be misleading or untrue.
"This sort of misleading reporting crops up on Watchdog sites often
enough to suggest that, rather than isolated instances of sloppiness, it
is part of a broad editorial strategy," she wrote.
The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, using a
sliding scale of highly ideological, somewhat ideological and
non-ideological, ranked the “Watchdog.org” franchise "highly ideological." Not surprisingly, Glenn Beck, a controversial conservative FOX talk show host, has touted the Franklin Center's network as a nonpartisan trusted source of news and information.
Writers affiliated with Franklin Center groups are asking for accreditation in various legislatures.
Responding to criticisms from the Neiman Foundation, Jason Stverak
said: "Obviously, there is skepticism coming from some in the
traditional legacy media…. We write for the people, and the content that
we produce is at such a high-quality level that it is continually being
embraced by consumers in each community."
New Breed of Reporting
Graeme Zielinski, Wisconsin Democratic Party spokesperson, accused the Wisconsin Reporter of using off-the-record comments, butchering quotes, and not correcting the record when errors were called to its attention.
Zielinski told the Center for Media and Democracy that he's never worked with a news outlet that operates like the Wisconsin Reporter. He acknowledges that other outlets across the state are biased, but the difference, he said, is that the Wisconsin Reporter's
content is ideologically-motivated and passed off in newspapers across
the state as "straight-shooting reporting." He calls their methods of
journalism "ambush reporting." He said he has received calls late in the
evening and early in the morning on weekends from their reporters,
given a short deadline to comment on slanted and inflammatory
statements.
Dave Zweifel, co-founder and long-serving president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, and editor of the Madison-based Capital Times, told the Center for Media and Democracy that the Wisconsin Reporter is
a new breed of news reporting. "Of course, many news organizations are
owned by corporations or supported by politically active donors, but
most keep a hands off approach when it comes to covering the news," he
said. "This outfit masks itself as an investigative journalism service
that provides free content to newspapers, many of which are
cash-strapped these days, and eager for such a product.... You have to
give these guys credit for capturing the moment when the press is
particularly vulnerable."
This manner of producing and distributing 'news' is such a clever idea
that its inspired other right-wing think tanks to devote resource to
news production. The Heritage Foundation launched the "Scribe," a blog that features reports complimentary to the Foundation's stance on policy issues. It cites the Franklin Center's successes in expanding think tank journalism as a reason for its launch.
15 candidates in their 20's and 30's, running as the Pirate Party, shocked Germany by winning 8.9% of the vote and all 15 legislative seats in Berlin on an Internet Freedom Platform. The party closely overlaps with the Chaos Computer Club, a Berlin hackers collective. The party's lead candidate commented for the NY Times: "The very fact that these other parties are now asking themselves how we won these votes is already progress"
More coverage from the NY Times: BERLIN
— With laptops open like shields against the encroaching cameramen, the
young men resembled Peter Pan’s Lost Boys more than Captain Hook’s
buccaneers when they were introduced Monday as Berlin’s newest
legislators: They are the members of the Pirate Party.
Asked if they were just some chaotic troop of troublemakers, Christopher
Lauer, newly voted in as a state lawmaker for the district of Pankow,
replied with no lack of confidence, “You ought to wait for the first
session in the house of representatives.”
By winning 8.9 percent of the vote in Sunday’s election in this
city-state, these political pirates surpassed — blew away, really —
every expectation for what was supposed to be a fringe, one-issue party
promoting Internet freedom. The Pirates so outstripped expectations that
all 15 candidates on their list won seats — seats are doled out based
in part on votes for a party rather than for an individual. Normally
parties list far more candidates than could ever make it, because if
they win more than they nominate, the seat must remain unfilled.
These men in their 20s and 30s, who turned up at the imposing former
Prussian state parliament building, some wearing hooded sweatshirts, and
one a T-shirt of the comic book hero Captain America, were no longer
merely madcap campaigners and gadflies. They had become the people’s
elected representatives.
The question that members of Germany’s political establishment are now
asking after the insurgent party stormed the statehouse is this: Are the
Pirates merely the punch line to a joke, a focus of protest, a
reflection of electoral disgust with all established political parties —
or an exciting experiment in a new form of online democracy?
“They are absolutely not a joke party,” said Christoph Bieber <http://nrwschool.de/xd/public/content/index.html?pid=726>
, a professor of political science at the University of Duisburg-Essen.
While there was certainly an element of protest in the unexpectedly
large share of the votes the Pirates won, they were filling a real need
for voters outside the political mainstream who felt unrepresented. “In
the Internet, they have really found an underexploited theme that the
other political parties are not dealing with,” Mr. Bieber said.
The state election in Berlin on Sunday was full of surprising results.
The pro-business Free Democrats, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition
partners in the federal Parliament, crashed and burned, again, receiving
less than 2 percent of the vote. That is well below the 5 percent
needed to remain in the statehouse. The Green Party continued to build
on its recent successes and may well become one of the governing parties
in Berlin.
While issues like online privacy and data
protection may seem incredibly narrow, even irrelevant, to older
voters, for young people who often spend half their waking hours online,
much of it on social networking sites where they share their most
intimate moments, it is anything but a small issue. And the Pirates’
call for complete transparency in politics resonates powerfully with a
generation disillusioned by the American case for war in Iraq and
galvanized by WikiLeaks’ promise to put an end to secrecy.
The Pirates’ surprisingly strong showing came as further evidence of
voter dissatisfaction in Germany with the established parties, and what
many see as their inability to look beyond self-interest and focus
instead on the needs of their constituents. The Pirates have promised to
use online tools to give party members unprecedented power to propose
policies and determine stances, in what they call “liquid democracy,” a
form of participation that goes beyond simply voting in elections.
The party has broadened its initial platform, which focused on file
sharing, censorship and data protection to include other social issues,
advocating the Internet as a tool to empower the electorate and engage
it in the political — and legislative — process.
“Today’s cadre of politicians is missing out on asking some very
relevant questions about the future,” said Rick Falkvinge, founder of
the first Pirate Party, which he started in Sweden in 2006. He was
celebrating with his German colleagues at Sunday night’s election party
in a room filled with disco balls and disassembled mannequins in the
Kreuzberg nightclub Ritter Butzke <http://www.ritterbutzke.de/>
. Thanks to the interactive nature of the Internet, “you don’t have to
take these laws being read to you,” he said. “You can stand up, stand
tall and write the laws yourself.”
Mr. Falkvinge summed up the significance of the Berlin election for the
nascent movement in terms members would understand: “German Pirates have
the high score now.”
Sebastian Schneider, who asked to be called Schmiddie “or no one will
know who you’re talking about,” a member of the party and one of the
people celebrating Sunday night, said that there was no other party he
could envision voting for.
“In my opinion, the Greens are a conservative party by now,” Mr.
Schneider said. “They were not quite sure if they wanted to join the
dark side of the force or not,” by which he said that he meant forming a
coalition to govern Berlin with Mrs. Merkel’s Christian Democrats.
There were plenty of young people, many with dreadlocks or beards and a
few with both, smoking hand-rolled cigarettes and sipping beer. Others
wore jackets with CCC written on the back, short for the Chaos Computer
Club, a hackers’ collective that got its start in Berlin and has an
overlap in membership with the Pirates. A stand-up comedian working in
classic Berlin cabaret style poked fun at the influx of tourists and the
recent rent increases that became major issues in the election
campaign, saying: “There are no more buildings to occupy. Next we’ll
have to start occupying five-star hotels.”
Mayor Klaus Wowereit of Berlin, whose Social Democrats won the most
votes on Sunday, assuring him a third term as the city’s mayor, may have
paid the young party the highest compliment of all, taking it seriously
enough to attack the day after the election. He raised a prickly
problem for young men who spend their evenings writing computer code:
There were next to no women in their group.
“Gender politics has not arrived for the Pirates yet, and that is not a
step forward but a step backward,” Mr. Wowereit told reporters Monday.
Indeed, at Monday’s news conference only young, white men sat at the
conference table representing the party. Mr. Lauer, himself wearing a
sports jacket, said that the mostly scruffy people were “not a
representative slice of this society,” and that it was a problem that
the party was working on.
The Pirates could be disarmingly honest, and were unfailingly polite to
security guards, cameramen and anyone else they came across.
Transparency in politics means “also being able to admit when we don’t
know something,” said Andreas Baum, the party’s lead candidate in the
election.
Asked what kind of real change a small party in a state legislature
could really bring about, Mr. Baum replied, “The very fact that these
other parties are now asking themselves how we won these votes is
already progress.”
Public-access television has always had a low-budget,
amateur reputation. Yet Rod Laughridge's alternative news program
"Newsroom on Access SF" was anything but that. Though San Francisco's
public-access station had its share of offbeat shows —- like the risqué
DeeDeeTV, hosted by self-described "pop culture diva" Dee Dee Russell —
"Newsroom" took itself seriously. Its mission, as described on its
website, was to "bring community-based, community reported and produced
independent news and interviews from a grassroots viewpoint —
unhindered, uncensored and unaltered."
The show, which ran for five years on Channel 29, followed a
professional news format with high production values. Anchors reported
headlines from behind a studio desk as video streams played in the
background. Local news segments on topics like the plight of renters and
live reports from homeless shelters were interspersed with commentary
by the likes of Mumia Abu-Jamal and Angela Davis, and international news
from Al-Jazeera. During its run, "Newsroom" was nominated for an Emmy
and won several Western Access Video Excellence (WAVE) awards. "It was a
full-blown news show," Laughridge recalls.
Unfortunately, "Newsroom" became a casualty of a ripple effect
brought on by the passage of a bill that slashed the public-access
operating budget across California. This resulted in a new provider, the
Bay Area Video Coalition (BAVC), which had no prior experience
operating public TV, taking over SF's two public-access channels. BAVC
closed the production studio where "Newsroom" and other shows were
produced and instituted a different model that did away with the
traditional three-camera set-up. Laughridge notes that, in the old days,
staff members assisted public-access producers with editing. Now "you
have to pay for [BAVC's] classes to do that. There's a conflict right
there," he says. These changes to the public-access model effectively
"killed the idea of community" in community television, Laughridge says.
The loss of an award-winning program like "Newsroom," which provided a
viable, community-based alternative to network TV news, symbolizes one
of the clearest examples of what has transpired as a result of the
public-access crisis. As the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
noted in its 2011 media review, "State and local changes have reduced
the funding and, in some cases, the prominence on the cable dial of
public, educational and government channels (PEG) at a time when the
need for local programming is especially urgent."
The Perils of PEG Centers
The public-access crisis in California was brought about by the 2006
passage of the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA),
a bill that was heavily lobbied for by Comcast and AT&T. According
to the telecommunications industry, DIVCA was supposed to create jobs,
increase competition and serve the public interest. Its actual effect
was the exact opposite — cable companies eliminated jobs and ultimately
faced less competition from the defunding of community television
stations. As of 2009, similar bills had been passed in 25 states, with
similar results.
Since the mid-2000s, more than 100 PEG stations across the country
have disappeared; cities like San Francisco and Seattle have cut as much
as 85 percent of the PEG operations budget. City funding for public
access has been entirely eliminated in Denver and Dallas; at least 45
such stations have closed in California since 2006-12 in Los Angeles,
the nation's No. 3 media market, alone. As many as 400 PEG stations in
Wisconsin, Florida, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia and Ohio are facing
extinction as well.
Moreover, according to a 2010 study by the Benton Foundation, these
cuts have disproportionately affected minority communities. Adding
insult to injury, AT&T and other cable providers have employed
what's known as "channel-slamming": listing all public-access channels
on a single channel or making them accessible only in submenus, which
makes finding them difficult for viewers.
A bill currently before the House of Representatives called the
Community Access Preservation, or CAP, Act, could prevent hundreds of
funding-challenged PEG stations nationwide from going belly up. The bill
limits channel-slamming and would amend an FCC ruling that PEG support
may be used only for facilities and equipment, and not for operating
expenses. Even if the CAP Act passes, it "won't solve all of
public-access TV's problems," says Media Alliance executive director
Tracy Rosenberg. For one thing, the CAP Act falls short of mandating a
higher percentage of cable franchise fees — an estimated $10 million to
$12 million in SF — for PEG operators. Increasing this revenue, however,
could allow PEG stations not only to survive, but to thrive.
An Open-Source Solution?
One possible solution for financially challenged PEG stations is the
development of open-source or user-modifiable software — a model
currently being developed in Denver, San Francisco and several other
cities. In just its second year of operating SF Commons — SF's
public-access station — BAVC is already attracting wider attention. In
June 2011, the organization was singled out for praise by the FCC, which
called SF Commons one of the "most promising templates for the future
of public-access centers."
Open source offers built-in internet connectivity and is less
financially constraining than the old public-access model, requiring
less equipment and less staff. Instead of reels of videotape or DVDs,
programs are saved as MPEG files. Editing workstations aren't bulky
analog machines but svelte Macintosh computers equipped with Final Cut
Pro editing software.
Yet open source isn't a perfect solution. In the short-term, moving
to an open-source model for public access may actually widen the gap
affecting underserved and less technologically literate demographics.
"Seniors, disabled, low-income adults," Rosenberg charges, "[are] being
left off the train."
Adapting open source to a public-access medium also limits the
potential of users to acquire skills needed for some television jobs and
puts more emphasis on offsite production, which in turn reduces the
level of interaction between programmers. "They want you to edit at
home," Laughridge says. "There's the digital divide right there: Not
everyone has a computer or camera."
Virtual Community vs. Actual Community
Laughridge is one of several veteran public-access programmers who complain about displacement under BAVC.
Ellison Horne, a former president of The San Francisco Community
Television Corporation (SFCTC)'s board of directors, says BAVC made an
"aggressive move toward a virtual studio as opposed to what we had
before, which was a community media center." This resulted, he says, in a
lack of community engagement.
Since BAVC's takeover of Channel 29, "a very different culture has
emerged" in San Francisco public access, says documentary filmmaker
Kevin Epps, who began his career in public access. That culture is more
conservative, tech-savvy, youth-oriented and, in Horne's words,
"elitist."
Steve Zeltzer, a labor activist and public-access producer, charges
the BAVC takeover has resulted in "the privatization of public access."
Ken Johnson, who worked for a stint as a producer-director at local
station KQED after getting his start on Channel 29, credits
public-access TV with helping him stay off the streets and out of jail.
Johnson says he often rounded up street people as volunteers to help him
produce his show on veterans' issues. But volunteers are no longer
welcome under BAVC's operatorship.
Instead of a community-supportive environment, Johnson says, "They
have this robotic thing when you do it like that, you lose something."
BAVC staff are quick to characterize the problems with public-access
programmers as simply a case of the old guard being resistant to change.
"You had a lot of producers used to doing the same routine for X amount
of years," says Andy Kawanami, SF Commons' community manager. He
concedes the transition to open source wasn't completely smooth, but
says things "have settled down quite a bit" since.
Former BAVC executive director Ken Ikeda has been quoted as saying,
"We've learned the hard way what innovation in isolation can cost an
organization." And Jen Gilomen, BAVC's director of public Media
Strategies, admits "we've lost some people" in the transition. However,
she says, the economic reality means "the whole model had to change."
Making Open Source Work for Everybody
A considerable learning curve is involved in adapting open source to
public-access television, says Tony Shawcross, Executive Director of
Denver Open Media (DOM). After taking over Denver's PEG channel in 2005,
DOM underwent a period of trial-and-error, discovering what worked and
what didn't. In 2008, DOM received a $400,000 Knight Foundation grant
which allowed it to revise its model to make it more community- and
user-friendly.
"We had to go through that process in order to learn what it took to
make the tools work for others," he says. Overall, Shawcross says DOM
isn't reaching as wide a constituency as its predecessor, but, he adds,
"You can't just talk about diversity and our model without also talking
about money. Dollar-for-dollar, I'd say DOM is doing better in reaching
disadvantaged communities, but we'd be doing much better if we had
$500,000 annually to invest in serving the communities who are most in
need."
BAVC, Shawcross says, is "one of the few success stories in public
access." However, he says, BAVC "are very focused on their own needs,
and the development work they're doing in open source is not focused on
benefitting the rest of the community as much as it would if that were a
true priority for them."
BAVC is "one of the few success stories in public access," Shawcross
says, but it's "very focused on their own needs, and the development
work they're doing in open source is not focused on benefiting the rest
of the community as much as it would if that were a true priority for
them."
Currently, BAVC has no initiatives "specific to diversity," says
Gilomen. Yet BAVC has made forays into community outreach via the
Neighborhood News Network (n3), three partnership pilot programs with
nonprofit centers utilizing these centers' media production facilities.
Ultimately, the FCC notes, n3 "will link PEG channels to 15 community
sites throughout the city, using an existing fiber network." After
airing on SF Commons, these programs will be accessible to viewers as
one of BAVC's online channels.
Although they've made for good PR copy on BAVC's website, the three
n3 programs have thus far resulted in a total of just 77 minutes of
actual on-air programming. "We need more money to expand these
programs," Gilomen says, which she hopes "will seed news bureaus."
With a single-camera studio set-up, n3's no-frills production values
lag behind the standard set by "Newsroom." At times, the content
resembles infomercials for BAVC's community partner organizations. In
the Mission District's n3 pilot episode, anchor Naya Buric, a BAVC
intern, repeatedly stumbles over her words, at one point misidentifying
n3 as "neighborhood network news." When asked what difference n3 will
make to the community, guest Jean Morris touts the Mission Cultural
Center for Latino Arts' programming, yet fails to mention any issues of
substance affecting the neighborhood, such as gentrification and gang
violence. The Bayview-Hunters Point pilot show, meanwhile, features
members of the Boys and Girls Club, aged 9-12, covering the club's own
Junior Giants program. The South of Market pilot fares a little better,
with segments on redevelopment, a fire at a single-room occupancy hotel
and the availability of bathrooms for SF's homeless population. It
remains to be seen whether n3 programs can fill the role "Newsroom" used
to play, much less consistently cover topics of serious concern to
neighborhood residents. Willie Ratcliffe, publisher of independent
African-American newspaper SF BayView, recognizes the n3 program in
Bayview-Hunters Point as a positive development for a handful of young
people. However, he says, "I don't see where it's gonna do too much" to
address the "burning issue [of] economic survival," nor the police
brutality, health issues and environmental concerns Bayview residents
face daily. In his view, the smiling African-American faces pictured on
BAVC's website are "just being used, really," he says.
The Hope of Digital Integration
Two years after launching SF Commons, the station is still very much a
work in progress. The lack of a consistent program schedule, some
producers say, makes it difficult to build a regular audience. But
Gilomen says this concern will be addressed in the coming months as BAVC
rolls out a new set of web-based tools allowing producers to
self-schedule their programs and archive content online. Besides
eliminating the need for physical DVDs, this makes it possible for
public-access stations in other markets to air SF Commons' content.
However, the true test of BAVC's public-access stewardship is yet to
come. SF Commons features prominently in a SF Department of Technology
(SFDOT) broadband inclusion initiative, which, if successful, could form
the 21st century model for public access in America.
In addition to the operating budget of $170,000 for two PEG channels
from SFDOT, BAVC is also the recipient of $2 million in technology
grants specifically tied to broadband initiatives aimed at increasing
digital literacy. But while the potential for using digitally integrated
public-access and broadband services to close the digital divide exists
on paper, these services haven't been implemented in a concrete,
tangible way — with measurable results — yet.
SFDOT policy analyst Brian Roberts uses buzzwords like "digital
inclusion" and "affordable access" in describing the city's B-TOP
program, which envisions the creation of a "public broadband space"
(PBS) incorporating public access as one of its components. The idea of a
PBS is "having access to training and technology people couldn't afford
in their homes," Roberts explains. But, he says, "we're not sure where
that's going to go."
The B-TOP program relies on federal grants and matching funds for its
S10 million budget. So far it's created a handful of new bureaucratic
positions, doled out tens of thousands of dollars to BAVC for equipment
purchases, started a digital media skills training course at City
College of San Francisco and held several community outreach events. Yet
it's had little to no impact on improving access in SF's most
technologically underserved neighborhoods, which is what it's supposed
to do. According to SFDOT's most recent report on sustainable broadband
adoption, the program is only 1 percent complete at this time. SFDOT has
failed to meet its baseline goals for new subscribers receiving
discounted broadband service; currently there are "zero" households and
"zero" businesses participating, which it blames on "implementation
delays."
In other words, despite the FCC's flowery praise for BAVC and SFDOT's
collaborative efforts, the vision of a fiber-optic network broadcasting
hyperlocalized content over public-access airwaves isn't crystal clear.
An Upside Down Model?
While SFDOT and BAVC wait for the sustainable broadband initiative to
take shape, a cadre of veteran video producers are attempting to
fashion their own template for public access's immediate future.
Instead of relying on technology grants based around
not-quite-there-yet initiatives, this model would pool the existing
resources of several cities in Contra Costa County, each of whom receive
PEG funding from cable operators, to create a countywide community
media center. Instead of just under $200,000 in operating expenses, the
center's budget could be closer to $2 million, enough to run a top-notch
PEG center with high-quality production values. This center would be
run not by outside operators, but by the producers themselves,
fulfilling one of the FCC's recommendations for high-performing PEGS:
"the ceding of editorial control to producers."
Could a super-PEG center serving the needs of an entire county,
rather than an aggregation of smaller PEGS tied to specific cities, be a
way to ensure the future of public access while preserving its vibrant
culture?
Sam Gold, the man behind the effort, thinks so. He's assembled a team
consisting of several former SF public-access producers and is actively
pursuing getting the necessary approval from various city councils. He
calls the effort "an upside down model," since he's invested $40,000 of
his own money into equipment. In his mind, they key question is to
whether the center can be established on public space, which would
alleviate the biggest operating cost, that of renting a facility. If
successful, Gold's model could be replicated in other markets, offering a
third option to the public-access crisis besides ceasing operations or
acquiescing to the imperfections of open source. "Wonder if we can get
the old 'Newsroom' crew back together?" Gold ponders during a lunch with
Laughridge and several other public-access veterans. Laughridge just
looks at him and smiles.
Eric K.
Arnold wrote this story as part of a series produced by the G.W.
Williams Center for Independent Journalism for a media policy fellowship
sponsored by The Media Consortium
In another moment of disconnect between community media and the public media machine, WDAV announced they would begin independently syndicating "World of Opera" with host Lisa Simeone.
National Public Radio dropped the program due to Simeone's involvement with the Occupy DC protest.
Brett Zongker provides a good summary of events on the Huffington Post.
******
WASHINGTON -- NPR will no longer
distribute the member station-produced program "World of Opera" to about
60 stations across the country because the show host helped organize an
ongoing Washington protest, a network official said Friday evening.
Instead, North Carolina-based classical music station WDAV, which
produces the show, said it will distribute the nationally syndicated
program on its own beginning Nov. 11. The station said it plans to keep
Lisa Simeone as host and has said her involvement in a political protest
does not affect her job as a music program host.
NPR spokeswoman Dana Davis Rehm said the network disagrees
with the station on the role of program hosts but respects its position.
"Our view is it's a potential conflict of interest for any journalist
or any individual who plays a public role on behalf of NPR to take an
active part in a political movement or advocacy campaign," she told The
Associated Press. "Doing so has the potential to compromise our
reputation as an organization that strives to be impartial and
unbiased."
Rehm said any host with NPR attached to their title is a public
figure representing the network as a whole. But she said "reasonable
people can have different views about this." She said the negotiations
with WDAV were civil and amicable.
NPR's ethics code states that "NPR journalists may not participate in
marches and rallies" involving issues NPR covers. The code notes that
some provisions may not apply to outside contributors. It uses a
freelancer who primarily contributes arts coverage as an example.
Rehm said the network didn't need to cite the code in its decision to
drop the show because its position on hosts' political activities was
"even more fundamental."
Simeone, who lives in Baltimore, is a freelancer who has worked in
radio and television for 25 years. She has hosted music shows and
documentaries. She was fired Wednesday as the host of a radio
documentary program, "Soundprint," because she helped organize an
anti-war demonstration that also protested Wall Street and what
participants call corporate greed.
"Soundprint" is heard on about 35 NPR affiliates and is produced by
Maryland-based Soundprint Media Center Inc. Its president said the
company had adopted NPR's code of ethics as its own.
"World
of Opera" is the only radio show in the nation devoted to broadcasting
full-length operas from around the world, according to WDAV.
The Davidson, N.C.-based station will use the same distribution
process as NPR and hopes to retain all the stations that have aired the
program, spokeswoman Lisa Gray said. The network is assisting with the
change in distribution, and it won't affect the listener's experience.
"We think it's really important to classical music that we continue
to produce the show and make it available," Gray told the AP. "That's
our primary concern, that we continue to be able to provide this
programming to listeners and stations across the country."
WDAV had previously said it has a different mission than NPR and
seeks to provide arts and cultural programming nationally and
internationally, rather than news.
NPR had previously produced and distributed "World of Opera" in house
until January 2010 when production was shifted to WDAV. The show has
been in production for more than 20 years. It has featured performances
from U.S. opera companies including Washington National Opera, Houston
Grand Opera, Glimmerglass and New York City Opera, as well as operas
from Paris, Vienna and elsewhere.
This video from keepusconnected.org explains and clearly demonstrates AT&T's failure to deliver basic functionality for public, educational and government (PEG) access channels on its U-Verse system. A petition challenging the discriminatory treatment is pending at the FCC.
This podcast is a compilation of stories on phones and prisons culled from the Main Street Project (partners in the Media Justice Grassroots Network) at a Phone Justice Policy Day event in Minneapolis.
(*Note* - Ozcat Radio is one of the community stations assisted in getting on the air by our friends at Common Frequency (www.commonfrequency.org)
The founder of Vallejo Ozcat, the community-based FM radio
station, made a disturbing discovery Saturday morning --
racist epithets scrawled on his son's vehicle and the
business' mailbox and doorway.
The graffiti involved liberal use of the "N" word, and
included "N---- radio station" written on a Suburban and "No
N----" across the mailbox slot in the 1100 block of Georgia
Street. A sign written on the back of a flier and stuck near
the door contained another epithet.
The tagging occurred between 3 and 7 a.m. Saturday, said
David Martin, who is African-American.
"This saddens my heart. We are not a black or white radio
station, but a community radio station," Martin said. "I'm
shocked."
An Ozcat radio board member said an emergency board meeting
would take place today to discuss the incident and what should
be done. The station will not be intimidated, said the board
member, who gave only her DJ name -- Golden Lady.
DJ Damon Williams said the tagging was probably done by
someone with no knowledge of the radio station's mission or
the people behind it.
Martin said the station had not been targeted by racist
taggers before and he has no idea who is behind them.
The tagging, Martin stressed, would not discourage him from
the radio station's mission of presenting a full range of
musical styles and celebrating the community's diversity.
"This gives me the strength to push on," he said.
The station plays a diverse array of musical types and styles
representing many cultures and styles. The station also gives
local musicians and art groups a venue.
The Vallejo Police Department received a report on the Ozcat
radio graffiti and would be looking into it, Lt. Lee Horton
said.
"Obviously, we'll do whatever we can to catch them," Horton
said. "We'll do our best."
Horton added that other parts of Vallejo were hit with
graffiti Friday night.
Formerly broadcast only on the Internet, Ozcat was granted
full programming rights by the FCC and secured the call
letters KZCT and a place on the dial at 89.5.
2010 strife at listener-sponsored KPFA Radio in Berkeley is dying down after the National Labor Relations Board dismissed 3 complaints and former host Aimee Allison lost an arbitration hearing on the voluntary and involuntary layoffs last fall. KPFA has improved its financial position by over $350,000, reduced its operating deficit by 85% and has increased listener support donations by 3.5% since October of 2010.
The advice memo issued by the National Labor Relations Board in April of 2011 can be referenced below. Two additional complaints were similarly withdrawn after facing dismissal.
Arbitration hearings for former host Aimee Allison ended with the layoff for financial exigency upheld by the CWA arbitrator.
KPFA, which was perched on an abyss, after two consecutive years of more than $550,000 losses in addition to the 14-month disappearance of a $375,000 donation check received in October of 2008 and not recovered until December of 2009, has made a substantial financial rebound in 2011. Listener donations increased by 3.5%, overall revenue by 1.4% and operating deficits reduced by 85% in only 10 months.
AT&T complained that a panel of independent academics in the PUC's merger impact hearing threatened to "taint" the proceeding with their uninformed opinions.
The panel opened the first of 3 public workshops throughout the state in the month of July where panelists will discuss various aspects of the proposed merger of AT&T with T-Mobile.
The workshop on Friday July 8th began with the panel on economic impact, which featured Santa Clara University School of Law professor Allen Hammond, Stanford professors Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, Roger Noll, a professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University, and George Ford of Washington's Phoenix Center for Economic Policy.
The day followed with 4 industry panels discussing back-haul service agreements, data roaming services and spectrum availability. All 3industry panels featured one representative each from AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint and Cricket.
Michelle Quinn reported in Politico on the letter sent by AT&T to presiding judge Jessica Hecht and PUC commissioner Catherine Sandoval, and the letter is available here.
For a transcript and video archive of the July 8th workshops, including the panel AT&T tried to kill, go here. MA's brief comment can be found on pages 221-223 of the transcript.
Apple Computer co-founder Steve Jobs passes at 56 of pancreatic cancer, leaving a legacy of digital innovation and a rapidly-changing information society.
Macbooks, i-phones, i-pods and i-pods have changed lives, transforming the simple tasks of writing, making a phone call and listening to a song in ways that could not have been predicted.
As with all change, gaps have sprung up between the so-called "early adopters" of innovative technology and those who lag far behind, reinforcing the divides that strafe society across socio-economic differences.
And many things, including journalism, cafe communities and the long-lost art of letter writing will never be the same.
We won't add any more to the outpouring on the web. There is more than any person could possibly read. But while paying tribute, lets not forget to keep having honest conversations about the impact of the digital society, including issues of equity, loss of privacy, and effects on on localism, news reporting and in-person community-building.
*Note - Two weeks later, the public did attend the next meeting and the PUC voted 3-2 to proceed with an extensive investigation of the impacts of the merger of Californians.
****
I was out-gunned 30-1.
On May 26th, I went to the California Public Utilities
Commission to encourage them to perform a thorough investigation of the impact
of the AT&T / T-Mobile merger on California consumers.
As a public interest advocate, I’m used to being the
underdog. Despite sending lots of last-minute emails asking people to come, I
didn’t expect a huge amount of folks would be able to dispense with work and
family and rush over to the commission meeting.
But I didn’t
expect it to be this bad.
Speaker after speaker encouraged the commission not to delay
the merger, which would magically deliver 4G everywhere, end all dropped calls,
deliver high-speed broadband nationwide, and help bring the US economy out of
recession.
There didn’t seem to be much this merger wouldn’t fix.
Somewhat to my shock, several people I recognized as leaders
of organizations that serve lower-income populations, had come to make comments
encouraging automatic approval of the merger with no investigation.
Then came my one minute to provide an alternative point of
view.
*I
said that duopolies rarely result in lower prices for consumers.
*I
mentioned the December 2010 Consumer Reports study ranking AT&T as the
lowest-ranked wireless carrier in customer satisfaction
*I
asked them to substantiate the miraculous claims of merger proponents, or at
least to provide some evidence for them.
Afterwards I spoke to a few people. One of them was a young
woman representing a chamber of commerce in Fresno. I asked her if she really
thought the merger would bring such amazing benefits to the local small
businesses she represents.
She answered that she liked what I had to say about the
merger.
The upshot of the day’s hearing was a 5-0 vote to open an
investigative proceeding and not automatically approve the merger.
As I sat waiting for the result, only a few feet away from
the president of AT&T California, Ken McNeeley, I had some time to think
about what I had just participated in.
*My DC friends tell me the ratio of telecom lobbying efforts compared to
public interest lobbying efforts is 661-1.
*AT&T spent 15 million dollars lobbying in 2010. That is 60x the
annual budget of my organization (when it’s doing well).
*Small businesses, which often suffer as much from non-competitive
markets as low-income consumers do, are represented by those who say that what
is good for AT&T is good for everybody. Is it really?
*Community organizations have to balance the needs of their constituents
against getting the funds they need to deliver services. But the price of these
charitable donations may be a little too high if it places organizations in the
position of advocating for what is likely to be higher prices for their
communities .
I came out of the May 26th hearing with the result I hoped
for.
The Public Utilities Commission agreed they owed it to the
people of California to engage in an informational proceeding on the merger’s
impact.
On this day, the odds were overcome.
But the public needs more than a minute at a dais. And David
needs a fighting chance to debate AT&T’s Goliath on a fair platform that
doesn’t put community organizations between a rock and hard place.
There is more to come. On June 9th, the commission will
discuss the scope of the proceeding and no doubt, there will be battles to make
it larger or smaller.
I really hope for better odds than 30-1.
****
For more on the AT&T merger and astroturf lobbying, see this article by Nicole Duran in The Deal magazine: "Divide, Buy and Conquer".
.jpg)
