New LPFM Station is “Where the Grass Roots Grow”
September 24, 2004
Today at Davis Community Television (DCTV), they will “flip the
switch” that will launch KDRT, the organization’s new Low-Power FM radio
station.
Organizers said that KDRT, “Where the Grass Roots Grow,” will provide a
wealth of local content, color and commentary to Davis’ radio listeners.
Located at 101.5 on the FM dial, the station officially launches at 6
p.m. Friday, Sept. 24, 2004.
The community is invited to a party celebrating the kickoff from 5-9
that evening at DCTV’s studio, 1623 Fifth Street in Davis. Davis Enterprise
columnist Bob Dunning will host the inaugural show, which will feature
live, local music, and interviews with organizers and party-goers.
“The launch is the culmination of years of hard work and determination,”
said Jeff Shaw, chair of the KDRT Working Group, and one of the major
forces behind KDRT’s existence. “It’s incredibly exciting to finally
realize this opportunity for the community of Davis.”
KDRT is a project of local public access station DCTV, which applied to
the Federal Communications Commission for an LPFM permit four years ago when the opportunity arose. Since then, a core group of volunteers has worked
to negotiate everything from LPFM legislation and bureaucratic roadblocks,
to fund raising, to the processes of planning programming and operations
for the fledgling station.
In recent weeks, dozens of volunteers--recruited via community outreach
meetings and stints at the Davis Farmer’s Market--have helped to paint
KDRT’s small studio, install an antenna and equipment, generate program
proposals and create station ID’s and on-air announcements. “The
outpouring of interest and support for the station has been very heartening,” Shaw said.
Money for the effort has been raised via a Founding Donors Campaign,
which will continue through the end of the year, according to Autumn
Labbé-Renault, chairperson of the station’s Development Committee. For a
donation of $101.50 or more, donors will be recognized on a perpetual
plaque. “How often do you get to say that you helped start a radio
station?” she asked.
“Although we are a project of DCTV, KDRT needs to have its own funding,
primarily to purchase equipment and programming,” she said. “To date,
we’ve raised approximately $14,000 of our $25,000 goal by year’s end. The
support has been phenomenal and we’re looking forward to continuing to build a base of support and enthusiasm for KDRT.
“This isn’t commercial radio,” Labbé-Renault added. “Our slogan is about
the grass roots--what’s local and meaningful here in Davis, CA--not what
Clear Channel decides works in Chicago or even Sacramento. The people
and businesses of Davis are showing their support in a very meaningful way.”
According to the Federal Communications Commission, low-power FM radio
service is for noncommercial educational broadcasting and is available
to educational entities and public safety and transportation organizations.
Stations such as KDRT, which will broadcast at 83 watts, are designed to
provide truly local information and news.
Once the airwaves were opened to noncommercial low-power radio, in 2000,
more than 3,000 applications were submitted by schools, churches, civic
groups and other nonprofits, according to the National Federation of
Community Broadcasters. As of September, 660 applicants had received
construction permits and 283 had been licensed, according to the
federation.
DCTV is one of a handful of public access centers awarded construction
permits in this first round, and is poised to become the first access
center in the nation to launch an LPFM station.
"I'm really proud of our staff for having the vision to seize this
opportunity four years ago and to be here today ready to launch,” said
Kari Peterson, DCTV’s executive director. “This town is ripe for homegrown,
local media and I'm so pleased to be adding another outlet to an already
rich mix.
“Television is a powerful visual medium and has its place, but radio is
exciting because it is accessible -- for programmers and listeners, “she
added. “Our local media tool box is growing. I can't wait to see what
happens when we offer both do-it-yourself television and radio.”
Programming will be a mix of locally produced public affairs and talk
shows, music, alternative syndicated program, meeting and event
coverage, and simulcast of DCTV programming. In short, everything that is uniquely Davis will be reflected on the station.
“KDRT is a prime example of communities across the country taking
telecommunications into their own hands to meet local needs by providing
a platform for people to share their experiences, concerns, and cultures,
said jesikah maria ross, community development practitioner and a member
of the KDRT working group.“KDRT’s programming will enable Davisites to
express themselves--personally, culturally, artistically, and politically--as
well as hear a diversity of information from others. which is absolutely
vital in this era of media consolidation.
“Right now our mass media outlets are controlled by a handful of
mega-corporations beholden to stockholders focused on bottom line
profits.This scenario does not bode well for a democratic society;” ross
said. “We need vibrant venues of community communication where residents
can share their talent, creativity, concerns, and opinions, KDRT is a
small step in a very important direction to realign using the public airwaves
to serve the public interest.”
KDRT plans to broadcast 24 hours a day. Until volunteer programming is
complete, KDRT will rely on automated broadcasts to flesh out its
programming schedule. ross said approximately 25 people have proposed
shows, and KDRT continues to accept proposals. “I think it’s safe to say
that KDRT’s programming will continue to evolve a good bit, especially
in these early months,” she added.
The public is invited to attend the launch event. Organizers said they
realize that the timing is not ideal for everyone, since the date marks
the beginning of Yom Kippur, but hope that scheduling it before sundown on
Friday will help to attract a wide audience. Parking is limited at the
site but is available, after 5 p.m. at the DMV (corner of Fifth and Poleline)
and in the parking lot across from University Automotive. For more
information, including directions and parking information, please visit
www.kdrt.org.
Today, in a victory for media reformers, independent creative artists, and the American public, the Senate Commerce Committee voted to direct the FCC to set “minimum quantitative guidelines” for the broadcast of “independently produced programming” as well as electoral and locally-produced programming. Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), this public interest amendment won votes from both sides of the aisle to pass 13-10.
The Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition, of which Media Alliance is a member, was instrumental in securing the passage of this critical first step in the establishment of strong public interest obligations for America’s broadcasters, including the obligation to air programming produced by independents. As Common Cause President Chellie Pingree pledged after the vote, “We and our reform colleagues will work hard to ensure that today’s Senate vote leads to FCC approval of strong public interest guidelines.”
We are pleased that the national media reform movement has adopted the production of broadcast programming by independents as a fundamental plank of its media reform agenda. We look forward to working with media reformers to continue educating Washington policymakers on the need to provide the American public with programming from a wide diversity of program sources, not just the network conglomerates.
More information on these exciting developments is available at
http://www.creativevoices.us.
By Richard Blow, TomPaine.com
Posted September 21, 2004.
Michael Moore is a genius at self-promotion, and so one has to be skeptical reading about Moore running into roadblocks while trying to speak truth to power. Before the release of "Fahrenheit 9/11," for example, Moore complained that he was never asked to appear on television. I doubt he still makes that complaint. Still, the latest such fracas, involving Moore and the New York Times, shows that sometimes his complaining is warranted. Michael Moore makes the mainstream media deeply uncomfortable, and in its defensive response, that media shows its conservative and corporate soul.
The incident occurred because Moore is putting together a book of documents, newspaper clippings and cartoons called The Official 'Fahrenheit 9/11' Reader. So the filmmaker asked the Times for permission to reprint "The Times and Iraq," the paper's critique of its reportage in the months before the start of the Iraq war. In that article, the Times admitted that its reporting was, well, not very good, particularly as it buttressed White House claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Other news organizations, such as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, had given Moore permission to reprint items. But Times' managing editor Bill Keller turned Moore down. "Our note, 'The Times and Iraq,' was not intended to become part of a political battle," a Times spokeswoman said.
To which one can only say, heaven forbid that a newspaper's reporting should become part of a political battle.
The Times' ombudsman, Dan Okrent, got even more explicit in an interview with Editor & Publisher magazine. "The paper has the right not to be used for purposes other than what is intended, to write for their readers," Okrent said. He added that he "was insulted" that Moore didn't ask to reprint anything he'd written. "I would want to be able to say no to him," Okrent said. "I don't like to be used for people's political purposes."
Before examining that rather mean-spirited logic, it's worth admitting that news organizations can be persnickety about letting for-profit organizations reprint their articles or use their footage. Their reasons aren't so much journalistic as commercial. The Times, for example, has its own book publishing division, which probably wouldn't appreciate letting a rival include a Times article. But more than that, the Times wants to control its reputation, its status as the paper of record; letting Michael Moore reprint a Times piece, especially one that the papers' editors would just as soon forget, doesn't help the brand.
But the Times' flacks didn't say that. They argued that they didn't want to get dragged into a political fight, and that argument isn't enough to justify withholding material from a work of history. A newspaper which wouldn't hesitate to reprint news-making documents in its own for-profit pages should know better. Moreover, basing your decision on the politics of the solicitor is a slippery slope. Will the Times now start examining the politics of college professors who want to use its material? Will it tell MIT's Noam Chomsky or Princeton's Peter Singer, both foes of President Bush, that they can't include New York Times' articles in their course packets?
Probably not. The truth is, it's just Michael Moore and his particular brand of agit-prop that the Times doesn't trust. As Dan Okrent said, he'd love the chance to diss Moore. That kind of thinking isn't the mark of a great newspaper, but an elitist one.
Richard Blow is the former executive editor of George magazine. He is author of American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy, Jr., and is writing a book about Harvard University.
Former employees say 'SF Weekly' publisher violated labor laws
By Tim Redmond, http://www.sfbg.com
Twelve former employees of a Cleveland alternative paper have filed a class-action suit in Ohio against the publisher of the SF Weekly and Village Voice Media, alleging that they were fired illegally when the two newspaper chains conspired to shut down the paper.
The class-action suit, filed in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas Aug. 9, comes in the wake of a deal between New Times and VVM that ended alternative-newspaper competition in Los Angeles and Cleveland. It's the latest legal salvo in a story that has attracted national attention and raised serious issues about the consolidation of ownership in the alternative press.
New Times and VVM had been fighting for advertising and market share in the two cities until Oct. 2, 2002, when the companies announced an unusual agreement: New Times agreed to shutter its New Times LA, and in exchange, VVM agreed to close the Cleveland Free Times. That gave both companies a monopoly in the market: the Cleveland Scene, a New Times publication, became the only alternative weekly in that city, and the LA Weekly, owned by VVM, had Los Angeles to itself (www.sfbg.com/37/18/news_newtimes.html).
In the process, many employees of the Free Times and New Times LA lost their jobs (although some were transferred to other papers in the chains).
The Justice Department and the attorneys general of Ohio and California charged the two chains with violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, and on Jan. 27, 2003, New Times and VVM agreed to terminate the illegal scheme and sell the assets of the closed papers to qualified buyers who could reenter the markets. The Free Times is now back in business under new ownership, and three new alternative weeklies are taking on VVM in L.A.
But according to Cleveland lawyer David A. Young, the workers who were fired when the two papers closed their doors were terminated illegally. Both Ohio and California allow workers who lose their jobs as the result of an illegal act by their employers to sue for damages, he told us.
"It's a slam-dunk violation," he said. "Both companies admit the deal to close the papers was unlawful."
Young is seeking class-action certification, which would allow him to represent as many as 100 former New Times and VVM employees who he estimates may have been affected by the deal. The damages, he said, could be "well into the millions of dollars."
Young, who specializes in labor law, said the behavior of VVM and New Times was "typical of what's wrong with corporate America. They have no regard for their employees."
New Times owns 11 alternative weeklies, including the SF Weekly and the East Bay Express. VVM owns six.
David Eden, former editor-in-chief of the Cleveland Free Times and currently managing editor of Cleveland's CBS affiliate, WOIO-TV, e-mailed us a statement outlining his complaint: "Two years ago New Times and Village Voice Media colluded to swap markets so each could have a monopoly alternative newspaper in Cleveland and Los Angeles. That action, which violated U.S. and state antitrust laws, caused about 50 people to lose their jobs in Cleveland, some of whom lost their homes, had their savings wiped out and caused other havoc in their lives. This is their chance ... our chance ... for justice to be done."
New Times executive editor Michael Lacey, chief executive office Jim Larkin, and legal counsel Steve Suskin did not respond to our requests for comment. VVM released a statement saying, "Village Voice Media believes this suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously."
Alt.chain.lawsuit:
Advertisers claim New Times Corp.-Village Voice Media deal hurt competition and drove up rates
http://www.sfbg.com/38/42/cover_ntvvm.html
Bad times:
SF Weekly's parent company cuts a deal to kill competition in L.A. and Cleveland.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/02/news_bad_times.html
New Times nailed:
SF Weekly's parent company charged with violating antitrust law.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/18/news_newtimes.html
Monopolies may not hold:
Challengers emerge to take on alternative chains
http://www.sfbg.com/37/20/news_monopolies.html
Monopolies no more:
Antitrust bust leads to renewed competition for SF Weekly parent company New Times and Village Voice Media
http://www.sfbg.com/37/27/news_freetimes.html
Justice pursues New Times-VVM inquiry:
Are alternative newspaper chains cutting news coverage to save money?
http://www.sfbg.com/37/14/news_new_times.html
Links to coverage by other media:
http://www.sfbg.com/37/14/news_new_times_links.html
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 9/10/2004
Media Alliance and the other members of The Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition have written the major broadcast and cable news networks asking that they make an immediate public commitment to air the presidential and vice-presidential debates live.
The Bush and Kerry camps have begun negotiating on the proposed three presidential and one vice presidential debates, with the Washington Post reporting that the Bush side may balk at more than two presidential square-offs. Debates usually have more potential "gotcha" downsides for the incumbent.
Meredith McGehee of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, which is part of the coalition, says that, at least in terms of broadcasters, airing the debates live is a public interest obligation not a value-added. "This is not a feel-good about everybody sitting around and singing kumbaya," she said. She also advises stations that if their networks don't carry the debate, to preempt them and get the feed somewhere else.
"Should you choose to air sports or entertainment programming instead of the national debates," the coalition wrote, "we will urge your local affiliates to invoke their "right to reject" network programming in favor of the debates.
By Michael Stoll
Sept. 10, 2004
Since coming to the Chronicle from Wired News in 1999, David Lazarus has been one of the most prolific, and influential, writers at the paper. His coverage of the energy crisis in 2001 earned him the Journalist of the Year award from the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California chapter. He continues to butt heads with corporate executives and write stories that unambiguously take the side of consumers.
Mr. Lazarus, who writes the thrice-weekly business-page column, "Lazarus at Large," also has been honored with the 2004 Journalist of the Year Award from the Consumer Federation of California, the 2003 C. Everett Koop Award for coverage of the tobacco industry, a 2002 National Headliner Award for outstanding business coverage and the John Jacobs Award in 2001 for coverage of the California energy crisis. His work has appeared in Fortune, Wired, Salon.com and National Geographic, among other publications. He is the author of two books about Japan, where he lived for seven years.
Interview:
David, when you got your start in journalism did you plan to launch on a one-man consumer crusade against corporate malfeasance?
No, no! When I got my start in journalism I started as a crime reporter at the Daily [Californian] at Berkeley, which is a great place for anyone to learn the ropes, because you learn crime and you learn the libel laws real fast.
After that I took more of an interest in feature writing, magazine work specifically. And in the years that I lived overseas I did an awful lot of magazine work and light newspaper work. And it wasn't until I was living in Tokyo, at the time of their bubble economy, and saw that the big story where I was was the carnivorous Japanese economy -- and that was what editors overseas wanted -- that I realized that business journalism was a going concern. ...
I spent two years at Bloomberg in their Tokyo bureau and got the hang of it. Bloomberg, as anyone will tell you, is a boot camp. You will be put through the paces but you will learn. And after that I essentially focused on financial and business journalism after that, writing for Fortune magazine, Time, Newsweek and other publications out of Tokyo. And then coming back to the United States focusing on business and tech after I got here.
I quickly became the go-to guy for a lot of disgruntled consumers and disgruntled employees about what's going on out there, and saw that there was very much a need and a purpose to want to rail against corporate thuggery and corporate arrogance.
It was serendipitous, really, that I got into a consumer-affairs sort of thing because after the energy crisis, which I basically spent an entire year doing as our lead reporter on that, I developed fairly populist tendencies, in looking at where the consumer was relative to these large entities -- PG&E, Enron and all the rest -- and how the little guy was going to get screwed time and time again, and had very little voice and very little power in the face of this.
... The [Chronicle] asked me to do a column. ... At first we sort of thought it would be sort of a quirky, off-beat, "business unusual" sort of thing, which I also am attracted to, but over time I quickly became the go-to guy for a lot of disgruntled consumers and disgruntled employees about what's going on out there, and saw that there was very much a need and a purpose to want to rail against corporate thuggery and corporate arrogance. ...
Now I'm very pleased with where the column is at. Not only can I get on my soapbox and thump my chest from time to time if I want to but sometimes my work can actually have some influence and do some good for consumers. And there's just not enough journalists out there doing that right now. ...
Everywhere I've worked in journalism I've ended up being a columnist. So I think I'm temperamentally suited to the needs of the craft, where you're going to go one step beyond the reporting and the telling, and actually put some topspin on it. Or come to some conclusions or try and become more solution-oriented in your reporting. ...
I don't think there's any mistaking that my work is fairly populist in its sentiment. The rap on what I do is that I'm anti-business -- that's what my critics like to say most often than not. I see myself more as pro-accountability. ... Corporations should be accountable. And if you're going to do something, especially if it affects thousands or millions of customers, you should be able to defend that policy. ...
You do have a reputation -- and you probably have several reputations, depending on who you talk to. I'm sure you're familiar with Chronwatch, the conservative Web site?
They don't like me.
Yeah, they have labeled you, “David Lazarus, Leftist at Large,” and refer to your “purely emotional, anti-business, largely inaccurate view of the power problem,” referring to your reporting on the power crisis of 2000 and 2001. And you did have particularly harsh words for some executives, such as Enron’s CEO Ken Lay, which might explain that position. Do you get this criticism much, do you get criticism from the other side as well, and does it bother you? Or does it encourage you?
Well, with the Chronwatch people, these guys are obviously coming from their little right-wing corner, and they have a fairly narrow worldview. I've tried to engage them. When they first started posting things about me I politely wrote back. One of the first things they said about me was, "Oh, David doesn't know anything about business." And I wrote back and basically told them what my background is and what my experience is and why I do feel that I'm as qualified as many business journalists to comment on the business world. ... I welcome their feedback. I welcome any feedback, because it's always going to be positive and constructive for me. ...
Do you feel your peers in the field are well enough prepared to ask the right questions of business leaders who might have something to hide amid their 10K statements and annual reports?
Sometimes my work can actually have some influence and do some good for consumers. And there's just not enough journalists out there doing that right now.
I think business journalists overall could probably stand to apply themselves more to studying the arcana of regulatory filings. Clearly the Enron debacle showed that if business and financial journalists were more adept at understanding a lot of the filings coming out, they would have caught these things sooner.
Many of the journalists who then parsed what happened with Enron, the question they all asked themselves was, "How come we didn't see this coming? How come we didn't see this earlier? The answer was that Enron was very skillful at hiding it. But once you knew what to look for, a lot of those bits and pieces were in the filings. In this case, they deliberately obfuscated, so you really wouldn't have known. ...
Good business journalism, it should bring the game to life. It should show that we are talking about real people with real stakes, and that many times the business world and corporate activities are a blood sport. You can keep score, because there is money involved, and you can actually see people getting hurt, i.e., customers and consumers getting trashed by disdainful or contemptuous corporations that really are focused solely on their bottom line and no longer [on] customer service. ...
You need to be able to tell the story in a way that is going to make a lay readership or a mainstream readership understand the stakes and understand why they should care about this. I think that's an extremely important thing that most business sections that I read don't really seem to aspire to.
These days reporters in Washington are being blamed, and have to a great degree accepted blame, for not catching the deceptions coming out of Washington from the Iraqi National Congress, intelligence agencies and the Bush administration when it came to Iraq’s military threat. In the same vein, do you think that business reporters in Northern California specifically deserve to shoulder more responsibility for the missing the signals that the high-tech investment bubble was about to burst? In retrospect, what were the telltale signs of an economic meltdown that journalists missed?
Well, in the case of the tech bubble, if we're going to talk about that exclusively, I think there was enough cynicism in the local press -- there were red flags going up even at the height of the bubble. It was very clear that we were experiencing a bubble and the tulip metaphor very quickly surfaced. ...
That's not to say there wasn't a lot of cheerleading going on. Clearly the media got caught up in the hype. And much of the hype was both -- it fed off of the hype coming out of Silicon Valley, and then the hype of Silicon Valley was feeding off of the supportive cheerleading coming out of the media. So you got into, in a sense, a vicious cycle there. ...
Can you give me an example from your own reporting over the last couple of years where this experience has changed the way you ask questions?
I'd say in my case it wasn't so much the dot-com meltdown as much as my brushes with the financial services sector, and the way that they were approaching their customers on a variety of issues, whether it's service, or one of my particular bette noirs, privacy.
I learned that it's OK to question authority, because authority sometimes hasn't asked itself these questions.
It was my digging into the privacy issue that really opened my eyes to corporate interests versus consumer interests. And how these are going to clash from time to time. And when they do clash, there really aren't a lot of champions for the consumers, who can step up and say, "Wait a minute, what about us?" or even more importantly, "This is wrong, what are you going to do about it?" ...
Consumers of these companies have every right to be shocked. No least of which was when I reported that a Wells Fargo consultant here in the Bay Area had his office broken into, had his computer stolen and had thousands of customer Social Security numbers taken in the process. That raises very serious questions about what is that data doing outside of Wells Fargo's corporate headquarters? ...
In the case of my work on those types of stories I learned that it's OK to question authority, because authority sometimes hasn't asked itself these questions. ...
Can you generalize what appears to be your the visceral revulsion to PG&E executives for receiving millions of dollars worth of bonuses just before the company declared bankruptcy? Is this a sign of some larger trend in the business world?
Well, "visceral revulsion" is a strong way of putting it. I think I would more just say that as with a lot of cases of bloated executive compensation I have a healthy sense of outrage and injustice when that sort of thing happens. ...
So that's where I come from in terms of exposing, I think, certain standards of corporate behavior that I find are very consumer unfriendly, or at the very least, give a perception of misplaced priorities. And I think, judging from the e-mail I get, which runs into the hundreds per column, customers and consumers feel the exact same way. And unfortunately in today's corporate world, many people feel disempowered and disenfranchised in this process. I get a healthy sense of relief when I vent like that, and I also get a healthy sense of frustration from many people that they hadn't had any way to vent their own personal resentment or frustration prior to seeing the words in print. ...
Do you think that journalists tend to see it from that perspective? Or do you see a movement one way or the other in terms of seeing business from the bottom up instead of from the top down?
No, I don't see a lot of very aggressive consumer reporting in the United States right now. Which is unfortunate. It used to be a very active thing. Certainly Ralph Nader gets a huge debt of gratitude from anybody who has entered into the consumer field, because this guy pioneered the use of consumer power to affect positive change in society. Nader of course has a lot to answer for at the moment on the political front, but his accomplishments in terms of seatbelts and airbags and other such things are indisputable. Anyone who covers consumer affairs could only aspire to have such a positive impact as he did.
When I look at consumer reporting now, the bulk of it seems to be of the Q&A kind of thing -- "Oh, I just took my car to a muffler shop and I think I got [overcharged], what can you do about it?" And then the answer man contacts the Better Business Bureau and gives you some advice on what to do. That seems to be the level of consumer reporting out there right now. I don't have a lot of patience for that picayune kind of thing.
I wear two hats. I'm an investigative reporter who writes a like a columnist, or I'm a columnist who behaves like an investigative reporter, depending on how you want to slice it. And I apply that skill set to trying to advance consumer and customer issues as much as I can. ...
Last year my work resulted in about a dozen state and federal bills being introduced, which is great. Unfortunately none of them have passed yet. But some of them are still pending, and if any of them could create legislative safeguards for customers, then that's what this whole thing's about. ...
I have a friend who's been a journalist in Japan, and he said the Japanese press had a habit of looking at the foreign press reporting on Japan. Did you find that dynamic going on?
Oh, that's exactly it. There's two dynamics at work right there. On the one hand there's a structure called keisha clubs, which translates as "reporter clubs." The way beat reporting works, at least in covering the government, and then also in covering a number of the business associations that have so much power, is that you have these "clubs" of reporters who are assigned to cover these entities and they work out of the relevant government ministry or the economic agency and they are beholden to them. And so there is this very intimate relationship but they don't bite the hand that feeds. ...
I think the greatest danger to modern journalism is complacency.
The other side of the coin that you mentioned is something called gaiatsu. Gaiatsu could translate as "foreign pressure." Japan has historically in the modern era has relied heavily on gaiatsu to affect change because Japan suffers from an enormous amount of inertia when it comes to change. ...
In the case of how the keisha clubs and gaiatsu come together, yes, many of the Japanese journalists I know wouldn't dream of breaking a scandal story, for fear of bringing down the wrath of the keisha club. And therefore they will leak information to a foreign reporter who will then break it in the Western press and then that gives the Japanese press the license to go after it, because then they can say, "The Washington Post reported yesterday that blah, blah, blah." And suddenly, they're on the story. So they require that as a door to get in, and I saw it time and time again. ...
Do you see any analogies or lessons for the American press in the way that the Japanese press operates?
Well, obviously our structures are different. We have beat reporters who might get too close to their sources. That's why it's not a bad idea to cycle beat reporters in and out with, say, three- or five-year intervals. There's a lot to be said for that, even though the downside is you're going to lose someone who builds up an enormous level of expertise and knowledge. ...
I think at the end of the day it's simply part of the journalist's obligation to remain questioning, to remain skeptical when warranted -- to be cynical, even, when warranted -- and to not be afraid to challenge authority.
I think the greatest danger to modern journalism is complacency.
There's so much information out there, there's so much data on the loose that one thing I've seen in the modern press is just this growing complacency to not question authority when things come up that do merit investigation, and to not be aggressive when pressing it home and serving as the Fourth Estate, serving as that check or balance in the equation.
By Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org.
Posted September 9, 2004.
The reporters may not be 'embedded' any more, but their coverage of the election campaign is no less deferential to the White House than during the Iraq war.
During the run-up to the war in Iraq and through the US invasion, it was obvious that our media system had signed up as an unofficial megaphone for war. There was a uniformity of perspective, a reliance on the same "facts," and a dismissal of critics and dissenters.
Journalists outside America compared our TV coverage to that of a "state-run media" even though most U.S. media outlets are in private hands and nominally competitive with each other.
A year-and-a-half later, some journalists and newspapers took a second look at their coverage and acknowledged it had been flawed. There were admissions of misreporting, especially on supporting the government's allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
These media admissions never rose to the level of institutional post-mortems or real mea culpas. They haven't led to more diversity of perspective, investigative journalism or dissection of government claims. The modalities of coverage continue.
The New York Times spent more time and space exposing the fraudulent but minor inventions of a troubled reporter, Jayson Blair, than on its own role in the selling of a war that its own public editor Daniel Okrent would later pinpoint as an "institutional failure."
The Washington Post's ombudsman Michael Getler selectively critiqued his newspaper's coverage, as did media correspondent Howard Kurtz. Editorially, the newspaper said little and refused to mount an internal investigation.
The three television networks that most Americans rely on for their news and information about the war also said little or nothing. They moved on to other stories without any acknowledgement that the modes of coverage that we saw during the war need to be changed fundamentally.
Mili-tainment Goes Political
The administration, which successfully mobilized the media and public opinion behind their military venture in Iraq, are using the same techniques to fight a political war against their Democratic opponents. The embedded reporters may be gone but the routines of political coverage and their deferential approach can be relied on to achieve the same results.
A new book analyzing the White House spin assesses why the administration's media machine is so successful. In "All the President's Spin," Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan explain: "Bush's White House has broken new ground in its press relations strategy, exploiting the weaknesses and failings of the political media more systematically than any of its predecessors. The administration combines tight message discipline and image management – Reagan's trademarks – with the artful use of half- or partial truths and elaborate news management – Clinton's specialties – in a combination that is near-lethal for the press."
The authors cite four "key weaknesses" of the press that helps a determined media spin operation get its message – and none other – through: " First and foremost, reporters are constrained by the norm of objectivity, which frequently causes them to avoid evaluating the truth of politicians' statements. In addition, because reporters are dependent upon the White House for news, the administration can shape the coverage it receives by restricting the flow of information to the press. The media are also vulnerable to political pressure and reprisal, which the Bush White House has aggressively dished out against critical journalists. Finally, the press' unending pursuit of scandal and entertaining news often blinds it to serious issues of public policy."
The White House handles the press the way TV producers package information with careful pre-planning, structured themes and packaged infomation. And so the "mili-tainment" we saw during the war has given way to "electo-tainment." The dynamics of coverage remain largely the same: simplistic, superficial, and uncritical.
Only a few commentators in the media have even commented on the "Iraqization" of our domestic election coverage. Paul Krugman of the New York Times is one of them, writing: ". . .the triumph of the trivial is not a trivial matter. The failure of TV news to inform the public about the policy proposals of this year's presidential candidates is, in its own way, as serious a journalistic betrayal as the failure to raise questions about the rush to invade Iraq."
Preceding the war, there were months of demonization of Saddam Hussein. A dictator in a sanctions crippled society that the US had put in power in the first place and armed for years was pictured as prepared to attack the United States or the world, take your pick. He was compared to Adolph Hitler. Time Magazine even redid a 1930's cover once used to chastise the Fuhrer, replacing his face with the "butcher of Baghad."
The Hollywood Playbook
To sell its war the Administration dipped into the playbook of Hollywood narrative technique, relying on story-telling, not sloganizing. A master narrative was concocted that fit the good guy/bad guy formula that works so well on the silver screen. The narrative was simplified into themes justifying pre-emptive intervention as the only recourse. Corporate PR pros helped plan and execute the strategy. Andrew Card, the President's top aid compared the launch of the war to a "product roll-out."
With some modifications, they are doing it again. This time their media plan relies on demonizing John Kerry with repeated charges like "flip flopper" and distorted information about his military service, knowing that a media that readily accepted their WMD claims will do little to scrutinize attacks on the Democratic candidate's character.
We heard them endlessly: "The war was forced on us;" "We will either fight them there or here;" "Saddam Hussein was a weapon of Mass Destruction;" "Kerry was for the war until he was against it;" etc., etc.
The GOP convention showcased all of these techniques built around vicious personal attacks, and distorted arguments that ignored any and all information that had earlier debunked them. They also used techniques honed in Qatar to build the case for their own political cruise missile: "Dubya". In fact, the administration official who supervised the coalition media center in Doha was brought in to run the GOP's convention press operation.
This master narrative for The Garden was a tale of a humble Texan whose character was forged by an epiphany of Biblical proportions after America came under attack by a foreign evil, and who by attacking Iraq has kept American families safe from terror. The conveniently added subplot: bringing freedom, "a gift from the almighty," to those poor Arabs suffering under ruthless extremists in the Middle East.
It was as if the 9-11 Commission had never happened, or the Senate Intelligence Committee report was never issued. The Republicans paid no respect for the facts; instead they hammered home a simple, made-for-TV narrative that delegates could mindlessly repeat like a mantra of received truth.
Media Shy Away from a Hard Truth
Perhaps you would expect that from politicians but what of the media? Were news organizations fact checking and debunking distortions? A few did but most did not. When Zell Miller, their keynoter finished his rant, he did find himself challenged aggressively by a few journalists – Chris Matthews on MSNBC and Wolf Blitzer on CNN. That was it. John Stewart featured the confrontations as a high point on his comedy channel show without mentioning that their challenges were the exception to uncritical coverage.
The Washington Post's sometime liberal columnist called Miller's diatribe' a "Category Five lie," and characterized the speech as "as mad an eruption of hate as I have witnessed in politics. Some time back, Kerry must have dissed Miller. This was personal."
But was it? Miller actually published a book that most of the press corps had not bothered to dig out called "A National Party No More," In it he trashes all the Democratic White House hopefuls at the time in the nastiest terms. The Republicans knew where Miller stood even if the press corps didn't bother to find it.
Most of the convention was then treated as a triumph for Bush because of his "Likeability." His speech was not scrutinized. The largest protest at any convention in American history with more than l,800 arrests, as opposed to 600 in Chicago in l968, was contained by police state tactics, treated as a nuisance by the GOP and ignored in most of the press, except on the Sunday before the event began.
Ignoring the Protesters at Your Gate
The streets around The Garden came to resemble Baghdad's high security Green Zone. There were protests against the media coverage in New York that went largely ignored.
I know. I spoke at one outside Fox News and down the block from CNN studios. The only wire story that I read about the event was by Agence France Press on a Turkish news website. I was interviewed by Canadian public radio, not NPR. One newspaper was there: The Toledo Blade.
The Blade's Jim Drew wrote: "For those of us with the 'limited access' credentials that couldn't get us on the convention floor, the streets were an option. And the guerrilla reporters found by far the most important and interesting story. In the age of international terrorism, the patriotic right of political dissent in the United States is in crisis."
He quoted Peter Hart, of Fairness and Accuracy in Media, which helped organize the march: "Mr. Hart said activists 'demand a more accountable media,' and they marched to the headquarters of 'corporate media' to celebrate the independent and alternative press."
"These are the people who sold us a war. The biggest media companies get bigger and bigger based on favors from the government. They sell ideas; that assistance to the poor must be reformed, and free trade is the only way. These are the ideas that the mainstream media are selling – and we're not buying," Hart told Drew.
I was quoted too saying, "I've never seen the level of defensiveness in the major media, the level of disenchantment, and the level of dread; journalists on the front lines representing the public in some way feeling they can't play that role."
And why? Because their bosses and the culture of corporate news makes it impossible.
At least some media outlets have not lost the spirit of independence and crusading that the US press used to be known for. The Toledo Blade's coverage of the protests mirrored its relentless and award winning coverage of war crimes in Vietnam.
Not the alleged "crimes" of John Kerry being blasted inside The Garden but real crimes committed in Vietnam 35 years ago by an American military unit that had all but been ignored by major media then and now. The Blade uncovered massacres by US troops and bravely made it news. And now the Pentagon is being forced by their persistence to reopen the issue.
And so, once again, the coverage of war or lack of coverage is linked – in this case by a heroic example of a newspaper in a small Ohio city in the heart of a battleground state.
The media battle, the political battle and the fight for truth about war has been joined.
By MICHAEL J. COPPS, FCC Commissioner
Published: August 30, 2004
As a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, I may not agree with many positions taken by speakers this week at the Republican National Convention. Even so, I believe our broadcast media owe us more coverage of an event that remains an important component of the presidential campaign. Yet tonight, if people around the country tune in to the commercial broadcast TV networks, most will not see any live convention coverage. That's not right.
Let's remember that American citizens own the public airwaves, not TV executives. We give broadcasters the right to use these airwaves for free in exchange for their agreement to broadcast in the public interest. They earn huge profits using this public resource. During this campaign season broadcasters will receive nearly $1.5 billion from political advertising.
What do we get in return for granting TV stations free use of our airwaves? Unfortunately, when it comes to coverage of issues important to our nation, the answer is less and less. Coverage of the 2000 presidential election on the network evening news dropped by a third compared to reporting on the 1996 election. During the last election cycle we heard directly from presidential candidates for an average of 9 seconds a night on the news. Local races? Forget it. In 2002 - the most recent midterm elections - more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all. Local coverage has diminished to the point that campaign ads outnumber campaign stories by four to one. What coverage there is focuses inordinately on polls and handicapping the horse race.
TV executives tell us that the convention and campaign coverage provided by the cable channels is sufficient. I don't think so. Around 35 million Americans don't get cable, often because they cannot afford it. To put it in perspective, that's more than the combined populations of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Furthermore, broadcasters legally undertake to serve the public interest themselves in exchange for free spectrum - their licenses don't allow them to pass the buck to cable. Remember also that the vast majority of cable channels are national, not local. So don't look for local campaign coverage on cable, except in the few towns where local cable news exists. Most Americans still must look to their local broadcaster for news of local campaigns and issues.
The F.C.C. is doing nothing to help as the situation deteriorates. It has weakened almost every explicit duty stations once had for serving the public interest, like ensuring that stations cover local issues and offer viewers a diversity of opinion. Just as bad, the commission eliminated protections against media consolidation last year, even though critics warned that this would result in even less local coverage. Luckily, a federal court rejected this decision, so we have another chance to save these rules.
The F.C.C. has also failed to set guidelines for how broadcasters will meet their public interest responsibilities when digital TV and multicasting become more widespread. To make matters worse, the F.C.C. now practically rubber-stamps TV license renewals, usually without auditing station records to determine whether licensees are fulfilling their public interest responsibilities or checking with communities to ensure that stations are meeting local needs.
Whether we are Democrats, Republicans or independents, we all can agree that democracy depends on well-informed citizens. So as you flip through the channels tonight while the convention is largely ignored, consider whether TV broadcasters, sustained by free access to the public airwaves in exchange for programming in the public interest, are holding up their end of the deal.
Philly Considers Wireless Internet for All
By DAVID B. CARUSO
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - For about $10 million, city officials believe they can turn all 135 square miles of Philadelphia into the world's largest wireless Internet hot spot.
The ambitious plan, now in the works, would involve placing hundreds, or maybe thousands of small transmitters around the city - probably atop lampposts. Each would be capable of communicating with the wireless networking cards that now come standard with many computers.
Once complete, the network would deliver broadband Internet almost anywhere radio waves can travel - including poor neighborhoods where high-speed Internet access is now rare.
And the city would likely offer the service either for free, or at costs far lower than the $35 to $60 a month charged by commercial providers, said the city's chief information officer, Dianah Neff.
``If you're out on your front porch with a laptop, you could dial in, register at no charge, and be able to access a high speed connection,'' Neff said. ``It's a technology whose time is here.''
If the plan becomes a reality, Philadelphia could leap to the forefront of a growing number of cities that have contemplated offering wireless Internet service to residents, workers and guests.
Chaska, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis, began offering citywide wireless Internet access this year for $16 a month. The signal covers about 13 square miles.
Corpus Christi, Texas, has been experimenting with a system covering 20 square miles that would be used (for now) only by government employees.
Over the past year, Cleveland has added some 4,000 wireless transmitters in its University Circle, Midtown and lakefront districts. The service is free, and available to anyone who passes through the areas.
Some 1,016 people were logged in to the system at 2:20 Tuesday afternoon, said Lev Gonick, chief information officer at Case Western Reserve University, which is spearheading the project and paying for a chunk of it.
``We like to say it should be like the air you breathe - free and available everywhere,'' Gonick said. ``We look at this like PBS or NPR. It should be a public resource.''
In New York, city officials are negotiating to sell wireless carriers space on 18,000 lampposts for as much as $21.6 million annually. T-Mobile USA Inc., Nextel Partners Inc., IDT Corp. and three other wireless carriers want the equipment to increase their networks' capacity.
One part of the 15-year deal is cheap Wi-Fi phones for neighborhoods where less than 95 percent of residents have home phones. IDT, which has agreed to market the cheaper phone service in those neighborhoods, would pay lower rates for poles there than other companies would in wealthier areas.
Wireless technology has improved by leaps and bounds in recent years and become drastically less expensive.
The new ``wireless mesh'' technology under consideration in Philadelphia has made it possible to expand those similar networks over entire neighborhoods, with the help of relatively cheap antennas.
Neff estimated it would cost about $10 million to pay for the initial infrastructure for the system, plus $1.5 million a year to maintain.
Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street, a technology buff who carries a wireless handheld computer everywhere he goes, appointed a 14-member committee last week to work out the specifics of his city's plan, including any fees, or restrictions on its use.