Telecom toadies (ahem, state officials) stifle competition to keep prices high.
By Lawrence Lessig
You'll be pleased to know that communism was defeated in Pennsylvania last year. Governor Ed Rendell signed into law a bill prohibiting the Reds in local government from offering free Wi-Fi throughout their municipalities. The action came after Philadelphia, where more than 50 percent of neighborhoods don't have access to broadband, embarked on a $10 million wireless Internet project. City leaders had stepped in where the free market had failed. Of course, it's a slippery slope from free Internet access to Karl Marx. So Rendell, the telecom industry's latest toady, even while exempting the City of Brotherly Love, acted to spare Pennsylvania from this grave threat to its economic freedom.
Let's hope this is just the first step. For if you look closely, you'll see the communist menace has infiltrated governments everywhere. Ever notice those free photons as you walk the city at night? Ever think about the poor streetlamp companies, run out of business because municipalities deigned to do completely what private industry would do only incompletely? Or think about the scandal of public roads: How many tollbooth workers have lost their jobs because we no longer (since about the 18th century) fund all roads through private enterprise? Municipal buses compete with private taxis. City police departments hamper the growth at Pinkerton's (now Securitas). It's a national scandal. So let the principle that guided Rendell guide governments everywhere: If private industry can provide a service, however poorly or incompletely, then ban the government from competing. What's true for Wi-Fi should be true for water.
No, I haven't lost my mind. But this sort of insanity is raging across the US today. Pushed by lobbyists, at least 14 states have passed legislation similar to Pennsylvania's. I've always wondered what almost $1 billion spent on lobbying state lawmakers gets you. Now I'm beginning to see.
The telcos' argument isn't much more subtle than that of the simpleton who began this column: Businesses shouldn't have to compete against their governments. What the market can do, the government shouldn't. Or so the fall of the Soviet Union should have taught us.
Although this principle is true enough in most cases, it is obviously not true in all. The government should certainly not do what private enterprise can do better (e.g., make computers). And the government should not prohibit private enterprise from competing against it (e.g., FedEx). But the government also should not act as the cat's paw for one of the most powerful industries in the nation by making competition against that industry illegal, whether from government or not. This is true, at least, when it is unclear just what kind of "good" such competition might produce.
Broadband is the perfect example. The private market has failed the US so far. At the beginning, we led the world in broadband deployment. But by 2004, we ranked an embarrassing 13th. There are many places, like Philadelphia, where service is lacking. And there are many places, like San Francisco, where competition is lacking. The result of the duopoly that currently defines "competition" is that prices and service suck. We're the world's leader in Internet technology - except that we're not.
The solution is not to fire private enterprise; it is instead to encourage more competition. Communities across the country are experimenting with ways to supplement private service. And these experiments are producing unexpected economic returns. Some are discovering that free wireless access increases the value of public spaces just as, well, streetlamps do. And just as streetlamps don't make other types of lighting obsolete, free wireless access in public spaces won't kill demand for access in private spaces. In economoid-speak, these public services may well provide positive externalities. Yet we will never recognize these externalities unless municipalities are free to experiment. That's why the bipartisan Silicon Valley advocacy group TechNet explicitly endorses allowing local governments to compete with broadband providers.
City and state politicians should have the backbone to stand up to self-serving lobbyists. Citizens everywhere should punish telecom toadies who don't. Backwater broadband has been our fate long enough. Let the markets, both private and public, compete to provide the service that telecom and cable has not.
Email Lawrence Lessig at lawrence_lessig@wiredmag.com.
Source: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/view.html?pg=5
The New York Times
March 30, 2005
Bob and Barney, With a Few Words From Sponsors
By JULIE SALAMON
Has Big Bird sold out?
On Monday Comcast is to announce the details of its new 24-hour digital cable channel for preschoolers, which will feature Elmo, Big Bird, Barney - and commercials. PBS not only approves, but is a partner: the channel's co-owners are PBS, Sesame Workshop and HIT Entertainment, producer of "Barney and Friends" and "Bob the Builder."
"I don't like pitching products to young children and I never have," said Joan Ganz Cooney, a co-founder of Children's Television Workshop (now Sesame Workshop) and the chairwoman of the executive committee of its board. "But to some degree that is nostalgia for a time that is past. The whole society, the whole business is so commercialized, even public television. This is another way of getting PBS's excellent programming to children."
Some public television station managers worry that the Comcast deal represents a potential threat to an essential ingredient of the Public Broadcasting Service's shows for young children. "The crucial issue is providing a commercial-free haven for over-the-air delivery of children's programming as opposed to a commercial entity that is out of our control," said John Hesse, general manager of KUHT, the public television station in Houston.
The distinction between public and commercial television has become increasingly ephemeral in the last decade as traditional underwriter announcements have taken on the trappings of regular advertising. The merchandizing of popular characters like Barney and Elmo is big business. Meanwhile, technology has upended traditional ideas of what people watch and when.
The new channel "is responding to a television industry that is in revolution," said John Boland, executive vice president at public television's KQED in San Francisco. "We're moving into an environment of total audience control. This channel is just one little part of that."
Others think the revolution is not so benign. "This is a slippery slope," said Nancy Carlsson-Paige, an education professor at Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass., who has been a consultant for WGBH, the public television station in Boston. "What can prevent them from going further once they see what an inviting territory that is?"
"I don't blame PBS for this," Professor Carlsson-Paige said. "It's a society-wide problem. We aren't adequately funding public television and public programming for children. PBS doesn't have enough funds and so they are doing this."
Public television stations will continue to operate their usual children's programming schedules, and provide the premiere runs of "Sesame Street" and other familiar shows. But these schedules vary market to market and are limited, Ms. Cooney of Sesame Workshop said. "If you don't have children around, as I do grandchildren, I don't think it's understood how difficult it is to get a schedule of little children's programming when you need it," she said.
Local public television stations must decide whether they also want to be affiliated with the new channel. That would mean promoting the channel as well as giving up any digital channels providing preschool programming that they might be operating locally without advertising.
KUHT in Houston decided not to affiliate. "The spots that are going to run on the commercial channel are outright commercials, product endorsements, superlatives, all that sort of thing, which we don't have on our underwriting spots on our channel," Mr. Hesse, the station manager, said. "I have some concern about pointing our viewers toward a commercial station when we have touted ourselves as a safe haven from commercial programming."
KQED in San Francisco has signed on, even though it already operates a digital cable channel called KQED Kids. That channel will no longer carry preschool programming. "We plan to redirect it to kids who are too old for 'Barney' and 'Teletubbies,' " Mr. Boland said.
Comcast and its partners, which announced the deal in October, plan to provide details - including the channel's name - on Monday at the annual trade show of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.
The digital channel that will provide a 24-hour diet of PBS-branded children's-show reruns won't begin until this fall. On Monday, however, Comcast will begin a video-on-demand service containing 50 hours of reruns of "Bob the Builder," "Thomas & Friends," "Angelina Ballerina" and "Sesame Street."
The video-on-demand programs will come commercial-free, at least at the beginning, a Comcast spokeswoman said. On the 24-hour channel, however, commercials will appear before and after the programs, though not during them.
Wayne Godwin, chief operating officer of PBS, stressed that the commercials on the new channel would be in terms of their placement and intended audience. "We at PBS were a part of shaping the message around what was and what was not appropriate," he said. "Messages will be targeted to parents and caregivers as opposed to things aimed directly at children."
But James Day, a co-founder of KQED who was on the original board of Children's Television Workshop, said he wondered how easy it would be to control commercials and their content. "It's awfully hard to choose your advertiser," he said. "You get who wants to reach that audience, not what you want that audience to be reached with."
PBS and its partners have veto rights over the question of commercial interruption as well as the educational nature of the channel. But, as Mr. Godwin said, "I don't think you'll find someone from PBS screening each one of the commercials."
Participants in the venture, as well as many public television station executives, said the Comcast deal simply reflects financial and cultural realities. For years PBS was in a league of its own when it came to children's programming. But with cable television came competition from the likes of Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, the Cartoon Network and Discovery Kids. Digital cable opened the door to more competition from more channels.
"It made sense to have private industry leverage up money to create a new channel, which will give children the opportunity to view these characters which are right now in limited time periods," Gary Knell, president of Sesame Workshop, said. "If public television doesn't take bold steps like creating this new service, it's going to be a wind-down. The trend isn't going to get better, and it's naïve to say you can simply do what you are doing and pretend the world isn't changing."
Except for people with long memories, it has become a given that children as well as adults should be able to watch what they want 24 hours a day. Mr. Day, however, is dubious. "Anybody who sees me quoted will recognize that I'm an old-fashioned crank," he said. "But I believe the competitiveness that leads to such a proliferation tends to degrade the quality of television itself. It may be there's a downside to choice. My point is not 'What's the harm?' but 'What's the value?' "
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/arts/television/30pbs.html
By Camille T. Taiara
SF Bay Guardian, March 30th
It took three visits to Gary Merrill Laufman's San Francisco home for Comcast technicians to get his cable service in working order. Laufman sat at home, waiting for hours each time – during work hours.
"One time," he told the Bay Guardian, "they didn't come at all."
Comcast eventually gave Laufman $120 in credit on his bill after he made a couple of calls to San Francisco's Department of Telecommunications and Information Services last May. The agency oversees Comcast's franchise contract with the city, which grants Comcast the right-of-way to string its cable lines along the city's utility poles and under its streets and is set to expire at the end of the year (see "Reinventing Cable," 2/2/05).
But what really riles Laufman is Comcast's expensive prices. "What's cable going to cost in two years – $70?"
Laufman's story is all too familiar to many San Francisco cable subscribers, who've seen their rates increase by 37 percent since Comcast bought out AT&T Broadband, the city's previous provider, and took over operations in November 2002.
"Just do a Google search on 'Comcast' and 'hate,' " Sydney Levy of Media Alliance suggested. So we did, and it generated 339,000 hits.
In fact, a 2004 American Customer Satisfaction Index survey found that Comcast – the nation's largest cable company, with 21 million cable subscribers nationwide and 70 percent of the nation's top 20 markets – has the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the country, including the Internal Revenue Service.
Even so, Comcast "surpass[ed] $20 billion in revenue for the first time" last year, chair and CEO Brian L. Roberts boasted when the company announced its year-end earnings Feb. 3.
So why is business still booming at Comcast? Deregulation and a set of favorable Federal Communications Commission policies – in large part, the result of the cable industry's lobbying muscle and healthy campaign contributions – have granted Comcast near monopoly power in 8 of the country's top 10 markets.
Comcast holds more than 100 franchise agreements in the greater Bay Area. Approximately 180,000 of San Francisco's 183,000 cable customers, or 98 percent of the city's cable users, subscribe to Comcast.
Now, just as San Francisco enters negotiations with Comcast to renew its franchise contract, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the nation's major cable-industry lobby group, is coming to town for its annual conference, being held at the Moscone Center April 3 to 5.
So this is a fine time to highlight a few things everyone should know about the Bay Area's chief cable provider – including how it squeezes its customers, limits access to independent sources of information, and has launched full-scale attacks on labor and local governments.
All or nothing
A 2004 study by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) found that Comcast's rates have skyrocketed by 50 percent – almost three times the pace of inflation – since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 further deregulated the cable industry.
Comcast spokesperson Andrew Johnson told us the increase was simply the result of customers "buying more content." What he didn't explain was that Comcast and the NCTA have resisted providing à la carte programming, through which customers could choose which channels they want. Comcast's standard service in San Francisco consists of more than 80 channels – including such exciting offerings as Jewelry TV and the Golf Channel – at a rate of $45.99 a month. Customers must pay even more if they want popular movie channels like HBO and Showtime.
This means Comcast essentially forces customers to pay for channels they may not want. The CFA found that 80 percent of those customers wouldn't pay for ESPN if they didn't have to. "I can do without the jewelry channel," Laufman said.
The CFA points instead to a lack of real competition as the root cause of exorbitant cable rates – and estimates that "the cost imposed on consumers by [cable's] abuse of market power is between $4.5 and $6 billion per year, compared to what prices would be in a competitive market."
Cable companies' ability to also provide Internet via their lines gives them a key advantage over satellite TV providers. And Comcast has been able to extract even higher returns by offering Internet discounts to cable TV customers.
The scheme has worked wonders for the cable industry, which has been enjoying a mushrooming share of the residential high-speed Internet market – including 63 percent of San Francisco's, according to Nielsen/NetRatings findings released in September, and 83 percent of residential DSL nationwide, according to the CFA.
Telecom analysts warn that traditional telephone companies will likely suffer even greater setbacks as Comcast and other cable providers begin offering telephone service via emerging Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology.
Content control
Perhaps more insidious is Comcast's control over what its customers see and read. Like its monolithic counterparts in the broadcast industry, Comcast has expanded vertically, buying up controlling interests in production facilities and using its advertising muscle to wrest exclusivity agreements from content providers.
"Cable operators are 64 percent more likely to carry the programming in which they have a majority ownership stake," the CFA found.
The trend is all the more harrowing when you consider the U.S. Public Interest Research Group's finding that cable is Americans' main source of news and entertainment.
"Comcast can make or break any potential program service or channel," Jeff Chester, director of the Center for Digital Democracy, told us. "They're able to exert all sorts of leverage, from dictating program formats to securing a significant minority, or even a controlling, financial interest."
But Comcast's rein over content reaches into the Internet, too, where – unlike telephone companies, which are required by law to grant equal access to competing ISPs – the company blocks competing service providers from accessing its cable lines and, thereby, its customers. Comcast could play favorites among different sites by making some available at higher speeds than others and even "outlaw devices [such as those used to download video and music] through acceptable-use policies," explained Ralf Muehlen, director of SFLan.org, which provides free wireless Internet access.
"It's certainly within their rights to do so under current federal regulations," he said. And any such moves would curtail the vitality of the Internet as a hub of the democratic exchange of information and ideas, making alternative, noncorporate viewpoints even less accessible than they already are.
The Wal-Mart of telecom?
Labor representatives say Comcast is so abusive in its employment practices that they've begun referring to the company as the Wal-Mart of the telecommunications industry. A recent study by American Rights at Work, titled "No Bargain: Comcast and the Future of Workers' Rights in Telecommunications" and released in June, uncovered some disturbing practices by the company, including depressed wages and a variety of union-busting tactics.
Salaries "are approximately one-third lower than the unionized telephone companies," the report reads. "Employee turnover and the use of temporary workers ... are twice as high as the telephone industry average.... Only one in four locations where a union exists have been able to obtain a collective bargaining agreement."
"We lost 2,000 members since Comcast took over AT&T," Communication Workers of America's Lisa Morowitz told us, adding that the figure represents "over half of the employees we represent at Comcast." CWA is one of only two unions that represent Comcast workers nationwide and the only one representing Comcast employees in California, she said.
Comcast's Johnson said his company has reached agreements with all its unionized shops in the Bay Area. Morowitz answered that Comcast was obligated to do so by federal law. "It doesn't change the fact that they've got [hundreds] of unfair-labor-practice charges filed against them," she said. "They fire and harass union employees. They've literally moved work from unionized to nonunionized locations."
Johnson refused to answer further questions about Comcast's labor practices when asked about Comcast's wage structure versus that of the telephone industry.
Sticking it to cities
Workers aren't the only ones who've found Comcast difficult to deal with. Increasingly, the company has been playing hardball with local governments during franchise-renewal negotiations. It sued the city of San Jose in 2003, arguing, in essence, that the negotiations process violates the company's First Amendment rights. The courts found against Comcast, but the company is now appealing the decision. In the meantime, it's been seven years since San Jose's franchise agreement expired.
Comcast filed suit against Walnut Creek Feb. 25 after the city said it wouldn't allow the company to upgrade its system until they reached an agreement on a franchise renewal.
One week earlier, Marin County residents lost access to KPFA-FM and other regional radio stations after Comcast stopped providing the FM radio service local listeners relied on to get radio signals otherwise blocked by the area's hilly terrain.
"It was a business decision that reflects the overwhelming needs of our customers," Comcast's Johnson argued, even though more than 200 people showed up at San Rafael's City Hall March 9 to protest the move in front of the Marin Telecommunications Agency.
Media democracy advocates say these are but a few examples of a nationwide effort, by Comcast and other cable providers, to undermine the local negotiations process and lobby against municipalities having a say in what they demand in return for granting cable companies the rights-of-way needed to reach customers in their communities.
In Philadelphia, where Comcast is headquartered and enjoys multimillion-dollar tax breaks, the company doesn't even provide for a single public access channel – a staple of most franchise agreements.
Fight back
As the expiration of Comcast's franchise agreement with San Francisco nears, local media activists are already holding informal meetings in local communities to gather public input they hope the city will use in its upcoming franchise negotiations with Comcast. The Department of Telecommunications and Information Services said it expects to launch formal town halls in mid-April.
Media Alliance is launching an online survey by April 3 – the first day of the NCTA's conference – for residents to sound off on Comcast's service and what they'd like to see come out of the city's negotiations, which the group will likewise submit as public comment.
But activists – including those with Media Alliance, CWA, Code Pink, and others – are also planning on making their presence felt as cable industry big-wigs and FCC representatives amass at Moscone Center, with a rally out front April 3, the first day of the NCTA conference.
"This is the time for people to speak up," Media Alliance's Levy urged. "And not just about what they don't like, but about what they want [from their cable provider] in the future."
The "Stop Media Consolidation! Hold Comcast Accountable!" rally takes place Sun/3, 2 p.m., Moscone Center, 747 Howard, S.F. (510) 834-9415.
To participate in Media Alliance's Comcast survey, go to
http://www.media-alliance.org.
Editorial, SF Bay Guardian
March 30, 2005
San Francisco's franchise agreement with Comcast, the local cable and Internet service provider, ends this year, and the city has a rare and critical opportunity to demand - and get - lower cable rates, better service, free Internet access, and a lot more money for community media. But city officials are already behind schedule on the negotiations, and they need to kick the process into high gear, now.
The franchise agreement allows Comcast to use the city's streets to deliver its services - in exchange for cash and other concessions. The deal is immensely valuable to the giant corporation: Comcast claims its franchises (which allow it to reach 21 million customers nationwide) are worth a total of $51 billion. In San Francisco alone, the company projects revenue of $1 billion over the next 10 years.
But as Camille T. Taiara reports on page 12, Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, is known for lousy service, exorbitant rates, and poor community and labor relations. The current franchise agreement gives the city only a small fraction of the benefits it ought to be getting and does little or nothing to take advantage of new technologies.
There's a long list of services that ought to be mandated in any new deal (and www<\d>.mediasf<\d>.org has a fairly comprehensive platform). Among the most important:
• Low-cost cable and Internet services for seniors and low-income people.
• Free cable-TV, Internet, and wireless access in all public buildings.
• Free cable and Internet for nonprofits.
• More money for local grassroots media production facilities.
• A strong consumer-protection policy with effective public oversight, including a Comcast-funded city ombudsperson to handle complaints.
And since broadband communication technology is changing so fast, the city needs to mandate a renegotiation window every few years, so San Francisco isn't stuck with a long-term contract that becomes hopelessly outdated halfway through.
None of this will be easy: Comcast is known for aggressive negotiation and is quick to sue cities that don't bow to its interests. And in the past, San Francisco has done an eminently lousy job with these deals, working out sweetheart contracts behind closed doors. The supervisors and the city attorney need to take a clear and strong public stand, now, on what the bottom line in the franchise talks will be and provide regular public updates as the negotiations proceed.
The city has the biggest bargaining chip of all. If Comcast balks even a little bit, the city should move immediately to create a municipal cable system, along the lines that Sup. Tom Ammiano has proposed. That's the ultimate answer to high rates and bad service by an unaccountable private monopoly.
THE GUILD REPORTER
Diana Barahona, March 11, 2005
Over the past year, U.S. news stories about press
freedom increasingly have cited the work of a
Paris-based organization, Reporters Without Borders
(Reporters sans Frontières, or RSF). Indeed, despite
its small size and lack of high-profile principals,
Reporters Without Borders has achieved nearly the same
name-recognition as the New York-based Committee to
Protect Journalists, which can boast of having Walter
Cronkite, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw on its board of directors.
To be sure, RSF has embraced many causes near and dear
to American journalists. For example, it was among the
more outspoken organizations demanding a Pentagon
investigation of the shelling of the Hotel Palestine,
in which two journalists were inexplicably killed.
More recently, it has lambasted federal prosecutors
for targeting Judith Miller, Matthew Cooper and other
journalists in an effort to force them to disclose their
sources.
But RSF, unlike the CPJ, is heavily funded by
government grants, raising questions about its
objectivity.
And a closer examination of the battles RSF wages-and
those it ignores-strongly suggests a political agenda
colored by its choice of patrons. Unfortunately, the
organization appears unwilling to address such
concerns: RSF's New York representative, Tala
Dowlatshahi, terminated a telephone interview
when asked if the organization had applied last
year for any U.S. government grants other than
one received from the National Endowment for
Democracy.
Most notable, perhaps, is the group's obvious
political bias in its reporting on Haiti. RSF
expressed its support for the Feb. 29, 2004,
Franco-American overthrow of Haitian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that it
received 11% of its budget from the French government
(°Ë397,604, or approximately $465,200 in 2003).
According to Haiti-based journalist and documentary
film-maker Kevin Pina, the organization selectively
documented attacks on opposition radio stations while
ignoring other attacks on journalists and broadcasters
to create the impression of state-sponsored violence
against Aristide's opponents.
RSF blamed Aristide for the unsolved murders of two
journalists, calling him a "predator of press
freedom," then celebrated his departure in a July 2004
article headlined, "Press freedom returns: a gain to
be nurtured." "A new wind of freedom is blowing for
the capital's radio stations," it proclaimed, adding
that Aristide-who had no army-was planning a
"scorched-earth ending" to the crisis that began when
300 paramilitaries armed with M-16s invaded from the
Dominican Republic.
But RSF fell silent in the bloody aftermath of the
coup, even in the face of continued attacks on
journalists. For example, the police killing of radio
reporter Abdias Jean in a Port-au-Prince slum this
January went unnoticed by the group, as did an attack
on journalist Raoul Saint-Louis, who was shot this
February after receiving death threats and who is now
in hiding. In fact, unlike its sustained campaign
against Aristide, RSF doesn't blame the current
government for anything.
Pina claims the stories told in the press about
Aristide losing support and using gangs to hold onto
power were a manipulation designed by a U.S. State
Department-created opposition and by the national and
international media. The story the media -and
RSF-refused to show is one of a hugely
popular president and a citizenry that wanted him to
finish his term. Opponents of Aristide staged
demonstrations which the media dutifully covered while
ignoring the much larger pro-Aristide marches; at the
same time, the country's largest political movement,
LAVALAS, was portrayed as a violent mob.
Reporters Without Borders also has gone after
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for allegedly
threatening the private media.
The conflict between the Chávez administration and the
media goes back to before April, 2002, when
Venezuela's four private television stations actively
aided and abetted a military coup against the
government. On the night of the coup, following months
of broadcasting anti-Chávez speeches
and calling for a "transitional government," media
mogul Gustavo Cisneros's station hosted meetings among
the plotters-including would-be dictator Pedro
Carmona.
The president of Venezuela's broadcasting association
signed the decree dissolving the national assembly,
and for the next two days the stations blacked out
information about the kidnapped president or the
retaking of the presidential palace by loyal troops
backed by hundreds of thousands of supporters in the
S streets. No television owners or managers have been
prosecuted or lost their broadcasting licenses;
nevertheless, RSF continues to side with the private
media against the "authoritarian" Chávez.
On November 26, 2004, RSF issued a report critical of
a proposed media reform bill in Venezuela's National
Assembly ("Reporters Without Borders criticizes new
law threatening press freedom"). Coincidentally or
not, the report came just two weeks after RSF had
applied for a grant from the U.S. National Endowment
for Democracy. Although the NED ostensibly is a
private agency, its money is appropriated by Congress
and controlled by the State Department.
Human rights lawyer Eva Golinger has documented more
than $20 million given by the NED and USAID to
opposition groups and private media in Venezuela, many
of them headed by coup participants. The NED granted
RSF nearly $40,000 in January. Although the rights
group has criticized Chávez since the time of the 2002
coup- well before the grant-its application for money
from a U.S. government agency that has been targeting
the Venezuelan president for regime change raises
questions about RSF's independence, as well as its
willingness to criticize its benefactors.
That brings us to Iraq and RSF's 2004 report on the
invasion and its aftermath, which is rambling and
contradictory. It reports, for example, that the
overthrow of Hussein "opened a new era of freedom . .
. for Iraqi journalists;" meanwhile, the International
News Safety Institute reports that 44 Iraqi
journalists and support staff have died covering the
conflict since it began two years ago. Similarly, the
RSF asserts that the bombing of the Ministry of
Information-a war crime under the Geneva Conventions-
"[ended] decades of zero press freedom." That sunny
assessment is followed by 11 pages detailing
journalists killed, wounded, missing and imprisoned.
To its credit, the report doesn't whitewash the
killing by U.S. forces of five foreign journalists or
missile attacks by the U.S. on Al-Jazeera and Abu
Dhabi TV. But these and other attacks on the press in
Iraq, such as the closing of Al-Jazeera, apparently
haven't hurt too badly the United States' position in
RSF's ranking of countries by press freedom, currently
a reasonably respectable 17th. By comparison,
Venezuela is way down the list at number 77.
And a telling example of how RSF mutes its criticisms
of U.S. policies is the way it has responded to the
abduction of Al-Jazeera cameraman Sami Al-Haj. Al Haj
disappeared in December 2001, while on assignment in
Afghanistan , and ended up in the U.S. concentration
camp in Guantanamo , where he remains to this day. Not
only has Al-Haj disappeared physically, he has all but
disappeared from the RSF web site, where he is
mentioned only once in a January 27 press release
about Al-Jazeera. By contrast, RSF routinely wages
high-profile campaigns on behalf of European
journalists kidnapped by Iraqi resistance fighters.
###
Diana Barahona was an elections observer in El
Salvador and Venezuela in 2004. She is studying
journalism in California.
http://www.newsguild.org/gr/gr_display.php?storyID="13
Published: March 18, 2005 11:20 AM ET
NEW YORK (AP) The ethnic press feels discriminated against by government agencies, which often don't return phone calls or provide relevant information, according to a survey released Wednesday by the 115-member Independent Press Association-New York.
"Information delayed is information denied," said Abby Scher, director of the association, citing a figure of about 50 percent for the timely delivery of information from government agencies.
Among New York City agencies, respondents said they had the most difficulty getting responses from the police, the fire department, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office and the Department of Education, while they had good experiences with the City Council and the Commissioner of Immigrant Affairs.
They described the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the courts, Gov. George Pataki's office, and the Department of Labor as the most difficult state entities, and the state Assembly, the state Senate, and the attorney general as the easiest.
On the federal level, reporters called the Department of Homeland Security, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Affairs, and the Department of Justice unhelpful in providing information. U.S. senators and congressmen were seen as accessible.
The Independent Press Association-New York, a network of immigrant, African-American, and community newspapers, conducted the survey as part of Sunshine Week, a national campaign called by the American Society of Newspaper Editors to bring attention to the closing down of government information.
The survey, put together with the assistance of Joshua Klein, a professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College, documented the experiences of 36 reporters and editors representing 32 newspapers from ethnic communities in and around New York City.
Source: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000846210
Clear Channel Loses Case With Rival
New York Times
By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO and JEFF LEEDS
Published: March 22, 2005
A federal jury in Chicago ruled yesterday that the entertainment giant Clear Channel Communications had competed unfairly in fighting to win back a contract to hold Supercross motorcycle races and awarded a smaller Chicago promoter $90 million in damages.
The jury of nine women and one man also found that Clear Channel was not liable in the most serious claim of antitrust behavior. But the case represented the first time that a company had made such claims against Clear Channel, which dominates radio and live-entertainment promotion, to a jury.
"I don't mind competing with anybody, but when I compete, I don't take a bat to someone's knees to try to cripple them," said Jerry Mickelson, co-owner of Jam Productions, which brought the suit against Clear Channel. "I'm glad I was able to follow this lawsuit through. It was important that someone did it."
Legal specialists said that the jury was making a statement about what constitutes proper behavior between competitors. The jury "wanted to send a strong message to Clear Channel and to the marketplace that the bigger party must play fair and not use its power to ruin the business of a smaller entity," said Michael J. Kump, an antitrust lawyer at Greenberg Glusker, a law firm in Los Angeles.
Clear Channel said it would appeal. It portrayed Mr. Mickelson of Jam Productions as a "disgruntled competitor who couldn't succeed in the marketplace and took his case to the courtroom." Andrew W. Levin, Clear Channel's general counsel, said that the company expected damages to be significantly reduced on appeal.
Some analysts suggested that the case would invite closer scrutiny of the company's conduct, and potentially more litigation from competitors. "This ruling is a serious threat to Clear Channel," said Andrew Schwartzman, president of the Media Access Project, a law firm that represents noncommercial broadcasters and consumer-advocacy clients, in part "for the incentives it provides to other plaintiffs and lawyers to pursue them."
"There's a little bit of blood in the water," Mr. Schwartzman added.
Indeed, the scrutiny of Clear Channel on a new front - motor sports - had begun even before yesterday's verdict. In an interview, Jeffrey Singer, Jam's lead lawyer, said he had received a "civil investigative demand" from the Justice Department seeking documents from the Jam matter. The inquiry into motorcycle racing promotion is the third federal inquiry involving Clear Channel, according to people briefed on the matter. The department's antitrust division has also been examining the company's conduct in the radio and concert businesses and its accumulation of market power in a particular radio market.
Mr. Singer said that since summer his legal team had been turning over to regulators tens of thousands of pages of documents, including depositions of about a half-dozen Clear Channel executives who testified in the six-week trial.
A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to say whether it had asked for documents.
Mr. Levin said he was not worried about scrutiny from federal authorities. "The facts underlying this case do not give rise to an antitrust violation. The facts weren't seen that way by a jury, so it's even more unlikely that the Justice Department would see it that way."
There have been recent indications that the Justice Department is continuing to study the company's conduct. An investigator from the department unexpectedly appeared at the concert industry's annual convention in Los Angeles last month to meet with a number of independent event promoters, according to people briefed on the matter.
The Jam case involved sponsorship of Supercross, a competition featuring motorcycle dirt bike races in stadiums around the country. The jury found Clear Channel liable for interfering with a letter of intent that Jam had signed in November 2001 with Paradama Productions to be the tour's promoter from 2003 to 2009. Paradama is the motorcycle-racing unit of the American Motorcyclist Association, the sport's main sanctioning body. The jury also found that Clear Channel interfered knowing that it stood to benefit financially by derailing Jam's deal with Paradama. It awarded Jam $17 million in damages for lost profit and punitive damages of $73 million.
Jam contended that Clear Channel acted illegally in trying to win back the contract during a 90-day exclusivity period between Jam and Paradama. Clear Channel executives acknowledged during the trial that pressure was applied to stadium managers to deny Jam dates to hold Supercross races and that they tried to influence members of Paradama's board and its parent's board to reverse their decision. After Clear Channel struck an unusual alliance with the American Motorcyclist Association's international counterpart, Paradama and its parent's board did reverse themselves and went back to Clear Channel.
About a dozen Clear Channel executives testified, including Randall T. Mays, the chief financial officer, and Brian E. Becker, the head of its live entertainment division. E-mail, handwritten notes and other testimony offered in the trial portrayed Clear Channel executives as working behind the scenes to hold onto their Supercross business after JamSports and Entertainment, a newly formed unit of Jam Productions, signed the letter of intent.
Clear Channel, with revenues in 2004 of $9.4 billion, grew out of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which relaxed media ownership restrictions and allowed Clear Channel to gobble up competitors. Along the way, it purchased SFX Entertainment, which had dominated live-events promotion, including Supercross. Clear Channel has often been cited by critics as an example of media industry deregulation gone awry. The company has said it has competed fairly.
While Mr. Schwartzman said Clear Channel had "moved with increasing sophistication" to repair its image, "they will regard this as a message that they've got more work to do."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/business/media/22radios.html
40,000 Citizens call for an End to Government-produced Propaganda,
Local Stations to be Approached Next
WASHINGTON — A national coalition for media reform filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission today, urging the FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin to investigate broadcasters who distribute government-sponsored news reports without identifying their source.
Nearly 40,000 concerned citizens have already signed a petition circulated by the coalition last week calling on the FCC, Congress and local broadcasters to “stop fake news.” The petition, available at www.freepress.net/fakenews, seeks to strengthen and enforce laws against government propaganda and demands “that the Bush administration stop using our tax dollars to create fake news reports.”
“Both the Bush administration and local broadcasters must be held accountable for this betrayal of the public trust,” said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. “The FCC needs to take quick action to investigate and eradicate news fraud, and enforce existing laws against payola. Congress must enact new laws that will stop government-funded fake news from going on the air without a disclaimer.”
A March 13 article in the New York Times identified 20 federal agencies that used taxpayer funds to produce hundreds of television news segments promoting Bush administration policies. These “video news releases,” or VNRs, were broadcast on hundreds of local news programs without disclosing their source.
At least three investigations by Congress’ Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously concluded that these segments constitute illegal "covert propaganda.” Yet the White House recently instructed all executive branch agencies to ignore the GAO findings and continue to produce propaganda.
Media Alliance is working with Free Press and local groups around the country to establish “citizen agreements” with local stations, under which broadcasters pledge to clearly identify or label pre-packaged reports produced by the government.
"We'll be going directly to local stations to nail down their commitments and monitor their follow-through, " said Jeff Perlstein, Executive Director of Media Alliance. "With TV licenses in California up for renewal in 2006, we're keeping a close eye on broadcasters' behavior and will be working to ensure their accountability to the communities they're charged with serving."
“Not labeling fake news produced by the government or corporations constitutes news fraud, plagiarism, and violates the most basic ethical standards of journalism,” said John Stauber, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy. “Fortunately, there is a simple solution for TV news producers: Do not use VNRs, or, if you do, label them on-air showing who provided and paid for them.”
Time Warner gets its wish on rates
By PEGGY LIM, News and Observer (Raleigh, NC)
About 450,000 cable subscribers in a 16-county area around the Triangle no
longer have local governments overseeing their rates, and consumer
advocates say prices may rise.
Thirty-two governments lost their power to regulate Time Warner basic
cable rates last week when the Federal Communications Commission granted
the company's request to end that regulation. The company, which had
repeatedly sought rate increases, argued successfully that it now gets
enough competition from satellite television companies to exempt it from
regulation.
Time Warner officials say rates should not go up considerably.
"The cities and towns in our 16-county division have advocated for
competition for years," said Brad Phillips, Time Warner Cable vice
president of government and public affairs. "The rates we charge our
customers have been determined by competition, not regulation."
Bob Sepe, a consultant hired by many of the affected communities to
monitor Time Warner's rates and services, wrote in a memo to city, town
and county managers that FCC deregulation decisions give cable companies a
license to gouge.
"Contrary to accepted economic principles, this is the first time in
history that competition has resulted in increased consumer prices," he
wrote.
Sepe wrote in his memo to the 28 governments he represents that the data
Time Warner used to show that satellite companies were taking its business
were "seriously flawed."
www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2214585p-8595296c.html
Verizon seeks break from cable's rules
From Investors Business Daily, March 11, 2005
By Reinhardt Krause
Aiming to roll out more video services, Verizon Communications’ lobbyists have set their sights on California and New Jersey.
A big local phone company, Verizon (VZ) has launched an aggressive drive to upgrade much of its service area to video-ready fiber networks.
Verizon is backing a bill in California that would let it build video-ready networks where it chooses. Verizon opposes laws that would force it to abide by the same agreements as cable companies. These rules generally require cable firms to offer their services to almost all residents in a town or city.
Verizon is also in talks with lawmakers in New Jersey. But no legislation has been introduced in that state.
Verizon’s game plan is targeting specific neighborhoods — mostly high-income areas — that meet its criteria for investment.
The company has agreed to pay the same local franchise fees as cable firms — charges that usually amount to 5% of gross revenue. But it doesn’t want to build out its fiber lines in unattractive areas. And it would rather not negotiate with local governments.
“We’re willing to pay the fees,” said Verizon spokesman Eric Rabe. “But we don’t think we should be forced to crawl under barbed wire in terms of all the local negotiations we have to go through.”
Verizon isn’t the incumbent local phone company in most of California. That would be SBC Communications. (SBC) But Verizon serves 4.4 million customers in the former territory of GTE, now part of Verizon.
SBC Doesn’t Want Fees
SBC is building out fiber lines in some residential markets as well. And like Verizon, SBC doesn’t think it should abide by cable firms’ rules. Unlike Verizon, it doesn’t want to pay the franchise fees either.
Cable firms paid $2.4 billion in franchise fees in 2004, according to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association.
Verizon’s lobbying push goes beyond California. It faces the same issues in a number of key states.
In Virginia, lawmakers dealt Verizon a setback in early February. The state Senate shelved a bill that would have granted Verizon a statewide license to sell video in markets selectively.
Verizon is hoping for better results in California. Verizon has a presence in five counties in Southern California: Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino.
It also serves Santa Barbara and a few cities south of San Jose. The largest city it serves is Long Beach.
The company has hammered out a franchise deal in one California market — Beaumont.
Has Deals In Texas Towns
Verizon is also building out video-ready networks in other former GTE markets in Texas and Florida. Verizon has franchise deals in four Texas markets: Keller, Sachse, Westlake and Wylie.
The company has the most at stake on the East Coast. That’s where most of its customers are.
Verizon Wednesday said it has started rewiring 24 New Jersey towns with video-ready fiber lines. It plans to have 70 New Jersey towns rewired by year end. New Jersey has about 256 town and cities. That’s why state legislation would help, Verizon says.
“Both Verizon and SBC are being shrewd in targeting sympathetic locales to create momentum,” said Scott Cleland, head of the research firm Precursor.
SBC hasn’t had much to say publicly. In late 2004, SBC claimed to be exempt from franchising rules since it plans to whisk video to homes via Internet protocol technology.
The firm says video should be regulated as lightly as Internet phone calls. Voice over Internet protocol, or VoIP, has avoided regulation.
SBC agreed to acquire long-distance firm AT&T in February. That deal requires federal approval and an OK in many states.
Some analysts say the AT&T deal could get flak in some states if SBC tries to bypass video franchise rules.
But SBC and Verizon say they’re only playing defense by moving into video services. They’re reacting to competition from cable TV firms.
Two big cable firms — Time Warner (TWX) and Cablevision Systems (CVC) — have rolled out VoIP services. Comcast, (CMCSA) the largest cable firm, will deploy VoIP in late 2005.
The Bells and cable firms are battling for high-end customers, which spend the most on video and telecom services.
Verizon’s Rabe says cable TV firms have an unfair edge. They can add Internet phone capability without restrictions. But when phone companies try to add video services, they face regulations.
“Our view is that this regulatory process is a barrier to entry,” Rabe said.
Cable firms have franchise pacts with 30,000 local municipalities.
At UBS, analyst John Hodulik says the franchising process could take Verizon and SBC 12 to 18 months.
SBC plans to rewire 18 million homes in its 13-state region. That’s half its residential customer base.
Verizon and SBC will try to gain federal support for their plans, says Blair Levin, analyst at Legg Mason. Their chance may come if Congress changes the 1996 Telecom Act. The Bells will seek video franchise exemptions, he says.
This article is from Investors Business Daily. If you found it informative and valuable, we strongly encourage you to visit their website and register an account to view all their articles on the web. Support quality journalism.
Marin Independent Journal, March 10, 2005
By Jim Welte, IJ reporter
More than 200 Marin residents vented their frustration last night over losing their cable-based FM radio service, urging the Marin Telecommunications Agency's board to take immediate action to compel cable giant Comcast to change its mind.
Several residents suggested specific ways to do so, including legal, legislative and economic means, with many vowing to cancel their Comcast service if the FM radio service isn't restored.
"I have no idea why I should stay with Comcast," San Anselmo resident Evan Hodges said. "I don't need you if you don't provide me FM service. From a business standpoint, this is a really stupid decision."
An overflowing crowd at San Rafael City Hall persuaded the agency's board to adjust its agenda to accommodate public comment on the issue. The huge turnout clearly disputed Comcast's claims that a small number of its approximately 60,000 customers in Marin were using the FM radio service, several board members said.
"It is extremely unusual to have this many people show up on a weeknight for this meeting," Supervisor Susan Adams said. "I don't recall ever having this many people at one of our Board of Supervisor meetings, and for every person here, I'm sure there are dozens more who feel the same way."
For more than 19 years, given their inability to get regular FM radio service because of the hilly landscape, Marin residents have used a "splitter" to send the cable line to their stereo receiver, allowing them to access FM radio that way. The various cable providers over the years have all provided bandwidth for the service, and Comcast had done so free of charge.
Comcast cut that service in mid-February, citing a need to use its bandwidth for higher demand services like high-definition television and on-demand video. The local telecommunication agency's attorney sent Comcast a letter asking the company to restore the service, saying its decision "violates the intent of the existing cable franchise agreements."
But in a letter in reply, the company's vice president for government affairs Johnnie Giles said Comcast was not obligated to provide the FM radio service and would not change its mind. He said company research had shown that a small minority of its subscribers used the FM radio service.
With the extra bandwidth freed up by cutting that service, Comcast could add three high-definition television channels, which content providers have been pining for, Giles said last night.
"We're trying to remain competitive in the video arena, which is the arena we're in," he said.
But Giles said he would take the feedback he received last night back to his superiors.
He got plenty of it, but so did the agency's board, which many attendees said needed to take stronger action on the matter.
San Rafael resident Peter Franck said the agency had a strong legal case to make against Comcast.
Although the agency's franchise agreement with Comcast technically expired in 2000, service has continued while the parties negotiate a new deal. Comcast and the agency appear to disagree over whether or not Comcast is legally required to continue providing the FM service under the deal. The parties are set to resume talks this year.
"Your responsibility to us is not more talk, it's legal action," Franck said. "How you respond to this is going to dictate the upcoming negotiations. If you blink now, they're going to run all over you."
Greg Stepanicich, the agency's attorney, told the board that he preferred to discuss the legal argument with them in closed session.
Fairfax resident George De Tuncq said legal action would take too long, and suggested the board establish an escrow account into which Marin's Comcast subscribers could deposit their monthly Comcast payments until the FM radio service is restored.
"The only thing Comcast is going to respond to is a pain in their pocketbook," he said. "We need to bring economic pressure on them."
Kentfield resident and former state assemblywoman Vivien Bronshvag said legislation would get Comcast's attention. She recommended having Assemblyman Joe Nation craft an amendment to an existing cable bill in the state Legislature. The amendment could require all cable companies in California to carry FM radio service.
"I can assure you that would get the attention of Comcast," she said.
The idea got the attention of the board, which immediately passed a resolution to do just that.
Contact Jim Welte via e-mail at jwelte@marinij.com
http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24407~2755325,00.html
In Las Vegas last week, the AFL CIO Executive Council to the historic step of endorsing the Bill of Media Rights, crafted by Media Alliance and allies across the country.
The AFL urged its affiliated national unions to sign on to the document.
Your organization is encouraged to sign on as well at:
http://www.citizensmediarights.org
An excerpt of the AFL CIO's excellent statement is below:
In our nation, no other entity is as potent or pervasive as the American media in influencing thought and attitudes, impacting our democracy and shaping the popular culture. Given this power, American citizens share the responsibility for making sure the media is held to the highest standards of ethics, fairness and objectivity.
The AFL-CIO endorses the Bill of Media Rights as the standard-bearer for our ongoing campaign to achieve that goal, as well as the goal of a diverse, competitive, reliable and unbiased marketplace of ideas. We urge our affiliated national unions to sign on to the statement and our state and local labor councils to support community efforts to hold local media accountable.
We also look forward to continued work with our bi-partisan allies in Congress, particularly with the members of the newly formed Media Reform Caucus, on issues affecting media consolidation and telecommunications policy that will serve the public interest and protect our members.
FCC Urged to Withhold Low-Power Licenses
By Jube Shiver Jr., LA Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2005
WASHINGTON ” A coalition of religious, community and media watchdog
groups asked federal regulators Wednesday to stop granting low-power
broadcast licenses, alleging speculators at three Idaho companies
improperly made more than $800,000 selling the government-issued permits
to religious broadcasters.
The coalition, which includes the Prometheus Radio Project of
Philadelphia and the United Church of Christ of Cleveland, is targeting
loopholes in a 5-year-old Federal Communications Commission program
aimed at making low-power broadcast facilities available to nonprofit
groups.
According to the group's complaint, three Twin Falls companies -
Radio Assist Ministry Inc., Edgewater Broadcasting and World Link Radio
Inc. - have been "trafficking" in licenses.
The coalition said the companies sold 85 of the permits to the religious
broadcasters, allowing them to retransmit radio signals sent by
satellite. During one week in 2003, the coalition alleges, the three
companies applied for 5,000 licenses.
The coalition said it believed the companies were violating federal laws
against brokering licenses and also were depriving other groups seeking
media access through the licenses.
"In effect, they've made an end run about the FCC's rules and built a
nationwide Christian broadcast network ahead of other applicants that
have patiently waited to go through the regular low-power radio
licensing process," said Harold Feld, a lawyer for the coalition.
Representatives of the three Idaho companies did not return calls
seeking comment. But FCC spokeswoman Susan Fisher said the agency was
aware of the concerns and was "working tirelessly to ensure a fair
balance between the needs of the broadcasters and the communities they
serve."
The churches themselves have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Two of
the churches buying licenses were Costa Mesa-based Calvary Chapel Church
Inc. and Horizon Christian Fellowship in San Diego. Calvary paid the
Idaho companies $314,000 to add 23 licenses to the estimated 140
licenses the church owns or is seeking.
Although low-power stations can be owned by any nonprofit group,
churches typically find it easier to absorb the $20,000 cost of starting
a station because they can rely on financial support from their
congregations.
The Idaho companies have aggressively marketed the licenses to churches.
Last month, World Link executives visited the National Religious
Broadcasters convention, advertising that it was "making available for
acquisition hundreds of these FM translator station construction permits
… to Christian broadcasters throughout the country."
Community members and the Hip Hop community in NYC have been organizing media accountability actions in response to the outrageous, racist on-air programming at Hot 97 FM during the last several weeks:
1) Week of Jan 17th 2005: For four days, the Miss Jones In the Morning
Show played a racist "parody" called "The Tsunami Song" despite public
protests. They mocked the deaths of thousands of people, using racial
slurs such as "ch*nk" and "chinamen." The song also made fun of
"Africans drowning" and children being sold to child slavery.
2) Jan 22nd, 2005: Miss Info, a Korean-American co-host on the Miss Jones
show, voiced her opposition to the song on air. Miss Jones and then
co-host Todd Lynn reacted by verbally attacking her on public airwaves
with hateful comments such as, "You feel superior, probably because
you're Asian." (Miss Jones) and "I'm gonna start shooting Asians"
(Todd Lynn).
The following articles about the community's response are from Davey D's terrific e-newsletter, FNV, which can be read at http://www.daveyd.com
Friday March 4th, 2005
With each passing day more and more people are getting fed up with the
disrespect and exploitation of Hip Hop culture and Black, Latino and
other communities of color by large broadcast media outlets..
For those who live in New York, Hot 97 has come to epitomize everything
wrong with commercial radio.
It's more than just playing the same 10 songs everyday. It's more
than the deejays who come on the air and act irresponsibly each day by
saying and doing silly things like using the N word and the B word or
in the latest instance help fuel a beef between rival rappers..(Game
and 50 Cent), which led to yet another shoot out in front of the radio
station.
This is about holding the executives, who are the real shot callers
accountable. Nothing goes on the airwaves without their encouragement
or approval. Hence you have excutives like Jeff Smulyan (CEO), Rick
Cummings (Head of Radio division), Barry Mayo (Hot 97 General Manger-
the only Black executive who sadly and unfortunately greenlights all
the nonsense you hear on the airwaves) or John Dimick (Hot 97 Program
Director- who up till 5 months ago only programmed country music), who
will sit back and approve their deejays doing parody songs that call
people 'chinks' and 'bitches', or allow their esteeemd deejays to go
on the airwaves and use the word 'nigga' day in and day out, or grant
a platform to rappers like 50 Cent so he can air and start beef with
other rappers.
It's sad to see that these Hot97 executives will seemingly bask in the
world wide controversy stirred up by Funkmaster Flex and 50 Cent which
leads to a shoot out, but are likely NOT to allow that same Funkmaster
Flex to open up his phonelines so listeners can talk about their beef
with the police, the prison industry, George Bush or anything else
impacting the community.
---------------------------------------
KNOW THE FACTS AND HELP STOP RACIST HOT 97
Executives at Emmis Broadcasting which owns Hot 97:
*Undermine the values and positive work of the greater Hip-Hop
culture, giving a bad name to Black and Latino people and encouraging
ignorance on the airwaves.
*Exploit and misuse Hip-Hop culture under the false pretense of doing
good business, yet resurrecting nasty stereotypes about Hip-Hop music
and culture.
*Hire Black executives like Barry Mayo, who they use as a front, but
who actually defends all actions listed above and the stereotypical
caricatures that are heard daily on the airwaves.
*Encourage their deejays to use the 'N' word on the air.
Support their deejays to disrespect women so they can get ratings.
*Give confidence to their on air personalities to stereotype
under-represented communities like South East Asians and Asian
Americans.
----------------------------------------------------
OFFICIAL STATEMENT ABOUT 3/4/05 RALLY AGAINST HOT97
-This rally is about bringing the true essence of the Hip-Hop culture
back to the masses. We are here to call out the multibillion dollar
commercialization of "Hip-Hop" and show the world that it is not what
Hip-Hop culture is all about. We are here to bring accountability to
the commercialization of Hip-Hop. Many of our youths do not know
when, where, why and how our culture originated or what it is all
about because of the rampant commercialization of "Hip-Hop". Millions
of dollars are used by media conglomerates to invest into marketing
"Hip-Hop" to the masses that their responsibility to the community has
been lost. The heart of the Hip-Hop culture has always been the
community and we feel Hot 97, the supposed place "Where Hip-Hop
Lives", has lost its respect and responsibility to the community a
long time ago and it is about time for the community to step forward
and take it back.
It is understood that Hot 97 is just one battle in a huge struggle
amongst those who use Hip-Hop negatively and those who attack our
Hip-Hop community. There are many other media outlets, many other
corporations and many other struggles within our communities that need
to be addressed. We, as part of the Hip-Hop community intend to
address these issues and other concerns. This rally and this Hip-Hop
Coalition is only the beginning of a dialogue for our communities to
express, discuss and organize.
================================================
MONDAY 3/7/05
Now Sharpton Wants to Jump In. What's the Hustle?
Hip Hop Activists Respond...
by Davey D
Today the NY Daily News ran an article about the Reverend Al Sharpton
wanting to write letters to the FCC and call for a 90 day ban on 'gangsta
rap' and anything that reeks of violence and has the potential to spill out
in the streets.
This sounds good on the surface and considering what took place last week at
Hot 97 in New York it sounds damn near practical... But there's always a
catch and a behind the scenes story to the one being sold to us.
First we have to ask ourselves where Sharpton was over the past few years
when these media reform campaigns were first conducted, the most prominent
being the 'Turn off the Radio Campaign' that was launched and supported by
community activists Bob Law, the December 12th Movement, Chuck D of Public
Enemy, dead prez, The Zulu Nation and numerous others community
organizations in New York.
A huge tribunal featuring a number of NY City Council members, artists
ranging from Hip Hop luminaries like Stetsasonic, Public Enemy and Afrika
Bambaataa to legendary R&B crooners Ray, Goodman and Brown who filled a
church on Madison Avenue in Harlem in January of 2003 to address the
important issue of how Black folks were being depicted in media outlets
serving New York.
There were at least a 1000 people in attendance and the tribunal went on for
at least 5 hours with community member after community member speaking and
airing out their grievances. Sharpton was no where to be seen. Nor was he
around to lend his considerable clout in the months that followed when Law
worked tirelessly to get this campaign off the ground. Sharpton was not
around when the Turn off the Radio Campaign sparked off in other cities like
Kansas City, and Cleveland to name a few. Sharpton was no where to be seen
when similar efforts were launched in places like Detroit (Black Out
Fridays), Seattle, Chicago and most recently Miami.
Sharpton was absent from the fight when the huge media reform campaign
called the 'People's Station Campaign' sparked off in San Francisco. Here
members of the Hip Hop community including artists and numerous
organizations got together monitored the Clear Channel owned Urban Music
stations in the area and issued a report to the community and various media
outlets. The efforts not only forced change on the big Urban giants KMEL and
KYLD, but it was the subject of numerous media stories including a huge
front page story penned by author Jeff Chang on front of the Bay Guardian.
Many of the issues that Turn off the Radio campaign as well as the other
efforts around the country, were similar to the ones raised by the coalition
that protested against Hot 97 last Friday at Union Square Park. People have
grown tired of the racist remarks directed at the communities of color this
station serves. They were tired of the type of degrading music that is
constantly being pumped. The recent shooting in front of Hot 97 involving 50
Cent and Game's entourage was just icing on the cake for the momentum that
had already been brewing within the Hip Hop community.
Hopefully people do not forget that what was the real catalyst behind
Friday's March 4th protest was the insidious, racist Tsunami song that Hot
97's executives allowed Miss Jones and her morning crew to put on the air.
Initial complaints to the station were ignored and dismissed until websites
like Okayplayer.com owned by the Grammy Award winning Hip Hop band the Roots
and WBAI DJ J-Smooth and his blog HipHopmusic.com alerted their readers what
was going on.
This in turn sparked more people to come forth as DJ Smooth, Okayplayer and
other Hip Hop oriented websites began chronicling the tireless efforts of
organizers with the Asian and Southeast Asian communities that had now taken
up the fight against Hot 97. Because of the similarities and concerns raised
in previous efforts, folks from all backgrounds were able to come together
and re-address the grievances at Hot 97.
Again Sharpton was absent. During the whole Anti-Asian Tsunami incident
there were no headline making statements from Sharpton about media reform or
restraint. He was absent from this highly publicized fight. No phone calls,
no letters, no nothing. He didn't even come to the first protest at Hot 97
which was attended by City councilmen Charles Barron and John Liu who helped
organized this effort along with Asian Media Watch. He certainly wasn't at
any of the planning meetings or any other media reform gathering.
In addition to all this, let's go back into time when the Turn Back the
Radio efforts were underway and we had all these hearings about how many
stations Radio station owners could have in a market, you did not see or
hear Sharpton raising this issue. You certainly didn't see him at too many
of the hearings. I know because we covered most of them on our airwaves at
Pacifica and I spoke at three of them. (Monteray, Seattle and San Francisco)
So what's this all about? Why is Sharpton jumping in at the 12th hour? Is it
because this is the hot topic of the day and he wants to be a part of it?
Maybe. Maybe not. The media reform and media justice argument has been
around for the past 3 years and have been hot topics. He could've ran to the
bank with this during his Presidential campaign. But he didn't. He certainly
never had any of the main Hip Hop activists who have been dealing with this
from day one come on his Sunday night 3 hour radio show on WLIB which is now
home to Air America. We spoke with Bob Law who let us know that not once did
Sharpton ever help out with the widespread efforts behind his campaign.
So what's the motive behind Sharpton suddenly wanting to write the FCC and
call for a ban on gangsta rap? Well, he's seems to be redirecting the
argument back to the artists and away from the media owners and executives
who are really responsible for giving them air time.
In the NY Daily news article, you don't see him calling them into question
the role Jeff Smulyan, Rick Cummings and Barry Mayo who are executives at
Emmis. You don't see him calling for a public meeting with John Hogan, Steve
Smith
or Doc Winters who are key executives at Clear Channel. You don't see him
calling on Cathy Hughes or Alfred Liggins or Mary Catherine Sneed (MC Sneed)
who run things at Radio One. He covers his steps by saying, he doesn't wanna
mediate between the artists and that this is a recurring problem, but he
stops short of placing blame where it really belongs on the owners of these
outlets. Many of them not only grant platforms to these artists but they
also grant platforms to other activities that help promote beef like the
infamous Smackfest where they have sistas from around the way smack each
other for cash prizes. Everyone knows this, hence the protests and
objections over the past three years.
This is important to note, because folks who have been organizing around
media reform are very clear that artists like 50 Cent and Game have to own
up to the role they play in these conflicts, but this is bigger then them.
This goes back to those who have final say so as to what gets aired and how
they ultimately profit off of these divisions. So now we have Sharpton who
has good working relationships with Kathy Hughes at Radio One and Barry Mayo
the General Manager at Hot 97 coming to the rescue.
Sharpton was strangely silent and didn't shoot off letters to the FCC a few
weeks ago when members of Game's entourage alledgedly brutally beat a deejay
(Xzulu)
and hospitalized him after an interview they conducted on Radio One's WKYS
in DC. He never asked for a 90 day ban when Radio One banned and then
un-banned the Game's record from being played on the air. Industry insiders
are wondering if pay for play tactics were behind that move.
Many see Sharpton's involvement as a subtle but soon to be, not be so subtle
smoke screen to protect the attacks on his media buddies at these outlets.
Today he's calling for ban. Tomorrow he'll start focusing on the artists and
will do all that he can to downplay the role and responsibility of his
executive friends at these stations. Who knows perhaps they will even grant
him a weekly show so he can air out these important issues.
My point being, is what sort of 'off the record' conversations has
Sharpton been having with these folks that he has not been able to come
forth and say something like 'I just got off the phone with Radio One and
they agreed to do a 90 day ban, or I just spoke to Barry Mayo and convinced
him to do an on air truce and dedicate a day to conflict resolution which is
what Pittsburgh radio station WAMO did the other day. '.
One would hope and suspect that Sharpton had these conversations with them
before making his announcement about going to the FCC. One has to wonder
what's really going on? Did he speak to them and they told him 'No Way'? I
find this hard to believe.
In the words of Public Enemy.. 'Don't Believe the Hype' and 'Can't Truss It'
cause we aren't.
=======================================
Rev. Al airs gangsta ban plan
BY TRACY CONNOR and BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The Rev. Al Sharpton
The Rev. Al Sharpton is calling for a 90-day ban on radio and TV airplay for
any performer who uses violence to settle scores or hype albums.
"There has to be a way to step in and regulate what's going on with the
airwaves and with violence," Sharpton told the Daily News yesterday. "The
airwaves are being used to romanticize urban violence."
The activist minister plans to ask the Federal Communications Commission and
the country's major radio broadcasters to back his proposal.
His call follows last week's shooting outside Hot 97 radio's SoHo studios
that apparently was sparked by a feud between rappers 50 Cent and The Game.
A member of The Game's entourage, Kevin Reed, 23, of Compton, Calif., was
shot in the buttocks after 50 Cent bad-mouthed The Game during an on-air
interview at the radio station.
Bad blood between 50 Cent and The Game continued to boil over the weekend
when The Game challenged his former mentor to "Come get me, you little
bitch!" during a concert in Long Beach, Calif.
Last night, 50 Cent was escorted through LaGuardia Airport by Port Authority
cops "for his own protection" when he arrived on a plane from Detroit about
8 p.m., a Port Authority spokesman said.
Said Sharpton, "We may not be able to stop people from shooting, but we can
stop people from profiting from the violence." Sharpton declined to comment
specifically on the beef between 50 Cent, who was born Curtis Jackson, and
The Game, whose real name is Jayceon Taylor.
Sharpton said he has no intention of trying to broker peace between the two
rap stars, who have both recently released top-selling CDs.
"You can't deal with this on an artist-by-artist basis," he said. "I'm not
going to become a mediator between artists. This is a recurring problem."
In a letter Sharpton plans to send to the FCC and broadcasters, he said the
outcry against violence among entertainers should be just as loud as the
response last year to Janet Jackson's breast-baring Super Bowl stunt.
"I recall the outrage that the FCC and others displayed in response to the
Super Bowl performance of Janet Jackson," Sharpton wrote. "Yet, when acts of
violence happen around radio stations that actually have caused bloodshed,
there has been a strange and disturbing silence from all quarters."
March 7, 2005
Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?
By JONATHAN GLATER
In the physical world, being labeled a journalist may confer little prestige
and may even evoke some contempt. But being a journalist can also confer
certain privileges, like the right to keep sources confidential. And for
that reason many bloggers, a scrappy legion of online commentators and
pundits, would like to be considered reporters, too.
A lawsuit filed in California by Apple Computer is drawing the courts into
that question: who should be considered a journalist?
The case, which involves company secrets that Apple says were disclosed on
several Web sites, is being closely followed in the world of online
commentators, but it could have broad implications for journalists working
for traditional news organizations as well.
If the court, in Santa Clara County, rules that bloggers are journalists,
the privilege of keeping news sources confidential will be applied to a
large new group of people, perhaps to the point that it may be hard for
courts in the future to countenance its extension to anyone.
"It's very serious stuff," said Brad Friedman, who describes himself as an
investigative blogger (his site is bradblog.com). "Are they bloggers because
they only publish online? I think you have to look at what folks are doing.
And if they're reporting, then they're reporters."
Apple has long had a devoted following, and leaked information about new
Apple products has appeared on Web sites for years. To combat this, the
company filed the suit late last year against the sources of these leaks -
people the company assumes are employees or contractors.
Apple has asked the court to compel the Web sites that displayed the product
information to disclose their identity. Bloggers are fighting Apple's
efforts, which it has focused on three Web sites - Thinksecret.com,
Appleinsider.com and PowerPage.org.
The judge in the case, James Kleinberg, is required only to interpret a
California statute that recognizes a privilege protecting reporters in
keeping news sources confidential. A ruling could come as early as this
week.
On its face, the lawsuit brought by Apple has to do with theft of trade
secrets. But Susan Crawford, a law professor at Cardozo law school of
Yeshiva University (and a blogger herself), says that the steps Apple has
asked the court to take open a broader question.
"Under what circumstances should an online forum be forced to disclose a
source behind information that they're posting?" Ms. Crawford said. "There
is no principled distinction between a New York Times reporter and a blogger
for these purposes. Both operate as news sources for wide swaths of the
general public."
Blogs, she added, are already becoming more and more powerful, and some have
readerships that exceed those of small-town newspapers. "We've seen it with
Rather being brought down by bloggers," she said, referring to the CBS news
anchor, who came under intense scrutiny by bloggers after a "60 Minutes
Wednesday" segment on President Bush's National Guard service was broadcast
.
Judge Kleinberg is likely to try to decide the case on the narrowest
possible grounds, perhaps reading the text of the California law at issue to
cover only people who work for traditional newspapers and magazines or
television news programs, and to avoid deciding if bloggers are indeed
journalists, Ms. Crawford said.
Whatever the judge's decision, it is all but certain to be appealed. But the
question of who is a journalist is to many a matter of deeper concern.
Some bloggers want any protection available to journalists at traditional
media companies to also be available to them, and journalists at those
companies want to make sure that the reporter shield privilege is preserved.
Yet if recognizing a privilege for bloggers means that everyone online can
maintain that they are journalists, judges may conclude that rather than
giving everyone the privilege, no one should have it. That possibility
worries reporters, who could find themselves at new risk for what they write
or broadcast.
Apple has not sued the Web sites for damages for publishing the trade
secrets, but it could try, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at U.C.L.A.
He is considering filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on the side
of the bloggers, saying that the privilege should extend to them.
"This turns out to be an unresolved question of First Amendment law," Mr.
Volokh said, referring to the issue of liability for the Web sites.
Attempting to draw a distinction based on the medium used by the blogger or
reporter is misguided, said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School
(also a blogger). "In 15 years, there may be no clear distinction between
reporters on the one hand and bloggers on the other," he said. "It won't
just be an either-or, where you have a reporter for The Chicago Tribune on
the one hand, and a guy sitting in his pajamas drinking beer on the other."
Not all blogs are equally influential and not all blogs even try to report,
in the usual sense of cultivating sources, actively gathering information
and then organizing and presenting it to the public, Mr. Balkin added.
"There are millions and millions of blogs, and most of them are for gossip."
Many states have privilege statutes like the one in California, and others
may consider enacting them. To determine who should be able to claim any
kind of privilege against disclosing news sources, he said, courts and
lawmakers should look at exactly what the would-be reporter does.
"It should be extended on a functional basis," he said. So a blogger who
interviews people and spends significant amounts of time gathering and
organizing information could claim the privilege; a blogger who wrote about
good and bad recipes, and who one day stumbled onto a copy of the Pentagon
papers and printed them, might not.
Such a functional definition could prove elastic, and an enterprising
blogger would have every reason to assert any available privilege. Mr.
Balkin - asked whether he would assert the privilege if a former student
leaked information to him about a Supreme Court justice that then appeared
on his Web site - did not hesitate to claim it for himself.
"I would be willing to claim that if you look in my blog, what I'm doing is
so similar to what Lewis or Krugman or Safire do," he said, referring to
Anthony Lewis, Paul Krugman and William Safire, current and former
columnists for The Times, that "although it's done more informally and it's
about a much narrower area, that I could claim that I was in the functional
definition. That's what happens when you start taking a functional
approach."
Mr. Friedman, the blogger, said that ultimately, bloggers' role as purveyors
of important information that traditional news organizations might ignore
made online journalists more important than before, and so more deserving of
protection.
"As the mainstream media has become more and more corporate and more and
more like the governmental and corporate bodies that mainstream journalists
used to report on," he said, "a lot of this stuff has fallen now to the
bloggers - to do what mainstream folks used to do. It's still serving the
exact same purpose: keeping the bad guys honest."
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
One-sided portrayal of American Arabs on TV proves Hollywood has it all wrong
March 7, 2005
BY JACK SHAHEEN
The entertainment industry's boogeyman is on the loose again.
On the critically acclaimed TV show "24," American Muslims and American Arabs are being demonized once more.
It all started with the 2002 CBS movie "The President's Man: A Line In the Sand," where American Arabs and some Arabs who aren't citizens get together to nuke Texas.
Then Fox struck, cramming 13 episodes of "24" into its 2002-2003 season. The show embellished "The President's Man" storyline, showing Arab-American and Arab terrorists out to nuke Los Angeles.
Now, "24" is rehashing the same biased plot -- American Muslims out to nuke our country, killing neighbors in the process. So far the protagonist, Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, has gunned down 100 Muslim American "fanatics."
Fox isn't alone.
"Family Law," "Judging Amy," "The District" and "The Practice" have had storylines that imply that airlines should discriminate against us, that we should be jailed without due process, and that we burn down our own mosques and abuse our children.
"Third Watch" has shown us making radioactive bombs, and pitted us against the New York Police Department. "JAG," "Navy NCIS," "The Agency," "Sue Thomas F.B.Eye" and other shows have portrayed us as traitors and terrorists who run sleeper cells in mosques.
To their credit, programs like "Boston Public," "Jack and Bobby," "7th Heaven" and "Strong Medicine" have reflected positive images of American Arabs that help to unite us. But overall, television writers and network producers are making their message clear: American Arabs are dangerous terrorists and should be feared.
Until recently, we American Arabs -- all 3 million of us -- were invisible on TV screens. Only Danny Thomas ("Make Room for Daddy") and Jamie Farr ("M-A-S-H") portrayed likable Arab-American characters.
Oh, to be invisible now.
Today, American Arabs and American Muslims have gone from being invisible to being all over the tube. We have been assaulted by more than 50 programs searing into viewers' hearts and minds the notion that we are Osama's cohorts, despicable terrorist ragheads. Unfortunately, these powerful stereotypes injure innocent people and have a terrible impact on our society.
Today, 44 percent of Americans believe the government should restrict the civil liberties of American Muslims, according to a recent Cornell University study. And nearly one in three Americans says the government should engage in racial profiling, and that federal agents should infiltrate American Muslim organizations.
Since Sept. 11, some of our co-workers and neighbors look at us differently.
The U.S. government has held more than 1,100 people of Middle Eastern origin without trial.
Innocent Americans have been killed, and more than 3,000 hate crimes have been reported to the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Network leaders should meet with leaders of the American Arab and Muslim communities, and they should commit to innovative family shows that reflect the positive aspects of all faiths. Producers could create characters modeled after real-life Arab-Americans, such as Ambassador Selwa Roosevelt, or the father of modern cardiovascular surgery, Dr. Michael DeBakey, or consumer advocate Ralph Nader or our nation's first jet ace, Col. James Jabara.
Writers and producers ought to show us as true Americans: devout fathers and mothers, military veterans, teens catching flyballs and families walking on the beach.
Show us as we are.
JACK G. SHAHEEN is author of "Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People," "Arab and Muslim Stereotypes in American Popular Culture" and "The TV Arab." Write to him at pmproj@progressive.org or in care of the Progressive Media Project, 409 E. Main St., Madison, Wis. 53703.
Internet influence grew sixfold since '96 campaigns
** But note that TV remains dominant and it's influence actually increased too, while Internet usage for the last election cycle was overwhelmingly recycled news from major sources. Blogs up and coming -- Jeff **
Associated Press
March 07, 2005
NEW YORK -- Reliance on the Internet for political news during last year's presidential campaign grew sixfold from 1996, while the influence of newspapers dropped sharply, according to a study issued Sunday.
Eighteen percent of American adults cited the Internet as one of their two main sources of news about the presidential races, compared with 3 percent in 1996. The reliance on television grew slightly to 78 percent, up from 72 percent.
Meanwhile, the influence of newspapers dropped to 39 percent last year, from 60 percent in 1996, according to the joint, telephone-based survey from the Pew Research Center for The People and the Press and the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Nonetheless, Americans who got campaign news over the Internet were more likely to visit sites of major news organizations like CNN and The New York Times (43 percent) rather than Internet-only resources such as candidate Web sites and Web journals, known as blogs (24 percent).
Twenty-eight percent said they primarily used news pages of America Online Inc., Yahoo Inc. and other online services, which carry dispatches from traditional news sources like The Associated Press and Reuters.
"It's a channel difference not a substantive difference," said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet group and author of the study. "Newspaper executives probably now have to think of themselves less as newspaper people and more as content people."
The study also found the political news audience more mainstream -- more women, minorities, older Americans and lower-income users than before.
Fifty-eight percent of political news users cited convenience as their main reason for using the Internet. This group was more likely to use the Internet sites of traditional news organizations or online services.
But one-third of political news consumers cited a belief that they did not get all the news and information they wanted from papers and television, and another 11 percent said the Web had information not available elsewhere. These individuals were more likely to visit blogs or campaign sites for information.
And blogs, Rainie said, likely had an indirect influence on what campaigns talked about and what news organizations covered.
Blogs, for instance, have been credited with forcing an apology from CBS News anchor Dan Rather for last fall's "60 Minutes" report on President Bush's National Guard service.
Blogs "are having a modest level of impact on the voter side and probably a more dramatic impact on the institutional side," Rainie said. "Blogs are still a realm where very, very active and pretty elite, both technologically oriented people and politically oriented people go."
The study also found that the reliance on the Internet for political news was most pronounced among those with high-speed connections at home -- 38 percent among broadband users against 28 percent among all Internet users. Reliance on newspapers was roughly even between those groups -- 36 percent for broadband and 38 percent for all users.
Forty percent of Internet users found the Internet important in helping them decide for whom to vote, while 20 percent said the online information made a difference.
The random survey of 2,200 adults, including 1,324 Internet users, was conducted Nov. 4-22 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Seattle Times
Jonathan Lawson
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Time to retool the FCC for the public's interests
As fate would have it, Michael Powell's Jan. 21 announcement that he
would resign his controversial chairmanship of the Federal
Communications Commission was followed days later by another piece of
news: a final defeat that hung a fitting "closed for renovations"
sign on the end of his term at the FCC.
Powell's campaign to undermine the FCC's media-ownership limits -
designed to protect diversity, but irksome to expansion-minded media
tycoons - could have been the defining success of his term as
chairman. But Powell's initial victory turned out to be Pyrrhic.
The rule changes he pushed through were doggedly resisted by an
unprecedented groundswell of public opposition, then by waves of
congressional action, and finally by a Philadelphia appeals court
decision that struck down Powell's rollback of the ownership caps.
Powell called the decision "perverse," and media corporations began
clamoring for a Supreme Court appeal.
But on Jan. 27, the Bush administration quietly announced that it
would not appeal the Circuit Court decision. The dropped ball
signaled a desire to let Powell's failures melt into history.
Powell's habitual, glib comments praising "market values" while
denigrating the "public interest" were never intended for prime-time
audiences. But such remarks provoked Powell's opponents into action,
and helped consolidate a vast populist constituency favoring
progressive media-policy reform.
While Powell will soon be out the door, this constituency remains.
Millions will be watching closely as a post-Powell FCC once again
takes up the hot potato of media-ownership regulation, alongside a
bevy of other issues affecting cable, telephone, satellite and
wireless Internet, as well as traditional broadcasting technologies.
How the FCC will approach these issues over the next year will depend
on the makeup of the post-Powell commission. And changes are coming;
by year's end, the FCC could have not one but two, or even three, new
commissioners.
President Bush has the responsibility for appointing new FCC
commissioners, as well as selecting the chair. He will probably
replace Powell by promoting Republican Commissioner Kevin Martin into
the position of chairman. A Bush FCC appointee with strong
connections to the White House, Martin is considered less of an
ideologue than Powell, but would likely be an extremely predictable
advocate for narrow, broadcasting-industry concerns.
If he does choose to promote Martin, the president will also get to
select a new Republican commissioner, who would have to be confirmed
by the Senate. Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy, a close Powell ally,
is rumored to be eyeing the exits as well.
More contentiously, Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps' five-year
term expires in May, requiring the president either to reappoint him
- the normal course of action for a sitting commissioner - or not.
While snubbing Copps would be popular with broadcasting-industry fat
cats, it would be immensely unpopular in Congress and among the
concerned public. An outspoken champion of public-interest values,
Copps has been Powell's main opponent at the FCC. But he has also
been the commissioner most outspoken in cracking down on broadcast
indecency - a tremendously important issue for many conservatives,
including congressional Republicans.
The White House will have no legitimate reason to avoid reappointing
Copps, and senators on both sides of the aisle should apply pressure
to make sure that happens. The Senate should also indicate that it
will not welcome any FCC nominees who are openly contemptuous of
public-interest standards, as Powell has been. The Senate should
demand of any new FCC nominee that he or she make it a key priority
to hold and attend hearings on media ownership throughout the
country, before making any new policy changes.
Congress has a number of significant media-policy matters before it
this year, including an expected rewrite of the massive
Telecommunications Act, expansion of low-power FM radio (LPFM), and a
current attempt to tighten indecency laws. Armies of lobbyists will
climb the Capitol steps to proselytize on behalf of big-media owners;
but legislators must give priority to public-interest considerations.
The FCC, however its leadership changes over the next few months,
should remain humbled by the tremendous outpouring of public comment
it has received over the past two years. The commission's decisions
affecting media-ownership rules, spectrum allocation and other arcana
will now be subject to greater public scrutiny than ever before.
Here are a few ways in which the new FCC should leave the Powell years
behind:
* The commission should devote more resources to considering
broadcast-license renewals, holding radio and television stations
accountable to public-interest standards in return for their free use
of the airwaves.
* As radio and TV stations convert to digital signals, the FCC should
ensure that new commercial opportunities for station owners are tied
to clear and well-enforced public-interest obligations. Privileges
granted to incumbent broadcasters should not shut down opportunities
for new stations to go on the air.
* In community radio, the FCC should revise its frequency-allocation
rules to improve the standing of local, noncommercial LPFM stations.
New LPFM applicants should be given precedence over distantly
operated translator networks.
* More than anything else, the commission should return to the
drawing board of media-ownership regulation, prepared to utterly
reverse course after five years of rambling in the desert of "market
values," led by a chairman who boasted that he had "no idea what the
public interest is."
Upholding public-interest standards is a responsibility which we
trust the FCC to carry out with wholehearted conviction.
**More "free market" tripe from Will, his email is at the end for those wishing to respond**
Cut Buster Loose
By George F. Will
Thursday, March 3, 2005
In 1967 Lyndon Johnson added yet another piece to the jigsaw puzzle of national perfection: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting was born. Public television was a dubious idea even when concocted as a filigree on the Great Society. Why should government subsidize the production and distribution of entertainment and, even worse, journalism? Even if there were -- has there ever been? -- a shortage of either in America, is it government's duty to address all cultural shortages?
Today, with iPod earphone cords dangling from millions of heads, and movies flooding into homes where they jostle for plasma screen time with video games, Americans are entertaining themselves into inanition. Furthermore, journalism and imitations of it have become social smog. Even in airport concourses you are bombarded by televised human volcanoes verbally assaulting each other about the "news," broadly -- very broadly -- defined to include Kobe Bryant's presence on Michael Jackson's witness list.
In 1967 public television did at least increase, for many, the basic television choices from three -- CBS, NBC, ABC -- to four. Not that achieving some supposedly essential minimum was, or is, the government's business. In today's 500-channel environment, public television is a preposterous relic.
Not too long ago the Public Broadcasting Service tried an amazingly obtuse and arrogant slogan: "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?" What was the antecedent of the pronoun "it"? Presumably "culture" or "seriousness" or "relevance." Or something. But in a television universe that includes the History Channel, Biography, A&E, Bravo, National Geographic, Disney, TNT, BBC America, Animal Planet, the Learning Channel, the Outdoor Channel, Noggin, Nickelodeon, and scads of other cultural and information channels, what is the antecedent?
Now PBS is airing some HBO films. There is a nifty use of tax dollars -- showing HBO reruns. Which contribute how to "diversity"?
In 1967 public television's enthusiasts were ahead of the curve of cultural inanity, making frequent use of the d-word, which required decades more to become the great signifier of cultural correctness. The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission hailed public television's promise of "more diversity," and a Carnegie report foresaw increased "diversities." Thirty-eight years later, 500 channels mock public television as crucial to diversity.
The recent spat about Buster, PBS's cartoon rabbit, visiting two lesbian parents quickly became a second spat about the Education Department's threat to stop financing Buster. But a third spat should have been about why the Education Department (a fourth spat: Is that department necessary?) is paying for any of Buster's adventures. Is there a desperate shortage of television cartoons? Is Buster to other cartoons as Beethoven is to Bon Jovi?
Public television, its supporters say, is especially important for people who cannot afford cable or satellite television. But 62 percent of poor households have cable or satellite television, and 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
Public television is akin to the body politic's appendix: It is vestigial, purposeless and occasionally troublesome. Of the two arguments for it, one is impervious to refutation and the other refutes itself.
The impervious argument is: The small size of the audiences for most of public television's programming proves how necessary public television is. The big networks gather big audiences by catering to vulgar cultural tastes, leaving the refined minority an orphan, because any demand the private market satisfies must be tacky.
The self-refuting argument is: Big Bird. Never mind that the average age of PBS viewers is 58. "Sesame Street" -- see how its merchandise sells, and Barney's, too -- supposedly proves that public television can find mass audiences.
But the refined minority, as it sees itself, now has ample television choices for the rare moments when it is not rereading Proust. And successes such as "Sesame Street" could easily find private, taxpaying broadcast entities to sell them.
President Johnson, no slouch at the "progressive" rhetoric of platitudinous gush, said the prospect of public television should fill Americans with "the same awe and wonderment" that caused Samuel Morse, when he successfully tested his telegraph, to exclaim, "What hath God wrought?" But by 2002 PBS President Pat Mitchell was warning: "We are dangerously close in our overall prime-time numbers to falling below the relevance quotient."
Public television's survival, with no remaining rationale, should fill students of government with awe, wonderment and melancholy. Would it vanish without the 15 percent of its revenue it gets from government? Let's find out.
georgewill@washpost.com