Published on Saturday, August 27, 2005 by the Huffington Post
We Owe Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter a Big Thank You
by Mark Green
These two American mullahs of the far (f)right are helping to expose how The Bush Team is in the extreme and we who question this war - most prominently Cindy Sheehan - are in the mainstream.
By now Ann Coulter should have reached a tipping point where serious journalists would stop treating her antics and comments seriously. Suggesting that Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times building instead of the one in Oklahoma City should probably have been enough to ward Time magazine off its unctuous cover profile. Or perhaps it should have happened when she recently told an audience in Canada that they should be helping us in Iraq as they did in Vietnam (for which she was hooted down by Canadians who knew their history better than she).
But now that she has casually asserted that New Yorkers are cowards who would surrender to terrorists, it's past time to call her for what she is:
an ignorant parody of a right-wing nut who says things for effect and sales.
The Administration keeps arguing that the Iraqi insurgents are becoming more violent as America succeeds in Iraq. While that's obvious nonsense, it does provide a reasonably good analogy for what war defenders are now doing in their Custer-like last stand. As all their arguments about the war have failed - both the reasons for invading and the reasons for "staying the course" -embarrassed proponents are increasingly retreating to the McCarthyism they are so skilled at. Hence all the desperate attacks on Cindy Sheehan and, now, New Yorkers. Blaming Richard Clark, Dan Rather, Newsweek's Periscope or Dick Durbin was always the equivalent of blaming the radar gun for the speeder. But those polemical diversions did provide momentary relief for the chicken hawks. But now they're forced to up the ante to both gain attention and justify their existence. Hence Coulter's noxious crack.
I was 40 blocks north of the World Trade Towers at 8:46AM on September 11 and saw a plane sticking out of Tower One five seconds after it hit. I happened to be running in a Democratic Primary for Mayor being held that very morning and so was in a position to watch New Yorkers that day and the next several weeks demonstrate unmatchable courage and compassion in the most tragic of circumstances. I spent hours handing out free food to firefighters and cops who were part of the rescue and recovery effort over the next few days, New Yorkers who were getting diseased lungs from unreported pollutants. I visited the hospital bed of a Port Authority police officer whose legs had been crushed, as he said, "Mr. Green, the building fell on me. But the terrorists didn't stop me and they can't stop us."
There are thousands of such stories of quiet heroism, not to mention the unbearable fact that we lost more firefighters and police in the next 24 hours than we had in the prior 50 years combined. Are these the cowards who surrendered that Ann Coulter refers to?
So as she shuttles in limos between her sanitized cable appearances in a successful attempt to be the blondest blowhard in tv history, I would hope that assignment editors everywhere start exercising some news judgment. That includes Fox News. Hell, Murdoch and Ailes are New Yorkers. At what point do they and reasonable Americans turn their faces away in disgust? Indeed, at what point do reasonable Americans turn away in disgust from a President whose faith-based war has been blown up by reality and who can only wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 whenever he's asked to explain what he's doing to our soldiers and our country.
There will come a time - whether it's in five months or 5 years or 50 years, I don't know - when we'll all have to answer the question of what we were doing when the Bush-Robertson-Coulter crowd tried to ruin America, just as earlier generations had to explain the mass hysteria of the Salem Witch Trials or McCarthyism. Cindy Sheehan and New Yorkers don't need lectures from those that hate the values of a country whose flag they perennially wave.
In 2002, Mark Green was the "Distinguished Visiting Lecturer" at NYU Law School and currently teaches an honors freshman seminar at the Arts College. He is now president of The New Democracy Project, a public affairs institute in New York City.
Secret New Times-Village Voice Media Deal Would
Mean More Media Concentration and Homogenization
An SF Bay Guardian editorial by Bruce Brugmann
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
There's still no official confirmation, but we're hearing reports from a
growing number of sources who say that a merger deal between the two largest alternative newspaper chains in the country is increasingly imminent. It's more than a simple business deal - there are serious free press, antitrust,
and public interest issues here. The United States Justice Department should
not let it secretly happen, because the two chains would be in violation of a
Justice consent decree and moratorium explicitly barring such a conspiratorial merger deal.
We reported back in May on whispers of a deal between New Times, which owns 11 alt-weeklies, including SF Weekly and the East Bay Express, and Village Voice Media (VVM), which owns 6 (see Chain Gang, 5/21/05). Since then the rumors have reached almost a fever pitch.
Several reliable sources have told us they've spoken to senior executives at
New Times and have been told a deal is imminent. The New York Post mentioned the possibility Aug. 17 in a report on labor problems at the Village Voice, which just unilaterally and unexpectedly cut its freelance rates: ?The strife comes amid swirling rumors that the Voice is in merger talks with New
Times.... The rates would put the Voice more in line with what New Times pays
its writers, [a] staffer said.? The Post story got wide distribution when it
was carried as a lead news item in the most recent newsletter of the
International Newspaper Financial Executives Association, which goes out to
financial executives in the mainstream media. Gawker.com, the
celebrity-gossip Web site, had a similar item a few days
earlier.
Voice senior editor Robert Christgau posted an Aug. 11 letter on Jim
Romenesko's widely read media news Web site (Poynter.org) that noted, "Many
believe [the freelance cuts are] an attempt by management to render the paper more salable and/or to prove to bigger bosses present and future that they are ready to compete in today's hard-nosed business environment hack hack ptooey ptooey."
Maybe this is all just idle rumor. Maybe there's nothing to it beyond speculation. Or maybe this will be the merger of a cat with a canary, as A.J. Liebling used to characterize newspaper mergers in his old New Yorker press column. But if there's a grain of truth here, and VVM and New Times are in any sort of talks, the implications for the alternative press and for readers, advertisers, and employees in 18 cities are too serious for federal regulators to ignore.
It was only a year and a half ago that the Justice Department, along with the
attorneys general of California and Ohio, filed an antitrust complaint
against New Times and VVM, charging that the chains had conspired to destroy
alt-weekly competition in Los Angeles and Cleveland. The two had effectively
divided up the markets: New Times had closed its LA paper, which competed
against VVM's LA Weekly, and in exchange, VVM had shuttered its Cleveland
operation, which competed against New Times' Cleveland Scene.
The complaints alleged that New Times and VVM ?entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate advertising and
editorial competition by allocating the markets for advertising in, and
readers of, alternative newsweeklies in Cleveland, Ohio, and Los Angeles,
California." This illegal market-allocation agreement, the complaint
continued, "is an unreasonable restraint of interstate trade that is per se
illegal under Section l of the Sherman [Antitrust] Act."
The chains settled the charges by accepting a consent decree that, among
other things, barred both companies for five years from "entering into,
continuing, maintaining or renewing this, or any other, market or customer
allocation agreement, or from engaging in any other conspiracy, agreement or
understanding having a similar purpose or effect." The stipulated judgment
also required the two parties to notify the Justice Department before they
?directly or indirectly enter into any merger, sale or joint venture."
Obviously, this moratorium ought to apply directly and unequivocally to the
two guilty predatory chains.
For New Times this is a rerun. It made a serious attempt to buy the VVM
papers in 1999, when then-owner Leonard Stern put them up for sale. Cynthia
Cotts, then the Voice press critic, characterized it as a "hostile takeover"
attempt in a Jan. l2, 2000, Voice article headlined "Bye-Bye, New Times,"
with the subhead "The Voice Dodges a Hostile Takeover."
She wrote that Stern told the Voice staff that he had no intention of selling
to New Times principals Jim Larkin and Mike Lacey and that Stern ?is said to
detest Larkin and Lacey's abrasive style and the signature bloodbath that
typically accompanies their acquisition of a new property." Instead, she
wrote, Stern preferred a buyer who would keep the chain intact, thus
"preserving the legacy, in Sternspeak."
Cotts reported that Larkin and Lacey had good incentive to bid. By
assimilating the Stern chain, NT could have doubled in size, cut corporate
overhead, and increased profits, preparing itself to go public. On the other
hand, the move would have eliminated competition in the alternative world, in
which New Times and the Voice have been the largest chains... If NT had
bought the Stern papers, says one wag, it would be like "sleeping with your
cousin. It may seem okay, but it's not supposed to happen."
Cotts wrote that even as Stern swore he would not sell to New Times," his
bankers solicited a bid from New Times and gave them the ?book" with
financial details on the chain. She reported that ?New Times was said to be
so sure they had it locked up that they were working on a ?hit list? of Stern
employees to fire - a rumor that Larkin calls ?bullshit.?? Larkin told Cotts
that his deal blew up at the last minute because his bankers wanted a
majority stake in the combined companies. The papers were sold to VVM, a
company headed by David Schneiderman, longtime publisher of the Voice; VVM's new majority owner was Weiss, Peck and Greer, a New York-based venture capital group owned by a group of Dutch investors.
Today, the consequences of media concentration are even more acute. If New
Times buys VVM - which most observers agree is the likely scenario in any
merger - it would have significant and lasting impacts on the alternative
press marketplace. Among other things, New Times owns a national advertising sales firm called Ruxton, which competes with a co-op known as the Alternative Weekly Network to sell national ads for weekly papers. VVM, which owns New York's Village Voice and LA's LA Weekly, is an anchor member of the AWN (the Bay Guardian is a member too.) If VVM joined the Ruxton group, as it would after a merger, then Ruxton would dominate or control many of the nation's top media markets - New York, LA, Chicago, Seattle, Phoenix, Dallas, Denver, Miami, and others. That would be a huge, perhaps crippling blow to the AWN, and thus to the competition in national ad sales that helps advertisers get good deals and keeps competitive papers alive.
On a larger level, this would move the alternative press industry a giant
step closer to the daily newspaper chain model that has effectively
eliminated daily competition in American cities. It would further undermine
the competitive premise of the alternative press, which was founded to
compete with and be alternative to the daily monopolies in almost every
American city. And it would fly in the face of the entire First Amendment
premise of a vigorous marketplace of ideas and competing editorial
voices.
Moreover, this further media concentration in 18 major markets and in this
critical press sector would mean that the Village Voice, a famous progressive
bastion of alternative journalism in the media capital of the world, would
suddenly be thrust under the ownership thumb of the New Times chain in
Phoenix, Ariz., and the New Times modus operandi: desert libertarianism on
the rocks, with sprigs of neocon politics. The 11 New Times papers are a
centralized chain operation with heavy corporate control from headquarters
over business and editorial operations and a cookie-cutter format, including
graphics and much content. They do not endorse candidates nor do editorials,
and they are often politically out of synch with the more liberal cities they
are in, such as San Francisco and Berkeley, where they regularly trash
progressive politicians and policies and activists who oppose the war
against, and occupation of, Iraq.
Thus, if New Times buys the entire six-paper VVM chain, it would most likely
operate more-conservative papers than VVM's (the Voice in New York, the
Seattle Weekly in Seattle, City Pages in Minneapolis, the Nashville Scene in
Nashville, the LA Weekly in Los Angeles, and the OC Weekly in Orange County).
New Times also would be in an even stronger position, with its national chain
and its national rep firm, to continue its predatory, scorched-earth policies
against existing competitors and mount even higher barriers of entry against
any new competitors in any of its 18 markets. Alas, at the very time that
progressive papers are needed now more than ever, a historic alternative
paper with a strong progressive tradition, three Pulitzers, and five sister
papers will most likely be ground under by the Arizona empire-builders and
their venture capital backers.
The Bay Guardian has sued New Times and its two local papers (SF Weekly and the East Bay Express) for predatory and anticompetitive practices aimed at putting the Bay Guardian out of business. Still more: Such a purchase would
involve tens of millions of dollars, put the New Times chain even more under
the control and pressure of venture capitalists (Alta Communications, in
Boston, is a major current investor) who are obsessed not with quality
alternative journalism but with making big bucks as fast as possible. This
would make the swollen New Times chain even more vulnerable to an even bigger and worse buyer, such as Microsoft or Gannett or God knows who.
New Times has already demonstrated its affinity for joining up with the big
chains to squeeze the independents. A recent example is its smelly deal in
San Francisco with Clear Channel Communications, the notorious media
conglomerate, and its subsidiary, Bill Graham Presents, that would shut other
print media, including the Bay Guardian, out of hundreds of thousands of
dollars in Clear Channel/BGP concert advertising, according to Clear
Channel/BGP staffers. (See ?SF Weekly Cuts Deal with Clear Channel,?
6/29/05.)
Only 18 months ago, the Justice Department, under President George W. Bush
and Attorney General John Ashcroft - a Republican Justice Department with a
decidedly pro-business slant - decided that the original New Times-VVM deal
was so blatantly illegal and anticompetitive that it moved quickly to
challenge the deal in federal and state courts and punish the two perpetrators. This new deal would be much, much worse and could turn into a classic disaster.
And so the key journalistic and public policy points are these:
If New Times and VVM haven't notified the Justice Department of any proposed merger, Justice needs to signal them that they can't merge under the terms and logic of their own consent decree and moratorium against further deals. And Justice must publicly state that, if the chains push forward with a merger, it will immediately make the notice public and inform the two guilty predators they must face a public hearing and Justice opposition. If New Times and VVM have already decided to merge in defiance of the Justice-California-Ohio consent decree and moratorium, and have so informed Justice, then Justice needs to make public this new outrage immediately. (Justice has refused our repeated Freedom of Information requests and maintains that any such notice is not a public document.)
The public disclosure of an impending deal is critical: It would, among other
things, give newspaper staffs, interested parties, and the public an
opportunity to employ some timely whiffs of political and legal grapeshot.
Last time around, New Times and VVM took a page from the worksheet of the
predatory chains and made a surprise blitzkrieg attack on their own papers,
instantly closing down the New Times paper in LA and the VVM paper in
Cleveland - bang, just like that - laying off two complete staffs and
shutting down two Web sites immediately. Justice and the California and Ohio
attorneys general filed suit shortly thereafter, but the deal was done and
could not be undone, and all they could do was fine and punish the
perpetrators. Later, two major private lawsuits were filed as a result of the
deal: in Los Angeles, a suit aimed at the monopoly ad rates charged by the LA
Weekly after its New Times competition was eliminated; in Cleveland, a
wrongful-termination suit on behalf of employees laid off from the VVM
paper.
At minimum, the federal regulators need to disclose the basic outlines of any
deal proposal, invite public comment, hold extensive public hearings, and get
to the bottom of a critical question:
How in the world did New Times and VVM summon up the arrogance and chutzpah to defy a Justice-California-Ohio consent decree against their illegal market allocation scheme and then work to defy a federal and state ban against such further predatory schemes? How do they think they can get away with it?
In short, Justice is obligated by the rationale of its original lawsuit to go
public and just say no. This would be the best way for Justice to follow its
own litigation path - and to stop yet another dangerous move toward media
consolidation and homogenization while at the same time protecting real
competition in the press and protecting the free press clause in the First
Amendment. Meanwhile, the rest of us who value and fight for a free,
independent, and competitive press can scream bloody murder and help ensure that this merger never happens. And if it does happen, that it happens under a shaft of glaring sunlight.
On guard!
PS: Chains are us: The endless chain: Significantly, New Times/East Bay
Express last year put its chain viruses on full display when it attacked The
Media Monopoly, the bible of monopoly journalism research by Ben Bagdikian,
former dean of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. The article
whacked him personally and professionally in a searing attack that sought
without blushing to justify chain journalism, pave the way for a New
Times-VVM deal, and promote the New Times thesis that there's plenty of media competition out there and don't worry about it. (See ?Rethinking the Media Monopoly: Renowned Press Critic Ben Bagdikian Fires an Old Salvo at a New Media. Too Bad He Misses," East Bay Express, 7/7/04.)
PPS: The consent decree's moratorium language: ?For a period of five years
commencing January 22, 2003, each Defendant cannot directly or indirectly
enter into any merger, sale, or joint venture involving any of its
alternative newsweeklies or national advertising networks or acquire any
assets of any alternative newsweekly without first notifying the United
States 30 days in advance. If within this 30-day period, the United States
requests additional information, Defendants cannot consummate the proposed
transaction or agreement until 20 days after submitting all such additional
information....
?The Final Judgment enjoins each defendant, and its officers, directors,
agents, and employees from entering into, continuing, maintaining, or
renewing this, or any other, market or customer allocation agreement, or from
engaging in any other conspiracy, agreement, or understanding having a
similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice having
a similar purpose or
effect."
Why Wi-Fi? Because we're the city that can
Adam Werbach
SF Chronicle, Wednesday, August 24, 2005
[ NOTE: The SF Media Advocates Coalition that Media Alliance convenes has been instrumental in getting the City to move this initiative forward. Stay tuned for ongoing updates and action items to ensure this project lives up to its promise of surmounting the digital divide. ]
Last week Mayor Gavin Newsom took a big step forward on his State of the
City promise to make free or affordable high-speed wireless available by
seeking design ideas and comments for a citywide Wi-Fi network that connects
computers to the Internet. Working with Supervisor Tom Ammiano, the mayor
sped up the feasibility phase and headed right into the implementation of
the project. Now, we're moving forward rapidly and systematically.
First, let's recap the reasons why we need a citywide wireless system: Just
as the telephone transformed business in the last 50 years, a blisteringly
fast connection to the Internet is becoming a necessity in today's economy.
Yet the United States is falling behind the rest of the world in high-speed
access to the Internet. According to the International Telecommunications
Union, we rank 16th among nations in broadband penetration, and it's mainly
well-off Americans who have access. Sixty percent of homes with incomes
above $150,000 have broadband access, a 2003 Census Bureau survey shows,
while less than 10 percent of homes with incomes below $25,000 do.
The entrance of the city into this world challenges the existing monopolies
and will foster the competition necessary to provide universal high- speed,
low-cost access. Today, cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of
the residential and small-business broadband market in the United States.
(Consider the costs of monopolies and duopolies to the people of San
Francisco: Last week, a piece of PG&E's electrical system exploded, severely
injuring one San Franciscan and paralyzing part of downtown.) Meanwhile,
PG&E is mobilizing its lawyers to try to get Bush administration appointees
to renegotiate the city's interconnection agreement -- a move that could rob
tens of millions of dollars from San Francisco. (The interconnection
agreement governs how the city's electrical power is transmitted on PG&E's
system and has already allowed PG&E to stall San Francisco's progress in
developing solar energy.)
With these factors in mind, the mayor has put us on a two-option fast- track
to a new network. The first option -- the public-private partnership model
-- is for the city to work with nonprofits and/or private companies to build
and operate a system on behalf of all San Franciscans. The second option --
the public model -- is to have the city build and operate our own system.
The 45-day request-for-information-and-comment process leaves room for
flexibility and creativity. In the past, access to city assets has been
awarded with technology specifications -- "hardheaded facts" that The
Chronicle, in an editorial last week, suggested were lacking -- that locked
the city into deals that seemed smart at the time, but haven't panned out in
the long term. The city could have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
creating the specifications for routers, transponders and hubs. Instead, it
has produced a series of bottom-line demands for the network. They are:
-- Affordable: The network will cost less than the $40-plus monthly
broadband fees to which we've become accustomed -- and, we hope, a lot less.
-- Universal: San Francisco's system will provide universal access, from the
Presidio to the Bayview.
-- Easily accessible: Unlike most Wi-Fi networks, it will work in the
interior of your home. The network will also have "nomadic" features so that
if you sit down on a park bench you'll still have access.
-- Open: The network will be "open access." This is key. Instead of building
a network like SBC or Comcast that no one else is allowed to use, a private
partner of the city would include in the business model the right for others
to use the network.
-- Flexible: The network will include a plan for protecting us against
obsolescence. Today's wireless protocols are already becoming outdated. We
want to be ready.
By the end of September, we'll learn who's able to make the best offer for
the people of San Francisco. If no one provides us a good offer, we'll roll
up our sleeves and look into building a city-owned network. In the weeks
ahead, you'll hear from Comcast and SBC that the city is incapable of
coordinating a complicated system. But water speculators said the same thing
before the city built the Hetch Hetchy system. Seventy-five years later, the
"city that can" is stepping in on behalf of the people.
Adam Werbach is a member of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission.
National Council of Churches USA
Bob Edgar, General Secretary
August 23, 2005
Pat Robertson's [recent on-air] call for the assassination of Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is appalling to the point of disbelief. As a former member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, I am convinced of the immorality of political violence and know its unpredictable and devastating effects on millions of people.
One wonders if Robertson's premise would one day be applied to opposition candidates in this country who might be a threat to an incumbent's re-election.
It defies logic that a clergyman could so casually dismiss thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian law, including the commandment that we are not to kill. It defies logic that this self-proclaimed Christian leader could so blithely abandon the teachings of Jesus to love our enemies and turn our cheeks against violence.
It defies logic that a former candidate for the presidency could skirt the brink of international law to call for the assassination of a foreign leader on the grounds that he might some day be a danger to us. It defies logic that this
so-called evangelist is using his media power not to win people to faith but
to encourage them to support the murder of a foreign leader.
I have no doubt that most of Pat Robertson's viewers have already rejected this idea. The 45-million people represented by the member communions of the National Council of Churches resolutely condemn it.
Bob Edgar, General Secretary
National Council of Churches USA
475 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10115
212-870-2252
http://www.ncccusa.org
[Associated Press]
A Utah television station has rejected an antiwar advertisement featuring the California mother whose son's death in Iraq prompted her August vigil outside President George W. Bush's Texas ranch, deeming it "inappropriate" for the local market.
In the ad, Cindy Sheehan pleads with Bush for a meeting and accuses him of lying to the American people about Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and about that country's connection to al-Qaida.
Sheehan's son, army Specialist Casey Sheehan, 24, died last year, just five days after arriving in Iraq.
"I love my country. But how many more of our loved ones need to die in this senseless war?" a weary-looking Sheehan asks in the ad. "I know you can't bring Casey back. But it's time to admit mistakes and bring our troops home now."
The "peace mom" started her protest Aug. 6 off the road leading to Bush's ranch and had vowed to remain there until Bush granted her a meeting or until he returned to Washington on Sept. 3.
Sheehan was forced to leave Texas on Thursday after her mother suffered a stroke in California, but about 100 supporters remained there yesterday.
A national sales representative for KTVX, the local ABC affiliate, rejected the 60-second spot in an e-mail to media buyers, calling it an "inappropriate commercial advertisement for Salt Lake City."
Bush carried nearly 70% of the vote last fall in Utah, one of the most conservative states north of the so-called Bible Belt.
Still, three other local stations began running the same ad yesterday, two days before Bush is scheduled to speak to a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars here.
The ads were bought for Gold Star Families for Peace by the Washington, D.C.-based company, Fenton Communications, which provided a copy of the e-mail received from station sales representative Jemina Keller to The Associated Press.
Berkeley Daily Planet - August 15, 2005
By Matthew Artz
KPFA’s Local Station Board voted overwhelmingly Sunday to retain General
Manager Roy Campanella II despite a complaint filed by eight female station
workers charging him with sexual harassment.
The board voted 15-5, with two abstentions, against recommending
Campanella’s dismissal to the Pacifica Foundation, KPFA’s parent network.
“Our investigation did not find sufficient grounds to call for his
termination,” said a board member who requested to remain anonymous. The
board also rejected a proposal to place Campanella on probation, several
board members said.
“The board’s decision is the second time an investigative agency has ruled
in my favor,” Campanella wrote in an e-mail to the Daily Planet. “Like the
first investigation conducted by Pacifica, it’s been found that I did not
sexually harass or discriminate against anyone.”
KPFA’s board has been divided between a faction that is generally
supportive of the station staff and a smaller faction that charges that
staff members are seeking more influence at the station and views the
harassment charges against Campanella as part of a larger power grab.
Sunday’s vote revealed that several members of the pro-staff faction
opposed firing Campanella.
“This was not a factional vote,” said a board member aligned with the
anti-staff faction. “It was an overwhelming majority.”
Philip Maldari, co-host of KPFA’s morning show, said he was disappointed by
the vote.
“I’m astounded that a leftist political organization like this one is so
ignorant of the importance of taking seriously sexual harassment on the job.”
He added that employees—many of who signed a letter expressing no
confidence in Campanella—would petition Pacifica’s national board to fire him.
“[The station] is totally dysfunctional,” he said. “When a petition of no
confidence is signed by 80 percent of the paid staff, it’s clear that the
manager can’t manage.”
KPFA’s board will hold another closed door meeting Saturday aimed at
closing the rift between Campanella and station staff.
The eight staff members who filed the sexual harassment complaints last
week with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH),
charged that from the time Campanella joined the station last November, he
asked them out on dates and when rebuffed, retaliated by threatening to cut
funding for their programs, criticizing their work to supervisors and
threatening to fire them.
Campanella has maintained that his invitations to go to movies or dinner
were extended to both male and female employees at the station and were
never intended to be considered dates.
If the DFEH substantiates the employees’ complaint, KPFA and the board
would be liable for monetary damages.
“The board members are putting the station at tremendous risk,” Maldari said.
Campanella told the Daily Planet that he has written to the DFEH and to the
federal National Labor Relations Board urging them to conduct the
investigations.
“Not only am I convinced that they will find these charges baseless, but it
will end the distraction while operating the radio station,” he wrote.
The station board has been debating Campanella’s future for the past two
months. Board members said they conducted an investigation that included
testimony from the plaintiffs and concluded that there was not enough
evidence to call for Campanella’s dismissal.
KPFA has struggled to retain general managers in recent years. After a
four-year period of interim general managers at the station, KPFA hired
former Berkeley Mayor Gus Newport in April of 2003. When Newport resigned
after less then a year, Jim Bennett ran the station as interim general
manager. Campanella was hired last November after a six-month search for a
new station head.
BERKELEY, CA – Today workers at KPFA are contacting the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the National Labor Relations Board to file complaints against the station's General Manager, Roy Campanella II, for sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, threatened violence, repeated violation of workers' right to organize, and retaliation.
Eight KPFA women are filing with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) to protest sexual harassment by Campanella, as well as a persistent pattern of discrimination based on gender, and the creation of a hostile workplace for women at the station. Those who turned down his sexual advances have been retaliated against through public belittlement, threats to cut funding, criticism of their work to their supervisors, slander, and threats of termination. Sexual harassment is illegal under state and federal law.
"We’ve exhausted all channels within the station and have been left with no alternative but to go to the appropriate state agencies. We care deeply about the well-being of KPFA, but the law guarantees us a safe, harassment-free workplace and neither KPFA nor Pacifica is acting to protect the workers at the station. It’s ironic, given KPFA's commitment to social justice," said union steward Lisa Ballard. Over 75 KPFA workers have signed a statement that they have no confidence in the Campanella's ability to manage the station.
"The General Manager started to engage in unprofessional and inappropriate behavior with me almost as soon as he began his employment," said senior manager Lemlem Rijio. "He asked me inappropriate questions, made suggestive and personal remarks, and forced me to hold private meetings with him, despite my objections, making me extremely uncomfortable. Once I made it clear that I was not going to flirt, laugh at dirty jokes, or be intimidated, the GM started to retaliate against me daily--with threats of termination, harassment, slander, as well as hostile and discriminatory treatment."
KPFA Training Co-Director Rain Geesler said that Campanella asked her out within weeks of his being hired last November. When she turned him down and complained about it to a coworker he started treating her in "unprofessional, intimidating and aggressive manner." "Ever since that incident, the interactions with the general manager have been highly stressful, and even retaliatory," she said.
"I was asked out three times by Roy Campanella, despite my repeated refusals," said another woman worker who is filing with the DFEH. "The first time he asked me to dinner he was told that it was unethical behavior. The third time, I told him that it was inappropriate because he is a manager and I am his subordinate. His response was to ask if there was a way around that fact."
Additionally, the employee's union is filing with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of seven male and female staff members for Campanella's violation of labor law and the contract between KPFA management and Communications Workers of America Local 9415. Fourteen weeks ago, on May 5th, Campanella threatened Weyland Southon, Executive Producer of Hard Knock Radio, with violence, and followed him out to the sidewalk to fight. The union demanded at the time that KPFA and its parent organization, Pacifica, provide the staff at the station with a safe work environment. Despite this, both Pacifica and KPFA's Local Station Board have failed to take action, and have dragged out deliberations about the General Manager's misdeeds over the past three and a half months.
The union is also calling on the NLRB to investigate Campanella's multiple violations of KPFA workers' right to associate freely and to organize. "When women workers met to discuss the pattern of gender-based discrimination and harassment at the station, the general manager attempted to intimidate workers, including me, into revealing who was present at those meetings," said shop steward Sasha Lilley. In one instance, Campanella tried to keep a union steward from reporting to Pacifica that he had threatened a worker with violence.
KPFA is the oldest listener-supported radio station in the United States. For more information go to www.kpfaworker.org
New report shows FCC failing to confront the digital divide and calls for
new policies to promote universal, affordable Internet service
WASHINGTON - Despite a rosy picture painted by the Federal Communications
Commission, America's access to affordable, high-speed Internet lags far
behind the rest of the digital world. A new report released today by Free
Press, the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union shows that a
recent FCC assessment of broadband Internet access is misleading and glosses
over serious problems behind an ever-widening digital divide.
"Despite claims to the contrary, the digital divide in America remains large
and will continue to grow unless some real changes are made," said Ben
Scott, policy director of Free Press. "By overstating broadband availability
and portraying anti-competitive policies as good for consumers, the FCC is
trying to erect a façade of success. But if the president's goal of
universal, affordable high-speed Internet access by 2007 is to be achieved,
policymakers in Washington must change course."
A July 2005 report from the FCC hailed recent progress in improving
broadband access in the United States. But upon closer scrutiny, the claims
made in the report -- and a subsequent op-ed by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin
published in the Wall Street Journal -- are, at best, wildly optimistic.
Broadband Reality Check, a new report authored by Free Press research fellow
S. Derek Turner, calls into question the FCC's conclusions. Among its
findings:
* The FCC overstates broadband penetration rates. The FCC report
considers a ZIP code covered by broadband service if just one person
subscribes. No consideration is given to price, speed or availability of
that connection throughout the area.
* The FCC misrepresents exactly how many connections are
"high-speed." The FCC defines "high-speed" as 200 kilobits per second,
barely enough to receive low-quality streaming video and far below what
other countries consider to be a high-speed connection.
* The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband
penetration per capita. The United States also ranks 16th in terms of
broadband growth rates, suggesting our world ranking won't improve any time
soon. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than
broadband users in Japan.
* Despite FCC claims, digital divide persists and is growing wider.
Broadband adoption is largely dependent on socio-economic status. In
addition, broadband penetration in urban and suburban in areas is double
that of rural areas.
* Reports of a broadband "price war" are misleading. Analysis of
"low-priced" introductory offers by companies like SBC and Comcast reveal
them to be little more than bait-and-switch gimmicks.
* The FCC ignores the lack of competition in the broadband market.
Cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and
small-business broadband market. Yet the FCC recently eliminated "open
access" requirements for DSL companies to lease their lines, rules that
fostered the only true competition in the broadband market.
"The FCC is trying to put the best face on this problem it can, but the
people who can't afford or don't have access to high-speed Internet know the
truth," said Mark Cooper, research director of the Consumer Federation of
America. "Affordable high-speed Internet means stronger economic growth,
more educational opportunities and exposure to diverse points of view. If
the FCC continues to ignore reality, the gap between the haves and have-nots
will become too wide to bridge."
The three groups call on Congress to take notice of these alarming trends
and enact clear policies that will free the broadband market from domination
by a handful of large cable and telecommunications companies. Their
recommendations include ensuring open access to all high-speed
communications networks, removing restrictions on public entities that seek
to offer broadband services to consumers, and opening up more of the
broadcast spectrum for wireless Internet applications.
"Fudging the facts won't provide high-speed Internet access to those who
need it most," said Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst for Consumers
Union. "If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the
broadband market, then consumers need a third option -- wireless broadband
that is less expensive and which doesn't depend on DSL or cable modems. It
offers the best and perhaps now the only way to close the digital divide."
On Cable, Think Big
by Gerardo Sandoval, SF Supervisor District 11
SF Bay Guardian, August 3, 2005
THE COMCAST SETTLEMENT currently before the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is the product of small thinking. The city gets a few bucks, and Comcast goes on with business as usual for four more years. Instead, we should be pushing Comcast to create the best interactive cable system in the world, one that links neighborhoods and that allows kids, seniors, artists, musicians, poets, and all residents to put quality programming on the air.
Under the proposed settlement, Comcast would give the city $3.5 million, plus a few million dollars more for equipment (out of the nearly $100 million a year collected by Comcast from its 180,000 San Francisco subscribers, who pay about $46 a month for basic cable). In exchange, the city would agree to settle all outstanding claims against Comcast for shortchanging customers and not performing what was asked of it under the last agreement.
More important, the city would extend Comcast's near-monopoly for four more years. The franchise agreement between San Francisco and Comcast is set to expire at the end of this year, a deadline we should be leveraging for an innovative, world-class system. Remember, the possibility of municipalization is a stick that carries great weight.
So what should we be asking for? Of course our cable system should be an educational tool. Doctors and heath care professionals should be able to routinely broadcast interactive classes on everything from SARS to flu pandemics to AIDS, functioning as a kind of emergency broadcast system when needed. And of course it should be an outlet for great music and art.
But this educational role is routine compared to what we could achieve. The system should allow viewers to participate in debates. The system should be accessible from every recreation center, every library, every public meeting space, so that people can talk to each other in real time. After the fact, viewers should be allowed to add commentary as easily as sending an e-mail.
Every community center and library could be a point of participation thanks to a cable-supported Institutional Network, or I-Net. This same I-Net could also build bridges between our often disconnected neighborhoods by allowing groups to connect virtually at different sites for meetings on citywide issues like medical marijuana regulation. Activist groups could also use the I-Net to strengthen ties.
An I-Net is not a futuristic fantasy – Sup. Tom Ammiano has proposed a city-owned broadband network that is essentially an I-Net. Comcast should pay for it.
Once such a network is created, schools and young people should be given priority so that the voices of the young can be heard, so that the frustrations that are the cause of so much youth violence have a creative outlet. Imagine the poetry and creativity of our youth being spilled out on the screen instead of the streets. Our seniors and differently abled community members should also be able to quickly and easily produce and distribute their stories. We should take advantage of San Francisco City College's and San Francisco State University's already prestigious degree programs in broadcast journalism and film to encourage young people to use the system and get psyched about going to college. Internship programs could be set up for young people so they could get networked into the movie production companies that visit San Francisco year-round and that offer very-high-paying jobs. There is no end to what we could accomplish.
The joint efforts of all these people – which could be the TV equivalent of blogs – could play a huge role in making sure important stories ignored by the mainstream media are brought forward.
Instead, the current deal lets Comcast off the hook for a relatively small chunk of change that will get swallowed in the city's $5.3 billion budget. It's time we think big. We need to tell Comcast what we want.
Gerardo Sandoval represents District 11 on San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.