Public Broadcasting's Enemy Within
The New York Times
Sunday November 27, 2005
* Take Action: Urge Partisan CPB President Patricia Harrison to Resign *
http://mediaalliance.live.radicaldesigns.org/action.php?action=4
As chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson proved to be a disastrous zealot. Internal investigators found he repeatedly broke federal law and ethics rules in overreaching his authority and packing the payroll with Republican ideologues.
His actual job - to maintain a "heat shield" between public broadcasting and politics - was turned on its head. The scathing investigation concluded that Mr. Tomlinson was a beacon of partisanship, hiring G.O.P. consultants as ludicrous bias-control monitors and recruiting Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, to be the corporation's new president.
Mr. Tomlinson, who has now left the corporation, insisted he had "absolutely no contact" with White House partisans. But the inspector general's report found he did indeed consult with administration powers like Karl Rove, President Bush's political guru. He even hired someone still on the White House payroll for advice on creating a balance "ombudsman" for public broadcasting. And he was found to violate the law by promoting a $4 million deal for conservative writers from The Wall Street Journal to be featured as a "balancing program."
Mr. Tomlinson, a Reader's Digest editor appointed to the board by President Bill Clinton, threatened the independence at the heart of public broadcasting's popularity. His departure is no cure-all, however, for the board remains a haven for such political appointees as Cheryl Halpern, a Republican fund-raiser chosen by Mr. Tomlinson as the new corporation chairwoman.
The inspector general's report is a case study of how dangerous ideological cronyism is as a substitute for nonpartisan expertise. Defenders of public broadcasting now must guard against still another conservative putsch - a Congressional move to cut financing for the corporation's $400 million budget of vital aid for local stations. This time, the "balance" zealots may resort to irony by citing the very chaos wrought by Mr. Tomlinson.
Wed, Nov. 16, 2005
By Renee Koury, Mercury News
With hometown Internet star Google offering to blanket Mountain View with
free wireless Internet access, the city is leaping ahead of neighbors in the
race to be Silicon Valley's most tech-savvy town.
City leaders unanimously accepted Google's offer Tuesday night to make
Mountain View the first city in the Bay Area -- and possibly the country --
to get a full umbrella of free WiFi coverage. Google will install as many as
400 transmitters the size of a shoe box on streetlamps throughout the city.
As part of a five-year contract starting by June, Google will test the
system, which will link wireless-ready laptops to the Internet in most of
the city. In a matter of months, surfing the Web with a wireless laptop
should be possible from a sidewalk cafe on Castro Street. But a paddleboat
at Shoreline Park might be problematic -- unless it's near a streetlamp.
``It's going to make us one of the first, if not the first, to have citywide
Internet . It's a pretty cool thing,'' Mayor Matt Neely said. ``We're
thrilled for all our neighbor cities who get to follow our lead.''
The council's gleeful approval came despite concerns over radiation and
privacy. Google maintains the radiation level is far below federal limits
and that of most cell phones. The company also offered assurances about
protecting users' information.
While cities across the Bay Area are moving ahead with plans to offer wide
swaths of free WiFi coverage, the Google deal propels Mountain View into the
spotlight. San Francisco is considering a similar offer from Google to test
free WiFi citywide. San Jose officials recently approved a deal to link
their downtown to free wireless access, as well as community centers and
branch libraries.
Palo Alto has plenty of WiFi hot spots, especially downtown. But the city is
on a different quest to become the first in the Bay Area to bring a
fiber-optic connection to every home. The big sticking point has been the
estimated cost of $40 million.
``It would be nice to have the free Internet for those who want it, but
wireless can only do certain things,'' Palo Alto City Councilman Bern
Beecham said.
Instead, he said, the city is more interested in pursuing fiber-optics,
which can provide residents with far greater digital possibilities such as
downloads of movies and large computer files. The plan is scheduled to come
up in January when new council members take office.
Mountain View leaders say it's only fitting that their city get free
citywide Internet access, since Google sprouted in its back yard and has
grown to become one of the world's most powerful Internet search engines.
``We are in the birthplace, the heart and soul of Silicon Valley, so not to
have citywide WiFi is almost embarrassing,'' City Councilman Mike Kasperzak
said. ``It's great for people who live here, who work here, who want to go
sit downtown and log on, and to some degree it's helping Google test out a
theory.''
But Google warns the signal may weaken behind walls, and users might need
extra equipment that costs up to $100 to improve reception.
Google already has set up test centers at Kapp's Pizza Bar and Grill on
Castro Street in Mountain View and Airborne Gymnastics in Santa Clara. Most
customers at Kapp's didn't even realize they could turn on their laptops and
be online for free. The exception was Huberto Acevedo, 26, of San Jose,
whose father owns Kapp's. He was sitting in a corner browsing the Internet
and viewing e-mail.
``I think it'd be really convenient to have this everywhere,'' said Acevedo,
who likes to hunt for automotive parts online. ``But I wonder how it will be
to have all those radio waves everywhere. We already have transmitters for
cell phones and TV and PDAs, and the sun's pretty damaging, too. It makes
you wonder about health.''
Some residents wondered the same thing. A flurry of e-mails between
residents and city council members this week brought up a range of concerns
about Google's seemingly innocuous offer. Some said the hundreds of
transmitters, about 20 to 30 per square mile, would emit radio waves with
unknown health effects. Others had privacy concerns, saying Google might
track their Web browsing and use it to sell tailored advertising.
City leaders say that's beyond their realm; their involvement is limited to
letting Google rent the city's street lamps for $12,600 a year to place
transmitters. People who don't want to use the Google network system can
simply opt out; users will have to take the initiative to log on.
Citywide WiFi is expected to bring more customers to downtown since people
can get work done while they dine, or between errands.
``This is really about the city enabling people to do WiFi and for those who
want it, it seems like a desirable service,'' said Elaine Costello, the
city's community development director. ``It's not like it's going to be a
requirement.''
Google is also testing its WiFi idea at Rockefeller Center in New York and
Union Square in San Francisco.
In its offer, Google product manager Minnie Ingersoll said the company wants
to use Mountain View as a test site to learn more about the cost and the
challenges of building and supporting a wireless network, with the ultimate
aim of driving more traffic to Google.
With 1,000 employees living in Mountain View, Google said it was a good
place to test services and products and understand its emerging technology.
The company also said free wireless gives access to people who can't afford
monthly Internet fees.
November 16, 2005
By Matea Gold, L.A. Times Staff Writer
* Take Action: Urge Partisan CPB President to Resign *
http://mediaalliance.live.radicaldesigns.org/action.php?action=4
WASHINGTON — The former chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting broke federal law and repeatedly violated the organization's rules and code of ethics in his efforts to promote conservatives in the system, an endeavor that included consultation with White House officials, according to the findings of an internal investigation made public Tuesday.
The 67-page report — the culmination of a six-month investigation by Kenneth A. Konz, the corporation's inspector general — portrays former Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson as a rogue appointee who often exceeded his authority in his determination to address what he viewed as a liberal tilt in public broadcasting.
Konz's report depicts the corporation as a deeply dysfunctional institution in which there has been little oversight over hiring and contracting and minimal communication between the professional staff and the board, made up of political appointees.
In his report, Konz agreed that Tomlinson — a Republican who was originally appointed by President Clinton — overstepped his boundaries and broke corporation rules. But he did not conclude that Tomlinson was seeking to remake the corporation as a conservative institution, as critics have charged, noting that the former chairman was following the CPB's mandate to ensure objectivity and balance in public broadcasting.
In a statement included in the inspector general's report, Tomlinson, who resigned his board position this month, denied any wrongdoing. He called the findings a triumph of "politics over good judgment" and disputed the charges as "malicious and irresponsible."
"Unfortunately, the inspector general's preconceived and unjustified findings will only help to maintain the status quo, and other reformers will be discouraged from seeking change," Tomlinson said.
According to the report, Tomlinson consulted with Bush administration officials — including Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove — about his efforts, even though the former chairman told The Times in May that he had had "absolutely no contact from anyone at the White House saying we need to do this or that with public broadcasting."
However, Konz discovered that in late 2003 and again this year, Tomlinson exchanged e-mails with White House officials about possible candidates to serve as the corporation's president. Some of the notes discussed Tomlinson's desire to hire Patricia Harrison, a former Republican Party co-chairwoman, whom the board appointed to the post in June.
"While cryptic in nature, their timing and subject matter give the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/CEO position," Konz wrote.
The corporation, a private nonprofit organization that distributes federal funding to local TV and radio stations, is supposed to act as a buffer between Congress and broadcasters.
In an interview, the inspector general said Tomlinson exchanged e-mails with "two or three" White House officials, including Rove. He declined to name the other officials or provide copies of the e-mails, which were given to the full board in a separate report.
Konz concluded that Tomlinson's efforts to hire Harrison violated provisions of the Federal Broadcasting Act, which prohibits the use of "political tests" in employment.
He also determined that the former chairman broke federal law barring interference in programming when he promoted the development of "The Journal Editorial Report," a public affairs program on the Public Broadcasting Service featuring the conservative editorial page board of the Wall Street Journal. The report said Tomlinson urged PBS to air the program even as he offered editorial page editor Paul Gigot advice about the program's format.
The report said Tomlinson was so zealous in what he termed his pursuit of political balance that he instructed corporation staff to threaten to withhold federal funds from PBS to achieve it — an action that would have required congressional approval.
CPB officials declined to comment on Tomlinson's specific actions, but board Chairwoman Cheryl Halpern called Konz's findings "bracing" and pledged to swiftly initiate changes. During a morning meeting at the organization's Washington headquarters, the board approved the creation of new committees to improve checks and balances.
For her part, Harrison said she was determined to repair "a rip in trust" created by the furor over Tomlinson's actions.
"I'm not going to take this report and put it in a drawer," she said in an interview Tuesday.
The release of Konz's investigation comes during a turbulent period for public broadcasters, who were demoralized by allegations that Tomlinson used his position to advance conservatives on and off the air.
As details of Tomlinson's actions emerged, Democratic lawmakers and liberal interest groups accused him of misusing his position and injecting partisanship into the organization. In May, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) asked Konz to investigate the then-chairman's tenure. On Tuesday, the congressmen said the report confirmed their suspicions that Tomlinson had a political agenda. They called for further institutional changes to guard against similar actions.
"The Corporation for Public Broadcasting needs significant reform and vigorous oversight to preserve the political neutrality that Mr. Tomlinson pretended he wanted but did so much to prevent," Obey said.
White House officials refused to be interviewed by the inspector general, saying he lacked jurisdiction to pose questions to officials outside federal agencies. The report does not draw conclusions about the administration's involvement with Tomlinson's efforts.
Critics called on Konz to release the details of Tomlinson's contact with the White House.
"Unfortunately, this fits exactly with a long pattern of unbridled, all-out partisanship and cronyism in so much of what this administration does," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.).
On Tuesday, Harrison, a former State Department official, said Tomlinson never expressed a desire to hire her because of her GOP credentials. "I do not have a political agenda," she said.
But the report suggests that politics may have influenced other hiring decisions. During his tenure, Tomlinson recommended several candidates, including an unnamed applicant for a senior position who was "referred with the strong support of the White House." Another job candidate was asked by an unidentified board member about her political contributions in the last election.
The inspector general documented numerous occasions in which Tomlinson circumvented CPB contracting procedures. According to the report, Tomlinson mishandled a contract with a consultant who monitored the political leanings of the guests on "Now With Bill Moyers" and three other programs by failing to get board approval and authorizing payments without written documentation of work. Konz also found that Tomlinson hired two ombudsmen this spring without considering other candidates.
Tomlinson faces another probe related to his other post, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The influential agency oversees the government's international broadcast services. The State Department's inspector general is investigating Tomlinson's actions there.
Voters decide on city-owned telecommunications systems
Published: 11/08/2005 11:02 PM
By: Associated Press - Associated Press
DES MOINES, IA - Voters in 17 cities approved city-owned telecommunications systems Tuesday, apparently disregarding a $1 million campaign blitz by cable television and telephone companies that opposed the measure.
The vote authorizes cities to start their own cable television, telephone and Internet systems in competition with companies such as cable operator Mediacom Communications Corp. and telephone company Qwest Communications Inc. -- some of the big spenders in the campaign.
Among those passing the measure were Dubuque, Mason City and Waterloo and West Union.
Fifteen of the cities considering the ballot issue voted it down. They included Altoona, Windsor Heights, Carlisle and Marion.
''This is a decision that belongs in the local community,'' said Mark Daley, spokesman for the nonprofit group Opportunity Iowa, which supported the measures. ''Regardless of what the outcome was tonight, Opportunity Iowa is pleased that these referendums were decided by the local people of these communities.''
Supporters said residents have the right to better Internet access and reasonably priced cable television programming and with their vote decided to sent that message to companies now providing those services.
Max Phillips, Qwest's vice president for Iowa, said he was pleased that nearly half the cities considering their own systems rejected it.
''We're optimistic that the cities that voted yes on this will still take a hard look at it and really try to make sure that this is something that makes sense for their city,'' he said.
Phillips said companies providing the services cities sought can be partners in helping communities reach their goals.
''We certainly hope that we get a chance to have a meaningful dialogue as partners and move forward for the economic health of every community,'' he said.
Jeff Link, spokesman for Project Taxpayer Protection Campaign, the group funded by Mediacom, said the city officials in the communities that approved the vote must step forward to ''prove that building these utilities makes fiscal sense.''
''They promised this was just to preserve their right to build one of these in the future, so hopefully voters in each of these towns will hold these opportunity groups accountable on their promise,'' he said.
Documents filed with the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board indicated that more than $1.4 million was spent by a nonprofit organization backed by Mediacom to defeat the issue.
Mediacom contributed $805,000 in cash to the campaign and donated $409,150 worth of air time on 25 cable television networks, documents said.
The documents indicate that the campaign has spent $921,870 on consultants, opinion polls, telemarketing, direct mail pieces and media production and advertising.
Separate filings indicate that Denver-based Qwest spent $94,494 to oppose the city-owned telecommunications systems.
Opportunity Iowa has received significant financial support from Clark McLeod, who has created a company called FiberUtilities of Iowa to manage city-owned telecommunications systems.
McLeod started Teleconnect in 1980, a company which became
TelecomUSA and was sold to MCI for $1.25 billion in 1990. McLeod also founded McLeodUSA Inc. and served as its CEO until he retired in January 2001. The company has recently filed its second bankruptcy since 2002.
Local leaders unleash vitriol at O'Reilly;
Host should be fired for comments about city, Daly says
Joe Garofoli, SF Chronicle - November 12, 2005
*Note: KNEW 910 AM in the Bay Area is the station that broadcasts O'Reilly's "Radio Factor" every weekday and carried the program in question on Nov. 8th. Media Alliance has introduced a resolution to the SF Board of Supervisors calling for local Congressional Reps to urge the FCC to give close scrutiny to the station's pending license renewal application and the formal Petitions to Deny this renewal that MA and partners submitted on October 28, 2005.
Not everybody took Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's on-air comments this week
about terrorists bombing Coit Tower as the hyperbole that fills the
talk-radio ether. One of the ticked off was San Francisco Supervisor Chris
Daly, who Friday called for O'Reilly to be fired.
"For an anchor on a major station, Fox News, to be saying those kinds of
things, it's just not OK," Daly said Friday. "It was just over the top."
Agreeing with Daly was San Francisco firefighters union president John
Hanley, and not just because the hose-shaped tower is a tribute to
firefighters.
"Who is this guy, O'Reilly?" said Hanley, who identified himself as both a
third-generation San Franciscan and military veteran. "I've got guys
fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm a veteran myself. What's he talking
about?"
A spokesman for Westwood One, which carries O'Reilly's program in 400
markets, declined to comment Friday. Fox News could not be reached for
comment.
On Tuesday's version of O'Reilly's syndicated radio program, "The Radio
Factor," the host vented his exasperation at two ballot measures that San
Franciscans were in the process of approving on election day.
If city voters were intent on voting to oppose military recruitment in
public schools and to ban handgun ownership, O'Reilly reasoned, then maybe
it should be cut off from federal dollars. To illustrate his point,
O'Reilly riffed on a vision of a San Francisco nation-state:
"Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly went on.
"And if al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do
anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America
is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit
Tower? Go ahead."
Daly, who sponsored the handgun measure, could not dismiss the statements
as hyperbole.
"When you have the privilege of being on the airwaves, there comes with
that a certain amount of responsibility," Daly said. "If you want to
disagree, fine, that's your right. But don't talk about blowing stuff up.
There are people who live there and work there."
Perhaps there's only one way to settle this: On TV.
It would be a battle royal made in talk show heaven. Daly -- the activist
turned San Francisco politician who's to the left of former Mayor Willie
Brown -- sharing the split screen with O'Reilly, the conservative icon
whom he wants to see canned.
"I've never been on a network show like that before," Daly said Friday.
Former San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Angela Alioto knows
what it's like to tangle with O'Reilly. She appears on his television show
roughly every other month, defending liberal positions dear to many San
Franciscans like medical marijuana and help for the homeless.
"He likes me because I'm the opposite of what he is," Alioto said. "But in
San Francisco, I'm a moderate."
Still, she was surprised when she appeared on O'Reilly's program Monday
night to defend San Francisco's handgun ban and military recruiting
measure.
O'Reilly made a statement similar to the one he made on the radio Tuesday:
"Why should we protect you from al Qaeda and terrorists if you're going to
disrespect the military by passing this, even though it's symbolic,
resolution?"
"When he went off on this al Qaeda thing, I was thrown off. And I never
get thrown off," Alioto said. "We're an American city, and you shouldn't
be talking about that in relation to any city.
"But I don't think Bill O'Reilly should be fired for saying that," she
said.
And while she doubts that he will apologize, she thinks that he may back
off if he realizes that his comments are being interpreted as inciting
terrorism. "And that's his big thing, terrorism," she said. "It would
affect his credibility if he appeared to be advocating that."
Perhaps Alioto is the person to be San Francisco's emissary to the No Spin
Zone, which is the show's mantra. In fact, she said, O'Reilly is going to
send her one of his "No Spin Zone" jackets.
So where can you where one of those in San Francisco?
"Oh, I'll wear it everywhere, as long as it just says, 'No Spin Zone,' "
Alioto said and then laughed. "But not if it says, 'O'Reilly.' "
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.
Tech Disconnect
Newsom looks to secretive, for-profit corporations to deliver his populist promise of free wireless Internet for all
By Camille T. Taiara and Matthew Hirsch
From SF Bay Guardian, November 9, 2005
Any day now, Mayor Gavin Newsom is expected to publicize the next step in TechConnect, his ambitious plan to bring cheap, maybe even free, broadband wireless Internet access to the masses – "anywhere, anytime."
If done right, TechConnect could break the stranglehold that SBC and Comcast have on local telecommunications services and the people who use them. And it could finally provide everyone with the means and skills to reap the benefits of an increasingly high-tech world.
That was the selling point Newsom used when he first went public with the idea at his State of the City address over a year ago: Not only would all San Franciscans have free Internet access within a year, but the mayor also pledged to take his WiFi plan a step further and bridge the ubiquitous digital divide once and for all – a task that entails providing not only connectivity but the necessary computer equipment, training, and relevant content. And he was going to do it all at no cost to the city.
"San Francisco is at a crossroads," Sascha Meinrath, cofounder and project coordinator for the Champagne-Urbana Community Wireless Network and spectrum policy analyst for Free Press, told the Bay Guardian. "A lot of people are looking to see what San Francisco is going to do."
But for a long time, the Newsom administration did little to make good on his promise, which was always more of a vague goal than a concrete plan for achieving it. Now it is scrambling to get it done.
There was no word from the city as to the project's status until Aug. 16, when officials announced issuance of a Request for Information and Comments. Little more than a month later, Chris Vein, the mayor's top point person for TechConnect, said they'd have the network up and running by the end of March.
With the city under pressure to produce results fast – and with no public funds to spend – even avid supporters are worried Newsom might hand a vital public interest resource over to some Silicon Valley tech company, giving a for-profit corporation a modernized monopoly over the city's communications – and, in the process, sabotaging more innovative, democratic applications.
'Proprietary' information
Newsom's RFIC gave interested parties 45 days to send in their comments. The document says the system must be universal and affordable, support fixed and portable uses, allow access to competing commercial and institutional service providers, and protect consumer privacy and choice. It also requires "a plan for protecting the Network from the effects of obsolescence."
Newsom's staff has since been sifting through more than two dozen proposals from top tech companies, including Google, Earthlink, and Cingular Wireless. But they're keeping many of the crucial details under wraps.
Google submitted a 100-page proposal to provide free WiFi throughout the city – but has claimed 92 percent of the document consists of proprietary information not to be released to the public. And the city isn't challenging them on it. AnchorFree, the company that erected free WiFi nodes in Union Square and four other high-income areas of the city, won't allow anyone but the mayor and his staff to see a single word of its plan.
Department of Telecommunications and Information Services administrator Ron Vinson told the Bay Guardian that the city attorney is looking into the legality of keeping AnchorFree's entire proposal secret. Beyond that, "either we're going to argue about what's proprietary or we're going to get [the WiFi project] done," he said.
Indeed, telecom giants have been lobbying hard on Capitol Hill and elsewhere in the nation to undermine local municipalities' right to create their own wireless networks, creating some of the urgency city officials now seem to be feeling.
Calls to Newsom spokesperson Peter Ragone were not returned by press time.
The process so far leaves many important questions unanswered: What do these companies expect to get from the deal? How will they use their privileged access to local consumers? What's considered "affordable"? And in a few years, when telephone and television services merge onto the Internet, will they be offered at affordable rates too?
And perhaps most crucially: How do they intend to deal with the digital-divide issues at the core of why Newsom says he's interested in WiFi to begin with?
Finally, will TechConnect be run as a municipal utility, as a joint public-private system, or as an entirely private, for-profit venture? And will the city, in its rush to the finish line, simply negotiate a contract with one or more of the private companies that submitted proposals?
Virtual land grab
Kimo Crossman, a local software developer and avid WiFi supporter, estimates he's e-mailed city bureaucrats at least 100 times over the past three months in an effort to wrench information from them.
"Do we want to have some kind of social input on it, or do we want to let companies get away with what's basically a virtual land-grab?" he asked.
Crossman's not alone. Responses to the city's RFIC include more than 150 comments from individuals and community organizations, and many of them press for a formal public process so that San Franciscans might help shape the network and what it can do – not simply accept whatever plan a corporate sponsor is willing to provide.
Media Alliance, a small nonprofit that's recently made TechConnect its top priority, has played a pivotal role in generating the public response the city has received so far. They would like to see the city implement something along the lines of the community needs assessment it's required to conduct before choosing a vendor for the city's cable franchise.
Under federal law, cities must actively reach out to various sectors of the community, holding public meetings and gathering input on which to base their demands for what public benefits a cable company must provide in return for the right of way to string its lines along public utility poles and under city streets.
Or the city "could utilize some of the mechanisms they use for other types of outreach," such as when generating economic development plans, Laura Efurd of the Community Technology Foundation of California told us. "A system like this will not work without community input."
Emy Tseng, senior policy advisor at the foundation, currently sits on the city's TechConnect RFIC Review Panel. Other than that, the board is stacked with city and industry representatives.
In addition to a series of strategically planned, well-publicized public hearings, Media Alliance and CTFC are calling on the city to create a community advisory council with real decision-making power.
"In the past corporations have had a bad track record on addressing digital divide issues," explained Tim Pozar, cofounder of the Bay Area Wireless Users Group, which has long been rebelling against the big telecommunications companies by setting up free WiFi nodes in different parts of the city.
Comcast and SBC still haven't even wired predominantly low-income sections of southeastern San Francisco for high-speed Internet. Setting up a citywide network and "bringing down the cost of Internet access would overcome a huge hurdle," Efurd said. "But there are other concerns too."
Innovation or balkanization?
Media democracy advocates worry that Newsom is taking a backward approach to reaching his stated goals. The city must figure out what the community wants TechConnect to do before it can determine how the network should be built.
"Wireless is just one medium out there," Pozar said by way of example. Fiber-optic cable performs better than WiFi for video streaming, he explained. That would be an important consideration if, say, San Francisco's public access TV stations wanted to use the network to reach residents who don't subscribe to cable, or if they chose to broadcast Board of Supervisors' meetings so that people could watch them from their work desks.
Indeed, San Franciscans shouldn't be limited to using the network only to receive content, they say.
"We've the opportunity to not just provide Internet service, but to provide LAN [local area network] services and applications – streaming audio, streaming video, live chat rooms – directly," Meinrath said. "Cities that just deploy Internet services, five years from now are really going to be kicking themselves because they will have deployed a system that quickly becomes a dinosaur. The peer-to-peer services are what are really growing.... If you build an architecture that doesn't support that, you've built an incredibly inefficient architecture."
The very fact that the companies hoping to erect TechConnect are claiming proprietary protections from public scrutiny is an ominous clue for Meinrath and his peers.
The Internet itself offers an example of what's possible. Because its underlying source code is open, Meinrath notes, "anyone could develop applications on top of that. Anyone could try out new things and innovate new ideas on this neutral medium. In wireless we're going in exactly the opposite direction. We're making it all closed and proprietary. It completely retards innovation in this arena. Because if I develop something using brand X's system, it might not work on brand Y. And that's very problematic. We're basically balkanizing the wireless medium.
"Long-term, if you really want to have a social and economic justice component to this, you're going to need to change the very infrastructure of how people access and disseminate information," Meinrath said. "San Francisco could be the one that started everything. The big question is: Will it?"
By Arshad Mohammed, Washington Post
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
President Bush plans to nominate Republican Deborah T.
Tate and renominate Democrat Michael J. Copps to serve
on the Federal Communications Commission, a step that
will likely preserve the two parties' balance of power
on the FCC and continue to limit Chairman Kevin J.
Martin's freedom of action.
A person familiar with the decision said the White
House plans to announce Bush's choice of Tate, a
Tennessee state regulator, and Copps, who has served
as an FCC commissioner since 2001, soon and possibly
as early as today.
The FCC, which has broad oversight of the
communications industry, faces a series of major
issues over the next year including whether to
restructure the Universal Service Fund that helps
subsidize phone service in rural and remote parts of
the country and how to overhaul the complex system of
payments among telecom carriers.
The commission, which has five members when at full
strength, has operated for most of this year with two
Republicans, two Democrats and one vacant seat. As a
result, Martin, a Republican, has had to strike
compromises with the Democrats on a series of
decisions.
The chairman has proved adroit in cutting deals with
the Democrats but this has forced him to compromise on
many issues. For example, the FCC last week approved
SBC Communications Inc.'s purchase of AT&T Corp. and
Verizon Communications Inc.'s acquisition of MCI Inc.
by a 4-0 vote. However, at the Democrats' behest, the
commission imposed a series of conditions on the
mergers, which Martin had wanted to approve without
any limitations.
Republican Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy must
step down when the Senate's current session expires,
which is expected later this year. As a result, even
if Tate and Copps are quickly confirmed by the Senate,
Martin would still be grappling with an evenly split
commission unless the White House were to takes steps
-- such as a recess appointment -- to bolster the
Republicans' position.
Tate, 49, received her undergraduate and law degrees
from the University of Tennessee and currently serves
as a director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority.
Copps, 65, who was a long-time aide to former senator
Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.), has been an FCC
commissioner since May 2001.
Tate declined comment on the matter. Copps was not
immediately available for comment. An FCC spokesman
also declined comment.
Protest Plans to Drop Robert Scheer's Tuesday Column from the Op-ed Page of The L.A. Times
Email the LA Times today:
Publisher - Jeff.Johnson@latimes.com
Editor - Dean.Baquet@latimes.com
L.A. OBSERVED, By Kevin Roderick
Wednesday, November 9 2005
Scheer out as of December
Here's an update to my exclusive post last Friday on the end of Robert Scheer's column on the L.A. Times op-ed page: He went on KPCC's "Airtalk with Larry Mantle" this morning (audio) and said he has now been informed the column will stop running at the end of the year. Scheer speculated about political pressure on the Times because of his lefty views, and noted he has been "a punching bag" for Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh for many years, but he told Mantle "I don't know what's driving them because they won't tell me." No one from the Times would comment to Mantle either. I've previously reported on plans to revamp the lineup of Times op-ed columnists. Scheer's column will still be distributed through Creators.com, and as I mentioned on Friday he will soon launch a new webzine called TruthDig.com. Supporters of Scheer's work have apparently begun a letter and email-writing campaign hoping to convince Times Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson to keep the column.
*****
Posted November 4, 2005
Robert Scheer in the news
Lots of chatter in local media circles these days about the syndicated L.A. Times columnist and KCRW commentator from the left.
TruthDig logoFirst, it appears that Scheer is about to lose his weekly Tuesday spot on the Times op-ed page after thirteen years. Sources at the paper tell me the decision has been made, but Scheer says he hasn't been told anything officially. He has heard the talk, however, and suggests the pressure to ax him comes from Publisher Jeff Johnson, who recently took over responsibility for the opinion side of the paper. The column often makes the Times website's most-emailed list, but Scheer tells me "I've been led to believe they are going to kill it....If I'm coming to the end they ought to bring me down there and explain why." He has been either on staff or a Times columnist for almost three decades.
Second, after a year of preparation Scheer and publisher Zuade Kaufman are launching a new Los Angeles-based web magazine, TruthDig, on Nov. 28. TruthDig logo It will combine 2,500-word reported essays on issues by scholars and writers (e.g., UC Berkeley's Orville Schell on China, USC's Larry Gross on gays and religion, Marc Cooper on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, Sam Harris on an "atheist manifesto") with hyperlinks to original sources, reading lists, blogs, video, podcasts and daily takes on the news. The name is inspired by archeology, Scheer says: "We assume there is some truth to be found on every issue, but you just have to dig for it." Barry Golson, Scheer's former editor at Playboy who also has edited TV Guide and Yahoo Internet Life, is the Senior Editor. They are advertising now for a Managing Editor. The job posting positions TruthDig "from a progressive perspective," but Scheer says it won't be all politics. Alice Waters, the founder of Berkeley's Chez Panisse restaurant, is contributing. The business plan is ad driven, with writers being paid about $1 a word plus expenses—a young writer has already been sent to the Middle East on a "dig."
Scheer is best known for his politics and books, and for editing Ramparts magazine in the 1960s, but he's been involved in Internet journalism for a while now. He is a former editor of the Online Journalism Review at USC, where he teaches in the Annenberg School.
Originally Published on Friday, June 24, 2005
CommonDreams.org
by Peter Phillips
Mainstream media is the term often used to describe the collective group of big TV, radio and newspapers in the United States. Mainstream implies that the news being produced is for the benefit and enlightenment of the mainstream population-the majority of people living in the US. Mainstream media include a number of communication mediums that carry almost all the news and information on world affairs that most Americans receive. The word media is plural, implying a diversity of news sources.
However, mainstream media no longer produce news for the mainstream population-nor should we consider the media as plural. Instead it is more accurate to speak of big media in the US today as the corporate media and to use the term in the singular tense-as it refers to the singular monolithic top-down power structure of self-interested news giants.
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. The following are but a few of the corporate board interlocks for the big ten media giants in the US:
New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's
Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments
GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble
Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo
Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi
AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
Can we trust the news editors at the Washington Post to be fair and objective regarding news stories about Lockheed-Martin defense contract over-runs? Or can we assuredly believe that ABC will conduct critical investigative reporting on Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq? If we believe the corporate media give us the full un-censored truth about key issues inside the special interests of American capitalism, then we might feel that they are meeting the democratic needs of mainstream America. However if we believe - as increasingly more Americans do- that corporate media serves its own self-interests instead of those of the people, than we can no longer call it mainstream or refer to it as plural. Instead we need to say that corporate media is corporate America, and that we the mainstream people need to be looking at alternative independent sources for our news and information.
Peter Phillips is a professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and director of Project Censored a media research organization. www.projectcensored.org Sonoma State University students Bridget Thornton and Brit Walters conducted the research on the media interlocks.
By Jennifer L. Pozner, at TomPaine.com
November 08, 2005
EMILY’s List, the fundraising PAC for pro-choice Democratic women, turned 20 last month. Founded one year after NBC’s Tom Brokaw described vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro as a “size 6” at the Democratic National Convention, the group has since helped to elect 80 female governors, senators and representatives, and hundreds of women to state offices.
Their anniversary comes at a time when America seems fascinated with the concept of female political leadership, from the fictional (“This fall, a woman will be president,” proclaimed towering billboards publicizing Geena Davis’s ratings-smash “Commander in Chief”) to the fantasy (pundits salivating about a potential Hillary Clinton/Condoleezza Rice horse race in 2008 on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” and ABC’s “Good Morning America”).
Two recent Gallup and Roper Public Affairs polls show overwhelming support for female politicians among the general public: between 79 and 81 percent of Americans say they would feel comfortable with a female president, and similar numbers believe a woman would handle homeland security and foreign policy issues as well as or better than a male president.
So, if the public is ready for a female president, why is it that the closest a woman has come to the Oval Office is Geena Davis on a Hollywood backlot? And, for that matter, why are women still stuck with token representation in the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court?
In part, this continued inequity can be traced to a media climate still mired in outmoded attitudes echoing Tom Brokaw, circa 1984. Women audacious enough to seek political power are routinely dogged by gender-specific coverage that focuses on their looks, fashion sense, familial relationships and other feminizing details that have nothing to do with their expertise.
Which brings us to the failed Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers—who, according to the Associated Press, bakes a mean sweet potato pie.
Well before Miers’ withdrawal, a lengthy AP profile informed readers (often via quotes from relatives and colleagues), that Bush’s embattled sycophant “likes to play tennis, run and take in a movie,” is "not somebody who is a gossip,” “always remembers everybody’s birthday,” and that “her royal blue suit shined with a brooch her mother gave her” when her nomination was announced in the Oval Office.
No news to date from the AP on what dish Bush’s new nominee Samuel Alito might bring to a SCOTUS potluck, or whether Antonin Scalia’s cufflinks carry sentimental value.
The AP was hardly alone. The Los Angeles Times referred to Miers as Bush's "work wife," described her mother’s recollection that she was “a blond-haired ‘perfect angel’” as a child, and quoted her preacher as saying she is “a gracious, Christian lady” who embodies the word "meek" (apparently, he meant that as a compliment).
Meanwhile, in “The Eyes Have It,” the Richmond, Va., Times Dispatch called for Miers to get a “makeover” because she “succumbed to the Whoopi Goldberg Eyebrow Theory: It’s better not to have any.” Tongue-in-cheek tone aside, there’s nothing funny about statements such as "It's entirely possible that Miers figures it's more important to lawyer good than to look good. That would be wrong, of course. When the eyes of the public are upon you, nothing is more important than how you wield instruments of beauty. Well, nothing other than accessorizing. And maybe shoes."
But the top prize for misogynistic Miers mumblings goes to the San Diego Union Tribune , whose columnist (and former congressman) Lionel Van Deerlin wrote, “In judging persons for public office, there are certain routine tests…in assessing a feminine prospect, I have to wonder—would I wish to be married to her?” It’s difficult to imagine more chauvinistic and irrelevant criteria for vetting a candidate for the nation’s highest court. Yet while the Beltway buzzed about Miers’ political opinions and crony status, Van Deerlin labeled her unsuitable not because of her lack of judicial experience but because, as a workaholic, “she doesn't meet my exacting standard”… as a potential wife! “Can it be any wonder she's single?,” he asked, “What relationship could flower with a woman who works from 4 a.m. to 10 at night?”
If Harriet were named Harold, it’s likely the Union Tribune would have praised Miers’ long hours as proof positive that Hard-Working Harry would make a dedicated jurist. Instead, we got a regressive screed about a professional woman doomed to a life of solitude because no man should want such an ambitious wife.
Nor did W do his nominee any favors when he called her a “pit bull in size 6 shoes”—a phrase that quickly made its way into headlines. Oh, how that size 6 has haunted women leaders in the press, from Brokaw cutting Ferraro down to size in ’84, to the day Condoleezza Rice became America’s first African-American female national security adviser—and a front page New York Times story reported that "her dress size is between a 6 and an 8." And earlier this year, after Rice happened to wear tall black leather boots, here’s how The Washington Post described the single most influential woman in the current administration:
“…the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form that is purely sexual.”
Orwellian, isn’t it? The Post brands the secretary of state a dominatrix, then feigns concern that sexualized stereotypes rob female politicians of their power... never acknowledging that their paper is a prime purveyor of these double-standard-laced stereotypes.
Don’t let the examples of Miers and Rice fool you: Trivializing female leaders is a bipartisan media pastime. Take, for instance, the Washington Post style story about the hairstyles, housekeeping preferences and “hootchy shoes” of California Democrats Loretta and Linda Sanchez, the first Latina sisters to serve together in Congress. Or the Larry King Live debate about whether Hillary Clinton’s “fat legs,” “bottom heavy” figure, bad fashion sense and “bitchy” demeanor would torpedo her N.Y. Senate bid.
This sort of media marginalization reinforces the regressive notion that women are more emotional, less knowledgeable, less qualified to lead—and, by proxy, less electable—than their male counterparts.
To be sure, media is only one major cause of women’s underrepresentation in public office. Even if every major American media outlet devoted itself tomorrow to fair, ethical coverage of female leaders (and they should!), women might still be less inclined—or less able—to enter politics in the first place due to contributing factors that include persistent economic inequality; the fact that women still disproportionately shoulder child care and elder care responsibilities; and good old-fashioned stereotypes that can steer boys toward leadership and girls toward support roles.
Nevertheless, media have the power to encourage women to overcome such obstacles to leadership—at the very least, they have the responsibility not to perpetuate those barriers. It’s time to demand journalism that is respectful and informative, not insulting and frivolous. Harriet Miers' lack of judicial experience and her “best governor ever!” fawnings over Bush were more than fair game for critique; the way she chose to apply her makeup, and her single status, should be not have been up for review. Likewise, the secretary of state’s war-intelligence failures—not her boots and dress size—should be the subject of journalistic scrutiny.
So, the next time you stumble across this kind of coverage, get out your poison pens and write those letters to your editors. Because if media coverage of female politicians doesn’t catch up to public opinion, the possibility of a Clinton v. Rice presidential faceoff will remain as much a fantasy as Geena Davis’s “Commander In Chief.”
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1130953710191
Just weeks after San Francisco began to offer free wireless Internet access to anyone who could lug their laptop to Union Square, Mayor Gavin Newsom was thinking bigger.
In his first state of the city address last fall, he declared, "We will not stop until every San Franciscan has access to free Internet service."
Now, a year later, the city's staff is sifting through more than two dozen preliminary proposals from companies like Google, Cingular Wireless and EarthLink, which offer some ideas about how they can help make "universal, affordable" wireless Internet access here a reality.
There's a lot to think about.
Many communities across the U.S. have already explored municipal broadband projects -- some wireless, some not. And along the way, some have run into opposition -- generally from service providers that stand to lose business -- in the form of litigation, legislation or public-opinion campaigns.
"I certainly wouldn't say it happens in every case," said Washington, D.C., communications lawyer James Baller of the Baller Herbst Law Group, whose clients have included local government bodies trying to launch public communications utilities. "It certainly happens in enough cases that one must assume that it could happen any time, or any place."
So, as San Francisco ponders the technological puzzles in its plans, like how to find a way around topographical challenges such as Twin Peaks, the city is also keeping its ear to the ground for potential opposition.
"Everything we do, we think about, 'If someone wanted to challenge this, how would we respond?'" said Chris Vein, acting executive director of the city's Department of Telecommunications and Information Services. The city attorney's office is advising him as his department vets the ideas the city has received so far.
Vein says he's already aware of proposed federal legislation that, if passed, could scuttle projects like San Francisco's. Though none of the Bay Area's existing service providers has voiced a challenge to San Francisco's still-developing plans, the city isn't discounting that possibility.
"I am not aware of anybody who has said they will sue me if I go forward with this," Vein said. "But I do know people are watching us very closely."
MARKET FORCES
Municipal broadband proposals tend to draw the attention of private-sector competitors, such as telephone, cable and cellular providers, said Michigan telecommunications lawyer Jon Kreucher, who used to develop legislative strategies for cable companies, but now represents their competitors.
In the Bay Area, cable company Comcast and phone provider SBC Communications both say the city's plans don't present a problem for them.
Andrew Johnson, Comcast's vice president of communications in the Bay Area, stressed that the market is already lively. "This is just one more competitor entering into the marketplace," Johnson said. "We're focused on the value war."
But Comcast does care about who finances the competition.
"If it's private dollars at risk, then we certainly look at that situation differently than if it's taxpayer dollars that are trying to subsidize these ventures," Johnson said. If tax dollars become involved in San Francisco's plan, he said, Comcast would "vehemently oppose it" and make that criticism known to city officials.
Asked if the company would consider anything more drastic, Johnson said, "I think we're getting into the realm of hypotheticals there, and I know we don't comment about hypotheticals."
At this point, San Francisco has made no financial or technological commitments. "We're just trying to understand what the best solution could look like," Vein said.
Despite Newsom's original call for "free" service, the city is now only insisting that prices be lower than current services -- and affordable for disadvantaged residents and businesses.
The city has said it's considering a number of approaches, including a public-private partnership and making broadband a city service or new utility.
So far, Google has snagged the most press for a proposal that includes a free basic level of wireless service. But it is only one of 26 companies that have offered ideas.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office confirmed it is working behind the scenes on the wireless project, but declined to comment on the potential legal issues or the nature of any advice it has given.
According to telecommunications lawyers outside the project, though, an attack could come from a number of directions.
"The wireless phenomenon is relatively new," so the track record for opposing municipal wireless projects hasn't crystallized, said Baller, the D.C. lawyer. He said the arguments on both sides of the broadband issue are virtually identical to those made during an earlier era when municipalities were seeking to develop their own electric utilities.
Legal battles may focus on whether a government body can compete with, or support competition with, an existing provider, he said. There may be claims that a municipal government has an unfair advantage or that it didn't jump through necessary procedural hoops.
At least a few local governments across the country have been driven to court over their broadband ambitions.
Cable giant Cox Communications, phone provider BellSouth and a citizens group in Louisiana forced a referendum when the city of Lafayette, La., proposed expanding its fiber-optic network. After voters OK'd the project in July, a suit by BellSouth and a separate class action challenged the project's financing, according to a local newspaper.
Along the same lines, Time Warner Cable sued North Kansas City, Mo., claiming the city had broken a state law that requires a public vote before a city can offer cable TV service. A federal district judge agreed with the city that the challenge was premature, but court records show the case is still on appeal.
And in Utah, phone company Qwest Corp. has argued unfair competition in a suit against a consortium of local governments that wants to provide wholesale broadband service. The suit, still in its early stages, claims the government group could pass on savings from certain tax exemptions to its contract providers.
Most challenges to municipal broadband seem to have been pinned to state laws, which can vary significantly, said William Marticorena, who heads the telecommunications group at Rutan & Tucker in Southern California. "It's really hard to talk about a general line of attack because I don't think there is one."
Some states restrict the ability of cities to get into the broadband business, while others might impose restrictions on financing or mandate level playing fields, he said.
PLAN FOR A FIGHT
Marticorena noted that many California cities already offer some area-specific wireless access, like that in San Francisco's Union Square. "It remains to be seen what challenges, if any, we're going to see" to citywide wireless projects, he said.
Baller and Kreucher advise the local governments they represent to think way ahead.
It's important to anticipate how the laws might change before a project is complete and to take every procedural step carefully, Baller said.
"The best thing they can do is candidly think of it as best they can through the eyes of people who will oppose the project," Kreucher said. "And do the best job they can of creating a record, swaying public opinion [and] having the relationships necessary at state houses to ensure the success of the project."
By the beginning of 2005 at least 14 states had laws in place that restricted municipalities' ability to provide public communications service, Baller said. About half those laws covered broadband.
California may be somewhat unique because its state constitution specifically says that a municipality can operate public utilities to provide certain services, including "means of communication," Marticorena said, adding that that protection might include broadband. On the other hand, he said, the state also has "extremely protective" environmental laws, which challengers might use to try to delay a project.
State-level concerns may all be moot, though, if one side in the battle over broadband wins on Capitol Hill.
Among at least three pending bills on the issue, one introduced this year would outlaw such state restrictions. At the opposite end of the spectrum, another bill would stop any state or local government from providing "any telecommunications, information or cable service" if a private company is already offering something "substantially similar."