My Response to “The Digital Journalist”
By Josh Wolf, Dublin Federal Penitentiary
October 26, 2006
In your October column, “Ethics: We Need to Talk…” , you implicitly suggested that I should be protected from having to testify and provide my unpublished material, if and only if, I am a “professional journalist”. While I certainly understand your argument that a reporter’s privilege “must be very narrowly applied or the justice system would collapse”, I cannot help but feel the criterion you’ve proposed is inherently flawed.
At best, the suggestion of narrowly defining who qualifies as a protected journalist will result in an elite class of professionals who work for mainstream media outlets, while reporters for the alternative press would be given no choice, but to practice their craft without a net. More likely, I anticipate that this approach would establish a state-sanctioned journalist license, and anyone would be subject to having her license revoked should she stray from the party line. At worst, independent voices could be subject to prosecution for practicing journalism without a license.
The First Amendment was not written to protect the Hearst Corporation and its thousands of employees, although it certainly should. When the founding fathers set out to guarantee a free press they really did seek to protect independent journalists and amphleteers, such as Thomas Paine and his “Common
Sense."
The problem with only protecting “professionals”, while denying these protections to those who do not rely on their reportage to support themselves financially is two-fold. For one, students of journalism must be protected-if they are not, they will be denied the opportunity to engage in serious news gathering during their education and thus unprepared to enter the field as professionals. Secondly, if independents are denied these protections, then who will report on mainstream journalists who abuse their professional standing?
What about the stories that are ignored or neglected by the mainstream media? Are those issues really not worthy of coverage simply because the established media has deemed them unfit for airtime? If it is important that these stories are covered, then isn’t it also important that journalists investigating these stories be protected?
Who should be protected? As Jeff Jarvis mused previously, “Tony Soprano shouldn’t be able to insulate himself by simply creating a blog”, but I do feel that the mommy-blogger who happens to break a story about a dishonest baby-food company should not be forced to out her confidential sources. In my opinion, anyone’s journalist activities should be protected whether or not he is paid for his work.
After all, a journalist is supposedly a public servant and if he or she is working due to his or her own conscience and without financial compensation, how can this possibly invalidate him or her as a public servant?
But would this broad application to the journalist shield lead the justice system to collapse? I doubt it, but there is a more sensible approach to limiting these protections without establishing an exclusive class of protected journalists. By applying a balancing test between the need for law enforcement to obtain this information against the damage that would be inflicted to the rights of a free press, many of these cases can be resolved without the establishment of a state sanctioned press.
For example, in my case the federal government has asserted that a protester threw a firework in the vicinity of a police car four days after the Fourth of July. The US Attorney has argued that this was an attempt to burn the San Francisco police vehicle and should therefore be a federal investigation, but according to the police report, the car did not burn.
Despite the fact that I’ve stated for the record that I neither filmed nor witnessed the alleged incident and despite the fact that we’ve offered to screen the complete footage for the judge, I am currently sitting in a federal prison cell for protecting my sources and unpublished material.
If I were to submit to the government demands, then it would no longer be possible for sources to trust me with privileged information; I would be denied the unfettered access that I’ve been granted as a result of establishing a trusted relationship with Bay Area activists, and I would thus be unable to fully report on civil dissent in the San Francisco region.
Forcing me to comply with this subpoena would and has created a chilling effect, which should be balanced against the federal government’s need to investigate the alleged crime that may have occurred and which resulted, if it even happened, in no significant damage to the police vehicle that suffered no more than a broken tail light.
'First Lady of the Press' Speaks at San Francisco Benefit
by Anna Elledge, The Golden Gate [X]Press, Online
[NOTE: Stay tuned to Media Alliance's site for photos and a recording of this event.]
A benefit gala for the 30-year anniversary of Media Alliance, a Bay Area media advocacy and resource center, attracted more than 250 people Oct. 12 for a celebration that included a handful of speakers, although all eyes seemed to be on veteran White House correspondent and star guest Helen Thomas.
Media workers, activists and educators filled the Green Room in Herbst War Memorial Theatre on Van Ness Avenue. Some had been members of Media Alliance since the start, while others were there to support the benefit and get an opportunity to see Thomas, 86, who spoke on topics ranging from covering John F. Kennedy to her opinions on the Bush administration, the Iraq War and the state of media today.
Most famous for the 57 years she has worked as a White House correspondent, Thomas was described at the gala as the “Darling of YouTube,” referring to the younger fan base she recently gained after co-starring with Stephen Colbert in his White House press secretary spoof, available for viewing through the Web site.
“How come only the comedians are telling the truth?” Thomas said of her experience with Colbert, while noting that three pages in the Washington Post are dedicated to cartoons, where political questioning and discussion could have a place.
A spoken-word performance by Oakland-based artist Marc Bamuthi Joseph was met with energetic applause and riled the crowd from the start of the program at 7:30 p.m. During a brief history of Media Alliance’s accomplishments over the last three decades, supervisor Ross Mirkarimi was noted as present and a tip of the hat was given to SF State’s own Raul Ramirez, a seasoned journalist and journalism lecturer.
Nearly an hour later Belva Delvis, the first female African-American news anchor on the west coast, took the stage with Thomas for the dialogue the audience was waiting for.
Beginning with questions about working with the Bush administration, Thomas described it as “darkness at noon,” saying the administration was highly secretive and had let the country down. Statements like these prompted hissing from the audience, which seemingly agreed with Thomas’ sentiments.
“What happened to America? Wake up!” Thomas said, later noting that she had never seen the country so life-less. “We gave up our one weapon, which is skepticism,” Thomas said.
Speaking about the quality of media today, Thomas said, “We have really fallen down on the job.”
“I think the press has come out of their coma finally, they could be much better … I don’t understand why they aren’t asking why, just why,” Thomas said of her colleagues.
Continuing the work they’ve done in the past to challenge media conglomerates, like Clear Channel, Media Alliance organized to speak out against media consolidation at last week’s FCC hearing in Los Angeles, and is doing the same for the Northern California FCC hearing in Oakland on Oct. 27.
“The federal government is increasingly using grand juries to circumvent state shield laws and force journalists to divulge their confidential sources. These violations of press freedom have a chilling effect on investigative reporting and our democracy,” the Media Alliance Web site states, with a link to a petition they will send to California senators and representatives.
Davis asked Thomas about press freedom, and the possibility of a federal shield law, noting the Bay Area’s special interest in it this year, with SF State graduate Josh Wolf behind bars for refusing to hand over material, and two Chronicle reporters possibly doing the same.
“I think it’s getting tougher and tougher,” Thomas said about the ability of today’s reporters to keep sources confidential. “I’d like to see a shield law.”
» E-mail Anna Elledge @ shutrbug@sfsu.edu
FCC reassessing media ownership rules;
Critics say current regulations inspire bland homogeneity
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
As the Federal Communications Commission reviews its rules on media ownership, several studies released Monday say the current regulations breed bland music offerings on the radio, an environment where few women and minorities are in positions of power and news coverage that ignores issues people of color care about.
FCC spokesman David Fiske said the studies and commentary would be "read and placed in the public record," but declined to comment specifically on the findings of any of the studies from media watchdog, nonpartisan and interest groups. They submitted studies to meet Monday's deadline for input on the proposed rule changes. The deadline for the public to respond to this first round of comments is Dec. 21.
The commission has set no timetable about when it will vote on any changes, Fiske said.
Over the next several months, however, the commission will ask the public what it thinks of several rules governing how many television and radio stations an entity can own in one market; the commission's limitations on owning a full-service broadcast station and a newspaper in the same market; and its regulations on radio and television station cross-ownership. The commission will also ask the public whether it should retain its ban on mergers between the top four broadcast networks.
In 2003, the commission voted to make it easier for a single company to own a radio station, newspaper and TV station in the same region. In a rare bipartisan showing, both the House and the Senate voted to oppose the FCC's decision, and hundreds of thousands of people contacted the commission to complain.
In 2004, a federal court overturned the change that would have permitted greater ownership concentration of television and radio station in a single market. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia also found that while the FCC was within its rights to roll back a ban on a single company owning both a TV station and a newspaper in the same region, it asked the FCC to review its decision.
The FCC is seeking input in response to both the court's request, as well as part of its quadrennial review of its media ownership policy as required by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
That act changed the media landscape for the worse, said Jeff Perlstein, executive director of San Francisco watchdog Media Alliance.
The results, Perlstein said, were more homogenized offerings in the media marketplace and less local content.
And even though the digital media revolution has enabled millions of consumers to contribute to that marketplace through their own podcasts, blogs, citizen journalism offerings and iPod playlists -- Perlstein said most people still get their news through local TV, radio and newspapers.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents to a survey by a collection of organizations led by Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, found that consumers rely on their local television outlets, radio stations, and daily and weekly newspapers for their hometown news.
"The Commission should adopt media ownership rules that encourage a diversity of viewpoints, cultivate localism and preserve competitive outlets," stated the Consumers Union group in letter filed Monday with the FCC.
Further consolidation will also decrease the already paltry number of minority- and female-owned media outlets, according to a study led Carolyn M. Byerly, an associate professor of journalism at Howard University.
According to FCC data, of the 12,844 radio and television stations that filed the correct reports, women owned 3.4 percent and minorities 3.6 percent of the outlets. A majority of them were in rural areas and small towns, Byerly found.
In a separate study of the news consumption patterns of 196 mostly African American residents of the Washington, D.C., area, Byerly found that of those who got their news from radio, many preferred minority-owned stations because "they give you the only accurate reporting," Byerly wrote. She also found that 12 percent of African Americans perceived "widespread media bias" against their communities. White homicide victims, for example, were perceived to be given more sympathetic support, and there was little coverage of community events and issues in African American communities.
In radio, the airwaves have been homogenizing since the 1996 lifting of a ban on the number of radio stations one company could own nationally, said Peter DiCola, a University of Michigan researcher who submitted a radio study to the FCC Monday. The studies by DiCola and Byerly were funded by the Benton Foundation and the nonpartisan Social Science Research Council.
DiCola said the law consolidated the dial into the hands of a few conglomerates. But instead of using their dominant market share to offer listeners a diverse playlist, large station groups often run the same cookie-cutter offerings of classic rock and talk radio, said DiCola, who is research director of the Future of Music Coalition.
Now it's harder to find jazz, blues, classical and gospel, DiCola said.
"It is 100 percent certain that things have not gotten better since (passage of the Telecommunications Act)," DiCola said.
*****************
Oakland forum - 10/27
Bay Area residents will get a chance to tell FCC commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps how they feel about the current media landscape at a community forum to be held at 5 p.m. Friday at Oakland's Marriott City Center, 1001 Broadway at 10th Street. (near the 12th Street BART stop in Oakland).
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com.
White Liberals and Glass Houses: A Reminder that Black Radical Journalism is a Tradition
Dr. Jared A. Ball, Morgan State University
October 21, 2006
VOXUNION MEDIA
Even as they decry the practice of exclusion among the mainstream press the white left-led media reform movement does the same to Black American and domestic or local news. While just a brief overview, one far from being exhaustive in its study, this commentary is both a postscript to past analysis performed on the subject and a prelude of more in-depth forthcoming work. However, following a recent study published by the white-left media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting or FAIR and in advance of my own participation at next year’s Media Reform Conference in Memphis I would at least like to propose the following for consideration.
This is precisely why I make mixtapes. As crazy as it sounds to some, FreeMix Radio: The Original Mixtape Radio Show, a Washington, DC-based freely distributed mixtape CD, is as likely to let an audience in on the real conditions of the United States, particularly Black America, or to allow for the airing of the real critical political hip-hop as any popular media, including that produced from the white liberal left. In other spaces I have, and will continue to, analyzed the fact that maybe more than any other popular form of musical expression political, or at least non-abusive hip-hop, is least likely to gain access to any airwaves in the United States. Even my beloved WPFW Pacifica Radio here in DC with whom I currently work has an allegiance to jazz that relegates only 5 hours a week to hip-hop and that is it for the entire city when it comes to the particular form of which I now speak. This leaves our youth solely at the hands and whims of a commercial pop culture world which, in the words of Jonathan Kozol, is bent on their “cognitive decapitation.”
In terms of news or perspective, little changes when it comes to the white left. We agree that the right-led mainstream news environment is a destructive mess and many of us consider even attempting change in that arena a hopeless waste of time. But perhaps we will yet again need to condemn our comrades on the left and further the development of more Black-centered progressive or radical journalism.
The October 13, 2006 edition of Counterspin – the 30 minute weekly radio show from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a white liberal media watchdog group – was dedicated to their recent study on PBS’s Newshour with Jim Lehrer which detailed the right-wing slant of the show and an overall lack of inclusiveness in major media. Among the report’s findings were that on PBS’s Newshour, men appeared 4 times as much as women, republicans twice as often as democrats and that only 15% of all guests were so-called “people of color.” But even with such distinguished guests as FAIR’s own Julie Hollar (who also co-wrote the study) and media scholar Robert McChesney founder of the media reform group Free Press, nothing was mentioned of their own inclusiveness failure rates.
It must also be noted, parenthetically, that their standard of inclusion also remained fairly conservative in that it only measured republican versus democrat, as if that latter is somehow enough of a distinction. In other words, their study would be even more damning were it to include even more white radical perspectives of communism, socialism, anarchy, etc. not to mention were it to include the varied radical concerns among African Americans (or Africans in America or New Afrikans). That is, if inclusion of democrats is a standard, then where are we to look for pan-Africanism or African Socialism?
But if we take their radio programs as signs of their particular range of coverage and perspective of that coverage, understanding as we do that FAIR, for instance, also publishes a print edition called Extra!, McChesney and Free Press all publish widely, etc. and so on, we would notice an absolute paucity of focus on African America. Future analysis will expand on this but I am enough of a listener and reader (I read McChesney widely and have interviewed him myself twice and even once emailed him with these very concerns) I feel confident in saying that similar findings would result.
The FAIR study mentioned uses invited guests as a leading component in their analysis. Being that I am not able to determine in all cases the race or ethnicity of guests by listening to them or reading their names in show summaries, and recognizing that the inclusion of Black faces is not necessarily a guarantor of Black-centered or Black radical perspectives, I can make an assessment based on keynote topic selection as to whether or not particular attention was paid, in this case, to Black America. If we just look at the last calendar year and the primary or central themes of Counterspin we notice that only four of those themes were potentially specific to the conditions or struggles of African Americans and every single one was related to Katrina (shows on: 10/14/05, 1/27/06, 3/10/06 and 9/1/06).
Each of these shows were follow ups on Katrina, but while we can give some benefit of the doubt, there would need to be further investigation to determine exactly what percentage of these stories were about Black people as opposed to issues of finance or the funneling of tax dollars via friendly no-bid contracts, etc. Even still, the horrific event some thought would bring media into more of a discussion of race and class has largely failed to do so even within the media reform left wing.
McChesney is no better in this regard. In his weekly one-hour radio show Media Matters there has been little discussion of race and the Black struggle or current condition and when there is, his invited guest expert is likely to be a white male. In roughly the last year he too has had only 4 shows which discussed race at all, and these not necessarily the condition of Black America or its ongoing struggle, and 2 of these shows had white male guests Robert Jensen (10/02/05) and David Roediger (7/24/05).
I recently wrote him an email reminding him that during these shows, while he twice referenced writer and journalist Glen Ford (formerly of Black Commentator and now BlackAgendaReport.com), he had yet to actually invite him on as a featured guest. McChesney did remind me of what I had known, that in the 2 other instances Sundiata Cha-Jua (3/19/06) and Salim Muwakkil (1/29/06) had appeared bringing the grand total of Black guests to 2 in the course of roughly 50 shows in the past year.
In preparation for our participation in Free Press’ upcoming conference on media reform, my IndustryEars.com colleague Paul Porter too noted the lack of inclusion of Black voices and was even inclined to remark how “Free Press is the Clear Channel of Media Reform.”
Porter continued, saying that, “It has become blatantly obvious that the media reform movement is as racist as media ownership. While we continue to lose ground daily for some strange reason, our efforts often lead us to align with the groups that marginalize us. Groups like Free Press and Democracy Now! have systematically added token voices to appear as our agenda's are the same. When you look at key reform groups over the years they consistently hire and speak to audiences that don't look or think like us. Until we collectively form a unified partnership we will continue to be marginalized and basically used until further notice. I am sure I will hear the benefits from some of you on why we need to align with larger reform groups but the proof has been in past history. I am most interested in change. Speaking at the Memphis media reform [conference] or conducting a panel is of no use unless it changes the landscape.”
Oh, and that beloved media reform movement and Pacifica radio favorite Democracy Now!, which airs 5 days a week? In my 2005 study of that show I noted that of the 176 possible shows in the calendar year prior to the levies flooding in New Orleans, only 21 shows or 12% had any focus on Black America. Of those 21, 10 were historical references to the Civil Rights era, including 2 about the historic – yet re-emergent – story of Emmitt Till, but only 4 with any contemporary focus. Of the 4 all were with the late activist Damu Smith surrounding much of his organizational work on issues of politics and environmental racism.
One would hope that this powerful media outlet would not need to await another of the caliber of Damu before these issues gain coverage. Or perhaps such a figure will go unnoticed because of such inattention.
Now, this is not to say that the white left is the cause of the problem. But they are a problem. The pattern of abandoning Black American concerns for those considered more pressing or more exotic is again playing out in 2006. The fact remains, that listeners to the radio programs discussed above will have a greater working knowledge of Iraq, Israel or Palestine than of Black America. I am sure part of the response will be that there is a war or international news is sorely lacking in mainstream press. No doubt this is true. However, I think it is more of a return to the Black Power era of “you don’t want us? Then fuck you too! We can cover Vietnam or the environment or the whales!”
It is necessary to inform the nation of its role in, and relationship to, international politics. However, an overly intense focus on international issues or to domestically tend only to cover issues at the highest federal levels, borders on copping out in that in each case the mostly white audience will feel appeased of its guilt in being complicit with a North American juggernaut and powerless to make real change. More attention to local and domestic concerns would be more likely to challenge people to become more active in fixing, internally, the nation that most of the world rightly recognizes as the greatest threat to world peace.
But what we are seeing now are the remnants of the Civil Rights and Black Power era sellouts and conformists who have abandoned any attempt at domestic revolution in favor of challenging mainstream coverage of federal-level or international concerns. In the end the white left follow an agenda set by the elite owners of media and the world and leave the rest of us unsupported, protected or covered. The issue of communication, as Mark Lloyd has said, is a civil rights one, but we are not seeing the same kind of white liberal, progressive or radical journalism that supported those efforts, and popular Black media has convinced us we need no such similar effort in Black journalism.
White America, as Dr. King said 40 years ago, has not done enough to condition itself out of white supremacy and there is a sense I get from this wing of political struggle that says, “we did that Black stuff already. You got your rights, you have celebrities and Black journalists. We’re moving onward and upward.” Well, despite the imagery, Black America is no better off today than at any other time. We remain imprisoned, ill-educated, with poverty and segregation levels that rival any other point in our history. Plantation slavery remains the standard by which we measure the condition of African Americans which prevents us from seeing that what currently exists is not progress but the proverbial knife being pulled 5 inches out of a 9 inch deep wound, as Malcolm X once made clear.
Of any segment of the population who should be most able - given access, education and proclaimed criticism to see through the barrage of false imagery - its our white friends of the upper-middle class left. But more likely is the reality that the trend remains much like Dr. King again said of the white left, that they have “in devastating numbers walked off with the aggressor” where it appears as though the “white segregationist and the average white citizen has more in common with one another than either had with the negro.”
Dr. Todd Burroughs and I have argued for the creation of a B-SPAN, a Black national news service dedicated to year-round coverage of Black struggle and condition. I make mixtapes, do low-power and internet radio all of which is meant to support or exemplify underground and alternative journalism or the development of space for the expression of a de-colonized culture. But more will need to be done in media and political organization if real progress is to occur.
We must remember that the primary reason, despite a lack of intent to include from the white left, that Black Americans have eschewed “media reform” as a “movement” is because from the beginning it was and is understood that dominant media work is for the dominant, and that there is little chance of democratizing media in a decidedly un-democratic society.
From Sam Cornish to Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. DuBois, Ida B. Wells, Robert and Mabel Williams, Sam Napier, and Malcolm X, Black radicalism has always included an underground/ alternative press component. None argued that reforming media would reform society. They all argued that in order to reform or revolutionize society, a supportive media would have to be created. This is not exclusive to Black America.
As noted by Lauren Kessler, radical journalism is a “tradition” not an anomalous “time-bound” occurrence. This brief look at the white left need only be a reminder that we cannot expect that movement to be ours. Black America, whether in journalism or larger political struggle, is fast-approaching complete isolation, mostly from half-hearted and apolitical media inclusion and journalistic practice, but also from a complete inattention from our white left comrades. As we work within we must also work without.
Dr. Jared A. Ball is an assistant professor of Communications/Media Studies at Morgan State University. He is editor of the Words, Beats and Life Journal of Hip-Hop and Global Culture and is also the founder and creator of FreeMix Radio: The Original Mixtape Radio Show, a rap music mixtape committed to the practice of underground emancipatory journalism. He and his work can be found online at http://www.VOXUNION.COM
Monday, October 23
Today Media Alliance joined with national partners to fill official comments on behalf of our members to oppose the proposed loosening of media ownership limits by the Federal Communications Commission. Our filing in 2003 in response to similar rule changes went on to be the basis for the successful legal challenge which stopped the FCC-proposed rules from taking effect and allowing even greater consolidation in radio and TV ownership.
Today we were joined in our filing by the Center for Creative Voices in Media, the Center for Digital Democracy, Common Cause, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the New AMerica Foundation and the US PIRG's, among others.
This important filing comes just as Bay Area residents are preparing for the first-ever FCC public hearing in Oakland, on Friday, October 27th. For info: http://www.media-alliance.org
Check our main site shortly for the full pdf version of our filing.
In the meantime, read below about the 4 studies released today backing up our comments.
"New Studies Say Bigger Media Isn't Better;
New Research Casts a Critical Eye on Media Consolidation"
See studies at http://www.ssrc.org/programs/media/ and http://www.benton.org
Today, the Benton Foundation and the Social Science Research Council released four independent academic studies on the impact of media consolidation in the United States. The new research focuses on how the concentration of media ownership affects media content, from local news reporting to radio music programming, and how minority groups have fared – as both media outlet owners and as historically undeserved audiences -- in an increasingly deregulated media environment.
These studies make clear that media consolidation does not create better, more local or more diverse media content. To the contrary, they strongly suggest that media ownership rules should be tightened not relaxed. The studies are intended to inform the FCC's re-examination of media ownership restrictions and have been filed with the FCC during the initial public comment period ending Monday, October 23.
Benton president and former FCC commissioner Gloria Tristani framed the importance of these studies, stating: “This is about everything we hear and see and read through the media. At stake is how TV, radio, newspapers and even emerging media will look, what role they will play in people's lives, and who, if anyone, will control them and for what purposes.”
Joe Karaganis, program director at the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), commented that the goal of the SSRC is “to ensure that public policy is informed by rigorous data and analysis, and by a wide range of perspectives. Our role in this process has been that of a facilitator of a larger conversation among researchers interested in media ownership.”
The four studies examine key relationships between ownership, programming, and community impact.
Peter DiCola, of the University of Michigan and the Future of Music Coalition, examined how the concentration of radio station ownership affects the diversity of music programming. The purpose of the study was to answer the question, "Do radio companies offer more variety when they exceed the local ownership cap?” DiCola found that “those station groups that came to exceed the local ownership caps focus their programming primarily on just six types of formats: news, adult contemporary, rock, classic rock, country, and top 40.” He concludes: “Large station groups in excess of the local ownership cap do not offer more variety -- they offer less -- and the FCC should not raise the local ownership caps in the expectation that large station groups will suddenly change their ways.”
Dr. Carolyn Byerly of Howard University examined FCC data on minority and women-owned media. She found that women and minority ownership is really miniscule. According to incomplete FCC data, women hold a majority interest in only 3.4 percent of broadcast stations, and minorities own a majority interest in only 3.6 percent of stations. “FCC policy has done almost nothing to open access to the airwaves for women and minorities," Byerly said. "Communication policy must include ways for women and minority groups to acquire more stations in communities of all sizes.”
Byerly, along with her colleagues Jamila A. Cupid and Kehbuma Langmia, also examined minority perspectives on the media coverage of minority communities, drawing on 196 interviews with African-Americans, Africans, Latinos and Asians in the Washington, D.C. and Maryland. They found that television is the preferred source for news and the 20 percent who use radio news overwhelmingly preferred stations that were minority-owned, because these stations "tell us the truth" and "know what is really going on."
"FCC policy needs to assure that stations pay attention to public affairs issues relevant to minority communities," Byerly said, "as well as to expand minority media ownership.”
Michael Yan of the University of Michigan analyzed the relationship between newspaper and television cross-ownership and the provision of local news and public affairs programming. The purpose of the study was to test the assertion that has that allowing cross-ownership will produce more local news and public affairs programming than other stations.
To the contrary, the study finds that cross-ownership is not related to the quantity of local news provided. Similarly, the study shows that cross-ownership is not related to the quantity of public affairs programming. "These results cast significant doubt on the logic that cross-ownership can promote greater availability of important types of local programming such as news and public affairs.” said Dr. Phil Napoli of the McGannon Research Center at Fordham University, who presented Yan's study at the press conference.
The studies are available online at http://www.ssrc.org/programs/media/ and http://www.benton.org
This is how "diverse" network TV really is: Out of an estimated 12,500 stories aired by ABC, CBS and NBC in 2005, the three major English-language networks, only 105 were exclusively about Latinos or Latino-related issues. That’s 0.84% of stories for those of you mathematically inclined.
And Spanish-language TV is failing us as well. Telemundo’s announcement that it will close its local offices not only in San Jose, but also in Phoenix, Houston, San Antonio, Denver, and Dallas. The National Association of Hispanic Journalists calls this move "a serious lack of commitment to serving the needs of the Spanish-speaking Latino community by providing local news."
When NBC bought Telemundo in 2001, Ramon Escobar, the VP for live news programming for MSNBC promised that "there will be more resources for Telemundo to produce news."
What’s behind all of this? An increasing consolidation of corporate media and an absolute lack of diversity of ownership. When Latinos own a little over 1% of TV stations in the country, what can we expect?
It’s time to tell the FCC that enough is enough. We need to stop Big Media—it’s bad for everyone; it’s even worse for people of color. Come to a hearing in Oakland October 27.
Sydney Levy
We just learned today that the Merc will lay off over 100 employees, including a 14% reduction in newsroom staff.
And at the Contra Costa Times, the paper's editor is "leaving" because his position has become "redundant." Both developments are directly related to the merger of newspaper in the Bay Area, leaving all major dailies from Monterey to Marin in the hands of Dean Singleton's Media News. Now the FCC is considering allowing Singleton to buy TV and radio stations in the Bay Area.
Also today, NBC's Telemundo announced it will no longer offer local news shows and its Bay Area staff will be laid off within the next few months. I am interested to see how NBC/Telemundo will explain to the FCC how cutting local news serves our local communities. No matter--the FCC is considering allowing Big Media to become even bigger.
What's wrong with this picture?
Come this Friday, Oct 27 to an FCC hearing in Oakland and give the Commission a piece of your mind.
Sydney Levy
From: KQED Members for Democracy, (415) 775-0755
KQED mebers are urging a NO vote on a misleading ballot referendum in which the KQED Board of Directors is asking its membership to relinquish their voting rights.
In a ballot that includes six measures, a YES vote on item #5 will insure that KQED members will no longer have a vote in matters that affect the direction of the station. This will create an insular, self perpetuating, closed system that will leave the 30 board members totally in control of the stations future direction.
"The KQED Board is turning a Republic into an Empire," said one KQED supporter.
In 1955 "KQED began selling memberships for the first of the country's 11 noncommercial stations to do so. From that time onward, KQED's members have been actively involved in the development of the station, creating a huge pool of members as well as active volunteers.
Of all of the PBS TV & radio stations in the country, KQED has the largest per capita membership base
A "yes" vote could allow the KQED Board of Directors to rapidly transform itself into a regional "Clear Channel", homogenizing the content and feel of local stations, without member approval. If approved members lose all rights and powers.
In an interview with San Francisco Chronicle reporter Joe Garofoli, Jeff Perlstein, executive director of the watchdog group Media Alliance said, "It's pretty shocking that in the Bay Area our public television station is using this merger as a Trojan horse to disenfranchise its members."
http://tinyurl.com/yz2j6z
"The information sent with ballots is misleading" said a representative of KQED Members for Democracy. "All NO votes are the safe way to keep KQED, OUR public station."
Members can vote online until 5pm, Wednesday October 25th. Members' mailed ballots should have their member pin and account # on it, which can be used to vote online and access voting info.
By Sascha Meinrath, at GovTech.net
Sep 29, 2006
When do we recognize a shift in the fundamental social fabric of civilization? Where do we look to find better exemplars of participatory democracy? When do we realize that notions of justice have to expand to include a new ways of thinking about human rights? How do we change our institutions to support a more just and equitable world? These are the questions that thought leaders in the community and municipal wireless movement have been asking themselves more and more over the past few years.
An overarching theme that came up time and again during the interviews I conducted for this article is that we often think far too small when we talk about community networking. In a communications age, access to the resources, information, opportunities, and conversations that broadband services and community and municipal wireless networks facilitate is a vital element -- the foundation upon which the future of civil society rests.
The problem is to change the very nature of the municipal wireless debate -- incorporating a more liberatory language, more thoughtful actions, and the development and implementation of telecommunications infrastructures that directly improve the lives of users. At the heart of this debate is a tension between market economics and the "social contract" companies should be held to when providing critical resources to local communities. As Jim Baller, senior principal of the Baller Herbst Law Group, sums up, "digital inclusion is, or should be, a basic right of all Americans."
In citing the Declaration of Independence, Baller concludes that citizens have certain unalienable rights -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "In the years and decades ahead, virtually everything that we do at work, in education, in public safety and homeland security, in medical care, in entertainment, in our communities, at the polls, etc., will depend increasingly on affordable access to advanced communications services and capabilities," states Baller. "No nation can lay claim to greatness without acting vigorously to ensure that none of its residents will be left out of the world."
What are the social and economic benefits of digital inclusion? Over the last few years, the importance of broadband services to communities has increased dramatically. Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, puts it this way, "it is now beyond dispute that information and communications technologies bring advantages in education, job-training, social networking, health-care, and overall quality of life." However, accessing this critical resource is only one component of digital inclusion. As Scott relates, "Having the 'ICT trifecta' -- access to the Internet, the equipment to use it, and the skills to exploit it -- may well be the difference for many families between upward social mobility and a declining standard of living. For children especially, having access to technology is not a luxury, it is a social necessity."
The United States was founded on the notion of ubiquitous, equitable communications infrastructures. In fact, post-Independence, almost three-quarters of all federal employees worked for the Post Office. And the Post Office was built in response to the discriminatory policies prevalent at the time in the Royal Post of Great Britain. When Alexis de Tocqueville wrote "Democracy in America" in 1835, he praised the Postal Service and the newspapers and other information it conveyed as greatly responsible for the America's successes and the education of its populace. In discussing the Postal Service, de Tocqueville writes, "it is difficult to imagine the incredible rapidity with which thought circulates...It cannot be doubted that, in the United States, the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to the support of the democratic republic."
Paralleling this analysis, Jim Snider, senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, states, "Democracy requires well educated citizens. The Internet has become a necessary foundation for a well educated, economically productive citizenry for the 21st century."
John Atkinson, director of Wireless Ghana, concurs, positing that "communication and information give people hope and inspiration. You might say that communication access fosters social well-being, and that information access allows for economic potential." Dr. Arun Mehta, president of the Society for Telecommunications Empowerment, underscores the stakes for civil society, "you cannot have democratic processes that exclude a significant percentage of citizens."
The change in perspective that many wireless pioneers advocate is to look at digital inclusion as a vaccine that enhances civil society and protects against disruption. According to Harold Feld, Media Access Project's senior vice president, "leaving aside any considerations of social justice, creating permanently marginalized and technologically isolated pockets spread throughout our rural and urban areas is recipe for disaster. It imposes huge social and economic costs and creates a permanent underclass disconnected from the broader society."
And yet, leading broadband analyses support the notion that the United States has done a remarkably terrible job of connecting its citizenry over the past half-decade. Baller puts it thusly, "For the last six years, the Administration has defined America's best interests as synonymous with those of a handful of giant telephone and cable companies. During this period, trillions of dollars of investment capital have evaporated, America has plunged from 4th to 16th (some would say 19th) in global broadband penetration, and we have fallen increasingly behind the leading nations in access to high-bandwidth capacity and in cost per unit of bandwidth."
If we believe that civic participation is a central tenant of democratic society, then we need to think about Internet access as equally important. During the past half-decade, Matthew Rantanen, director of Southern California Tribal Technologies, has seen the impact of broadband services on Indian reservations he's worked with, "the people of this community have a better sense of control of their own destiny. They feel that by their own hand, they have taken control and have provided themselves with the opportunities that the majority of the rest of the country has access to."
Given the nature of broadband access, it is important to point out that the positive impacts of digital inclusion efforts do not accrue solely to those who are newly connected. As Mehta summarizes, "The value of a network goes up proportional to the square of its size." Like many "commons" (e.g., education, roads) everyone benefits as more people have access to the resource. Feld puts it this way, "The 'knowledge economy' really does benefit by having new people look at old problems in different ways or bring in wholly new considerations, ideas and tastes. In other words, digital inclusion is not about averting social catastrophe, or noblese oblige to the underprivileged, or charity. It is a calculated investment to promote our national self-interest, as sensible as any Silicon Valley VC investing in a start up."
With the class and knowledge divide growing in the United States, racism and xenophobia on the rise, and increasing concern about everything from the state of the Iraq war to woeful child poverty and healthcare coverage rates, why should we be concerning ourselves with municipal wireless? As Joshua Breitbart, principal at the Ethos Group, warns, "To the extent we digitize the public sphere, we exacerbate the racial and economic divides already prevalent in our society. It's the new Jim Crow. The Internet still offers the promise of a broader, more participatory democracy. Community wireless -- and not just civic projects, but networks with true community involvement and ownership -- is the vehicle for bringing people online and into the digitized public sphere."
Thus, when we talk about digital inclusion, it is important to think holistically about the potential impacts of this work. Michael Maranda, president of the Association for Community Networking has been forwarding what he calls "Digital Literacy, Access & Equity" for years. "Digital Inclusion is an aspect of social justice or equity," declares Maranda. "The Communications sector is both one of the most profitable and one of the most essential in the modern economy. The quality of the networks and infrastructure we have, along with the social and human capital investments in our communities, will define our quality of life and the direction our economies and societal structures will take."
This article is part of a three-part series on digital inclusion. Bellsouth declined comment for this series. Repeated e-mails and phone calls seeking comment were not returned by AT&T, Comcast, Earthlink, Insight, Qwest, and Verizon.
----
Sascha Meinrath is a regular contributer to Digital Communities and the Founder and Executive Director of CUWiN.net. Sascha serves on the Board of Directors for CTCnet, a US-based network of more than 1000 organizations united in their commitment to improve the educational, economic, cultural and political life of their communities through technology. In 2006, Sascha founded EthosWireless.com, a wireless consultancy focused on social justice. Sascha blogs regularly at SaschaMeinrath.com.
As noted in the article below from the SF Chronicle, Media Alliance is opposed to the KQED Board's proposed By-Law Change that the members who fund the station should now vote themselves out of ever having a vote in the station's business. Dues-paying members have had these voting rights for the entire 50 plus years of the stations' existence.
Know any KQED members? We bet you do, whether you realize it or not.
Ask around and encourage them to vote no on Item #5 on their ballots.
And tune/call into a debate on this topic on Forum, Wed 10/11 at 9am, featuring Jeff Perlstein, MA's Executive Director.
Vote no on KQED By-Law Change #5 and help oppose this power move to strip the last remaining vestige of "the public" from the Bay Area's "public" radio and TV stations....oh, except for the public's funding of the station pledge drive after pledge drive.
SF Chronicle:
KQED asking its members to relinquish voting powers;
Few participate in slow, costly process to elect board
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, October 5, 2006
The board of directors of public television station KQED sent ballots to its 190,000 members this week proposing an unusual twist to the notion of democracy: It asked members to vote to strip themselves of their right to vote on "major corporate decisions" or to choose the board of directors.
The reason, according to the KQED board: Elections cost too much. And they take too long in this era of rapid media transformation, where KQED needs to keep pace. The station recently merged with fellow public TV stations KTEH in San Jose and KCAH in Monterey, forming the most-watched public TV enterprise in the nation, with an estimated 2 million viewers.
Only KQED members are being asked to vote on the measures, which are due Oct. 25. Station leaders said KQED is the only public television station in the country whose entire board is elected by its membership.
"It is estimated that submitting these issues to our roughly 190,000 members will cost KQED $250,000," according to a letter written by KQED board chair Nick Donatiello and mailed to members this week.
The letter also asked members -- who could be casting their final ballot -- to approve the change of the name of its corporate umbrella (to Northern California Public Broadcasting, Inc.), provide for a limited extension of terms of board officers, and to "change the scope of the purpose of the organization" so the broadcaster can distribute its content via everything from satellite radio to podcasting.
Asking members to vote is expensive, even for a station with a $60 million operating budget, Donatiello wrote. After KQED's recent merger, "we expect to have about 220,000 members, making going to the membership for changes of this type even more expensive."
Plus, he added in an interview Wednesday, only 10 percent of KQED's members bother to vote on most issues. A small percentage -- roughly 120 members -- can petition to force the membership to vote on a particular issue. Donatiello said the board was split 15-10 on the decision to put this ballot to members.
"This is about money and this is about responsiveness," Donatiello said. "It's up to the members if they want to spend this money on elections. It could buy a lot of programming."
A couple of years ago, the station was pursuing a deal to purchase another public media outlet, he said. If the station was forced to put all such business decisions to a vote in the current media atmosphere, "nobody would do that deal with you." That acquisition deal was never completed for other reasons, he said.
Jeff Perlstein, executive director of the watchdog group Media Alliance said, "it's pretty shocking that in the Bay Area that our public television station is using this merger as a Trojan horse to disenfranchise its members.
"It strips what little meaning that 'public' has in 'public broadcasting,' " Perlstein said. "Especially in this era when there's so much polarization in the media and so much bias, it's important to have some measure of accountability."
KQED's letter said "virtually all not-for-profit organizations do not grant their members the right to vote on such changes of the type contemplated here."
"I don't know about the phrase 'virtually all,' but the essence of what they're saying about nonprofits is accurate," said Dan Moore, vice president of public affairs for GuideStar, a national database of nonprofit information. "Their arguments are credible. Whether they are persuasive is for the members to decide."
The proposed amendments are available at www.kqed.org/vote or by contacting KQED at 415-553-2206.
E-mail Joe Garofoli at jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com
From The Convoy-Dispatch
www.tdu.org
Substandard Contract May Force Drivers Across Picket Lines;
S.F. Newspaper Teamsters Fight to Hold The Line Against Hearst
The Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle has set its sights on its union workforce, but members of Teamsters GCC Local 4-N are fighting to preserve the good wages and benefits in their contract. These press and prepress workers have been hampered in their struggle by Teamster International officials who have signed substandard agreements and obstructed 4-N’s efforts to prepare for a strike, if necessary.
In late 2003, Rome Aloise, secretary-treasurer of Local 853 and special assistant to James Hoffa, broke ranks with a bargaining coalition of unions to settle short with the newspaper. Aloise agreed to a seven-year agreement containing concessions, including the loss of Teamster jurisdiction for drivers outside city limits.
According to Anthony Price, president of Local 4-N, the worst thing Aloise did was to give up the right to strike: he agreed to a clause that requires Teamster drivers to cross picket lines of any union that doesn’t cave in to similar job-killing concessions.
"Since Aloise agreed to send members across picket lines, most of the other unions at the Chronicle have felt compelled to accept concessions," says Price. "Now it's only us and one other union still fighting to preserve industry standards."
Employer Goes for Blood, Where Is Union Solidarity?
Enter Frank Vega, the notorious hatchet man who provoked and prolonged the Detroit Newspaper Strike in the late 1990s. Vega took over operations at the Chronicle in 2005 and has shown that he is not interested in bargaining, he is only interested in surrender.
Local 4-N has been fighting to keep bargaining alive since their contract expired in July, but the Chronicle has now declared impasse. 4-N members must vote on whether to accept their employer’s “last, best, and final” offer that would permit outsourcing, cut staffing to unsafe levels, and greatly weaken overtime standards by paying straight time for the first nine hours of a shift.
But it’s unclear what the options would be if the members reject the offer.
George Tedeschi, president of the Teamsters Graphic Communications Conference, has refused to grant strike sanction and has not even bothered to reply to two letters the local sent him requesting assistance. Aloise has bragged that he can use his status as general assistant to President Hoffa to make sure that the 4-N will never be allowed to put up a picket line. In a conference call with 4-N leaders, Aloise said that management had purchased bulletproof vests for Local 853 members just in case there was a strike.
"What an organizing tool," said 43-year 4-N member Bruce Carlton. "You can join the Teamsters and you get a bulletproof vest to go through picket lines!"
In spite of the obstacles, 4-N members continue to resist the employer demands. In early August they held a large rally in front of the Chronicle building. Because the North American Newspaper Trades Conference was in town, fellow newspaper workers from across the continent turned out in support. But Tedeschi? He skipped the rally and instead used the opportunity to meet with Vega without any 4-N representatives present.
Aloise was a no-show and shortly thereafter Aloise issued a letter reminding Chronicle drivers that their jobs were on the line if they were to show "blind support" for a 4-N picket line. "I will make my feelings known informing you as to whether or not the situation deserves your support," he told them.
Big Implications in Newspaper Trades
Jim Holtyn, a retired officer from Local 23-N at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, says the employers are pushing hard all across the country to eliminate jobs. "In the past, many newspaper unions bargained a lifetime job guarantee at the company. But now that promise is being completely forgotten. The companies say ‘It’s nice that you pushed 1,500 pound rolls and lifted lead plates for all those years, but we don’t need you any more.’"
Without coordinated strategies, there is nothing to stop Vega and other union busters from continuing their strategy of divide and conquer. As long as the International allows Aloise and others to settle out from under other Teamsters, the union busters will gain ground.
But Holtyn believes the merger of his union into the Teamsters presents an opportunity to wage a powerful fight against the newspaper giants. He says the GCC model of an informed and militant membership can be an example of how to fight on the shop floor; and he believes that the International Teamsters have the resources and ability to mount nationwide corporate campaigns that the newspaper trades have rarely seen. What is needed is the will to make it happen.
October 3, 2006
Public Urges Five FCC Commissioners to Address Lack of Diversity, Localism and Competition in U.S. Media
LOS ANGELES -- A standing-room only crowd of more than 500 Angelenos packed into USC's Davidson Conference Center today to speak out against media consolidation. The event, the first of two official Federal Communications Commission hearings held in Los Angeles, gave the public and leaders of the city's creative, labor and civil rights community a chance to tell all five FCC commissioners how proposed changes to media ownership limits would adversely affect their lives and work.
"The decisions we will make about our ownership rules will be as difficult as they are critical," Chairman Kevin Martin said in his opening statement in Los Angeles. “Public input is critical to this process.” Martin pledged to convene at least five more hearings before the agency makes a decision on proposed rule changes.
"Concerned citizens can still make a difference in this country, but now we’re back at square one. And if we are going to do a better job this time around, it’s going to be because of input from folks like you," said Commissioner Michael Copps. "Serving the public interest means serving the public interest of everyone in this land."
The event featured panel discussions with elected officials, civil rights and labor leaders, entertainers, policy analysts and public advocates.
"The media are vital to our democracy," said Congresswoman Diane Watson. "We want to create a true free market where everyone can have a seat at the table. We need to ensure that the power of American entrepreneurialism is not stifled by just a few media giants."
"The citizens of Los Angeles sent a clear message about how the public airwaves should be used to serve the public interest, not the financial priorities of a few big media corporations," Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press said after the USC event. "The FCC must first address the concerns raised here and in all proposed FCC hearings before rewriting rules that limit media consolidation."
"There is a gap between those who own the airwaves -- the people the public -- and those who control the airwaves and act against the public interest," said civil rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson, who cited a recent Free Press study that shows an appalling lack of minority- and female-owned television stations across the country. "Media ownership should look like America."
"Our watch word in this discussion is that the airwaves belong to the American people and we believe it's time to take them back," said John Connelly, national president of AFTRA. "That is our desire and our objective and we believe that it is the FCC's job to serve our interests."
"When the local programming decisions are prohibited by a remote corporate parent, the public interest is not being served," said Tim Winter, executive director of the Parents Television Council. "I urge the commissioners to listen carefully but separate the special interests from the public interest and base your decisions on what you hear here today and what best serves the public interest."
Following the panel, the five commissioners listened to dozens of citizens - some waiting in line for more than two hours to get into the hearing - who expressed concerns about the quality of local news and programming, lack of diversity over the airwaves, and the barriers placed on independent content and local control by Big Media corporations.
"In today’s marketplace, being fired from one station is like being fired from eight stations," said longtime broadcaster and AFTRA member Bernie Allen. "How do you expect these corporations to give us a diversity of opinion if they can't even give the marketplace a diversity of programs?"
"What is the point of spending time on a creation that you know will be taken from you?" said Sally Hampton, an independent writer, producer and director. "These conglomerates do not have any incentives to work with true independents."
"I personally feel that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a disaster. It made my station worth a lot more money. But that's not the point. It's the public interest that matters," said Saul Levine, a local radio station owner. "Radio is the town hall of America. But it's small, family-owned, independent operators that count. There's no public benefit to allowing Clear Channel to have more stations. It will drive me out of business."
Hollywood workers and others at FCC hearing decry the effects of relaxed rules, say local ownership is key.
By James S. Granelli, L.A. Times Staff Writer
October 4, 2006
Hollywood, not the stars but the everyday workers, along with consumer advocates and local politicians told federal regulators Tuesday that the growing consolidation of major broadcast companies was stifling competition, creativity and diversity.
The result, they told the Federal Communications Commission, was fewer jobs, lower wages, bland programming and decisions made by a handful of conglomerates, not local operators.
Speakers included bassist Mike Mills of rock band R.E.M., "Rockford Files" producer Stephen J. Cannell and out-of-work radio and TV artists. All gave the five FCC members an earful in the first of six public hearings nationwide on overhauling media ownership rules.
Mills said local ownership of radio stations was crucial for new artists because it was the local play of new songs that helped develop talent. Today, he said, decisions are made by top brass in other cities, making it hard for artists to crack local markets.
The FCC held an afternoon session at USC and an evening session at El Segundo High School.
An overhaul of the rules was derailed in 2003 when an overwhelming public outcry over relaxed rules led to congressional action and when a federal appeals court sent the rules back to the FCC to be reworked.
FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who has said he was uncomfortable with some parts of the 2003 rules he voted for, said the goal of the hearings was to "more fully and directly involve the American people in the process."
Reps. Diane Watson and Maxine Waters, both of Los Angeles, along with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, decried the effects of growing consolidation.
"Too few people own too much media at the expense of too many people," Jackson said.
Major corporations are looking for loosened rules that allow them to buy more media outlets and to own different kinds of media. Tribune Co., for instance, owns the Los Angeles Times and KTLA-TV Channel 5 in the same market, something that the rules prohibit but the FCC has allowed for now.
Critics, including Waters, said Tribune's Times-KTLA cross-ownership hinders diversity and local decision-making. But KTLA General Manager Vincent Malcolm said that Times reports had added depth to news coverage that the TV station couldn't hope to do alone, bringing local news to viewers who might not read the newspaper.
Commissioners Michael J. Copps and Jonathan S. Adelstein, the agency's two Democrats who opposed the last set of rules, set the crowd of about 300 off with comments that media consolidation had gone too far.
"Media is the most powerful enterprise we have," Copps said. "If we are smart about it, our media will reflect the genius, the creativity and diversity of our great country."
Adelstein criticized the agency's "reckless deregulatory policy to eliminate, relax and sometimes simply ignore the obligations that broadcasters have to the American public."
The USC audience cheered every comment on how deregulation has hurt workers and local residents, and roundly booed a lone free-market supporter who said that more competition would come by reducing regulations.
Clear Channel Communications Inc., which owns more than 1,200 radio stations nationwide, came under heavy criticism from speakers who cited the company as an example of the excesses of consolidation.