By Harold Feld
From his blog "Tales of the Sausage Factory" at WetMachine.com
My good friends at Future of Music Coalition (FMC) launched a major campaign today for net neutrality. Called “Rock the Net” (a name whose lameness caused some modest embarsement at the begining of the call, but sometimes you gotta grab that cliche by the horns so you can trample the wolves while swimming from the sharks), the campaign brings together major music groups to raise awareness of the net neutrality issue and press for network neutrality legislation (such as the Dorgan-Snowe bill pending in the Senate).
Why do musicians care about network neutrality? And who are Future of Music anyway? See below....
Most folks outside media policy land may not have heard of FMC, but they have been very effective on a number of fronts going back to their founding in 2002. FMC began when Jenny Toomey, an indie rocker and therefore also definitionally an entrepreneur, got frutstrated with the fact that in policy land the people speaking for the musicians were the major labels like the RIAA. This is a lot like saying that wolves speak for sheep because wolves have an interest in maintaining healthy, accessible herds and in keeping other predators away. So Jenny started FMC to create a place in DC that allows artists to speak directly to policy people.
FMC provided major early evidence on how radio consolidation was killing local music and making radio suck by standardizing playlists. They provided a thorough, detailed study with academic rigor that could not be brushed off as just “emoting” or that no problem existed. They helped raise the profile of low-power FM and really pushed to make payolla an issue rather than something accepted as the way big companies do business.
All these issues have a common theme, they reduce the music industry to big companies negotiating with each other and excluding independents. Network neutrality presents the same problem. Leaving aside that one of the major cable providers is also one of the major labels (Time Warner), network neutrality actually benefits the major labors against the independents. Major labels understand that it is worth paying extra money to create a system with choke points that would drive the cost of music on the internet beyond what independent competitors can afford. So while major labels would have to pay more on a non-neutral net, it would allow them to beat back competition and allow them to maintain their absolute control over the lives and revenues of performers. As a matter of old fashioned economic incentives, paying a few extra bucks per song to mainatin market dominance is well worth it.
For those who think I'm blowing smoke, allow me to share one of the very interesting facts that came out during the press call (yes, I exploited the awesome power of blogger credentials to get press access, my thanks to the tens of regular readers out there that make this possible). By now, everyone who follows the industry has heard about death of music albums and the general decline in profitability of the music industry.
Turns out, not so much. Rather, as I have argued along with the good folks at Ars Technica, what we are actually seeing is the positive effects of competition. Music lovers, no longer herded by major labors toward pre-selected “superstars” and no longer required to buy an entire overpriced CD to get the one song they want, have embraced independents and legal downloads enthusiasticly — which has prompted more independents to use the internet to sell CDs and music downloads, eating into the monopoly profits of the music cartels. (Note to all you techno-libertarians and neo-cons who think I'm an evil socialist reactionary, I like competitive markets. I just don't worship them, or confuse “unregulated” with “competitive”).
Hence my happiness and joy when Derek Sivers, the founder of CD Baby (which sells CDs of independent musicians online) confirmed all this in the press conference
this morning launching the “Rock the Net” campaign (I hope FMC puts up an audio or transcript). According to Sivers, CD sales for independents are up 30% this year over last, and continue to rise. The availability of legal downloads of indpendent tracks, for which independent artists receive monetary compensation, likewise continues to rise. Leo added that of the approximately 4.5 million tracks available on iTunes, 1.5 million are from independent artists. (For anyone who wonders why Tower Records and other stores that focus almost exclusively on major labels keep going belly up, might I suggest it's because they are not giving customers what they want?)
Explaining why we never hear about this amazing growth sector of a supposedly dieing industry, Sivers said:
“Major labels are like a $100 stock that has dropped to $90, and that's oh so newsworthy. But independent labels are like a $1 stock that has risen to $5. But it's still not considered newsworthy so no one knows about it.”
So a neutral internet has allowed independents to grow and take business away from the dominant mega-corps with a crappier product. Small wonder that independent musicians have woken up to the need to fight for net neutrality and mobilize their fans to action. And small wonder that the major labels would rather pay payolla equivalents for “premium tier” transit rather than compete.
Will the incumbents have to face the competition music because of network neutrality? Or will this once again prove to be the same old song of competition crushed by special interests and an indifferent public? Don't ask who decides if we won't get fooled again. It's up to us. And I'm glad to FMC and their indie musician members singing along as it comes around on the guitar.
Stay tuned . . .
From TechDirt.com
Earlier this month, we were surprised to hear that various mobile operators were blocking phone calls to services like FreeConference.com. When you get phone service, you expect that the phone service will work to any phone number, not the ones that your phone provider decides are okay. Oddly, given the attention the story received, the FCC has remained quiet about it.
Apparently, the folks at FreeConference.com got tired of sitting around and waiting and have decided to sue AT&T, asking for an injunction against the company to get it to stop blocking calls to the FreeConference.com service. It's no secret that services like FreeConference.com are costing AT&T money, mainly through ridiculous termination fees set up by regulators protecting rural telcos.
However, AT&T should take this up with the regulators, rather than simply blocking access to the service. Either way, it seems likely that both the FCC and the courts will soon be deeply involved in this issue.
SF Bay Guardian
By Sasha Magee
Over the past four years Mayor Gavin Newsom has enjoyed high poll ratings, but he has been unable to deliver any signature piece of legislation. His most celebrated actions were symbolic: marrying same-sex couples and walking the picket line with the striking hotel workers.
With only months to go before he is up for reelection, Newsom is hoping free wi-fi will be that signature bill. But unless he quickly changes his tactics, his legislation will go up in flames.
From the moment Newsom announced his wi-fi vision, the supervisors have been asking for input into the deal. At every meeting, the mayor's representatives have dodged or stalled. The Board of Supervisors asked Newsom's negotiators not to present it with a take-it-or-leave-it deal; the mayor's staffers did just that. So it's no surprise that the board seems hesitant to give the contract the benefit of the doubt. Newsom has responded by lambasting the board as "obstructionist" rather than by working with the supervisors to address their concerns.
Although there are good points to the proposal, there are also problems.
• Service will be slow.
• There's no enforceable guarantee the network will cover the parts of the city that need it the most.
• The contract is effectively a monopoly, and it's long. We're likely to be stuck with this contract for 16 years.
• Penetration into apartment buildings and above second floors will be virtually nonexistent without the purchase of expensive extra equipment.
These are all legitimate public policy reasons to question the mayor's proposal. But instead of working with the supervisors, he trashes them to every group and editorial board that will listen.
The board is exploring another possibility that the mayor should look at instead of his current effort: municipal wi-fi. Although the mayor has rejected that avenue, there are strong public-policy reasons for pursuing such a strategy.
Unfortunately, the people who will suffer the most from the mayor's refusal to deal with the board are those who need a city network the most: schoolkids who can't get online to do their homework; unemployed folks looking for a job; non-English speakers seeking city information; and anyone who needs free training or support.
Wi-fi, of course, is only one of the issues on which Newsom has given the board the finger. His repeated veto of foot patrols showed more loyalty to the Police Officers Association than to the needs of residents of high-crime areas. His continued refusal to consider a Saturday road closure trial in Golden Gate Park doesn't serve anyone other than a few wealthy donors. The voters even went so far as to pass Proposition I, which demanded that Newsom meet with the board. The mayor has responded with highly managed events at which the supervisors cannot appear as a group.
Instead of trying to ram through a flawed wi-fi deal, the real legacy Newsom could create — one that would truly benefit us all — is that of a strong working relationship with the Board of Supervisors.
Sasha Magee is a San Francisco activist who writes at LeftinSF.com.
Video Supports Wolf's Claim He was Acting as a Journalist
(San Francisco) – Bay Media Lab host Howard Vicini will present new video evidence during a Friday night broadcast on San Francisco cable access TV in the case against vBlogger Josh Wolf, who has been held in coercive confinement for more than 200 days for refusing to turn over raw video he shot of a San Francisco protest rally in 2005, that was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury.
The live broadcast titled, “Freedom of Expression, New Challenges, New Sacrifice,” will feature discussion among press freedom advocates and journalists concerning the Wolf case and others that have resulted in journalists facing federal subpoenas and the prospect of jail time if they refuse. The show will air on AccesSF - Channel 29 from 9 to 10 pm on Friday, March 16, 2007.
Guests include Executive Director of Media Alliance, Jeff Perlstein; reporter & radio producer, Sarah Olson; Journalism Chair of the Bay Area Chapter of the National Writers Union, Richard Knee; journalist & commercial media producer, Ralph Miller; reporter for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Sarah Phelan; Josh Wolf’s father, Len Harrison; and members of the Free Josh Wolf Coalition, Andy Blue, Julian Davis, Amy De Reyes, and Njeri Sims.
The newly-released video was shot by another journalist during the same 2005 protest and captures Wolf shooting his video in a manner, Vicini claims, consistent with Wolf’s assertion that he was there as journalist covering the event, even responding at one point to police orders, clearly heard on the video, to move back.
This is significant according to Vicini because of statements, made in federal court by a federal prosecutor and the presiding judge in Wolf case, William Alsup, that called into question Wolf’s status as a journalist.
Vicini will also present a prerecorded interview with the individual who shot the video in which she asserts that she and her partner were contacted at home by FBI agents twice before agents seemed to lose interest after the subpoena was served on Wolf. This, too, supports a claim by Wolf's lawyer, First Amendment advocate Martin Garbus who says the government isn't really after information about the alleged crimes committed at the demonstration.
According to Garbus, "This was the use of an FBI anti-terror law to get information on people they can't get information about, such as anarchists. They know he (Wolf) knows nothing about the actions involving the police car."
Quoted in the Annenberg USC Online Journalism Review, Garbus says what federal officials really want is to know is who the demonstrators are. He calls the prosecutors' actions, an "abuse of the grand jury," and an "expansion of the anti-terrorism investigation to other dissidents."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/08/france.violence.ap/
PARIS, France (AP) -- A new law in France makes it a crime -- punishable
by up to five years in prison -- for anyone who is not a professional
journalist to film real-world violence and distribute the images on the
Internet.
Critics call it a clumsy, near-totalitarian effort by authorities to
battle "happy slapping" -- the youth fad of filming violent acts --
which most often they have provoked themselves -- and spreading the
images on the Web or between mobile phones.
The measure, tucked deep into a vast anti-crime law that took effect
Wednesday, took media advocates by surprise with what they say is an
undesirable side effect: trampling on freedom of expression.
Experts said the law is the first of its kind in Europe. France made
headlines years ago by ordering U.S.-based online company Yahoo to pay a
fine of about $15 million for displaying Nazi memorabilia for sale -- in
violation of French law.
The new provision takes on "happy slapping," a phenomenon whose name
belies the gravity of the attacks. It mostly involves youths, and the
victims often are strangers.
Violators of the law, passed in parliament in February, will be subject
to up to five years in prison and .75,000 in fines ($98,600). It was
championed by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who is a top contender
in France's presidential election in April and May.
The law was published in the government's Official Journal on Wednesday,
bringing it into effect, after the Constitutional Council gave its final
approval over the weekend.
Ligue Odebi, an association that seeks to protect freedom of expression
on the Internet, said the measure will also hinder citizens' abilities
to expose police brutality.
"This makes France the Western country that most infringes on freedom of
expression and information -- particularly on the Internet," the group
said in a statement on its Web site, www.odebi.org
"Identifying uploaders (of such images) would require the creation of a
totalitarian surveillance of the Net," the group said.
Ligue Odebi noted that the council's approval Saturday fell on the 16th
anniversary of the March 3, 1991, beating of motorist Rodney King by Los
Angeles police officers in a scene captured on amateur video -- a case
that sparked a national outcry in the United States.
The French law says that anyone who "knowingly" films illegal acts of
violence and distributes the images can be considered an accomplice --
but that professional journalists are exempt.
French authorities have been seeking new ways to combat youth violence
after a wave of rioting, car burnings and violence mostly in poor
neighborhoods on the fringe of Paris and other cities in 2005.
Media advocacy group Reporters Without Borders said it understood the
government's need to crack down on "happy slapping," but feared the law
draws a "dangerous" distinction that would punish "regular citizens" for
doing what journalists are allowed to do.
"The sections of this law supposedly dealing with 'happy slapping' in
fact have a much broader scope," Reporters Without Borders said in a
statement. "Posting videos online showing violence against people could
now be banned, even if it were the police carrying out the violence."
The measure has implications for online video sites like YouTube, or
France's Dailymotion.com: Authorities could ask them to identify the
sources of images made available through their sites.
by Davey D
Over the past couple of days two major rulings came out about the music industry in profound ways that will have long lasting NEGATIVE impact if we sit back and do nothing. One had to do with the FCC Ruling around the issue of payola.
For those who don't know, the FCC cut a settlement deal with 4 radio chains including Clear Channel, CBS, Citadel and Entercom where they would be required to play one half hour worth of independent music per day. That means 6 songs by artists on independent record labels. Now a lot of people have been talking about it and jumping for joy, because they feel the airwaves have finally opened up and they now have a shot. Right? WRONG!!! This has got to be one of the most short sighted, full of crap rulings I've seen in a while. Here's a few things to keep in mind.
A while back former major label executives formed their own "Independent Label and Music group. This means that artists like Lil Jon and the Ying Yang Twins on TVT Records, Jim Jones on Koch/Dipset records, Mike Jones on Asylum records and Ice Cube on Lench Mobb Records can all be considered independent artists. If you think you're gonna hear a Peanut Butter Wolf cut, a new Hiero track or a new C-Bo cut think again. In all likelihood you will probably hear some of these major label connected indy artists and at most one or two cuts from an artists on Stonesthrow, RhymeSayers or Angeles records. In the words of Public Enemy... Don't Believe the Hype.
These radio companies agreed to donate 4000 hours of air time to indy artists. That DOES NOT mean 4000 hours per station. It means all the stations will add up their numbers and split that 4000 hrs. So you can get a company like Clear Channel that has 1500 stations. Add that to CBS 144 stations. Add that to stations owned Entercom and Citadel and divide that into the 4000 hours. All of sudden you have a commitment that can be short lived.
Hip Hop artists aren't the only ones seeking air play. Remember we have rock, country, reggae and R&B artists all vying for that coveted half hour per day slot. So that means your favorite Hip Hop and R&B station may opt to play 6 neo-soul cuts late at night when they slow things down and call it a wrap. Maybe they'll venture out and play a few reggae cuts. Remember a radio station is out to get high ratings and in doing so they will program themselves accordingly. Most are trying to win over female listeners. Hence, if they have choice between playing an independent artist like Goapele over a new hardcore joint by LA artist Mitchy Slick, who do you think these stations are gonna pick?
A radio station may decide that it wants to play indie records from another region as opposed to one that is local. So you could live in New York and instead of hearing Papoose or Saigon you may hear a bunch of southern records that are considered independent.
Bay Area folks instead of hearing some new joints from Messy Marv, Zion I or San Quinn, may suddenly hear music from NY that falls under this independent label category. People in Seattle instead of hearing local artists like Chokalat, Blue Scholars, Dred I or Silent Lambs may instead hear LA artists like Ice Cube or Tha Dogg Pound who are on independent labels.
The decree doesn't stipulate that a station has to play 'New' music. Hence you might hear a Too Short or EPMD record from 15 years ago when they were on small independent labels. They may hear some old Snoop Dogg and 2Pac from Death Row which is considered independent. Heck if they want to they could go pull an old Sugar Hill Gang record like 'Rappers Delight' which was on an independent label. While hearing the classic can be good, it doesn't do any good for artists trying to break new records.
These radio stations are not doing you any favors by playing local or independent artists. Its what they SHOULD be doing. They were granted a license to broadcast on the public airwaves with the stipulation that they serve the public good. Hence there is no reason that Chicago artists should not be getting airplay in Chi-Town. There's no reason why Bay Area artists shouldn't be getting love from their local stations. Its a damn shame that it took a FCC ruling where they avoided harsher penalties for committing a crime (payola) that lead to them doing what they should've already been doing. Its akin to a dead beat dad getting hauled off to court and facing jail time suddenly holding a press conference to announce that he's gonna take care of his kids and pay child support.
Many are saying 'Fuck the Radio!'. 'Who needs them?' 'Hip Hop doesn't need to be on there anyway, we gotta take it back to the streets'. Well I agree. That's absolutely true...But here's the deal. Popular methods used to get around radio like Mixtapes and Internet Radio are under serious attack. Mixtape retailers and producers are getting arrested or fined.
Even worse on the same day as the FCC rulings, major record labels cut a sinister deal with the Congress and US Copyright Office to basically shut down Online Radio unless you are very very rich. I don't wanna bog people down with too much reading so check out http://www.Savenetradio.org for all the gory details.
For those who feel that they'll go out and just do shows keep in mind that even the venues are on lock. First in many cities, the main concert venues are owned by Clear Channel.
Second, three years ago Clear Channel got a patent for the methodology used to record live performances, and sell it back to customers that same night at the venue. It's called Instant Live Performance Recordings. Well now you need a license from Clear Channel to do that in ANY venue. These cats went and got a patent for that and locked that income source up for themselves. A number of companies tried to sue them over this Draconian measure, but were unsuccessful.
All in all this FCC ruling was a feel good measure designed to get everyone excited to the point that they start paying closer attention to these radio stations. In the beginning you are likely to hear a lot of fanfare about them reaching out to give the little guy a shot.. But after a short period of time when the lights and cameras go away they'll be catering to those who don't need any extra help.
Please folks don't get hoodwinked.
Davey D
Below is a petition for you to sign to Save Internet Radio Please pass this far and wide..
http://www.petitiononline.com/SIR2007r/petition.html
Read more by Davey D at http://www.daveyd.com
Music fans who have sought out the Internet for solace over the mundane offerings of commercial radio may be in for some bad news. After a year of intense lobbying the RIAA has gotten just about everything they wanted from the Congress and the Office of Copyright in terms of royalty rates for Internet radio and other digital media services. Things are at such a high rate that it will effectively shut down most Internet radio broadcasters.
I saw this first hand a few years back while working at one of the biggest Internet radio companies (AOL Radio) One of the services they offered was for free and because of the then current rate structure that the RIAA lobbied for, as the more and more people began to tune in and the service got hot, the company was hit with this crazy bill that was in the millions. The company big wigs attempted to try and work things out with the RIAA based labels but to no avail. The end result was putting time limits on the service and then eventually closing it out altogether. It was just too expensive.
If such things can happen to the big giants that have millions in their coffers, then you can see that the little guy will be toast. Keep in mind at the time, the large number of listeners we had may have been around a million, which ain't all that large when you consider that you can reach the entire world.
As far as I'm concerned this was a move to eliminate competition and centralize the places that people go on line to get their music. In this case it's from the commercial radio stations who are now experimenting and expanding formats with their HD radio systems. As I noted during last year's LA FCC hearings, what i likely to happen is that commercial radio will do some behind the scenes bartering and not pay such high rates in exchange for air play on their regular outlets.
This is a very foul move and sadly it happened on the watch of the Democrats. Where's Hillary, Barack and others on this issue? or did that all that David Geffen (Geffen Records) money along with contributions from other Hollywood entertainment big wigs buy their silence?
What's even sadder is this happens just as activists and concerned community groups have been setting up their own stations to bring attention to key social issues overlooked by mainstream outlets. To top all this off, the new rates are going to be applied retroactively.
Now we can thank Congressional Black Caucus member Bobby Rush for selling out to big time commercial interests like AT&T and trying to get rid of Net Neutrality protections. We can now thank his fellow Democrats for allowing this bullshit rate hike to pass through without a whimper. Didn't they say they were gonna bring about a new day? Hasn't Barack been calling for a new type of politic? How can you have new type of politic that involves the people when you have folks in the same political camp making it real expensive to have a voice in the digital age?
What's crazy is as the Presidential election heats up and these "Demo-craps" find themselves getting clobbered to death by right wing talk shows, maybe then they'll think back and realize that they helped in killing a medium that could've been flipped to be key asset for them by grassroots independent organizers.
I will find out what can be done to turn this around, in the meantime, I suggest people start calling their congressional representives and demanding some answers. Oh yeah, don't let them tell you some nonsense about digital downloading being the cause of their economic slump. Hardcore Democrat and talk show host, Rosie O'Donell was on The View last friday spewing that lie.
Some of these bigtime artists have seen their album sales drop in half by mllions. I.e 50 cent saw album sales slip from 8 million albums to 4 million albums. There's no way 4 million people downloaded the Massacre album. Platinum selling artists like P-Diddy and Busta Rhymes who barely went gold with their last releases were NOT victim to MILLIONS of people downloading their albums.
Again folks the name of the game for those in power is to CONTROL THE FLOW OF INFORMATION AND WHO ACCESS TO MEDIA OUTLETS.. The RIAA is enacting what I call the New Net neutrality.
Davey D
RIAA Moves to Squash Internet Radio
courtesy of Radio Paradise and www.Kurthanson.com
The US Copyright Office has released their new set of rates for the payment of royalties by Internet Radio, and they ignored all of the facts presented by webcasters (including RP) and gave the record industry exactly what they asked for: royalty rates so high that they will put RP and every other independent webcaster out of business. See Kurt Hanson's newsletter for 3/2/07 for the details on how the rates work and what they will mean to stations like RP. You can participate in the discussion about this issue in our Listener Forum.
For some time, we've suffered with a system where we pay a large chunk (10%-12%) of our income to the Big 5 record companies - while FM stations and radio conglomerates like Clear Channel pay nothing. Now they want even more. In our case, an amount equal to 125% of our income. Our only hope is to create as much public awareness and outrage about this staggeringly unfair situation as possible. Neither the record industry nor Congress are ready to listen to us at this point. But members of the media may well be, and we need to get their attention.
If you have a blog, write about it. Feel free to quote anything I've written in the Listener Forum. If you find a good blog post about the subject, Digg it or Slashdot it. If you work for a media outlet, look over the facts of the situation and see if you don't feel the same sense of outrage that we do. Write a letter to the editor of your favorite magazine or newspaper. Let everyone you can know what a loss it would be to you personally if your favorite Internet radio stations, including RP, were no longer available.
The RIAA can, at any time, agree to strike a deal with independent webcasters to allow us to pay a more realistic royalty, one based on a percentage of our income. We're hoping that if all of you make enough noise they'll be more inclined to do so. We'd also like to hope that at least one member of Congress will take a look at this situation and become willing to propose ammendments to the deeply flawed 1990s pieces of legislation that are responsible for the unfair treatment of Internet radio.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of this...
BY DANIEL MCSWAIN
http://www.kurthanson.com/archive/news/030207/index.shtml
The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has announced its decision on Internet radio royalty rates, rejecting all of the arguments made by Webcasters and instead adopting the "per play" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange(a digital music fee collection body created by the RIAA).
RAIN has learned the rates that the Board has decided on, effective retroactively through the beginning of 2006. They are as follows:
2006 $.0008 per performance
2007 $.0011 per performance
2008 $.0014 per performance
2009 $.0018 per performance
2010 $.0019 per performance
A "performance" is defined as the streaming of one song to one listener; thus a station that has an average audience of 500 listeners racks up 500 "performances" for each song it plays.
The minimum fee is $500 per channel per year. There is no clear definition of what a 'channel' is for services that make up individualized playlists for listeners.
For noncommercial webcasters, the fee will be $500 per channel, for up to 159,140 ATH (aggregate tuning hours) per month. They would pay the commercial rate for all transmissions above that number.
Participants are granted a 15 day period wherein they have the opportunity to ask the CRB for a re-hearing.
Within 60 days of the final determination, the decision is supposed to be published in the Federal Register, along with any technical corrections that the Board may wish to make.
Within 30 days of publication in the Federal Register, it can be appealed (but only by the participants) to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
...
Because a typical Internet radio station plays about 16 songs an hour, that's a royalty obligation in 2006 of about 1.28 cents per listener-hour.
In 2006, a well-run Internet radio station might have been able to sell two radio spots an hour at a $3 net CPM (cost-per-thousand), which would add up to .6 cents per listener-hour.
Even adding in ancillary revenues from occasional video gateway ads, banner ads on the website, and so forth, total revenues per listener-hour would only be in the 1.0 to 1.2 cents per listener-hour range.
That math suggests that the royalty rate decision — for the performance alone, not even including composers' royalties! — is in the in the ballpark of 100% or more of total revenues. —KH
When: Friday, March 02 2007 @ 10:00 AM PST - 11:00AM
Where: Chinese American Citizens Alliance
1044 Stockton Street, San Francisco, CA
Please join New America Media for this timely discussion among ethnic media leaders, moderated by Sandy Close, executive director of NAM.
The panel will be made up of ethnic media leaders who will discuss the issue of journalistic responsibility in light of the AsianWeek columns and what we can do, individually and collectively, to repair the damage and improve coverage of each other’s communities.
One short hour cannot do justice to the need for ongoing dialogue on inter-racial, inter-ethnic relations. Community leaders are scheduling town hall meetings and forums to help address this need. The forum will focus on the unique role of ethnic media – as the collective voice of our communities – in improving communications within our diverse society.
PARKING/TRANSPORTATION: Limited metered street parking is available. The closest parking lot is located at 550 Kearny Street (between Sacramento St. and California St.). Chinese American Citizens Alliance is located near stops for SF MUNI 1, 30 and 45.