|
|
Local and National Media Policy Actions of Note
| June 24, 2008 |
| Posted by Mitchell | Entry 603 |
 (1) The Illinois General Assembly in 2007 passed the Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007, and includes provisions for identical quality of TV service for public access channels on cable as for commercial channels on cable. Yet AT&T in their new U-Verse TV service has been directly violating the law, by segregating those channels from their previous locations, removing them from standard cable TV lineups, and degrading the sound and video quality of public access channels.
ACTION: Visit ilga.gov, click on the link (near the bottom of the page) for "Legislator Lookup", and contact your local representatives in the Illinois House and Senate, and encourage him or her to ask the Illinois Attorney General to enforce the Cable and Video Competition Law of 2007 against AT&T's violations of Illinois law. (You can also visit keepusconnected.org to learn more and get involved.)
(2) House Resolution 79 House Resolution 4835 introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), would rescind the Federal Communications Commission's December 2007 rule regarding broadcast media ownership. The FCC decision allowed newspaper-broadcast combinations in the nation’s top 20 markets and made it easier to win waivers for newspaper-broadcast combinations in smaller markets.
ACTION: Contact your representative in the U.S. House and ask him or her to co-sponsor House Resolution 79. The phone number for the House switchboard is 202-224-3121.
(3) House Resolution 2802, sponsored by Rep. Michael Doyle (D-PA), would increase the availability of Low-Power FM radio in the United States, particularly to cities and urban areas.
ACTION: Contact your representative in the U.S. House and ask him or her to co-sponsor House Resolution 2802. The phone number for the House switchboard is 202-224-3121.
Thoughts on the 2008 NCMR
| June 17, 2008 |
| Posted by Mitchell | Entry 602 |
 I have a chance to write down some thoughts about the 2008 National Conference for media reform. Let me divide my remarks into three categories:
The good: The conference was bigger than ever, with more people, more coverage (including live coverage all conference long by Free Speech TV), a bigger radio row, and -- for the first time -- coverage in the corporate television landscape. (Just ask Dan Rather.) Fox News can go sit on a tack, but MSNBC had a sympathetic story about the "gotcha" moment between Bill Moyers and some Fox hack; Keith Olbermann even made this exchange his #1 story. I also felt that there was more diversity (I felt that more people of color and women attended this conference than in past conferences), and there were more cool workshops and panels to attend -- far more than anyone could attend, which is why I await the full audio and video of the conference with baited breath.
The better: For the first time I can recall, the conference -- which has heretofore, almost studiously, avoided making connections between media democracy and larger systemic issues -- has begun to do that, and about time too. They even had a panel on Sunday about "The Big Picture" which drew a bigger crowd than. Plus, when Naomi Klein drew these systemic connections in an inspiring speech during the Saturday night plenary, she got the loudest cheers maybe in the entire conference. Great! More please!
The bad: Maybe I missed something, but aside from a booth or two and maybe three people I knew at the conference, organized labor was almost entirely missing from the conference. If so, this is a glaring gap that the conference organizers must work on remedying. Immediately. Consider this: One of the leading lights of the media and democracy movement for many years is about to leave the Prometheus Radio Project and start a job with labor union. Plus, Van Jones, who gave a superb speech in 2007, gave one in 208 that was, um, not as good. Admittedly, his focus on starting responsible green businesses is understandable considering that's his own business, but I mean, come on. There's a reason we don't do alchemy anymore. Announcing a CMA-spinoff website: DTVRedAlert.org
| June 4, 2008 |
| Posted by Mitchell | Entry 600 |
 In various media-activist campaigns, you'll see various spinoff websites created by already-established groups. For example, the national media activist group Free Press (which is convening the National Conference for Media Reform this weekend) will launch coalition efforts around media ownership or network neutrality, and launch brand-new (but affiliated) websites (e.g., savetheinternet.com or www.stopbigmedia.com) for each of those campaigns or initiatives.
CMA now takes a page from that playbook. We've created a spinoff website dedicated to the forthcoming DTV (digital television) conversion in the United States -- DTVRedAlert.org. We plan to make the website a hub of information around the transition and its aftermath; we encourage you to visit it regularly.
The press release announcing the website's launch is available here. Democracy or just "democratized"?
| May 29, 2008 |
What is the difference between a media entity that is democratic and one that has been "democratized"? There seems to be an incredible amount of confusion on this point, and at the very highest levels. So pardon me while I rescue our important friend - the word democracy and its permutations - from regular misuse by the media activism community.
 Democracy
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
(excerpt from Webster's dictionary)
Example of a democratic media entity: A community media center, large or small, the trustees of which are directly accountable through public election of some type.
Democratization
1: The illusion, perpetrated by many media scholars, media reform activists, and foundation officers, that a media entity - or media more broadly defined - is/are democratic simply because citizens may now be able to complain about it/them via a blog or email. (from the Sanders dictionary)
Here's how it all works: the average working stiff vents their frustration standing on a technologically evolving but still tiny soapbox, while the offending media megalith has moved on to its next lie or bit of pablum which will, like the previous one, receive mass distribution. The media reformers try valiantly to hold the line against further encroachment by the media entity. Down the road (we're told), we might split big media up a little, chew on some microradio bones, and rearrange the deck chairs in first class on public broadcasting's "Titanic". But the "democratized", failed media structure remains a deadly gun against all our heads; since too few substantially better, widely known, and trusted examples are created (or remade), the core problem is never solved or sufficiently ameliorated.
"Not to worry," say academia, the media reform organizations, and the foundations. "The Internet will fix everything!"
(rev. 6/01 - ed.)
Posted by Scott Sanders, Chicago Media Action
Read my essay on how we might best bring public broadcasting into the digital age,
from Z magazine's 9/07 issue: "A Litany of Lies and Omissions"
My bio page: About Scott Sanders - Who is this guy? Click here.
Feedback? Information? Email me -
themediastructurefailed(at )yahoo.com Pentagon Propaganda, Public Broadcasting, and Sewer Board Trustees
| May 17, 2008 |
A helpful but incomplete article from the public broadcasting trade journal Current expands on Reporter David Barstow’s lengthy April 20 New York Times article which revealed that Pentagon and White House officials have given hundreds of briefings for
dozens of retired
military officers with defense industry ties who were paid corporate news media pundits. Current points
out that "Public radio and TV networks and shows that have used analysts mentioned in the Times article include NPR, Public Radio International’s The World, The Diane Rehm Show and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Of these, only NPR was singled out in the Times report."
Good, but it must be stressed that the assertions in the Current article by spokespersons for public TV and public radio about illegal propaganda being ok as long as it is "identified" and "balanced" are a self-serving sham. To the Current article's credit, a FAIR spokeswoman is quoted, saying that public broadcasting's idea of balance needs improvement.  Fundamentally, public radio, public television, and other outlets must rethink why they so often give equal footing - or worse - to both "sides" of "issues" such as whether or not torture, illegal invasions, and the elimination of habeas corpus are wrong; "Tonight on NewsHour: Adolf Hitler - genocidal megalomaniac or lover of children and dogs?"
Rick Francona's NPR connection was not mentioned in either article. He was identified simply as "a retired Air Force intelligence officer" when he was on NPR in one such recent broadcast "debate". If there was any reason to broadcast Francona at all, an honest - and more constitutional - description was owed the public, such as:
"Francona, a retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel who is now a media analyst on Middle East
political-military events, is under contract to and widely seen on NBC. Francona's biographical note states
that he 'consulted with government and private firms. He spent much of 1987 & 1988 at the U.S. Embassy
in Baghdad, Iraq, as a liaison officer to the Iraqi armed forces directorate of military intelligence'... observing 'Iraqi combat operations against Iranian forces, and (flying) sorties with the Iraqi air force.'"
On waterboarding, Francona states: "I don't consider it
torture", and on the Geneva Convention: "It has failed miserably." (NPR - March 19, 2008)
I have counted several more individuals on the NYT list disseminating propaganda on NPR that the public broadcaster has not yet copped to. A paid propagandist is a paid propagandist, whether they are "donating" their propaganda elsewhere or not. Whether or not the audience "is smart enough to know spin", propagandizing is wrong. Period.
Does anybody who is not brain dead believe the pentagon when it says its propaganda program has been cancelled?
Who are the members of the next round of propagandists, and  what will their program be called? "Operation
Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy"?
We will be stuck in this cycle of lies and war until we change the fundamental structure
of the U.S. media, because that is what has failed us and sabotaged democracy. In addition to a reworking of the corrupt FCC, a break up of media conglomerates, increased ownership for women and minorities, citizen media, a neutral internet, and more, we need more media run along the lines of the U.K.'s Guardian business model. The Guardian is considered one of the finest newspapers around. This is in no small part due to the fact that it is controlled by a trust, rather than investor needs.
Lastly, many billions of dollars worth of analog TV channels will be returned to us next February, and the proceeds from their auction must be used to begin to permanently and independently fund public broadcasting for the digital age. We also must demand a system for the public election (not private selection) of public broadcasting trustees, as is often the case with local waste water treatment boards.
Posted by Scott Sanders, Chicago Media Action
Read my essay on how we might best bring public broadcasting into the digital age,
from Z magazine's 9/07 issue: "A Litany of Lies and Omissions"
My bio page: About Scott Sanders - Who is this guy? Click here.
Feedback? Information? Email me -
themediastructurefailed(at )yahoo.com CMA's version of "And remember: Death is not an option"
| May 6, 2008 |
| Posted by Mitchell | Entry 596 |
 The Chicago Tribune sports page, years ago, had a column that was actually funny. It was written by Steve Rosenbloom, and listed a number of various snippits of the day's sports news, each accompanied by a snarky remark about the news item in question. One item, which listed a damned-if-you-damned-if-you-don't choice, imaginatively named The Choice, accompanied by the title "And remember: Death is not an option".
CMA, and probably the media activist movement on the whole, seems to have such a Hobson's Choice of its own this past week, when the Tribune agreed in principle to sell the New York Newsday (yay!) to Newscorp billionaire tyrant Rupert Murdoch (boo!).
So, which of the following is the lesser of two evils? (1) The Tribune keeping its media monopoly. (2) The poster child of media concentration (if someone who's 76 years old is a "child") continues building his own media monopoly.
I think the answer is, ironically enough, Tribune not selling it off. The Tribune lobbied like mad in the past year to change FCC media ownership rules to its favor (which still might unravel in the wake of Congressional action this week and legal challenges to come), and yet is forced to go against its concentrated media wishes under sagging debt of the ownership change from last year. By acquiring control of Newsday, Rupert Murdoch would now go on to gain control of three of America's ten-largest daily newspapers.
But it's a false dichotomoy in some ways. Note that the Tribune wouldn't relinquish total control of Newsday. Tribune would still hold 5% of Newsday's ownership under the proposed arrangement, and the newspaper would be held in a joint arrangement. It can keep some control (thereby not losing its stated claim to shareholders that it's not hemhorraging media properties), while gaining some cash.
There are other wrinkles; New York Daily News owner Mortimer Zuckerman is also interesting in getting Newsday. (One person owning two newspapers in New York? Sounds like concentrated media.) The terms of the deal may take a while (perhaps a year) to finalize; by that time, the FCC could have a Democratic majority (with good Democrats, not those invertebrate types) who could throw some obstacles at Murdoch by the time the deal gets their way. Maybe the markets may continue to tank and Newscorp may not have the capital to go on with the deal. Maybe we abolish markets by critiquing their Soviet-style corporate spawn and establish a more participatory economy in its place.
And maybe the Tribune can sell off the Cubs. Oh, wait.
UPDATE - May 12: Murdoch has dropped its offer to buy Newsday. That's good. But Cablevision has apparently been doing some wooing of its own. That's bad -- and I don't get my choice of toppings.
UPDATE II: May 13: It's official. Cablevision has made a deal to buy Newsday from Tribune. But apparently the sentiment on Wall Street is marked by confusion (no kidding). FCC seriously entertains CABs; Big Media seriously entertains policy strangulation
| April 11, 2008 |
| Posted by Mitchell | Entry 595 |
 Well, there's some good news. The FCC has been seriously considering a proposal which would require all commercial TV stations in the United States to have a community advisory board (CAB).
A community advisory board is pretty much what the name suggests: a board comprising members of the community served by a given TV station. Those community members then serve as an advisory function for the station itself, to get an additional measure of feedback from the community.
It sounds like a nice idea, but it's crucial to keep in mind three things about this proposal. One, the FCC isn't providing this proposal out of thin air, or out of some concern for the public interest (despite its ostensible mandate). It's one of the bones they're throwing to the media democracy movement to fend off the considerable opposition to its December media ownership rules rewrite -- opposition which still stands a good chance to scuttle the rewrite again.
Two, speaking of fending off opposition, CABs in practice are regrettably little more than a figleaf, for stations to make it appear like they care about the public when the actual reality is little . CMA has plenty of first hand experience with the CAB for Chicago's major PBS affiliate, WTTW Channel 11. CABs have little no power over actual day-to-day programming or other decisions, and more often a measure to defuse public opposition.
Three, the members of the community who actually comprise the board aren't very representative of the community. In Chicago and elsewhere, CABs that do exist aren't a representative sample of the community (which would be far preferable), but often are stacked with corporate whores "business leaders".
While we're critical of CABs, it bears mentioning that it's worth fighting for this proposal, since it is something that has official support and can serve as the basis for additional future activism. Moreover, it's been announced that the commercial broadcast lobby -- which reacts to public interest proposals like Lon Chaney does to a full moon -- has begun pressuring the FCC to block even this small gesture towards the public.
The Stop Big Media coalition, of which CMA is a member organization, is working to pressure the corporate bastards back. While the criticisms about the proposed regulation are justified, having the rule is better than not, especially since it offers another way for the public to smack Big Media with a wet noodle. We encourage you to comment using this easy-to-use form, and tell your friends. Comments on the recent LPFM article in the Tribune...
| March 3, 2008 |
| Posted by Mitchell | Entry 594 |
 We haven't had a radio-related post in a while, so why not now?
There was an article this past week in the Chicago Tribble which talked about the efforts regarding low-power FM and the recent initiatives to lobby Congress.
Recent legislation is afoot, which actually stands a chance to pass, to expand low-power FM to the cities. An effort which would have done in 2000 was effectively killed by the National Association of Bastards. There's hope that this legislation can help remedy that wound.
Interesting that the Tribble opted to cover this, and from a fairly decent perspective. Many of the folks have worked with CMA in the past (like CHIRP and Radio Arte), particularly during the recent FCC media ownership hearing in Chicago, were quoted in the article. But there were two points in the article that reeked:
(1) There's this quote: "If the legislation does not pass, CHIRP will donate funds it raises to Prometheus Radio Project, which sprung from an illegal pirate radio station and now advocates for low-power FM and helps build LPFMs nationwide."
Yes, that's right. Prometheus is a bunch of ex-cons who have nothing better to do than make responsive radio stations, then sue you in court and block media ownership rules that the Tribune had been aiming for. That seemed to have an impact on who now owns the Tribune, but never mind. (Ostensibly, the FCC recently passed those rules, but they could well get blocked again.)
(2) The NAB, whose special place in hell is already reserved, was given way more benefit of the doubt than they deserve. They have been throttiling LPFM with bullshit arguments since forever, then were quoted disputing the Mitre report which blew away their last purported figleaf they had.
There was no mention in the article of, for example, the recent high-power window for broadcast licenses. Hundreds of community groups filed broadcast licenses, and some may even get some licenses to help counteract the deluge of corporate "radio". DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this
website are those of the individual members of Chicago Media
Action who authored them, and not necessarily those of the entire
membership of Chicago Media Action, nor of Chicago Media Action
as an organization. Newsfeed software courtesy CaRP |
|
