Posted November 18th, 2008 by megantady
With thousands of journalists losing their jobs, how are the media filling all those column inches?
Press releases.
As media companies buy up more media outlets and slash newsroom budgets and staff, reporters have less time to do their jobs, often resorting to writing entire stories based on a press release alone, and sometimes printing stories that mirror an organization or agency’s exact press statement.
It seems actual reporting is becoming something of an anomaly, and especially in science coverage, according to ongoing analysis by MIT’s Knight Science Journalism Tracker. Charles Petit, a veteran science reporter who runs the Tracker, has found an alarming number of newspapers running stories based only on press releases.
“What is distressing to me is that the number of science reporters and the variety of reporting is going down. What does come out is more and more the direct product of PR shops,” Charles Petit told the Columbia Journalism Review.
Press releases should used as a tip, or a starting point, to begin investigating a story. Crafting questions, finding holes in data, reaching beyond the press contact – that’s where the true journalism lies. As Petit told CJR, science news “spoon-fed” to reporters via press releases “become a powerful subversive tool eroding the chance that reporters will craft their own stories.”
What’s worse, many newspapers aren’t fessing up to their press release plagiarization, leaving readers unaware that the story they’re reading came straight from the pen of a PR flack.
While Petit is monitoring science journalism, the practice of presenting fake news as as the real thing has infiltrated local television news across the country.
A 2006 investigation by Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy revealed that stations are slipping corporate-sponsored “video news releases” — promotional segments designed to look like objective news reports — into their regular news programming. This deception is illegal under FCC rules.
A series of CMD investigations have caught 113 local stations airing the so-called VNRs without proper disclosure. Free Press and CMD have filed complaints with the FCC, urging the agency to take action against all stations that have violated sponsorship identification rules. So far, the FCC has fined only one cable channel for airing fake news.
And just why have television stations resorted to airing VNRs? Runaway media consolidation has squeezed TV newsrooms, too, which are trying to fill more hours with fewer reporters.
If we want to stop junk journalism, we need to start at the top with the owners of our media.
No Comments »
Posted November 12th, 2008 by jtorres
The news keeps getting worse for newspaper journalists and the communities that depend on their daily papers for local coverage. Across the country, newspapers are trying to maintain their high profit margins by slashing newsroom jobs and news coverage.
Last month, the Star-Ledger, the largest newspaper in New Jersey, became the latest paper to scale back its newsroom operation. The paper announced plans to lay off 40 percent of its staff. The Los Angeles Times laid off another 75 journalists. Since 2001, the Los Angeles Times has gutted its newsroom, cutting staff from 1,200 to 660. Gannett, a company that owns 85 daily newspapers, said it would lay off 10 percent – or 3,000 – of its newspaper employees. Meanwhile, Time Warner Inc., the world’s largest magazine publisher, plans to lay off 600, or 6 percent, of its magazine employees.
Dean Singleton, the CEO of Media News Group, one of the largest newspaper owners in the country, recently told a publishing group that he may consolidate copy-editing desks at his 54 newspapers to one location to cut expenses. He is even entertaining the possibility of moving all copy-editing operations overseas, something at least two other publications have already begun doing.
While my heart goes out to all the journalists who have lost their jobs and to the communities being affected by reduced news coverage, it is hard to feel sorry for the newspaper industry, where greed and profit have led to the situation we see today.
Astonishing Cuts
Over the past year, newsrooms have been bleeding journalism jobs. UNITY: Journalists of Color reported recently that an astonishing 2,415 newsroom jobs have been lost since September 15. The Project for Excellence in Journalism estimates that newspapers have cut about 10 percent of newsroom jobs — 5,500 positions — this decade.
The latest announcements come as newspaper circulation and ad revenue continue to slide. A recent Audit Bureau of Circulations report found that circulation for daily newspapers dropped close to 5 percent over a six-month period that ended in September 2008. Newspapers in larger cities have been the hardest hit. Circulation at the Los Angeles Times fell by 5 percent; the Chicago Tribune, 7.7 percent; the Boston Globe, 10.1 percent; The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 percent; the Philadelphia Daily News, 13.2 percent; and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 13.6 percent.
Meanwhile, the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) expects total ad revenue for the industry to drop by 11.5 percent this year.
Greed and Profit
The Internet has transformed the media industry and how the public consumes news. More people are reading their local newspapers online than ever before. Online ad revenue grew for 17 straight quarters until its recent decline. Nevertheless, the NAA expects online ad revenue to continue its growth next year.
Despite the changing industry, newspapers remain extremely profitable. The Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ) reported that the average pre-tax profit margin for newspapers was 18.5 percent in 2007. Some newspaper profits remained above 20 percent. “The industry remains profitable, but it has come time to take the ‘obscenely’ out of that commonplace observation,” PEJ said in its annual State of the News Media report.
But the majority of newspapers are publicly traded companies for which any decline in profits is unacceptable. As a result, newspapers are trying to please Wall Street by axing jobs and scaling back coverage.
With fewer reporters on the beat — and less quality local coverage — it’s no wonder people aren’t subscribing to the paper. While these cuts may please stock analysts, they harm the public. There are fewer journalists covering the business of government at city halls and state capitals across the country. Media companies are closing their Washington and foreign bureaus, while the number of lobbyists pushing the legislation agendas of their corporate clients at the local, state and national levels has increased under the diminishing watchdog eye of the Fourth Estate.
Failure to Adapt
What is rarely discussed is that media consolidation and a lack of leadership within the newspaper industry have resulted in the newspaper industry contributing to its revenue decline.
Too many executives were slow to embrace the Internet as part of their newspapers’ business models. It was just last year that PEJ reported that mainstream media had began to show a serious commitment to growing online ad revenue.
Media consolidation has also resulted in a handful of newspaper chains that are owned by publicly traded companies. Major chains like Times Mirror and Knight Ridder were swallowed up in recent years by other chains. Companies like Tribune and Media News are reducing their staff to pay off their debt for going on a merger spree.
To help ease their debt burden, the industry has turned to the FCC to bail them out by deregulating the industry to allow newspapers to purchase a TV or radio station in the same market, a station that has most likely maintained “obscenely” high profit margins. Last year, the FCC voted to lift the newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership regulation that helped to protect media diversity, competition and localism for more than 30 years. The proposed new rules include gaping loopholes that would allow for consolidation in potentially every media market in this country. The new rules are currently being challenged in court.
If upheld, journalists should expect more layoffs, and the public should see a declining commitment to news as newspapers take on greater debt to please their Wall Street investors.
4 Comments »
Posted November 6th, 2008 by AdamLynn
Big Media’s favorite scapegoat is the Internet. In broadcasters’ attempts to convince the Federal Communications Commission to allow them to increase their media holdings, they cry that the Internet is stealing their viewers.
For instance, in appealing to the FCC to lift the ban on cross-ownership, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) said: “Internet users, especially broadband Internet users, are turning to the Web as a supplement and replacement to traditional television, radio and the newspaper.”
The argument was one of the central themes when the FCC capitulated to Big Media in 2003 and gave the green light to more media consolidation. But while Big Media has failed to provide any specific evidence to backup their assertion, a new study released last week by Nielsen reveals what consumer groups have long been arguing: Consumers do not use the Internet as a substitute to traditional television watching but as a complement.
Nielsen, the company that decides the ratings for television shows, installs equipment on TVs to track the nation’s viewing habits. Nielsen recently implemented a program to also track Internet usage in these same households and found that “television viewing and online video streaming are complementary activities.”
“The top fifth of Internet users spend more than 250 minutes per day watching television, compared to 220 minutes of television viewing by people who do not use the Internet at all,” the findings say. Nielsen said there is a significant amount of simultaneous TV and Internet usage.
Nielsen’s conclusions echo the evidence put forth by consumer groups. Using the FCC’s own data, Free Press illustrated last year that at most one hour of Internet usage results in a less than two-minute decrease of television viewing.
The discovery by Nielsen is just one more brick in the towering skyscraper of evidence illustrating that the last thing we should allow is more media consolidation, and the last entity we should trust to base policy on fact is Big Media.
2 Comments »
Posted October 27th, 2008 by caaron
The United States of America — land of the free, home of the First Amendment — is supposed to be a beacon for the rest of the world. So where do we stand in the latest global rankings of press freedom?
Thirty-sixth.
That’s not a typo. It’s a national disgrace.
The Press Freedom Index released last week by Reporters Without Borders reflects both the freedoms journalists enjoy as well as the “efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom.” The annual rankings examine the way that financial pressures lead to self-censorship in the press, government abuses of the press, as well as murders, imprisonment and physical abuse of journalists.
While there are currently no jailed journalists in America, Reporters Without Borders said there are many concerns about the U.S. media. “Journalists are guardians of democracy whose rights must be protected around the world, not least in the United States, to which emerging democracies look for guidance, and where free speech is an inalienable right explicitly protected by the Constitution,” Reporters Without Borders declared. “This situation is unacceptable for the country known for its First Amendment rights.”
The rights of journalists to freely operate came under attack just two months ago when nearly 100 journalists were arrested and detained in St. Paul, Minn., while trying to report on the Republican National Convention. But this is only one blatant example of America’s eroding press freedoms.
This year, we also discovered a covert and extensive Pentagon propaganda plan that used the press to sway Americans’ support for the Iraq War and the war on terrorism. Deploying what the Pentagon called “message force multipliers” throughout TV, radio and print, the government tried to pass off well-coached pundits as unbiased military analysts. It’s hard to know who came out worse in this scandal: the Pentagon pundits or the media that blindly booked them again and again — no questions asked.
The media’s epic failure in the run-up to the war has been well-documented — and a few major outlets have even issued apologies for their coverage. But we’re just beginning to see the fallout from years of relentless rah-rah coverage of Wall Street, even as the writing was on the wall about an impending collapse. And we haven’t even mentioned the mostly atrocious election coverage or recited stump speeches we call “presidential debates.”
Worse yet, the same pundits who have been so colossally wrong time and again keep yapping away. There are, of course, a few courageous and diligent reporters who dared to question the conventional wisdom. But you won’t find them on TV every night.
All of this is directly connected to runaway media consolidation. Our major news outlets are controlled by just a handful of big corporations, which have the power to set the news agenda and shift the focus from real issues to the kind of celebrity-ridden, gaffe-obsessed, lipstick-on-a-terrorist chatter that now passes for political discourse. And the mantra of “deregulation” has been as bad for the media as it’s been for our financial institutions.
And it’s just a matter of time before the current financial meltdown becomes the pretext for even more consolidation, layoffs, slashed reporting budgets and “news you can use.” Yet somehow every time these companies come to Washington with their hands out, no one asks them if there just might be a connection between all the cutbacks — trimming content, canning veteran journalists, shuttering foreign bureaus, replacing real reporting with mindless commentary — and their lower ratings and shrinking audiences.
Reporters Without Borders, too, noted the harmful effects of media consolidation on press freedom, pointing out the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to gut media ownership limits, allowing one company to own both a major daily newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. Reports Without Borders observed the negative impact this would have on news diversity and the ability to “protect a free, independent and diverse media pool.”
Reporters Without Borders also singled out the uncertain future of the Internet as another central concern, and called for concrete policies that would protect press freedom online. The organization lambasted phone and cable companies’ efforts to dismantle the long-standing principle of “Net Neutrality,” which stops companies from discriminating against online content.
“The practice of charging fees for different access speeds for broadband Internet connection undermines the right of people to be informed. Net neutrality is the core concept that has made the Internet the open media forum it is, and it must be protected,” the group said, calling on both candidates and the U.S. Congress to pass laws protecting the open Internet.
To protect press freedom, we must make better media policies. For too long, the decisions that shape everything we see, read and hear have been made behind closed doors by corporate lobbyists and their cronies. It’s time for all Americans to have a seat at the table and a voice in this debate. This is a fight that must be joined by everyday citizens, civil libertarians and working journalists alike.
As we enter a new year and a new administration, the report from Reporters Without Borders is a clarion call for America to take a hard look at how we are meeting the information needs of our communities and upholding the values of the Constitution.
This post was co-authored by Josh Stearns.
1 Comment »
Posted October 24th, 2008 by jtorres
Whether it’s the military co-opting news programs to win support for the Iraq War, advertisers using deceptive ad practices in TV shows, or producers airing exploitative music videos, the media is consistently misinforming the public.Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission announced it was investigating whether TV stations and cable networks failed to disclose its pundits’ conflicts of interest.In April, the New York Times broke a story revealing a Pentagon strategy – with the compliance of TV networks – to place pro-war military officers as experts on news programs. While stumping for the Pentagon, the pundits were also lobbying for military contracts. According to Media Matters, the Pentagon pundits have appeared on TV or been quoted in the press more than 4,500 times since 2002.Bombarded with AdsThat’s just one glaring example of media deception. The FCC is also considering whether to adopt new rules that would require greater transparency from broadcasters to disclose embedded advertising and product placements on programs they air.Embedded advertising is when ad appears as part of a story line; product placements are used as props. Most viewers are unaware that they are being bombarded with these types of commercials when they watch sit-coms and reality shows — since the only acknowledgement of these ads appear in those impossible-to-read credits that race across your TV set at the end of the program.Advertisers claim that digital video recorders have reduced the number of viewers watching traditional spots. But the truth is that embedded advertising and product placement is a more effective way to sell products. During the first six months of this year, there were 21,427 instances of product placement on the top 10 primetime programs, compared to 17,370 last year.These commercials are particularly harmful for children, who are unable to distinguish advertising from programming. Children’s advocates are calling on the FCC to ban embedded ads from kids programs. Other groups have called on broadcasters to instantly disclose whenever an embedded product appears on the screen.It is unacceptable for the public to be purposefully deceived or subjected to subversive marketing without their knowledge. It is critical for the FCC to demand that media companies disclose any conflicts of interest from pundits that appear on news programs or demand greater transparency whenever product placements are used.Trafficking in StereotypesWhile deceptive media strategizes leave viewers vulnerable to government or corporate propaganda, viewers are also harmed by the constant airing of offensive and stereotypical programming.Recently, BET announced the cancellation of its afternoon music program “Rap City,” which has been on the air for the past 20 years. BET has received a great deal of criticism for the impact of its programming on African-American youth. In fact, the National Association of Black Journalists gave BET its “thumbs down” award in 2007 for its failure to cover the funeral of Corretta Scott King.Rev. Delman Coates launched the “Enough Is Enough” campaign last year to protest BET’s programming, particularly its music shows. Groups like Industry Ears have also denounced the denigration of black women by BET and other networks.Last spring, Rev. Coates and the Parents Television Council released a report which found that music videos airing on BET’s “Rap City” and “106 & Park,” as well as MTV’s “Sucker Free,” depicted an act of sex, violence or profanity every 38 seconds. Both channels are owned by Viacom.Breaking Big Media’s GripInstead of working to foster a more responsible media environment that serves the news and informational needs of the public, our leaders in Washington have rewarded big media companies by allowing for greater consolidation.As a result, independent voices have been pushed off the air and out of the picture. Good luck trying to find independent news programs or independent cable networks owned by people of color that are committed to serving these communities.It is time for the FCC to demand greater transparency from broadcasters that allow viewers to know who’s paying for what they see. Better yet, they should break the vice grip that Big Media have on the programming we watch. We need real choices and diverse voices — not more hidden sales pitches, destructive stereotypes and covert propaganda.
No Comments »
Posted October 14th, 2008 by megantady
Over the next week, a carload of independent journalists will be winding their way through the South, perhaps one of the only caravans of media-makers not pounding the worn campaign trail. Are they on a beat? You could say that.
Six journalists from different regions across the country and varying media backgrounds have embarked on the first Grassroots Media Justice Tour, billed as an “exciting movement-building opportunity.” Kicking off last week in North Carolina, the tour is making pit stops in thirteen cities and towns, ending Oct. 22 in Denton, Texas.
Jordan Flaherty, editor of Left Turn, said the tour was designed as an organizing project to highlight the intersection of journalism and grassroots activism through workshops and performances.
“We need to look at all the different ways we can reach each other,” he said. “For the print publications on this tour, they’re at conferences and on the Internet, but that’s not the way to meet people. A lot of people aren’t at conferences. Maybe they don’t have bookstores near them. They’re not on various e-mail networks. To be able to directly reach people is another way to do it.”
The tour is sponsored by Left Turn, ColorLines, Bitch, $pread, Free Speech Radio News, make/shift, and other radical and independent media projects from around the United States. Flaherty is joined on the tour by media makers Hadassah Hill, Alexis Pauline Gumbs, Puck Lo, Jen Angel, and Jesse Muhammad.
One of the primary functions of the tour is to “get information out” about social justice struggles. In the face of massive media consolidation, where diverse and independent voices are stifled, Flaherty said reaching people requires creativity.
“It’s really challenging to get voices out in this monopoly marketplace with Fox owning MySpace and Google owning YouTube,” he said. “They’re branching out to these new media areas. As technology changes, corporations are very dynamically adept at changing. The forms for getting our voices out – technology opens up new forms – but then corporate control keeps closing up those forms. So we have to be really dynamic and adaptive to deal with that.”
The second goal of the tour is to build relationships between grassroots activists and independent media – a connection that Flaherty said was vital in telling the story of the Jena 6 case when the mainstream media was mum.
And as independent media struggle with postal rate hikes, increased publishing costs, and an Internet landscape that doesn’t encourage people to pay for content, the question of how to get people to fund quality journalism is present on the tour.
“We are talking to people about really valuing media,” Flaherty said. “I think all of our movements are in crisis. And I think this nonprofit industrial complex is part of it. We’ve really sort of forgotten how to fund our own movements and not really relying on grants and others sorts of funding. We’re seeing that grants can be really unreliable. Funding can drop out at a moment’s notice – it can be unsustainable, it can be unpredictable.”
Yet in a time of crisis for both journalism and the country, Flaherty said the tour is offering some inspiration. “It’s great to be out here and connecting with people to see the different work people are doing,” he said.
Flaherty said the tour could be even more impactful if it had wider funding and support. “We’re very grassroots and just scraping by,” he said.
To find out more about the tour or to make a donation, contact Jordan Flaherty at neworleans@leftturn.org .
No Comments »
Posted October 3rd, 2008 by Jen Angel
On Sept. 15, editors at Bitch Magazine announced that they needed to raise $40K in one month to survive a financial crisis.
It’s October - and where are they? Well, they met their goal in three days, and today the tally is at $55K. Thanks to everyone who has - and will continue to - support Bitch in these weeks.
Is this a victory? Yes and no. While Bitch has bested this latest challenge thanks to years of building a supportive community, they, like all magazines of their size, face a continued uphill battle. This is probably not the last emergency appeal we will see.
The past two years have seen many magazines closing their doors: LiP, Punk Planet, Kitchen Sink, and even online outlets like The NewStandard. The magazine that I co-founded in 1999, Clamor, folded in December of 2006. These magazines are not folding out of mismanagement or reckless risk-taking by their publishers. Collectively, independent publications face monumental challenges like the rising cost of postage (and a tiered rate structure that favors large-scale publishers), increased cost of paper, and the changing nature of readership as more people get their content - and community - online. Heck, even the New York Times with all of its capitalist brainpower can’t figure out how to get people to pay for online content. How can we expect magazines, websites, and other independent media outlets to have figured out how to “monetize” the Web?
And this begs the question: How can we, as consumers and producers, support this media and prevent these crises? What can we do that will allow media outlets to focus on making the content we know we can’t get anywhere else?
For starters, we can support Bitch and every other outlet we love — even if we can get their content for free online. And, we can give that support generously and unabashedly, not just now, but every time media outlets ask us for money.
Activist and media scholar Sut Jhally had this to say on the subject:
“Independent media have been severely under-funded relative to how much individuals give to the corporate media. If you have cable, and I include myself in this when I think about where I spend my money, my media money, if you have cable or satellite TV or a connection to the internet, you are directly funding corporate media. People think nothing of spending $100 or more a month on cable and the internet. And yet independent media has to beg to get a few scraps. I just did the math on this. It’s sometimes really good to fantasize—fantasy is always a prerequisite for social change—Let’s presume you could get a million people on the Left to take media issues seriously. That’s actually, given that MoveOn has three and a half million members and a lot of other sites have membership in the millions, that is not an unreasonable thing. Let’s say you could get a million people to rethink their media consumption and their media expenditures. Let’s say you could get a million people to spend $100 a month on independent media. If you don’t have a calculator, I’ll do the math for you. That is 1.2 billion dollars. If we act together and if we make the media something that is central to how we think about politics, think of what that would make possible, and how we would aid progressive forces in this country. Why don’t we do that? Because media issues are still seen as secondary.”
I think I’m going to go right now and renew my subscriptions to Bitch, make/shift, Left Turn, Yes!, and The Sun. And the next time my public radio station comes begging, I will give money then, too. Because independent media is important to me, and I hope it is to you, too.
- Jen Angel is the former publisher of Clamor Magazine. She blogs on media and activism at jenangel.wordpress.com.
No Comments »
Posted October 1st, 2008 by jtorres
For many people of color, fighting against our nation’s media system is a matter of life and death. Too often, the media have contributed to the racial divisions that still exist in this country by marginalizing people of color in its coverage.
A major reason why this division exists is because people of color do not control the mass dissemination of their own images. Few people of color work in our nation’s newsrooms, and fewer own broadcast stations.
People of color make up more than one-third of the U.S. population but own just 3 percent of all local TV stations and 8 percent of radio outlets. Journalists of color make up only 13.5 percent of all newsroom employees working at daily newspapers and 19 percent of the local TV newsroom work force. As a result, stories about people of color are often told by journalists who know little about these communities.
Look Who’s Talking About Latinos
It should come as no surprise that coverage of immigration, especially on talk radio, is often hard to categorize as anything but hateful. Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage are among the major culprits who routinely demonize Latino immigrants on their programs.
On cable TV, CNN host Lou Dobbs has used his show to crusade against undocumented immigration. More than 70 percent of his programs in 2007 discussed the issue, according to the watchdog group Media Matters.
But Dobbs has had plenty of help from his cable compadres. Bill
O’Reilly and Glenn Beck have discussed undocumented immigration on 56 percent and 28 percent of their programs, respectively, almost always with an anti-immigrant slant.
The news networks have reinforced the idea there is little to know about Latinos outside of immigration. For years, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists has documented in its annual “Network Brownout” that Latinos make up less than 1 percent of the more than 12,000 news stories that air each year on the network evening news. Undocumented immigration and crime were the dominate focus of those stories.
The rise of anti-immigrant sentiment has impacted the Latino community immensely. A Pew Hispanic study released this week found that 1 in 10 Latinos have been stopped by the police or authorities and asked about their immigration status. Half of Latinos surveyed said the situation for Latinos has gotten worse over the past year due to concerns about deportation and discrimination in other areas of their lives, like finding jobs and housing.
Talk Radio Fuels Hate Crimes
Many Latinos believe that talk radio and anti-immigration news coverage has fueled the increase in hate crimes. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reported that while hate crime statistics are not reliable, all available data indicate a surge in violence against Latinos. According to the FBI, hate crimes against Latinos shot up by 35 percent from 2003 to 2006.
SPLC also reported in 2007 that the immigration debate has increased the number of hate groups more than 40 percent hike since 2000, to 888 today. In addition, about 250 nativist groups have been founded in the past few years, driven by the immigration debate.
The Anti-Defamation League and SPLC report that nativist groups increasingly appear on news programs as legitimate anti-immigration advocates, even though many have spouted conspiracy theories on the air – such as the claim that Mexicans want to take back the Southwest for Mexico.
“This kind of really vile propaganda begins in hate groups, makes its way out into the larger anti-immigration movement, and, before you know it, winds up in places like ‘Lou Dobbs Tonight’ on CNN,” says Mark Potok, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project.
Latinos Fight Back
It is a difficult fight for Latinos and other people of color to challenge large media conglomerates to improve their coverage of communities of color and to get the hate speech off the airwaves. Many of these talk show hosts are extremely popular and have a large following.
But Latino groups have been fighting back. The National Council of La Raza has launched the Web Site www.stopthehate.com, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund has created www.truthinimmigration.org to monitor and denounce hate crimes and hate speech. Meanwhile, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and its allies are strategizing how to combat speech via a campaign at www.latinosagainsthatespeech.org.
In addition, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has called on the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update a 1993 report on the role of telecommunications in hate crimes.
Why Media Policy Matters
Media consolidation and media policy matters in this fight. As more companies own what we watch and read, it has made it harder for people of color to gain access to the airwaves and to speak for themselves without any gatekeepers.
A study conducted by the Center for American Progress and Free Press last year found that 91 percent of conservative radio talk shows aired on 257 news/talk stations were owned by just five companies. Meanwhile, minority-owned stations were far less likely to air conservative talk shows.
It is critical for people of color to gain access to the means of communications that will allow them to speak for themselves without the permission of gatekeepers. To accomplish this, the voices of people of color must be heard in the halls of Congress and at the FCC calling for legislation to increase minority media ownership and low power FM stations, to put the “public” back into public media,
Additionally, people of color must urge lawmakers to make sure the public has affordable broadband access and fight to maintain a free and open Internet that is available to everyone.
While it won’t be easy for people of color to hold the FCC, corporate media and media personalities accountable for their actions, facing daunting challenges is nothing new for communities of color. It is a struggle, however, we must win for the good of our communities and for the good of our nation.
3 Comments »
Posted September 30th, 2008 by jstearns
Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)went to the floor of the House late last week to speak out on media consolidation. With the Congress about to adjourn before the elections and consumed with the financial crisis, Inslee and Waters acknowledged that the Resolution of Disapproval (H J. Res 79) may not get a floor vote> But they wanted to thank the public for speaking out so strongly on this issue.
Intense pressure from local citizens and public interest groups throughout 2007 forced the FCC to back down from their efforts to completely eliminate media ownership limits. But last December, the FCC voted to lift the longstanding cross-ownership rule that prevents one company from owning a daily newspaper and broadcast station in the same market. Though narrower than the rule change proposed by the FCC in 2003, the new rule includes massive loopholes that could let a few giant companies swallow up more local media and could put minority media owners out of business.
The public response to this controversial giveaway has been profound. More than 250,000 people wrote the Senate, which voted almost unanimously in May to overturn the FCC rule. With your help we will keep the pressure on the House as well. We have more than 50 co-sponsors on the House version of the resolution. This bill is an important opportunity to get our policymakers on the record on this important issue and build a foundation of opposition against media consolidation in the next Congress.
We are still pushing forward with lawsuits that would nullify the FCC rule change. And we’ll keep pushing for media ownership laws that protect localism and increase female and minority ownership. We’ll be watching carefully for any proposed mergers, such as the developing case in South Bend, Ind. (where one company is trying to push through a deal that would allow it to own four of the six commercial news outlets in the entire market).
Our allies in Congress say they’re committed to continuing this fight next year and acknowledged that your actions have helped to lay a strong foundation of support that will pay off in the future.
No Comments »
Posted September 24th, 2008 by megantady
One of the most damaging media consolidation deals in the country is quietly underway in Indiana’s fourth largest city – South Bend.
But local activists and Free Press are making noise, attempting to stop a single company, Schurz Communications, from swiping more than its fair share of media outlets — and setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country.
Currently, Schurz already owns the following media properties in South Bend:
• South Bend Tribune (the local daily newspaper)
• WSBT-TV (the local CBS affiliate)
• WSBT-AM (the only local news radio station)
• WNSN FM
Schurz wants to purchase these TV stations in South Bend from Weigel Broadcasting:
• WBND-LP (the local ABC affiliate)
• WCWW-LP (the local CW affiliate)
• WMYS-LP (the local MyNetworkTV affiliate)
In case the math is a little fuzzy, here’s what Schurz will own when the dust settles: four of the six local network TV affiliates, the daily newspaper, the only news radio station, and the second-ranked FM radio station. This means a single company will own four of the six commercial news producing outlets in the entire South Bend market. Schurz would be the Murdoch of the Indiana-Michigan border.
Schurz Communications has been fighting back, pointing to their record of public service to assuage the fears of a media monopoly. But no matter the owner or their “harmless” intentions, consolidation on this scale puts diverse viewpoints and independent news at risk. Nobody should have such immense media power in a single community.
4 Comments »
