Archive for May, 2008
Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 by Josh Stearns
We’re starting summer early by turning up the heat on corporate media. Today, the StopBigMedia.com Coalition is launching an extraordinary series of actions that will gather momentum over the coming months.
Our goal: stop conglomerates like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. from controlling media in our communities.
We scored an amazing victory in May when the Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject the Federal Communications Commission’s latest handout to Big Media. Our senators heard the more than a quarter-million activists who contacted Washington. Now, the fight has moved to the House, where we’re building support for a similar resolution.
Tell Your Representative: Turn Up the Heat Against Big Media
Start now by clicking on the above link and urging your representative to support the bipartisan “Resolution of Disapproval” (H.J. Res. 79). A victory in the House is possible only with massive public participation. Taking this fast action is just the beginning. Over the summer, activists from every corner of the country will be leading a new wave of creative actions on and off line. Over the past year, activists like you have been urging Congress to stop runaway consolidation. Now we’re taking it to the next level.
Turn up the summer heat by taking action today!
UPDATE: Help jumpstart this campaign by telling five friends to take action.
1 Comment »
Friday, May 23rd, 2008 by Josh Stearns
FCC chairman Kevin Martin and his Big Media buddies like to suggest that media consolidation creates a stronger media and allows one company to serve the local community better through “synergy” and “efficiencies of scale.”
They suggest that by leveraging the combined resources of media conglomerates and local papers they can bring a new level of service to local communities.
But using the FCC’s own data, we’ve shown that allowing one company to own a major daily newspaper and broadcast station actually decreases the amount of local news in a given community. And this week, one media giant has proven that cross-ownership also leads to fewer jobs.
Media General, one of the biggest beneficiaries of the FCC’s recent media ownership rule changes, announced it was going to slash its workforce and gut newsrooms across the country.
On Dec. 18, the FCC voted along party lines to lift the 30- year cross-ownership ban that has protected communities from the kind of media monopolies that emerge when one company owns too many media outlets.
In addition to opening the door to further media consolidation, Martin also snuck through a series of waivers that amount to a “get out of jail free” card for Big Media companies like Media General that have been violating the law for years.
Media General – which met with key FCC staff just days after Martin outlined his plan to relax the cross-ownership rules – made out like a bandit in this deal, securing four permanent waivers and giving the company a near monopoly over the news in the Tri-Cities area of Tennessee and Virginia; Myrtle Beach, S.C.; Columbus, Ga; and Panama City, Fla.
The FCC’s waivers violate even the newly relaxed rules they just established– not one of these communities is in one of the top 20 media markets to which these changes were supposed to be limited. This is a clear indication that the FCC doesn’t take its own rules seriously and is not committed to protecting the public interest under the very guidelines it established.
The FCC’s justification for these waivers is that newspaper-broadcast combinations will help struggling newspapers, create more local news, and better serve the public. But Media General’s announcement that by October it will cut roughly 11 percent of its staff — 750 jobs — questions how exactly cross-ownership is supposed to benefit either struggling newspapers or local communities. As their newsrooms are gutted, these layoffs are sure to mean more junk media for Media General’s local communities.
It does not have to be this way. In April 2007, hundreds of local community members converged on the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center to speak out on Media General’s already established throttle hold over the city’s news and information. But the FCC did not listen, and now we see what happens when a company is driven by the interests of Wall Street, not Main Street. As word spreads of the job cuts, shares of Media General rose 7.7 percent, reinforcing the fact that cost-cutting comes before quality journalism.
No Comments »
Wednesday, May 21st, 2008 by Megan Tady
It’s getting hot in here. Big Media is feeling the heat as the Senate rejects media consolidation and the House prepares to do the same. Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal tried to defend consolidation in a recent editorial. Free Press’ Josh Silver responded in a letter to the editor printed on May 21.
More Media Than Ever, but Are There Enough Voices?
May 21, 2008; Page A18
Your May 13 editorial rejects widespread concern that further media consolidation will lead to monopolies that restrict the public’s access to information. But this issue isn’t just about access to information, it’s about defending the public interest principles of competition and diversity in local news.
It’s true that people are increasingly turning to the Internet and other outlets for news, but a vast majority of Americans still get their local news from local newspapers and TV stations.
The examples you list — cable, Internet news sites and YouTube — rarely report on local news. If we let media companies merge under the theory that the Internet will save us, we’re relying on a false premise. And we’re doing an injustice to civic engagement and democracy. Numerous studies show that quality local journalism leads to more informed voters. The Federal Communications Commission’s long-standing ban on “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership” is vital because it ensures a minimal level of viewpoint diversity, something the Supreme Court has recognized is critical to the health of our democracy.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans have implored Congress and the FCC to maintain the ban on cross-ownership. In fact, a mere 1% of public comments received by the FCC support further consolidation.
Why such overwhelming public opposition to more media consolidation? Because people want more critical journalism and local news. If President Bush vetoes Mr. Dorgan’s bill, it would be a slap in the face to both.
Josh Silver
Executive Director
Free Press
Florence, Mass.
1 Comment »
Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 by Megan Tady
Last week, the Senate stood up for localism and media ownership diversity even as Big Media and corporate interest groups tried to malign the concepts.
In a resounding commitment to stopping further media consolidation, the Senate near unanimously voted for a “resolution of disapproval,” which nullified earlier FCC rules allowing for cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations in a single market.
Since the vote, Big Media has groaned and griped.
The Newspaper Association of America’s President and CEO John F. Sturm called it “incomprehensible,” saying it ignored “well-established benefits that cross-ownership brings to local communities.”
The National Association of Broadcasters has called efforts to overturn the FCC’s decision “unnecessary.”
Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal piped up to protect consolidation, saying that today’s media landscape offers Americans “far more media choices than ever before, including ever-growing cable, satellite and Internet offerings.”
The White House, which has threatened a veto, claimed “citizens now have access to a multitude of additional sources of information.”
But in reality, the only thing well-established about cross-ownership is its disastrous repercussions for local communities – a fact that senators echoed in their testimony in support of the resolution.
Senator after senator expressed support for the resolution, debunking and dethroning Big Media’s “woe is me” appeal.
Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said she supported the resolution because “fewer independent, local stations mean less local content and programming,” particularly as minority and women-owned media outlets is extremely low.
“Instead of being a catalyst promoting localism and ownership diversity, the FCC’s action will actually hasten the decline in these crucial areas,” Snowe said.
In his support of the resolution, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) pointed to the loopholes in the rules that could allow companies to increase cross-ownership through arbitrary FCC waivers. “The standards for granting these waivers are vague at best,” he said.
Menendez added that the FCC rules were “nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing” for corporations.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Commerce Committee, said he voted for the resolution, in part, because he is troubled by the lack of quality journalism brought by media consolidation.
“In recent years, we have seen an increase in coarse and violent programming, coupled with a decrease in local news and hard-hitting journalism,” Sen. Inouye said. “To say these trends are not in the best interest of the American people, and especially our youngest citizens, is clearly an understatement.”
Thousands of Americans voiced their opposition to the FCC’s rule, and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) heard them loud and clear when he voted to support the resolution. “It isn’t more consolidation and homogenization the American people want from their media — it is less. No one can seriously argue that the consolidation of the media in recent years has been a good development for the fourth estate. As coverage has become increasingly superficial, people wonder more than ever about the quality of the information they are receiving from the media. And quite frankly, I do not blame them.”
The resolution has now moved to the House for approval before it will appear on the president. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who co-sponsored the bill, released a statement, saying, “I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation.”
No Comments »
Friday, May 16th, 2008 by Sen. John Kerry
In a guest post, Sen. John Kerry talks about the historic victory in the Senate to overturn the FCC’s media ownership rule changes.
As you guys probably know by now, we had a great victory last night in the fight against the FCC and media consolidation.
The battle isn’t over, of course, but the win last night — especially the way we won — is a great sign for the future, and a real testament to all of your hard work pushing this issue.
 Guest Blog Post by Sen. John Kerry |
We went in expecting to prevail, but we expected a fight. What we got was a voice-vote approval, only possible when the support is near-universal. This is important because the overwhelming Senate support for this resolution shows the political momentum is running strongly against the FCC on this.
The signal was sent loud and clear that Americans across the ideological spectrum oppose the FCC’s hasty and unwise actions around this rule.
From here, the resolution goes to the House, and considering the action in the Senate, I’m optimistic about what can happen there. But as you know, the most unpopular President in history has once again placed himself on the other side of the issue from the American people by threatening a veto.
The reasons given by the Administration are really nothing more than rehashing the justifications Chairman Martin and others have already put forward for this bill, justifications that were roundly rejected by the Senate yesterday.
Keeping diversity of ownership over local news outlets is as important as ever, and the American people understand that. And, thanks to the great work of activists like yourselves, the voices of ordinary Americans have overcome the entrenched media interests to get this historic victory yesterday.
If the President carries through with his veto threat, I’m prepared to fight for an override of this veto. If we get that far, I’ll be urging my Republican Senate colleagues to side with the American people over the wishes of this lame-duck Administration.
1 Comment »
Friday, May 16th, 2008 by Sen. Olympia Snowe
In a guest post, Sen. Olympia Snowe talks about the Senate’s near-unanimous vote to overturn the FCC’s media ownership rule changes.
Last night I and my colleagues in the Senate passed the resolution of disapproval that repeals the recent Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rulemaking.
Consolidation in the media market has led to fewer locally owned stations, and less local programming and content. Indeed, it speaks volumes that the number of independent radio owners has plunged in the past 11 years by 39 percent. Just in 1996 and 1997 alone, more than 4,400 radio stations were sold following the first round of consolidation following passage of The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Between 1995 and 2003, ownership of the top 10 largest television stations increased from 104 owners to 299 owners.
 Guest Blog Post by Sen. Olympia Snowe |
At the same time, we know that locally owned stations aired more local news and programming than non-locally owned stations–and that is not just me talking. That is according to the FCC’s own studies, which also found that smaller station groups overall tended to produce higher quality newscasts compared to stations owned by larger companies.
So there should be no mistake–fewer independent, local stations mean less local content and programming.
Minority and women-ownership of media outlets is also at perilously low levels–currently only 6 percent of full-power commercial broadcast radio stations are owned by women and 7.7 percent are owned by minorities. Ownership of broadcast television is even lower–5 percent for women and only 3.3 percent for minorities. Instead of being a catalyst promoting localism and ownership diversity, the FCC’s action will actually hasten the decline in these crucial areas.
I must say it feels a little like déja vu all over again, when nearly five years ago the FCC attempted a similar effort to relax another set of media ownership rules. And fittingly, the opposition to the commission’s attempt then mirrors the opposition that is coalescing now. And the action we are considering now is reminiscent of the joint resolution passed by the U.S. Senate in September 2003, which I cosponsored, condemning the Commission’s efforts to rewrite those rules.
So that naturally begs the question–why would the commission continue to attempt to weaken media ownership rules when the American public has vociferously opposed these efforts time and again? When the U.S. Congress in 2004 enacted a statute prohibiting the FCC from raising national ownership limits above 39 percent? When the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected as arbitrary and capricious this attempt at revising the rules after finding the FCC had no factual basis for the limits it set? We deserve an answer.
| “Why would the commission continue to attempt to weaken media ownership rules when the American public has vociferously opposed these efforts time and again?” |
Many proponents for relaxing media ownership rules have pointed to the precipitous decline of the newspaper industry as the reason change is mandatory. They have even cited a recent report by the Newspaper Association of America, NAA, which found print ad revenue for the industry fell by 9.4 percent last year–the biggest decline since it started keeping records in 1950. However, what these proponents are neglecting to mention is that the NAA also found that online newspaper advertising revenue increased 19 percent last year. Furthermore the NAA president and CEO John Sturm stated “newspaper publishers are continuing to drive strong revenue growth from their increasingly robust Web platforms.” This hardly sounds like an industry in irreversible peril if this longstanding rule remains in place.
Opponents of this resolution will also argue that the FCC crafted a very narrow revision, lifting the cross-ownership ban for only the top 20 media markets, so this resolution is unnecessary. However, the FCC also adopted “four factors” and two broad “special circumstances” that would allow this ban to be lifted for a station in any media market. These scenarios and factors include evaluating financial condition, possible increased local news, as well as existing market media concentration, and news independency. Given the vagueness and loopholes that exist with the rulemaking, the “high hurdle” that the Commission has supposedly set for proposed combinations could be easily cleared by using only a stepladder.
| “Preventing further media consolidation has been a bipartisan effort.” |
Preventing further media consolidation has been a bipartisan effort, and the resolution before us today is no different. We owe it to the American people to restore confidence in the FCC’s commitment not only to uphold the public interest but to advance it and strengthen it. That is why it is undeniably incumbent upon the commission members to revisit these rules and establish a set of standards that will effectively promote localism and minority and women-ownership, not more media consolidation. We must not allow the indispensable role the media plays in promoting diversity and localism to be further marginalized and miniaturized by unchecked consolidation within the industry.
No Comments »
Friday, May 16th, 2008 by Josh Silver
Thursday night, the Senate cast a near-unanimous vote to reverse the Federal Communication Commission’s December 2007 decision to let media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city.
 Activists Celebrate |
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who introduced the rarely used “resolution of disapproval,” said last night that “the FCC is supposed to be a referee for the media industry, but instead they’ve been cheerleaders in favor of more consolidation. … We already have too much concentration in the media.”
Senator Barack Obama added his support to the resolution saying, “I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to expeditiously pass the legislation.”
The Senate vote is good news for everyone who is fed up with a media system, that, in the words of Jon Stewart, is “hurting America” with propaganda pundits, embedded journalists, horse-race election coverage, and celebrity gossip posing as news. It reflects growing awareness — in Congress and with average Americans — of the perils of concentrated media ownership. Namely, insatiable profit pressures that gut newsrooms, replace labor-intensive investigative news with salacious, cheap-to-cover stories, and encourage the dumbing-down of the most pressing issues into 30-second sound bites and partisan shout-fests.
Media concentration is also central to the rise of extremists like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who overwhelm the dial on conglomerates owned and run by businessmen with radical partisan politics.
Back in 2003, Senator Dorgan and then-Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) passed a similar resolution of disapproval to overturn the last effort by the Bush FCC to loosen ownership limits after 3 million Americans – both liberal and conservative – decried the FCC’s handout to the largest media companies. That resolution languished in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, and the proposed rules were later rejected by a federal court.
The “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban” that the FCC is trying to get rid of has been in place since 1975. It keeps media outlets from merging already stripped-down local newsrooms in the name of “synergy” and protects diversity of viewpoints in the local press, something the Supreme Court has recognized is critical to the health of our democracy. Thursday’s vote sends a clear message to media executives and the FCC that further media consolidation will not be tolerated.
The resolution of disapproval now moves to the House, where it already has bipartisan support. President Bush has threatened to veto the measure. A statement from the White House yesterday called the FCC’s new rules the product of “extensive public comment and consultation” but failed to mention that only 1 percent of the public that testified at public hearings or sent letters to the FCC supported the administration’s position.
Typical of most Bush appointees, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin disregarded the will of the American people and granted another handout to the largest companies. A veto-proof majority in Congress supporting the resolution would stop Bush from doing the same.
The fight is far from over. But last night’s vote is a historic victory for the public interest over one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies.
*Originally posted at the Huffington Post.
1 Comment »
Thursday, May 15th, 2008 by Josh Stearns
In a near-unanimous voice vote tonight, the Senate passed a “resolution of disapproval” that would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s latest attempt to dismantle longstanding media ownership limits.
It was your dedication that made this Senate win possible. |
Last December, the FCC voted to remove the “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership” ban that prohibits one company from owning a broadcast station and the major daily newspaper in the same market. The resolution of disapproval (Senate Joint Resolution 28), introduced by Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), would nullify the FCC’s new rules if passed by Congress and signed by the president. The House version of the resolution was introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in March.
Today, the Bush administration issued a statement opposing the resolution and threatening to veto it. The statement called the FCC’s new rules the product of “extensive public comment and consultation” but failed to mention that only 1 percent of public comments supported the administration’s position.
Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press, which coordinates the StopBigMedia.com Coalition, made the following statement:
“Today’s historic Senate vote is a resounding victory for the vast majority of Americans who oppose media consolidation. We applaud the bipartisan leadership of Senators Dorgan and Snowe for acting in the public interest. But to stop Big Media from polluting our local airwaves with more junk journalism and propaganda, we need the House to move this legislation forward quickly.
“At this watershed moment, public outrage against Big Media has reached a breaking point. The Bush administration’s threats to undercut this bipartisan effort in Congress show how out of touch this president is with the will of the American people. But we’re not going to stand idly by and let the White House green light Big Media’s expansion. The great pendulum of political change is swinging away from corrosive consolidation and toward better media.”
UPDATE:
“The Senate’s complete rejection of the FCC’s attempt to permit greater media concentration represents a great victory of the people over the powerful,” said FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein. “In light of the Senate’s action, any proposed transaction seeking to exploit the new rules will likely face intense scrutiny. The unanimous vote reflects a strong consensus across the ideological spectrum against further media concentration, from left to right and virtually everybody in between. The FCC veered dangerously off-course from the American mainstream, so our elected representatives are trying to steer us back. This unequivocal, bipartisan rebuke of the FCC is a wake-up call for us to serve the public rather than the media giants we oversee. Chairman Inouye, Senator Dorgan, Vice Chairman Stevens, Senator Snowe and the many other Senate leaders and public interest organizations who pushed this forward deserve our congratulations and the thanks of the American people.”
Read the FCC’s cross-ownership order: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-216A1.pdf
Learn more about the FCC’s new rules: http://www.stopbigmedia.com/files/devil_in_the_details.pdf
7 Comments »
Thursday, May 15th, 2008 by Josh Stearns
On May 15th, on the verge of a full Senate vote on the “resolution of disapproval” that would overturn the FCC decision to gut media ownership rules, the White House released a formal “Statement of Administration Policy” defending the FCC and threatening to veto any bill designed to nullify the FCC’s rule change.
However, the administration got some of their facts wrong. Below is a copy of their statement, with a few notes and clarifications.
“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S. J. Res. 28, a resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with respect to broadcast media ownership.”
Surprise, surprise.
“The FCC rule, which is the product of years of study and extensive public comment and consultation, modestly and judiciously modernizes decades-old media ownership regulations that highly restrict cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations.”
- Fact: That would be years of flawed research, biased research, and research that was from the start guided by foregone conclusions.
- Fact: 99% of the public comments were against media consolidation. The public is overwhelmingly against further consolidation in the media market.
- Fact: The rule is not a modest change but rather a wholesale gutting of the cross-ownership rule, a good rule that is not outdated but rather has lasted the test of time because it is important.
“As a result of technological advances that have led to a dramatic and permanent transformation of the media marketplace in which citizens now have access to a multitude of additional sources of information, these outdated restrictions are not necessary. The new rule more accurately reflects this changing media landscape by taking into account the abundance of news and information outlets that exist today, and furthers the public interest by providing greater financial flexibility to newspaper and broadcast outlets struggling to survive in today’s intensely competitive media environment.”
- Fact: New technologies have had a limited impact on local news. The vast majority of people still get their local news from traditional broadcast outlets (or go to the Web sites of those traditional broadcast outlets).
- Fact: Newspaper profits have been declining, but they are still making boatloads of money and their profits are better than many Fortune 500 companies.
“In addition to reducing the prior rule’s excessive regulation of well-functioning markets, the new FCC rule includes substantial constraints to guard against excessive concentration.”
- Fact: There are no “substantial constraints” in this rule. The waivers and loopholes in this rule make it weak and toothless, leaving communities big and small open for further media consolidation.
- Fact: Ideas and information are not widgets. The role of the media is not just to make profits; those using the public airwaves have a responsibility to give us the information we need to hold our leaders accountable.
- Fact: The media has always been regulated and always will be. The question is who do the rules benefit? This rule change just twists the rules to protect corporate interests instead of protecting the public interest.
The administration’s statement on media ownership reads like a set of industry talking points and illustrates a dogged insistence to ignore the facts and the will of the people. The fact is, Big Media is bad for local news, bad for competition, and bad for democracy.
1 Comment »
Thursday, May 15th, 2008 by Josh Stearns
As early as tonight, the Senate will have its last chance to roll back media consolidation, and your senators could cast the deciding vote. All of our work to stop runaway media conglomerates could come down to your senators!
Your senators could make the difference by voting to reject the FCC giveaway.
Take Action Now
|
Their vote would overturn a disastrous FCC giveaway of local news outlets to Big Media. If the giveaway stands, it would open the floodgates to the type of consolidation that has allowed tycoons like Rupert Murdoch to stifle diverse voices and skew America’s political agenda.
We need you to stop whatever you’re doing right now, pick up your phone, and tell your senators to vote against more media consolidation:
Call Your Senators Now!
Tell them to vote for the bipartisan “resolution of disapproval” (S.J. Res. 28), which rejects the FCC ruling. If the resolution passes, our fight will move on to the House. If it doesn’t, then Big Media gets to move into your neighborhood, gobbling up more local outlets.
Join the more than 250,000 people who have urged Congress to reject the FCC and stop the handover of the media to a cartel of corporate owners. The resolution may go before the full Senate as early as tonight. Your senators could cast the deciding vote!
Now’s Your Chance to Make the Difference: Call Your Senators.
You can win a historic victory by simply picking up your phone and dialing. Your phone call carries as much weight as 100 e-mails.
Your call now could tip the balance against Rupert Murdoch and other media giants. Urge your elected officials to support the resolution of disapproval.
Thank you!
No Comments »
