The marriage of Comcast and NBC is bad news for consumers. But Washington and Wall Street have already bought into the idea that it's a done deal. That's why Americans need to speak out now and stop the mega-merger!
It’s hard to empathize with struggling newspapers when those running them continue to suffer from the short-sightedness that got their industry into a mess.
The editors at the Washington Post put on a display of such backward thinking on Saturday, when they published an op-ed by two lawyers from the influential D.C. firm Baker Hostetler.
In writing this op-ed, the lawyers hide certain conflicts of interest that should weigh heavily against their analysis. The Post ’s editors might have connected the dots for readers, but didn’t.
But the piece is just so stunningly stupid that it falls apart all by itself. In it, Esq. Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown call for reactionary legal measures that would stifle access to news and information and return us to the grand old days of consolidated ownership, bloated media giants and information gatekeepers.
To save journalism, Brown and Sanford argue, we must “eliminate ownership restrictions” and open floodgates to a new wave of media concentration.
We should also “grant an antitrust exemption” for consolidated media, allowing them to join together and wall off content from users. “Antitrust immunity is necessary because most individual news sites can’t go it alone,” they explain in the op-ed. “Readers will simply jump to sites that are still free.”
They urge readers to support more stringent copyright restrictions that would bar bloggers, Web sites and all others from the online sharing of even a small portion of mainstream media news content.
Nowhere in this silliness do they see the consolidation and walling off of news for what it is: more the real culprit in the demise of newspapers than is their favorite bogeyman — the free flowing Internet.
We have nearly survived an era of media mergers that shackled newspapers with massive amounts of debt and high shareholder expectations. Look no further than real estate magnate Sam Zell, who in 2007 purchased the Tribune Company using financial contortions and shifting debt structures that made heads spin among even the most seasoned bean counters.
Zell is not alone. Media consolidation over the last 20 years has been typified by leveraged deals and unserviceable debts.
But consider this. Just a few years ago, the average profit margin for newspapers was 20 percent — with some raking in twice as much or more.”
Did they use these astronomical profits to invest in the quality of their products or to innovate for the future?” asked Free Press’ Craig Aaron on Thursday. “No. They just bought up more newspapers and TV stations.” (On May 12 Free Press released a National Journalism Strategy that outlines forward-thinking policies to save journalism, and not merely prop up the creaking old guard.)
This debt-loaded structure began to implode as their monopolies over local advertising revenue were undercut by Internet upstarts such as Craigslist and Google News.
The recent economic downturn was the final straw. And the aftermath has been dire — at least for journalists. By one count, 24,000 journalism jobs have been lost since 2008. Foreign, Washington and statehouse bureaus have been shuttered. Major news organizations are in bankruptcy. Others, like the Rocky Mountain News, have closed their doors for good. Newspaper circulation is nose-diving. The Seattle Post Intelligencer and Tuscon Citizen have shed their print operations opting (far too late) to take exclusively to the Web.
In Saturday’s Post op-ed, both Brown and Sanford are nostalgic for the corporate media oligarchs that predated the Internet. This fantasy is so far removed from the contours of today’s media landscape that it’s easy to dismiss these two lawyers as ancient barristers who rely on secretaries to print and hand deliver their email.
They aren’t. And that is what’s disturbing about this article.Undisclosed by neither Brown and Sanford nor the Washington Post is the A-list of corporate media clients represented by the authors.
Here’s what I found from quick scan of the Baker Hostetler Web site: Sanford has been counsel in cases representing publishers E.W. Scripps Co, Tribune Co., the Hearst Corporation, Random House, Simon & Schuster and Bertelsmann, A.G. He also represents consolidated broadcasters Clear Channel Communications, ABC/Disney, NBC, Fox Television as well as AOL/Time Warner. Brown has represented Scripps Howard Broadcasting Co. and the New York Times.
This list is not complete. As far as I can tell the Post doesn’t seek counsel from Baker Hostetler. But that doesn’t preclude the paper’s publishers from benefiting from Brown and Sanford’s myopia.
That these two lawyers have sold themselves out to corporate media seems no surprise in a city of lobbyists and snake oil. What’s disturbing is the lengths to which the Washington Post will go to promote such swill without full disclosure to readers.
Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps spoke this morning at Free Press’ Changing Media Summit, and he delivered a rousing reminder of how central the media are to sustaining a democracy, and how hard we need to continue to work to protect it.
After musing that change has come to America and to D.C. (“reform breezes are blowing through the corridors of power all over this city”), Copps said that, beyond politics, so many aspects of our modern lives — the way we live, work, play, and produce media — are in flux as well. That isn’t the most comforting fact, but it gives us an opportunity to change journalism, the Internet, and public media for the better.
To help sort it all out, Copps offered four organizing principles “that should serve as our touchstone as we sift through the myriad ideas out there and try to create a media that is truly of, by and for the American people.” (Read the full text of his remarks for more.)
A quick summary:
Principle Number One: Democracy
“Paraphrase James Carville if you like: It’s the democracy, stupid. A democracy runs on information. Information is how we make intelligent decisions about our future and how we hold the powerful accountable. Deprive citizens of relevant, accurate, and timely information and you deprive them of their ability to govern themselves.”
Principle Number Two: Old media are not dead
“Judging by some of the stories out there, you’d think that just about everyone sits down at night to watch their favorite shows on Hulu and that TV news and local newspapers have gone the way of the buggy-whip. The fact is that most consumers still get their news and information from their local newspapers and broadcast stations. The Internet, for all its many glories, doesn’t yet fully compete with them in such areas as investigative journalism or in-depth local reporting, and may not anytime soon.”
Principle Number Three: Make sure the sins visited upon old media don’t deny the promise of new media
“You know me as someone who has supported and pushed the cause of Internet Freedom, Internet Openness, Net Neutrality, whatever you want to call it, for a long, long time. While the tide runs we need to assure this, and, for openers, I will be working for a Fifth Principle of Non-discrimination to be one of the first fruits of our reconstituted FCC.
Principle Number Four: Remember what got us here
“A lot of organizing. Grass-roots work everywhere. Town hall meetings, media reform conferences, teach-ins, marches. Don’t anyone think: ‘We won, it’s over, now let’s just go harvest the fruit.’ Change has come to Washington, but Washington has not been conquered.”
Good morning! Our Changing Media event is starting in just minutes. We’ve been working hard, staying up late, eating pizza (and frozen, days-old Indian food) and stuffing envelope after envelope to pull off this big event.
Nearly 600 people have RSVP’d, which means that a whole flock of media reformers, media makers and media industry types are en route to the beautiful Newseum in Washington.
This morning, we’ll be treated to a diverse group of speakers who’ll be touching on the three pillars of Free Press’ strategy to create better media.
Those pillars are explained in depth in our newly-released book, titled Changing Media: Public Media Interest Policies for the Digital Age. Download the book and see what you think.
In the afternoon the attendees will engage in roundtable sessions to debate and discuss the best methods for changing media in the coming years. It’ll be exciting and important.
This is a unique event. It’s the first time such a wide range of speakers and proposals have been brought together under one roof. And with your help, we can really change the media.
Free Press’ new report provides an in-depth analysis of current and emerging models for journalism and public policies to support these new models. As the first study of its kind, Saving the News outlines the clear and immediate need for a national journalism strategy. (Download the full report.)
The debate over the future of news in America has raged in editorial pages and conference rooms, on blogs and on Twitter. These have been important and fruitful conversations. But all too often, lost in these discussions about new business models, declining profit margins and job cuts is the central role that quality journalism and in-depth news have in sustaining our democracy. Even rarer — despite all the ink spilled about journalism’s demise — is any serious evaluation of the policies that contributed to journalism’s decline, and which new policies could help to reverse it.
We need a national journalism strategy to overhaul our failing media system and coordinate government intervention to support a vibrant media landscape and a wide variety of experiments in journalistic models.
Any national journalism strategy must:
Protect the First Amendment: Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential to a free society and a functioning democracy. Everyone should have the right to access and impart information and opinion through the media of their choice.
Produce Quality Coverage: To self-govern in a democratic society, the public needs in-depth reporting on local issues as well as national and international affairs that is accurate, credible and verifiable. Journalism should include a diversity of voices and viewpoints.
Provide Adversarial Perspectives: Reporting should hold the powerful accountable by scrutinizing the actions of government and corporations, and journalism should foster genuine debate about important issues of public concern.
Promote Public Accountability: Newsrooms should serve the public interest, not private or government aims, and should be treated as a public service, not a commodity. Journalism should be responsive to the needs of diverse and changing communities.
Prioritize Innovation: Journalists should use new tools and technologies to report and deliver the news. The public needs journalism that crosses traditional boundaries and is accessible to the broadest range of people across platforms.
Saving our news media and implementing a national journalism strategy for this transitional moment will require both short- and long-term solutions. Based on the analysis in our report, we have identified five models with the most promise that should be the top priorities for policymakers:
New Ownership Structures
Incentives For Divestiture
Journalism Jobs Program
R&D Fund for Journalistic innovation
New Public Media
These models, alone or collectively, will not provide an instant panacea to the crisis in journalism. However, we believe these alternatives are worth further consideration, study and action. Journalism is a critical infrastructure. It is too precious for a democratic society simply to sit back and pray that the market will magically sustain it.
The role of public policy in supporting journalism and fostering public service media is easily overlooked, but its importance cannot be overstated. The media system we have didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It was shaped by specific political and policy decisions. And it is in large part policy decisions — and the political will to make the right ones — that will decide what’s next for journalism.
Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet. The crisis in journalism will undoubtedly require a menu of responses, not a one-size-fits-all solution. Driven by a growing media reform movement, a period of vigorous experimentation with bold new models is the best hope for the future of journalism, the lifeblood of democracy.
Can’t attend the Free Press Summit: Changing Media this Thursday in Washington, D.C.? No problem. We still want you to be a part of this unique multimedia event to reshape the future of communications in America.
For too long, we’ve been getting superficial, junk journalism while we’ve been clamoring for hard-hitting, quality reporting. For too long, our public media have been woefully underfunded. And for too long, our Internet has been under attack by corporations that want to control what we see and do on the Web. It’s time we changed the media.
Follow along with what’s sure to be an amazing day full of vigorous discussions about
the public interest policies needed to reshape the future of the Internet, journalism and public media.
Follow us on twitter @freepress from the first keynote speaker to the last small-group deliberation — to join the conversation tag your tweets #fpdc.
Check back at freepress.net/summit throughout the day to read our live blogs. And throw on your headphones and press play to catch a few minutes of an exciting speaker – we’ll be video streaming the event!
Click here for the summit agendaso you will know when Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps is taking the stage and when Vivian Schiller, president and CEO of National Public Radio, is giving her keynote speech.
And stay tuned as we transform Thursday’s ideas into action – we’re going to need a powerful grassroots movement to change media, which means, we’ll need you.
Wednesday’s Senate hearing on the future of newspapers felt more like an autopsy. Call it CSI: Newspapers.
At a time when we need to step back and take a holistic approach to examine the crisis facing journalism, the participants in yesterday’s hearing seemed all too ready to hone in on one culprit: the Internet.In doing so, they were ignoring a vast crime scene, with a slew of villains and victims on every side.
As it unfolded, the hearing began to resemble an interrogation room where the police – or in this case, the Senators – gathered evidence from their key witnesses. The witnesses took sides early on, and an old dichotomy emerged: print versus Web. The Dallas Morning News and the Baltimore Sun versus Google and the Huffington Post. Fingers were pointed, and accusations were made that the Internet has killed print journalism.
Meanwhile, the majority in the room ignored the incriminating evidence that the current challenges facing the newspaper industry are self-inflicted, mostly due to greed and media consolidation. Most large newspaper companies are publicly traded. For decades, Wall Street has demanded these companies return unrealistic profit margins. And thanks to bad policymaking, newspapers have consolidated and slashed staff to maximize profit over the last few decades. Thus, our policymakers and regulators should have also been in the witness chair as accomplices to this crime.
A Case of Bad Behavior
With lax policies encouraging their bad behavior, newspaper companies rushed to buy up more media outlets and took on greater debt, which is why they find themselves overleveraged and having a hard time paying off their debt. Even still, the newspaper industry continues to make an average annual profit margin of 12 to 15 percent. The newspaper properties at companies like McClatchy and Gannett made 21 percent and 18 percent profit margins last year, respectively.
You won’t see newspapers reporting on the bad business decisions made by their own industry. Instead, most newspapers report on their declining ad revenues, giving you the impression they bare no responsibility for their current predicament.
Mounting Evidence
A remarkable thing happened nearly two hours into Wednesday’s hearing. James M. Moroney, publisher and CEO of the Dallas Morning News, gave the senators the evidence they needed to understand what’s really happened to newspapers. He said that newspapers were struggling due to the debt they took on as a result of consolidation.
Sen. Kerry, chairman of the subcommittee, initially picked up on the admission and pressed Moroney on how bad business decisions may have created the crisis in journalism we see today. But quickly thereafter, the blame was shifted back to the Internet and those pesky bloggers.
Case Unclosed
The journalism industry faces short-term and long-term problems. The short-term issue is what will happen to all the closing local newspapers and the journalists who work there. But more critical to this debate is how to create policies that support the production of quality journalism, regardless of platform, by funding the experimentation of emerging media companies.
Wednesday’s hearing spent too much time trying to track down fingerprints on the old, broken model of journalism, when it should have focused on seeking out how to move forward. We need to explore how government policy can help stop the bleeding and help ensure such a crime never happens again. This means searching out long-term solutions that don’t prop up old business models, but instead invest in new ideas.
The most intriguing discussion about the future of news in America came from the two people in the room advocating for new nonprofit news models: Alberto Ibargüen, president of the John S. And James L. Knight Foundation and former publisher of the Miami Herald, and Steve Coll, president of the New America Foundation and former managing editor of The Washington Post. They both made an important case about the need to invest in experimentation, innovation, and noncommercial media to save journalism.
Pointing fingers aside, it’s key to remember that while newspapers may be threatened, the news is far from dying. There is still much left to discuss and investigate before we draw the chalk outlines on the sidewalk and close the book on this case.
Ever since the country’s largest radio broadcasters were forced to stop their payola – or “pay-for-play” – practices and include more independent music in their playlists, the radio dials have been flooded with… the same old songs. Wait, what?
Maybe you didn’t need a study to tell you that non-mainstream music still isn’t making it on the air, but at least now we’ve got the data to back it up. The Future of Music Coalition recently released a report that found the nation’s biggest radio broadcasters have not been playing local and independent music, despite a government decree to do so.
In April 2007, Clear Channel, CBS Radio, Citadel and Entercom agreed to collectively air 4,200 hours of local, regional, unsigned and independent artists after the FCC caught them accepting illegal gifts in exchange for promoting music from major record labels.
We should have seen a surge of new artists on the airwaves, but what we got was simply more of the same. The FMC report says there were only incremental changes in airplay from 2005 – 2008, with major labels scoring 78 to 82 percent of airtime.
What we’re dealing with here isn’t just radio stations’ rejection of a few artists, but a more systemic problem. When the majority of radio stations in the United States are owned by just a handful of corporations, we will continue to see the same cookie-cutter programming from New York City to Bozeman, Mont., whether or not that programming reflects community tastes.
We need to keep fighting to make commercial radio accountable to the people, but we can also do one better – get radio stations into the hands of the people.
Right now, we’re pushing Congress to support the Local Community Radio Act, a bill that would deliver more Low Power FM radio stations to communities across the country.
