Archive for May, 2010
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010 by Brandy Doyle
At a Stanford University workshop on digital innovations in broadcast, Internet experts were the unlikely defenders of traditional media’s continued relevance. Debunking arguments for deregulation from representatives of “old media,” the “new media” advocates said ownership limits are still needed in a digital era.
The youngest (and arguably hippest) panelists at Friday’s FCC workshop were Tim Westergren, founder of the popular Pandora Radio site, and Tiffiniy Ying Chen, co-founder of the open source video project Participatory Culture Foundation. Both Internet entrepreneurs had a different take on digital innovation than the broadcast and newspaper CEOs on the panel.
Chen said that profit-driven corporations are choking the potential of more democratic models for content distribution. While LA Times CEO Eddy Hartenstein and other big media execs asked the FCC to permit more consolidation of their already debt-saddled industries, Chen and Westergren said that the government must ensure a competitive marketplace for new models to thrive online.
“I come here as an enormous champion of government regulation,” said Westergren.
During the public comment session, Peter Broadwell, the director of operations at a small Silicon Valley search engine, offered an insider view of Internet news and its limitations. Big media companies have long claimed that ownership limits are irrelevant in a digital era that allows a proliferation of voices and viewpoints online.
“I want to sort out the myth that the Internet is going to give us vast new sources of information,” said Broadwell, who described how search engines remove volumes of identical content from search results.
Broadwell’s experience fits with research from the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that only 14% of online news sites offer original reporting. The Pew report also found that the most trafficked news sites are those linked to newspapers and other traditional sources, so offline media concentration limits the diversity of the online news that most people access.
“Do we need more platforms and less news, or do we need more news?” asked Tracy Rosenberg, executive director of the Media Alliance.
Blogger Alan Mutter, author of Reflections of a Newsosaur, also argued that the FCC must ask to protect traditional news from disappearing.
“I’ve seen nothing yet to convince me that crowd source websites possibly can fill the void that will be lost by professional journalism,” said Mutter. “We’ll never be at a loss for places to publish pictures of our vacation or our cats waterskiing. The problem is that we don’t have professionally reported journalism.”
The proposed Comcast/NBC merger was another hot topic at the workshop, with several participants calling for FCC hearings on the merger. The Raging Grannies, a feisty costumed activist group, voiced their opposition to the merger in song.
“A Comcast takeover of NBC would create a media Goliath that would have the market power to control what we as consumers see, and how much we as consumers pay, to see it on all our medial outlets — television, cable, and online,” said James Joyce, president of the National Association of Broadcast Engineers and Technicians.
The workshop was part of the FCC’s 2010 review of its media ownership rules. During the two public comment sessions, all those who addressed media ownership opposed a relaxation of the rules. Other speakers stood up for net neutrality, low power FM radio, and public access television.
This post was originally published by The Prometheus Radio Project (www.prometheusradio.org), a Philadelphia-based organization that advocates for a more democratic media and builds low power radio as a tool for social movement organizing and community expression.
Brandy Doyle is the Regulatory Policy Associate for Prometheus.
No Comments »
Monday, May 24th, 2010 by Jessica J. Gonzalez
Arizona’s recent passage of “SB 1070″ is spurring controversy and causing some to go so far as to urge that “all good patriots” should “protect themselves against the dangerous invaders” and “lock and load.” Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric, which repulses most people regardless of their feelings toward immigration, is growing all too common in new and old media alike.
At the National Hispanic Media Coalition (“NHMC”), we have been tracking hate speech against Latinos and other vulnerable groups for several years now. In January of 2009, prompted by an FBI-documented 40% increase in hate crimes against Latinos, we filed a petition for inquiry on hate speech in media with the Federal Communications Commission. Our petition urges the FCC to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, including the likely link between hate speech and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract its negative impacts.
For over a year now, the FCC has failed to address NHMC’s concerns on this very serious and important issue. In the mean time, countless people have suffered violent, and sometimes deadly, hate crimes. Hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise, and even more so in the past few weeks as some around the nation have spread hate through media in response to Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history. On May 6th Juan Varela was killed by his neighbor in Phoenix, AZ, reportedly due to the tensions surrounding SB 1070.
To address the mounting hostility facing the Latino community, earlier this month NHMC filed comments in the FCC’s proceeding on the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in the Digital Age. Joined by 32 national and regional organizations from throughout the country, including Free Press, we reiterated and reinforced the need for the FCC to act on our petition.
NHMC’s comments explain how the current media landscape is a safe haven for hate and extremism. People do not have the information they want and need to meaningfully engage in our democracy, and this shortage of information is exacerbated by the vast media consolidation that has unfolded over the past two decades. Studies show that media consolidation diminishes ownership opportunities for people of color and leads to less diversity of voices; this yields a media in which people of color are under and misrepresented. As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve. In this same atmosphere hate speech thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio programs and cable television masquerading as “news.”
Although the Internet gives the illusion that news sources have increased, in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before its inception. Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye. Even worse, sometimes anonymous Internet speakers hold their information out as news, leaving the public with the difficult job of discerning fact from fiction.
For these reasons, NHMC and its allies urge that as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, that it consider the extent of hate speech in media, and its effects on our safety and democracy.
NHMC’s comment can be read at NHMC et al.’s Comments on the Future of Media, and its petition at NHMC’s Petition for Inquiry on Hate Speech in Media . NHMC is on the web at www.nhmc.org.
This is a guest post by Jessica J. Gonzalez, vice president of policy and legal affairs for the National Hispanic Media Coalition.
No Comments »
Friday, May 21st, 2010 by Jenn Ettinger
The Federal Communications Commission heard from voices all over the Palo Alto area at its media ownership hearing today, but there may have been a few voices that rose above the rest.
The “Raging Grannies” – a grassroots peace organization whose members dress like “innocent little old ladies” and sing protest songs – were out in full force, reminding the FCC with some catchy tunes that the public still cares about media ownership and consolidation.
The Grannies sang “Oh My Darling FCC”:
Lots of people don’t have email and can’t use the internet
They are voters and they live here, something we must not forget
The FCC must do its duty and protect alternatives
varied voices, local sources, real people where we live.
And “We Don’t Like Cross-Ownership” (to the tune of “Saints Go Marching”):
When news just comes
from one big source
When news just comes
from one big source
Less LOCAL news will hurt our country
No we don’t LIKE cross-ownership
And the fan favorite “Corporations Must Not Rule,” with its “Battle Hymn of the Republic” tune:
For democracy we all need information we can trust
We speak for all the people, we say
You must think of us
The FCC must take a stand protect variety
Corporations must not rule!
Refrain
Glory glory first amendment
Glory glory first amendment
Corporations must not rule!
When a faceless corporation is our only source of news
And big brother at a distance can control what we can view
We’re in trouble and it threatens fairness and democracy
Corporations must not rule!
The FCC hosted the workshop to discuss the impact of innovation – mainly the explosive growth of the Internet – on traditional newspaper and broadcast outlets, and how this effects current media ownership rules.
Gail Sredanovic, a retired teacher and a member of the Raging Grannies, said she was concerned that the proposed Comcast merger with NBC-Universal would put too many media outlets into the hands of a company already famous for treating customers badly.
“We already have way too much concentration of news sources in the hands of a few,” Sredanovic said. “It would be madness to make it worse. One-third of seniors don’t even have a computer, so putting more media outlets into the hands of a few, based on the growth of the Internet, really reduces their options for getting independent news.”
1 Comment »
Friday, May 21st, 2010 by Tracy Rosenberg
Who owns the media you rely on every day for news and information? Is it someone from your community? Do the media speak for you or share your concerns? And why does that matter?
On Friday, May 21, the FCC will host a workshop on media ownership in Stanford, Calif. Technology gurus, academics and industry representatives will debate the importance of media ownership rules in the digital world. The theme of Friday’s workshop is innovation. So an obvious question to be asked is: “Now that we have the Internet, do we still need media ownership rules?”
The answer is a resounding yes.
Despite explosive growth in online news and information, study after study shows that traditional media such as newspapers and television stations remain the most prolific sources of original reporting, as well as the most popular sources of local news and information. Though the Internet has created new ways to access content, it has not replaced the core newsgathering function of newspapers and broadcast stations. Most online news is produced by traditional media outlets, much of it repackaged stories that already appeared in the local paper or newscast. And while exciting ventures in online news production have been launched in recent years, these online outlets tend to be small operations that lack the funding and capacity to match the quantity and scope of news produced by traditional media.
For those lucky enough to have broadband access, the Internet dramatically increases access to information. But just as the Internet has not replaced the journalistic function of legacy media, it has also failed to replicate the reach of newspapers and broadcast stations. Access to television and radio is practically universal, whereas access to high-speed Internet is far more limited – particularly for the most underserved segments of the population.
The poor, the elderly, rural communities, and people of color overwhelmingly rely on traditional media sources for their information. In many cases, they cannot afford broadband Internet access, which often isn’t even available in their neighborhoods. The FCC’s media ownership rules are designed to ensure a diversity of voices and viewpoints and to protect local communities, particularly underserved communities, from media monopolies.
The broadcast media infrastructure belongs to the people. Public assets need to be protected as best we can for the public good. That’s the FCC’s job.
Because the reality is some of us can’t afford to move to a better news neighborhood just yet.
Tracy Rosenberg is the executive director of Media Alliance, a leader in building coalitions for press freedom and media access, accountability and alternatives.
No Comments »
Thursday, May 20th, 2010 by Josh Stearns
Comcast is like an asteroid on a collision course with earth, and time is running out to stop the company from taking over NBC Universal and destroying our media system. We have one month to tell the Federal Communications Commission why it should stop the Comcast merger (and save the planet? Perhaps!).
Watch the video: How To Save The World From Comcast
Comcast is notorious for overpriced cable service, overpaid executives, attacks on Net Neutrality and terrible customer service. Now, it wants to take over NBC Universal and expand its already massive media empire. If we don’t take action, we’re going to get hit with higher bills and fewer choices both on- and offline.
The impact will be felt by everyone. We need to avert a Comcast disaster by telling the FCC to stop the merger.
Thanks to the public outcry, the FCC is paying attention. The agency just appointed an outside investigator to review the merger and opened a month-long public comment period so we can register our objections to this disastrous deal.
If the deal goes through, Comcast will be able to control what we watch and how we watch it, absorbing dozens of cable networks, a movie studio, 27 television stations, and influence over 200 NBC affiliates.
It would be the biggest media takeover in a generation. Our cable and Internet bills could skyrocket. Sites like Hulu and popular TV programming could get locked behind a paywall.
The fact is, Comcast has a terrible record on just about everything:
- It fires workers who try to join unions;
- It was voted worst company in America by readers of the Consumerist;
- It engages in vicious price gouging;
- It was caught red-handed blocking Internet traffic;
- CEO Brian Roberts was rated one of the five most overpaid CEOs in America.
This video explains just how bad this Comcast-NBC deal is, and why the FCC needs to stop it. But let’s be real. This isn’t some Hollywood movie. This is our media system, and if we don’t act now, it will be struck by a merger of epic proportions. With your help, we can stop it.
2 Comments »
Wednesday, May 19th, 2010 by Josh Stearns
This Friday, at Stanford University, the Federal Communications Commission will hold its latest in a series of hearings on the laws that control how much Big Media can continue to expand. The FCC is required to review its media ownership limits every few years to determine if the rules continue to serve the public interest by promoting competition and diverse sources of local news and information.
The theme of Friday’s workshop is innovation, and will feature academics, public interest groups, online entrepreneurs and industry representatives discussing whether ownership restrictions still make sense. More specifically, why, in the age of the boundless Internet, should anyone care if one company dominates the major media platforms in a local community?
With the Comcast-NBC merger looming over the Bay Area, we don’t have to look far to see why limitations on how much media a single company can control remain vital to an informed society and democratic values.
This merger would have dangerous consequences for news and information in communities across the country. If the merger is approved, in the Bay Area Comcast would control two local broadcast stations and the local news produced by and aired on those stations. It will control the national broadcast news aired on the NBC network. It will control NBC’s cable news channels, MSNBC and CNBC, as well as a host of cable entertainment channels. Comcast will control all the websites associated with those channels, as well as other online media platforms. And, it will control how residents access that content because it will be the dominant cable television provider in the Bay Area, as well as the dominant Internet access provider. That means one company will decide what residents in the city can watch, and how they can watch it.
In short, Comcast will control nearly a quarter of all the television viewing hours in this market, as well as access to the three major platforms people use to view that content. That seems like an awful lot of power in the hands of single company. So much so, you would think there’d be a rule against it.
In fact, there was.
Lost media protections
From 1970 to 2002, the FCC had a rule (known as the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, or the CBCO) that prohibited common ownership of cable operations and a broadcast station in the same market. The rationale behind the prohibition was that cable functions as the “gatekeeper” of video programming in local markets, and this gives cable operators the incentive and the means to discriminate against their competitors, and in favor of their own broadcast affiliates.
In 2000, following the FCC’s first review of its media ownership rules, the agency decided to retain the rule, finding that it served the public interest by promoting “competition and diversity and prevent[ing] unfair discrimination.”
The industry sued the FCC for retaining the CBCO rule. Then, in the middle of the litigation, there was a presidential election. The FCC changed political hands. The new administration was no longer favorably inclined toward the CBCO rule and put up a feeble defense in court. In other words, the FCC “took a dive.” As a consequence, the court threw out the rule and industry groups won the ability to takeover media marketplaces like never before.
The loss of the CBCO rule is water under the bridge – we will most likely never get it back. But as we go into the hearing this Friday, the CBCO debacle should serve as a lesson to the FCC for why standing media ownership rules matter, and why they should be fiercely protected.
Media ownership rules matter
While the FCC will review the Comcast/NBC merger and has an opportunity to block it, there is still danger that the agency might approve the deal. However, if the CBCO rule had not been junked, the merger would not have been allowed. Now, other media ownership rules are on the chopping block and are in danger of substantial relaxation or even repeal. What new media mergers will be contemplated if these rules go the way of the CBCO limit?
Suggesting that diverse ownership of traditional broadcast and print sources is irrelevant given the rise of the Internet is a dubious proposition. The legacy broadcast and print media continue to be the primary producers and providers of local news programming. Indeed, a substantial share of the original news content available online comprises stories that appeared in newspapers or broadcast news reports.
The Internet offers the promise of an amazing new interactive access point for information — but it is not a panacea for what all that ails the media industry. Those who are waiting for the “illimitable” Internet to replace or rectify the consolidation of the traditional media will be waiting a very long time. This is made all the more clear by the fact the FCC is poised to review a merger between a news icon and a cable and Internet giant. Allowing the consolidation of substantial control over both content and internet access in one company does not bode well for a healthy flow of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.
Opposing media consolidation
The previous administration saw the media ownership rules as a business obstacle rather than a resource for public protection, and it treated them accordingly. Conversely, President Obama has run on a platform opposing media consolidation.
For the future of news and information, we can only hope that his FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, also shares those principles.
And for communities like San Francisco, we can hope that they start by opposing the Comcast-NBC merger.
Hed: FCC Must Fiercely Protect Last Media Ownership Limits
This Friday, at Stanford University, the Federal Communications Commission will hold its latest in a series of hearings[3] on the laws that control how much Big Media can continue to expand. The FCC is required to review its media ownership limits every few years.
The theme of Friday’s workshop is innovation, and will feature academics, public interest groups, online entrepreneurs and industry representatives discussing whether ownership restrictions still make sense. More specifically, why, in the age of the boundless Internet, should anyone care if one company dominates the major media platforms in a local community?
With the Comcast-NBC merger looming over the Bay Area, we don’t have to look far to see why limitations on how much media a single company can control remain vital to an informed society and democratic values.
This merger would have dangerous consequences for news and information in communities across the country. If the merger is approved, in the Bay Area Comcast would control two local broadcast stations and the local news produced by and aired on those stations. It will control the national broadcast news aired on the NBC network. It will control NBC’s cable news channels, MSNBC and CNBC, as well as a host of cable entertainment channels. Comcast will control all the websites associated with those channels, as well as other online media platforms. And, it will control how residents access that content because it will be the dominant cable television provider in the Bay Area, as well as the dominant Internet access provider. That means one company will decide what residents in the city can watch, and how they can watch it.
In short, Comcast will control nearly a quarter of all the television viewing hours in this market, as well as access to the three major platforms people use to view that content. That seems like an awful lot of power in the hands of single company. So much so, you would think there’d be a rule against it.
In fact, there was.
Lost media protections
From 1970 to 2002, the FCC had a rule (known as the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, or the CBCO) that prohibited common ownership of cable operations and a broadcast station in the same market. The rationale behind the prohibition was that cable functions as the “gatekeeper” of video programming in local markets, and this gives cable operators the incentive and the means to discriminate against their competitors, and in favor of their own broadcast affiliates.
In 2000, following the FCC’s first review of its media ownership rules, the agency decided to retain the rule, finding that it served the public interest by promoting “competition and diversity and prevent[ing] unfair discrimination.”
The industry sued the FCC for retaining the CBCO rule. Then, in the middle of the litigation, there was a presidential election. The FCC changed political hands. The new administration was no longer favorably inclined toward the CBCO rule and put up a feeble defense in court. In other words, the FCC “took a dive.” As a consequence, the court threw out the rule and industry groups won the ability to takeover media marketplaces like never before.
The loss of the CBCO rule is water under the bridge – we will most likely never get it back. But as we go into the hearing this Friday, the CBCO debacle should serve as a lesson to the FCC for why standing media ownership rules matter, and why they should be fiercely protected.
Media ownership rules matter
While the FCC will review the Comcast/NBC merger and has an opportunity to block it, there is still danger that the agency might approve the deal. However, if the CBCO rule had not been junked, the merger would not have been allowed. Now, other media ownership rules are on the chopping block and are in danger of substantial relaxation or even repeal. What new media mergers will be contemplated if these rules go the way of the CBCO limit?
Legacy media still matters
Suggesting that diverse ownership of traditional broadcast and print sources is irrelevant given the rise of the Internet is a dubious proposition. The legacy broadcast and print media continue to be the primary producers and providers of local news programming. Indeed, a substantial share of the original news content available online comprises stories that appeared in newspapers or broadcast news reports.
The Internet offers the promise of an amazing new interactive access point for information — but it is not a panacea for what all that ails the media industry. Those who are waiting for the “illimitable” Internet to replace or rectify the consolidation of the traditional media will be waiting a very long time. This is made all the more clear by the fact the FCC is poised to review a merger between a news icon and a cable and Internet giant. Allowing the consolidation of substantial control over both content and internet access in one company does not bode well for a healthy flow of information from diverse and antagonistic sources.
Elections matter
The previous administration saw the media ownership rules as a business obstacle rather than a resource for public protection, and it treated them accordingly. Conversely, President Obama has run on a platform opposing media consolidation.
For the future of news and information, we can only hope that his FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, also shares those principles.
And for communities like San Francisco, we can hope that they start by opposing the Comcast-NBC merger.
[3]
This isn’t really true right – we expect they will hold others after the NOI is released?
I think I’d leave this in
No Comments »
Tuesday, May 18th, 2010 by Josh Levy
You know it; your friends know it; everyone knows it: The media are failing.
That’s why today, after a couple of months of beta testing, we’re officially launching an exciting new project: MediaFAIL, a site that lets you expose the worst moments in the media as they happen.
The point behind the site is simple. Every day, we read and watch reporting that favors sensation over substance. Sideshows dominate the news cycle, while real issues of public concern get drowned out by the noise. What passes for news is too often badly sourced and tainted by commercial interests or political bias.
Here’s a sampling of what’s appeared on the site in the last day:
- Fox News host Brit Hume tried to minimize the impact of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, to the surprise of everyone on his show.
- The Second City comedy troupe lays into the Discovery Channel for launching a show called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”
- Men’s Health just advised that the best colleges for men are those where feminism is weakest.
These outrageous MediaFAILs are all featured on the new site. You can go there to vote on these or other fails, share them on Facebook and Twitter, or submit your own.
The goal of MediaFAIL isn’t just to give the media a failing grade — we want to make it better. That’s why we’ll be connecting featured “fails” to important media reform campaigns by Free Press and our allies, like Defenders of Wildlife’s campaign to get the Discovery Channel to drop Sarah Palin’s show about Alaska.
This is just the beginning. We’ll be adding some big new features soon. In the meantime, submit a FAIL now!
No Comments »
Wednesday, May 12th, 2010 by Megan Tady
Clyburn Calls for More Public Hearings on Comcast-NBCU Merger
It’s the public that would ultimately be affected by the proposed merger between Comcast and NBC. FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn gets that.
In remarks at the Free Press policy summit on Tuesday, Clyburn called for public hearings on the merger, stressing the importance of a conversation with communities.
“It is crucial that we hear from people about what is most important to them, and to chat with them about why we make the decisions we do,” Clyburn said. “That two-way communication is essential to good governance. What value will hearings outside the Beltway bring? First and foremost, they will force the Commission to interact and see up close how Americans feel about the merger.”
If the merger is approved, this new media giant would include the largest residential provider of cable television and Internet access, a major television network, 26 broadcast television stations, 17 cable network properties, several local sports media properties, as well as a Hollywood movie studio and production houses.
The deal’s impact would be felt by consumers at the local level, who could face higher prices, less competition and a decrease in local media coverage. The communities that will be most affected must have a chance to weigh in and have their voices heard by the Commissioners.
Watch the video of Clyburn calling for hearings on Comcast-NBC.
No Comments »
Friday, May 7th, 2010 by Josh Stearns
A few weeks ago, Rep. Maxine Waters introduced a bill designed to put the brakes on the Federal Communications Commission’s review of the proposed Comcast/NBC merger and to ensure that the public had a fair chance to weigh in. This action came after repeated requests from public interest groups and citizens to extend the deadline for comments and to hold public hearings around the country. Up to this point, every one of those requests had been denied. But the ink had hardly dried on Rep. Waters’ bill when the FCC changed their tune. They announced they were stopping the shot clock and temporarily postponing the deadline for public comments until they got a host of new economic studies from Comcast and NBC.
Those studies were submitted earlier this week, and the FCC announced a new timeline for the merger review. But Maxine Waters is keeping the pressure on, to make sure the process is thorough, transparent and accountable to the public who will be so impacted by this merger.
Yesterday she sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, signed by 45 members of Congress, calling on the agency to hit the road and talk with real people around the country about how this merger will impact them. In past hearings, when the FCC traveled the country to talk about media consolidation, 99% of people spoke out strongly against Big Media getting any bigger – some waiting in line until 2:00 in the morning to make their voice heard.
The letter argues that “the Commission must give the Comcast-NBC merger its most labor-intensive review […] in addition the FCC must hold public hearings so that the newly appointed FCC Commissioners will have every opportunity to understand how this merger will impact communities across the nation.”
In addition, the letter includes a long list of tough questions that members of Congress want the FCC to ensure Comcast answers publicly before any deal is done. The questions address diversity, consumer costs, labor issues and competition.
The letter is a strong move by Rep. Waters and her colleagues. It should be a message to all of us that the game is on and we need to hold Comcast’s feet to the fire.
2 Comments »
