One by one, members of Congress are demanding an investigation into the Pentagon’s covert scheme to sway public opinion about the Iraq war by placing propaganda pundits in the media.
Since we first launched our petition urging Congress to act, 41 representatives have appealed to the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate the Defense Department. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called the propaganda program an “unethical, and potentially illegal, propaganda campaign aimed at deliberately misleading the American public.”
Pundits in the Machine
Recognizing that the Pentagon did not act alone, some in Congress don’t want to allow the military analysts and the media networks to slink out the back door. Congresswoman Delauro and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) are appealing to the Federal Communications Commission to probe whether networks violated the FCC’s “sponsorship identification rules” when analysts working from Pentagon talking points and working for military contractors appeared in broadcasts.
Their letter to the FCC states: “When seemingly objective television commentators are in fact highly motivated to promote the agenda of a government agency, a gross violation of the public trust occurs,” it continued. “The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching.”
And the Pentagon’s actions became all the more real – and all the more frightening – when it released 8,000 pages of documents this week related to the propaganda program. One transcript shows an unidentified analyst suggesting they “parrot” then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The documents are a clear indication of how far the government went to lead the American people into war and should make it obvious to Congress that those members who haven’t done so yet, should stand up now.
Just in case Congress hadn’t heard your voices shouting out against media consolidation, we thought they should see your faces, too.
Last fall, more than 5,000 people posted their photos and comments on our virtual wall of protest against the Federal Communications Commission’s move to relax media ownership rules even further. This week, we’re delivering many of these photos and comments to the Hill, asking members of Congress to look their constituents in the eye before voting yes or no on whether Big Media should be allowed to get even bigger.
More than 5,000 people posted their picture on the Stop Big Media Wall
Passing the “resolution of disapproval” would allow Congress to reject the FCC’s decision to allow media companies to own both a major broadcasting station and a newspaper in the same market.
We’ve strung together many of the most inspiring quotes, stories and photos, and Free Press staffers will be delivering these protest packets to 27 Hill offices.
Sen. Wayne Allard will be hearing from Colorado constituent John L., who said, “Media consolidation hurts local community voices in media, and compromises a free, independent press that speaks truth to power and demands accountability. The effects are all too clear in this country. Keep corporate media monopolies at bay.”
Dan L. will tell his Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Samuel Brownback, “I live in Kansas City, and most of our media outlets are owned by people who have no stake in the welfare of our community. We don’t need more consolidation.”
And Jayme W. from Nebraska will speak up to Sen. Benjamin Nelson, saying “The freedom of the press is one of our most important freedoms. The rush to allow even more consolidation of media in the grip of large corporation is one of the greatest threats to our national freedoms.”
These photos and voices aren’t just another brick in the wall — they’re messengers of the media reform movement. And the message is clear: we don’t want more media consolidation.
It is your call. The action of a quarter-million citizens like you pushed the Senate Commerce Committee to unanimously pass the congressional veto that would overturn the FCC’s big media handout. The next step is a vote by the full Senate - we don’t know when that’ll happen but we need to line up support now. Your call today could make all the difference.
Picking up the phone is the most effective way to influence your member of Congress. Your Senator could cast the deciding vote to reject the FCC decision and stop tycoons like Rupert Murdoch from setting the news agenda. Can you take a moment to call your senator today?
This bill couldn’t have come at a more important moment. Rupert Murdoch is trying to buy Newsday, which would be his third New York newspaper. (Murdoch already owns the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and two television stations in this one media market!)
The FCC’s own data shows that allowing one company to own a major newspaper and broadcast station in a community leads to less local news overall. We also know that more consolidation leads to cuts in newsroom staff and erodes quality journalism.
We can stop consolidation by passing the resolution of disapproval. To do that, we need your help right now. We have tips and talking points available for you.
We’ve already secured 25 Senate supporters, and we need you to convince your senator to tip the Senate vote against Rupert Murdoch and the other media giants. Your Senator could be the swing voter on the resolution. If your Senator is already on the bill (Click here to check: http://tinyurl.com/63wdbf) then call and thank them for their leadership.
The Senate Commerce Committee did the right thing today by unanimously voting out of committee a “resolution of disapproval” sponsored by Sen. Bryon Dorgan (D.N.D.) that would overturn the FCC’s Dec. 18 decision to relax the longstanding limits on how much media one company can own in your town.
It’s the first step toward an official Congressional “veto” of the FCC’s new rule, which permits one company to own both a major daily newspaper and a broadcast outlet in the same market.
Hundreds of thousands of individuals have called on Congress to block the FCC’s new rules - today the Senate began listening.
Dorgan, as well as Democratic and Republican leaders, had warned FCC Chairman Kevin Martin last December not to lift the 30-year ban that forbids “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership.”
But Chairman Martin did not heed their warning and plowed ahead to gut the rules. Martin has claimed the new regulations are just a “modest” tinkering. But because of waivers and loopholes, the new rules could lead to more consolidation in cities large and small across the country.
And we have already seen that Martin does not take these new rules seriously. Throughout the history of the cross-ownership ban, only four permanent waivers had ever been granted by the commission. But at the last minute before the FCC vote, Martin covertly granted five more permanent waivers for companies already violating the rules.
Martin never mentioned his intention to allow five permanent waivers during the commission’s rulemaking procedure. He had ample opportunity when he appeared before the House and Senate commerce committees in December. But he failed to disclose his intention, and slipped this Big Media handout in under the radar.
The disastrous repercussions of the ownership rules are already apparent. Just this week media mogul Rupert Murdoch announced another greedy grab for his third New York newspaper – Newsday.
Murdoch already owns The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and two television stations in this one media market! Murdoch’s move to build his empire is a sign of things to come across the nation if the FCC’s rules survive.
Today’s Senate committee vote is the first step in stopping the FCC and closing the door on cross-ownership. Now it’s time to push the full Senate to take action and stop runaway media consolidation in its tracks.
Just before the Senate Commerce Committee is set to vote on a bill that would slow down runaway media consolidation, Rupert Murdoch reminds us why Big Media is bad news.
FCC rules long have prohibited one company from owning the major daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same city. This “cross-ownership” rule has stopped Big Media conglomerates from gaining a stranglehold on a community’s most vital sources of news and information.
Back in December, the FCC voted to allow cross-ownership across the country – offering up the local media on a platter for the Big Media companies to gobble up.
Murdoch Wants to Take Another Bite out of the Big Apple’s Media.
But even this dismantling of media ownership limits wasn’t enough to satisfy for Rupert Murdoch’s appetite for media power. According to numerous press reports, News Corp. is close to completing a $580 million deal to purchase the Long Island daily Newsday from Tribune Company. If this backroom deal between media moguls Rupert Murdoch and new Trib chief Sam Zell is completed, Murdoch’s News Corp. would control Newsday, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and two TV stations in the New York market – not to mention the Fox network, Fox News Channel, movie studios, dozens of local TV channels across the country, and hundreds of newspapers worldwide.
That’s too much power in any one man’s hands – and it’s even more troubling that it’s Murdoch, who has used his media to push his personal business interests and political agenda at every turn.
Moreover, this sale is a clear violation of even the FCC’s severely weakened cross-ownership rules – which are being challenged in Congress and the courts — and an assault on journalism, diversity and competition in New York. The FCC should reject this deal and protect the public interest. New York, like the rest of America, needs more media choices, viewpoints and competition — not more consolidation.
On Thursday, the Senate will take the first step in overturning the FCC’s cross-ownership rule changes. The Commerce Committee is scheduled to vote on a “resolution of disapproval” which would veto the FCC’s handout to Rupert Murdoch and his Big Media buddies.
You can take action here to tell your senators that Big Media is bad news for the Big Apple and for your local community.
Last week we learned that the state of diversity in the media industry continues to grow more stark.
For only the second time in more than 20 years, the number of minority journalists leaving the daily newspaper profession outnumbered the number landing their first job.
Meanwhile, the industry as a whole witnessed its largest decline in the number of journalists leaving the industry in 30 years, according to the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Nearly 2,400 newspaper journalists left the profession last year.
In 1978, ASNE set a goal that called for newsrooms to reach ethnic and racial parity by 2000 — though it later moved its goal to 2025. But it’s improbable that ASNE’s goal will ever be met given the current state of newsroom diversity.
The number of journalists of color working at daily papers declined by 671 last year, while only 392 entered the profession. And overall, people of color made up just 13.5 percent of all newsroom employees.
While most news stories about that state of the newspaper industry have focused on declining industry revenues, most have failed to discuss that the newspaper industry still remains a very profitable business with average profit margins of 15 to 20 percent.
Yet because more than 80 percent of newspapers are owned by corporations, stockholders are demanding a greater return on their investment, which has resulted in massive layoffs throughout the newspaper industry and the declining quality of journalism the American public receives.
Editor & Publisher reported last week that many of the editors attending the ASNE and Newspapers Association of America joint convention in Washington have discussed privately their desire to leave the industry because of the increasing pressure they face daily to increase profit margins.
It costs money to produce quality news. So in the face of growing pressure from Wall Street, too many newspapers have reduced their commitment serious journalism.
But this has not stopped the Newspaper Association of America from continuing to lobby Congress and the FCC to allow even more media consolidation. The NAA actually criticized the FCC decision last December to lift the longstanding ban on “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership” for not going far enough.
Make no mistake about it, the FCC’s new rules left the back door open for one company to swallow up newspapers and TV stations in markets of all sizes across the country. The result will be less local news and an even tighter squeeze on newsrooms.
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The newspaper lobby is pushing for policies that harm journalism. The quality of newspapers declines as a result, and they start losing readers. Then the lobbyists call for more consolidation — more bad medicine that only makes thing worse.
Consolidation isn’t only unhealthy for working journalists. It hurts minority media owners, too. Just last week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that the FCC was flying blind when it comes to knowing the number broadcast stations owned by people of color.
The FCC has failed to even accurately count of the number of minority owners, let alone conduct an honest accounting of how its policies might affect them. Not that the latter is a big secret: More consolidation means less minority ownership.
What’s can we do? A “resolution of disapproval” is pending in the Senate that would overturn the FCC’s decision to lift the ban on one company owning newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market. This crucial legislation has bipartisan support, but it needs your help.
If you want better journalism, media diversity and, well, a functioning democracy, then you should call or write your senators today.
Despairing, disgusting and disheartening – those words are flying around today to describe ABC’s irresponsible Democratic presidential debate Wednesday night.
Here’s another one – dangerous.
ABC’s failure to ask tough questions, act as a watchdog and hold our leaders accountable is not an anomaly. It is a testament to our broken media system.
Questions from last night’s Democratic Debate — which many critics are calling a new low for journalism in America. If this kind of junk news is making you sick, fight back at StopBigMedia.com
So, why dangerous? Because ABC’s behavior is a precursor for more bad journalism to come under increasing media consolidation. We know that bad journalism equals less civic engagement, less political and corporate accountability, and less democracy. In other words, our journalism is in peril, and so are we.
The public has also weighed in, flooding ABC’s debate comment page with nearly 15,000 angry posts by mid-day on Thursday.
Maybe it’s been awhile since we’ve seen something as egregious as Charles Gibson noting Obama’s absent flag pin. But as our media falls into fewer and fewer hands, real journalism is replaced by cheap infotainment and rank sensationalism. Newsrooms are being squeezed, foreign bureaus have been shuttered, and serious issues are simply ignored.
Last night’s debate is just a symptom of a much more serious sickness afflicting our media system. The root of this problem is bad policies that let Big Media get so big.
Let’s take ABC to task. But let’s also remember that gossip and cheap shots outrank serious, challenging and vital journalism pursuits on nearly every news network. ABC and other networks have an obligation to the American people because they use the public airwaves.
So while we jeer and boo Gibson and George Stephanopolous, we should also push for policies that stop Big Media from being the only ones with the power to pose questions to America’s possible future leader.
Take action by signing our petition to demand quality journalism from ABC. Go even further by urging your senators to support the “resolution of disapproval” that would nullify the FCC’s decision to allow for even further media consolidation.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released a report highlighting something we’ve known for a long time: Women and people of color own a tiny fraction of broadcast stations across the country — and the Federal Communications Commission isn’t doing anything about it.
FCC Chairman Kevin Martin ignored repeated calls from civil rights leaders and his fellow commissioners to create an independent task force on female and minority media ownership before allowing any further consolidation.
Instead, he rushed through a vote last December to eliminate the longstanding ban on “newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership,” which prohibits one company from owning both a major daily newspaper and a broadcast station in almost every market in this country.
The FCC has failed to even conduct an accurate count of how many radio and TV stations are owned by women and people of color. The GAO could only say media ownership by these groups “appears limited” because the FCC lacks any “comprehensive data” on the gender, race or ethnicity of broadcast station owners.
Although the FCC is supposed to collect this data, the information is not always reliable. The GAO discovered that the data is imperiled by three weaknesses: filing exemptions, poor data quality standards, and problems with data storage and retrieval.
The GAO’s findings came as no surprise to StopBigMedia.com. Independent reports done by Free Press — Out of the Picture and Off the Dial– detailed the sorry state of media diversity in the United States. Stunningly, they found that women own 5 percent of full-power TV stations and 6 percent of radio stations. People of color own just 3 percent of TV stations and 7.7 percent of radio stations.
Yet the FCC continues to shirk its responsibility– both by consolidating media, and then by refusing to accurately collect the data that reflects consolidation’s effects. The GAO recommends that the FCC take steps to make its gender, race and ethnicity ownership data more accurate and complete.
But we want more than reliable data on who’s being left out; we need to roll back media consolidation altogether. The first step is reversing the FCC’s vote last December. Urge your senators to support the “resolution of disapproval” that would nullify the FCC’s decision.
For too long, TV stations have made a fortune off of the public airwaves — which they use free of charge — with little accountability to their local community.
In the fall of 2007, the FCC began to address this problem when it approved new rules that would dramatically strengthen and improve reporting requirements for TV stations.
The FCC’s old disclosure requirements asked little of TV stations, ensuring that most broadcasters were easily granted their license renewal every time stations reapplied.
Keeping The Public in the Dark
The public records that stations are supposed to keep were often incomplete and hard to access, making it difficult for local citizens to examine a station’s track record. The FCC’s new rules require that TV stations post their public files on their Web sites and that they file a new reporting form every three months.
The new form will capture more and better information on stations’ programming and will be invaluable to assessing how well they are serving the public. The FCC is asking for minute-by-minute documentation of programming and tying these reports to their programming rules and requirements. The FCC hopes that these steps will help empower local communities to participate in their local broadcast stations and give citizens more control over their airwaves.
However, there are clearly things that these broadcasters don’t want you to know. The National Association of Broadcasters just took the FCC to court to block these important new rules from taking effect. The broadcasters oppose the “scale and scope” of the FCC’s new rules, claiming that they would impose an administrative burden on stations. It would be much more convenient for these broadcasters to keep the public in the dark.
Blast From the Past
However, these new rules are not unprecedented. The FCC used to require significantly more complex and thorough information from broadcasters. In fact, TV stations used to have to defend their license to broadcast every three years. These license renewals were opportunities for local communities to make their voice heard and pressure local broadcasters. Now a station only has to renew its license every eight years.
“The problem is that, under pressure from media conglomerates, previous commissions have eviscerated the renewal process,” wrote FCC Commission Michael Copps in a New York Times editorial last year. “Now we have what big broadcasters lovingly call ‘postcard renewal’ — the agency typically rubber-stamps an application without any substantive review. Denials on public interest grounds are extraordinarily rare.”
The new requirements the FCC is suggesting are small steps toward a more robust accounting of TV stations service to local communities. Broadcasters were able to thrive with even more restrictive reporting requirements in the past. So what are TV stations trying to hide? Why are they afraid of the FCC’s efforts to add a little more transparency?
If you want to find out, take a trip to your local station’s office and ask to see their public files. It’s your right – for now.
The presidents of the Communications Workers of America, The Newspaper Guild–CWA and National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA called on the Senate to support Sen. Byron Dorgan’s (D-N.D.) “resolution of disapproval” that would overturn the FCC’s Dec. 18 decision to allow one company to own both a major daily newspaper and a broadcast station in almost every market in this country.
The three unions said the new rules would “result in less local news, fewer minority owners and job cuts,” adding that it “would lead to devastating consequences for the diversity of media and quality journalism that are the foundation of our democracy.”
The three unions are among a number of organizations that represent media professionals who have called on the Senate to overturn the FCC’s decision, including the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the UNITY: Journalists of Color.
Martin has called the new regulations a modest tinkering of the ownership rules. It is anything but that. Giant loophpoles in Martin’s new rules make them nothing more than speed bump for companies to own a newspaper and broadcast station in the same market.
The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to mark-up the legislation later this month.
