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.
Just hours before the Senate Commerce Committee was set to vote on the Resolution of Disapproval overturning the FCC’s new media ownership rules, a press release from Chairman Daniel Inouye’s office announced that the session would be postponed until April 24.
The announcement today gives citizens across the country more time to make their voices heard and rally support in the Senate. But sometimes more time isn’t a good thing.
This is a special bill that must be passed within 60 days from when it was introduced. However, the only days that count are the ones when the Senate is in session. So far roughly 20 days have passed. By the time the Senate Commerce Committee reconvenes to vote on this bill, we will be past the halfway mark.
In a guest post, Sen. John Kerry talks about next steps in the fight to stop Big Media and overturn the FCC’s decision to allow the largest media companies to swallow up more local newspapers and TV stations. Join the conversation in the comments section below. Then take action.
As the community here knows better than anyone — last December FCC Chairman Kevin Martin rammed through a rules change to allow further consolidation of the media market. This change was opposed by just about everyone outside of the few media companies it would benefit – public criticism was overwhelming and the Senate Commerce Committee went on record opposing it. We held a hearing just days before the scheduled FCC vote, and I warned Martin that moving ahead with the vote would have real consequences.
Kerry Challenges Martin
We weren’t bluffing.
Tomorrow afternoon the Commerce Committee will consider a bill that will be the start of those consequences. The resolution (S.J. Res 28, if you’d like to follow it), introduced by Byron Dorgan, condemns the rule and nullifies its effect. Basically, it tosses the rule out. I’ll be there to deliver another message to Martin: moving ahead with a rule in defiance of congressional intent and against the will of the people is not the way to do business in a democracy.
The Chairman had every opportunity to delay this rule so that the Commission could carefully consider how further consolidation might impact access to local content as well as the rapidly decreasing number of minority owned media outlets. After all, the FCC’s own reports indicated that not enough data exists on these issues to make an informed decision. Instead, we had a rush to judgment on the flimsiest of pretexts, claiming the rule was needed because the newspaper industry is in need of a lift. Well, it may very well need a lift, but the newspaper industry isn’t even regulated by the FCC, so I’m not sure why Chairman Martin considers that a valid reason for Commission action. Especially in the face of so much public opposition and against direct congressional intent.
Tomorrow, we’ll take a step toward making this rule null and void. But that’s not all we’re going to do. I’ll continue to push on all fronts to make sure the FCC is working for the American people – not just looking out for a couple of big media conglomerates. Back in December I sent a letter with Senator Obama stating our intention to deny funds for the implementation of the rule, and that option remains on the table.
I’ll check back in after tomorrow’s meeting to let you know what progress we’ve made.
Our best chance to stop media consolidation could clear a big hurdle this week.
On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee will vote on the “Resolution of Disapproval” that North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan introduced last month (Senate Joint Resolution 28). With 18 bipartisan co-sponsors, including Alaska’s Sen. Ted Stevens, the vice chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the resolution has a good chance of passing.
This little piece of legislation (it’s only about 50 words long) could overturn the Dec. 18 FCC vote that trashed the 30-year-old ban on “newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership,” which prevents one company from owning a newspaper and broadcast station in the same community. The Resolution of Disapproval is essentially a congressional veto of the FCC’s rule change and would send them back to the drawing board.
Five years ago — the last time the FCC tried to push through sweeping changes in the nation’s media — Senator Dorgan championed a similar bill, which was passed by the full Senate. If the new resolution is approved by the committee on Wednesday, it will likely head for the Senate floor sometime later in the month.
As the 60 legislative days allotted for this bill begin to tick down, April could prove to be a turning point in the fight for better media in our communities. You can follow the progress of this bill here: http://www.freepress.net/node/35876
A new study released by Penn State’s Institute for Information Policy criticizes the methods used by the FCC to organize their six public hearings on media ownership held throughout 2006-2007.
Though the stated purpose of the hearings was to “fully involve” the public in a re-evaluation of the media ownership rules, Obar & Schejter argue that the FCC’s actions suggest that they had little interest in what the public had to say. This indifference towards the public’s input was made evident not only in the way the events were run, but also by the fact that references to public opinion were almost non-existent in the documentation of the final decision. After reviewing Obar & Schejter’s findings, the hearings (which cost more than $200,000 to run by the way) seem like nothing more than an elaborate public relations campaign – a dog and pony show put on to create the illusion that the FCC was interested in the public’s opinion.
Every minute of the six hearings was reviewed (44 plus hours), as well as the FCC’s Report & Order.
Study Findings
For 3 of the 6 hearings, time/location details were released only a week prior.
All hearings started during prime working hours (9am in Harrisburg, PA), and required individuals to arrive hours beforehand to sign up.
2 hearings devoted more time to non-public comment than to public comment, with two other hearings devoting more than 40% to non-public comment.
Members of the public had 2 minutes each (some in Tampa and Chicago had only 90 seconds each). Everyone else was allowed 5 plus minutes each.
The FCC often interrupted the public for comments by more “important” people (dignitaries, etc.) who dropped-in at their convenience.
A quarter of the individuals that signed up to testify went home before their names were called.
Two hearings (Los Angeles and Harrisburg) were ended before all individuals signed up to testify could be heard.
Once the public finally had their chance to speak, only 1.4 percent spoke in support of further media consolidation/deregulation. The final Report & Order epitomizes the FCC’s indifference towards the public’s input as hardly any references are made to public comments from the hearings, even though the hearings themselves are highlighted in the report as a groundbreaking element in the rulemaking process.
Last week, a bipartisan group of senators introduced a “resolution of disapproval” – a bill that would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to gut media ownership rules. The bill already has nearly 20 co-sponsors.
Yesterday, Reps. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Joe Barton (R-Texas), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), and John Shimkus (R-Ill.) sent a letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, stepping up their investigation of the agency’s ability to protect and manage the public’s airwaves.
Citing credible sources within the agency – including both current and former staff – the representatives suggest that there have been management and procedural problems at the FCC that have led to “waste, abuse, and fraud.” In the letter, the representatives call for whistleblowers to step forward and offer an anonymous contact form where allegations can be submitted.
Today, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) introduced the House version of the “resolution of disapproval.” This companion to the Senate bill is a signal that both chambers of Congress are ready to step up to overturn the FCC’s big handout to Big Media.
“We need to use every tool available to prevent further weakening of media-ownership rules,” said Inslee. Reichert added: “While I respect the free market, I believe it is a role of government to stand between corporations and consumers when the public interest is at stake. We want local media to remain local, diverse and free.”
The FCC is also facing a number of lawsuits related to their decision to lift the 30-year-old cross-ownership ban that stops one company from owning the major daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same community. A similar lawsuit in 2003 ultimately overturned the FCC’s previous attempt to dismantle media ownership rules. This week, a panel of judges announced that all these lawsuits would be rolled into one hearing in San Francisco later this year.
Citizens Are Turning Up the Heat
Pressure is mounting against the FCC because of the way it has handled media ownership; for its refusal to address the crisis in female and minority ownership; and for its flawed and biased process that consistently serves Wall Street instead of Main Street.
More than 500,000 letters already have been sent to Congress and the FCC calling for a more local, diverse, and competitive media. At public hearings across the country last year in places as diverse as Portland, Maine, Chicago and Seattle, thousands of people came out to ask the FCC to stop media consolidation.
Hundreds of citizens visited their lawmakers’ hometown offices, asking them to protect local news, support regional music, and stop Big Media. All of this citizen activism has created incredible momentum for change.
For too long decisions about media policy have been made behind closed doors, and the only people who got a say were corporate lobbyists and Big Media executives. Now the American public is stepping up to defend their communities from further consolidation and demand better media for all.
But we have to keep the pressure on to hold the FCC accountable and make sure our policymakers hear from as many people as possible.
Today, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) introduced a “Resolution of Disapproval” (SJ Res. 28) that would overturn media ownership rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission last December. Sen. Dorgan joined public interest groups on a national conference call today to discuss the new legislation.
Ryan Williams, National Association of Black Journalists
Kim Gandy, National Organization of Women (NOW)
Hannah Sassaman, Prometheus Radio Project
“The American public has resoundingly rejected more media consolidation,” Silver said. “The FCC wouldn’t listen, but Congress can still stop this massive giveaway. Whether you’re on the left or the right, Republican or Democrat, you know the last thing we need is for our local news to be swallowed up by the same few companies who already own too much.”
Dorgan’s bipartisan resolution has already attracted 14 co-sponsors: Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), as well as Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Joe Biden (D-Del.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.). UPDATE: Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has also signed on to the bill.
The Senate has 60 legislative days – which would likely be June – to take action on the FCC’s rules. This all the more reason for you to take action right now!
