Moyers at National Conference for Media Reform 2008

Lessig Keynote at National Conference for Media Reform

Bad News: I’m a fascist

Woo hoo! That unbelievable moron Bill O Reilly called me a “lunatic,” a “fascist,” and “anti-American.” Does this mean I have now arrived as a progressive?

I just got back from the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis – an amazing event. Paraphrasing McChesney and Nichols, “media reform” describes the broad goals of a movement that holds that consolidated ownership of broadcast and cable media, chain ownership of newspapers, and telephone and cable-company colonization of the Internet are bad for our culture and for democracy.

Apparently this is “lunacy” and “far left” to O Reilly, which shows that he is is a total jackass, and more importantly, that he is completely out of touch with the actual “center” of American politics. The only people who believe that big media are beneficial to the public are the people who own them and their sock puppets like O Reilly. Word.

Comcast caught blocking access to public hearing on Internet management practices

This is truly amazing. I have been told this happens at FCC hearings, but here Comcast is caught red handed and then admits to paying random people to sit through Monday’s (Feb. 25) public hearing held by the FCC in Boston to investigate Comcast and other ISPs blocking practices. (See my previous posts on this blocking: AP Report: Comcast Blocking Certain Web Traffic and More About Comcast Internet Blocking.)

Comcast does this to prevent the actual public, people who care about these issues, from attending the hearing and providing testimony that is antithetical to the company’s practices of throttling traffic (mostly from peer-to-peer services) with ZERO TRANSPARENCY. FreePress has photos of these hired human roadblocks actually asleep during the hearing. (see video below). Wow.

Best headline on this: Comcast is Blocktastic!. See also this article from Save the Internet

Happenings

Top bidders put up 2.78 billion in opening rounds of spectrum auction

FCC approves Comcast takeover by private equity firm Bain (w/ heavy ties to Mitt Romney)

FCC puts out new localism rules, Adelstein calls thems bunk

Afghan journalist sentenced to death for distributing an article deemed to have “insulted Islam”

This is where the rubber meets the road

The other day my neighbor handed me this article from NYU Sociologist Eric Klinenberg in the March/April Mother Jones magazine. Here’s the headline/byline:

Breaking the News: It’s not the Internet that’s killing newspapers. It’s the equity-chasing investors and their friends at the FCC who have put outsize profits before a free press.

This piece is excellent – it most likely stems from Klinenberg’s new book Fighting For Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media. I haven’t read it yet, but it seems to encapsulate a topic I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, which is incorporating ethnographic research and media analysis to form a basis for institutional media critique. I need to find out who else is doing this, but clearly Klinenberg is a master in this area. I heard him interviewed on Bob McChesney’s Media Matters radio program, he described the goal of book is to

turn media consolidation from an abstraction into the kind of thing we recognize as affecting our lives. No matter how many times we see those charts of media ownership that show how 5 or 6 companies dominate the system and own lots and lots of subsidiaries, a key challenge for those who care about this issue is to tell human stories about it that really resonate, especially with people who aren’t already convinced that there’s a problem. The kind of media system that we have deprives us of these stories, so we need to find a way to get them told.

Here is where qualitative approaches – ethnographic works – get at the heart of issues like media ownership and telecom policy that can seem so far removed from everyday life.

This is a model to emulate…

Help Stop Public Broadcasting Budget Cuts

From this article at Common Cause:

February 7 -President Bush’s proposed federal budget includes a cut of approximately $145 million for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which serves as a source of information for millions of Americans who rely on its diverse viewpoints, hard-hitting investigative journalism and quality children’s programming.

The CPB helps to fund both NPR and PBS. Take action, use this free service set up by Free Press to easily email your congressional representatives to let them know you care about public broadcasting.

Just to contrast, the total proposed defense budget is $481.4 billion.

Media Ownership and Reform Act

Article from The Raw Story

“Media reform is the most important issue confronting our democratic republic and the people of our country,” Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said at the Free Press National Media Reform Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee last weekend.

Hinchey told RAW STORY he plans to reintroduce the Media Ownership Reform Act (MORA) that would break up media monopolies and restore the Fairness Doctrine, which was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission under the Reagan administration.

So what exactly is the Fairness Doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine required that broadcasters give equal time to people who wished to express an opposing viewpoint. “Under the Reagan administration, the FCC wiped out that rule and said only businesses that operate stations can express their view,” Hinchey noted. Congress passed a bill that would have required the FCC to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but that bill was vetoed by Reagan.

This all sounds amazing. But a sea change bill like MORA will never pass. Here’s why. In addition to reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, the bill would also:

… reinstate a national cap on ownership of radio stations, lower the number of radio stations that one company can own in a local market, and reinstate the 25 percent national cap on television ownership, among other restrictions. The bill’s no-grandfathering provision would compel media conglomerates to divest to comply with new ownership limitations.

Big Media has worked the lobby circuit for decades to get where they are, and they’ve done so in the cradle of neoliberal economic ideologies that are much larger than any one industry. The idea that they would agree to this is insane and the power they exude in Washington is real.

Taken out of context, this bill seems great. But we live in a country that fully subscribes to, and greatly benefits from, the world capitalist economy. We need to think about realistic media reform initiatives or else we’re wasting resources and momentum.

A Clear Picture of AT&T’s Ownership Structure (or AT&T-1000 )

This is exactly the sort of in-depth reporting that can help us sort through the complications of telco mergers and acquisitions.

What exactly is “Media Reform”

Josh Silver on The Huffington Post news/opinion site gives a great, if affective, wrap-up of the recent National Conference for Media Reform here. I especially like his definition of media reform:

Media reform isn’t just about winning better policies in Washington — though that’s a key part of it. It’s not just about holding the mainstream accountable. And it’s not just about creating our own better media, though we need that, too. Media reform is about all of these goals and a diversity tactics that ultimately will advance every issue we care about: civil rights, education, the environment, the economy, health care, fair elections.

This definition is great because it is so inclusive. The communications media, old and new, impact every aspect of political and civic life in complex, dynamic ways. Recognizing that social issues must also be considered as media issues is a big win to those who seek change in any sphere of public life. This seems simple, but it’s really a big idea that I hope to be able to study with more depth in the future…

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) on Media Reform

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, gave the keynote address at the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, Tennessee last Saturday, Jan. 13. He spoke specifically about the need for diversity and localism in media ownership, linking these structural traits of the media industry to the overall diversity of content. He also stressed for bi-partisanship:

Both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, have a stake in media diversity. So, we should not paint this as a partisan picture. Neither is the debate over Internet freedom and the issue of so-called “network neutrality”. The coalition that supported my network neutrality fight last year in the Congress included Free Press, the ACLU, and Moveon.org – but also the Gun Owners of America, the National Religious Broadcasters, and the Christian Coalition.

In national telecommunications policy, our guide stars for decades have been three core principles: universal service, localism, and diversity. In recent years we have had to update them to encompass two new factors that have buffeted our laws and regulations: the rise of digital technology and fierce global competition. The task has been to preserve and enhance these values even as technology evolves.

The communications revolution has the potential to change our society. Unless we continue to revere localism and diversity we risk encouraging a new round of “communications cannibalism” in mass media properties on both the national and local levels that would put real progress in bolstering minority ownership of media even further away.

On the other hand, if we do it right, and remain true to the course set by these guide stars, the telecommunications revolution has the power to bring rich, new educational and entertainment opportunities to our homes, classrooms, and offices.

I believe we can do it right and will continue to fight to make national telecommunications policy reflect our highest aspirations as a society.

Markey has some provacative ideas on media policy and he seems to be a genuine advocate for the public interest. Read his remarks at FreePress. Needless to say, I was sad to miss this conference. Next year…

Undead Net Neutrality Bill Proposed in Senate

Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) reintroduced legislation this week regarding net neutrality and stand alone broadband services. The bill is very similar to one proposed last year that never made it to the floor for a vote. So, this bill is somewhat of a zombie, but in a nice way.

Known as the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (S.215), the bill would require network operators to run their network in a “nondiscriminatory manner”—certain types of traffic or traffic from certain sources could not be hampered or prioritized, but operators would still be free to offer different tiers of service. The bill would also require broadband operators to offer “naked” DSL and cable modem service that does not require the purchase of other services.

Notable is that the bill enjoys a happy dose of bipartisan support from the two primary sponsors, (Snowe is a republican, Dorgan a democrat). Although all six co-sponsors are democratic party members, including Illinois own Barack Obama.

Source: Ars Technica
Read the bill here (pdf)

The New New Thing, Not the Gravel Road

Senator Dorgan has posted a vlog regarding his recently introduced Internet Preservation Act of 2007. Watch it here on YouTube. He specifically addresses the “special interests” who are seeking “gatekeeper” status over the net, i.e. the telcos and cablecos. If nothing else, this is a good way to get his message out to a younger demographic. Although it would have helped had he been lipsinking Mariah Carey. But one step at a time people, one step at a time.