Be The Media

Harmony Rules in the Future of Music

David McGuire writes in the Washington Post about Jenny Toomey of the Future of Music Coalition and her concerns about independent artists in the face of market consolidation and new technologies like P2P:

"By turns businesswoman, think-tank director and semi-iconic indie rocker, Toomey is spoken for; she would rather find ways to make sure independent artists can afford a meal than fret over whether music piracy is costing the entertainment industry a few million of its many billions of dollars.

"When you're focusing on the black-and-white issues, the artists are never represented in the discussion. As we continue to try to polarize people, artists aren't on the black side or the white side. The thing they really care about is getting paid, and being respected and having control of their art," said Toomey, who as former lead singer of D.C.-based indie-rock outfit Tsunami, knows what it's like to live south of the poverty line.

Toomey said she cares more about making sure artists who don't quite enjoy the same level of stardom can make their mortgage payments and get health insurance than who wins the escalating battle between record labels and technology companies over file-sharing.

What musicians really want to know, judging by some of the agenda items this year, is how they can get better licensing deals so they can make their work available through legal services like Apple's iTunes and how to keep their audiences in the face of radio station consolidation."

Sinclair's cynical agenda

From the Center for American Progress:
The country's largest owner of TV stations did not let its ABC affiliates air a Nightline episode in which Ted Koppel paid tribute to the soldiers that gave their lives in Iraq. Sinclair claimed that nightline was attempting to "influence public opinion" !!! This article shows that Sinclair has "repeatedly leveraged its control over the airwaves to manipulate public opinion in favor of President Bush's right wing agenda.

1. Sinclair requires journalists to read pro-Bush statements
2. Sinclair refuses to air ad highlighting 2003 Bush error
3. Sinclair produces centralized right-wing content for local stations
4. Sinclair airs fake news broadcasts Produced by Bush administration
5. Sinclair executives major Bush campaign contributors

Free Press to Challenge Sinclair License Renewals in 2004

Josh Silver, co-founder of Free Press, a national media reform organization, sent a scathing letter to the CEO of Sinclair Broadcasting regarding Sinclair's refusal to run the Nightline episode that aired the names of US military personnel who have given their lives in Iraq. The letter uncovers the Sinclair's hypocritical reasoning for the decision - in 2004, 98% of Sinclair's political contributions have gone to GOP candidates. Sinclair is the largest TV owner, with more than 62 local stations.

Free Press President Robert McChesney said,

"What we see in Sinclair broadcasting, with its cozy and corrupt relationship to the Bush administration is TV journalism that is anything but independent of the government. It is a commercial version of Pravda, and it is an outrageous and entirely unacceptable use of the public's airwaves."

700 Channels and nothing on (if cable industry has its way)

An op-ed from Jeff Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy as Congress begins their preliminary hearings aimed at re-writing the 1996 Telecommunications Act. As usual Jeff rightly points out the need for broader ownership to ensure that there are more opportunities for independents and a greater diversity of programming choices.

"Americans need to have greater diversity of programming choices, especially serious news and public affairs. Our multicultural society should have scores of owners of programming channels, instead of the tight oligopoly of six (Comcast, Time Warner, Fox, Disney, Viacom, and GE). Ironically, the potential of cable to offer the public much, much more programming diversity was, , made in an April 23, 2004 FCC filing by the CBS, NBC, and ABC station affiliates group (along with the NBC-owned stations)."

Thanks for pushing for more voices Jeff!

Jeff Chester gets on cable's case

Interview with Jeff Chester of Center for Digital Democracy in Multichannel News, usually a one-sided trade rag but they permit Jeff to let it all out. Especially great quote on the current indecency debate, which he feels is a red herring:

"The real problem is media ownership concentration: "It's not a question of suppressing one's type of speech. The real issue is making sure that the public, including kids, have many options."

"Right now, because of media consolidation, they can't. If you or I want to create a quality kid's channel, we can't get on cable today, because Nickelodeon and its partners will stop us. If we want to create a quality news channel, we cannot get on the cable today. If we want to create an African-American channel, for example, sorry, Comcast already has that."

Why Your Cable Bill Is Soaring

Ever wonder why your cable bill has gone up from $22 a month to around $50, and over $100 per month for a digital package? Or why cable bills have soared 45% nationwide since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - the act that was supposed to DE-regulate cable and force cable prices down? Well, here are ten reasons, according to the US General Accounting Office (GAO). I am happy to report that the GAO suggested that a little competition may actually lower rates, improve service and generate jobs. Sign me up!

"If cable concerns faced more competition, bills would be lower. ...The GAO found that rates are about 15% lower in areas where two cable companies compete. Unfortunately such competition exists in only about 2% of markets nationwide. The report also concluded that cable providers give better service when a satellite competitor exists."

Viacom's radio unit contests FCC fine over Stern show

From Bloomberg News by Neil Roland:

"Viacom Inc.'s radio unit contested a $27,500 fine imposed by the Federal Communications Commission for the Howard Stern show, saying the penalty is part of a federal campaign to undermine constitutional free-speech rights. "

Opinion: Hell, are we not talk radio?

Michael Harrison in Talkers Magazine discusses the recent FCC crackdown against indecency. Once again I am fascinated but not surprised that when consolidation hits a media industry (or any industry, for that matter), insiders get outraged.

But the real outrage should be that consolidation is happening ACROSS THE BOARD. Capitalism tends towards monopoly, thats why we have regulations. We could have used Michael's voice when the FCC tried to pass legislation that would encourage media consolidation in June 2003. Don Henley needed him when he was testifying at the congressional inquiry into anti-competitve practices in the music industry in Jan 2003. We needed people like Michael when the book industry consolidated in the 80s. We needed him when the radio industry consolidated in the mid-90's thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Well I guess I should be thankful that he is awake now, and hope his voice can wake up others. Houston, we have a problem.

In the article, he says the FCC's actions:

"pose a deadly threat to the well-being of talk radio as well as the entire radio broadcasting industry. Worse, it is an affront to the American people that unabashedly infringes on First Amendment Rights."

Artistic speech and political speech are the same thing, period. When one is attacked, the other is in peril. Sound the alarm – our most precious freedom is under assault! The American media must not sleepwalk through this dark encroachment. What is happening is appalling. In order to deal with this aggression, we must strive to approach it with clarity of thought and separate the facts from biases born of competition, emotion, and ignorance.

The federal government has radio station licensees over a barrel. This embarrassing vulnerability stems from consolidation and its stimulation of tremendously high radio station license values – values subject to the whims and subjective repression of the FCC."

Editors agree Jurgensen shared responsibility for Kelley fiasco

I dont know about you, but I am tired of reading about all these scandals at newspapers and in journalism. Why dont they replace all these "fall on your sword" stories with hard-hitting looks at oil industry record profits, Bush-Cheney connections to the oil industry, the RICO lawsuit filed by Ellen Mariani the 9/11 widow months ago, etc etc? These "articles" are yet more distractions from what is really happening today.

"The resignation of USA Today Editor Karen Jurgensen, who stepped down late Tuesday in the wake of the Jack Kelley ethics scandal, drew mixed reaction from editors gathered here for the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) conference, with some saying the move was a surprise, but most believing the editor must take responsibility for the actions of her reporter.

Chicago Tribune Public Editor Don Wycliff said he was stunned by the news, but added, "there is no immunity for editors.

Stan Tiner, editor of The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., pointed out that the Kelley situation went beyond one or two innocent mistakes. "There were serious errors that took place," he said. "People want some evidence that it was considered serious" by the newspaper.

But others worried that the resignation may start a bad trend of editors taking the fall for any mistake. "Where is it going to stop?" asked Richard Brack, managing editor of the Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World. "Is it going to stop?" The resignations last year of Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, the two top editors at The New York Times, in the aftermath of the Jayson Blair scandal is still fresh in the minds of many editors."

Copps, Adelstein slam election coverage

From Broadcasting & Cable by Steve McClellan:

"Federal Communications Commission members Michael J. Copps and Jonathan Adelstein took turns endorsing the Public Interest, Public Airwaves coalition, a collection of anti-consolidation groups calling on the FCC to force broadcasters to provide a minimum of three hours per week of "civic or electoral affairs" on their primary digital channel.

Copps slammed local stations, charging that their coverage of elections is "just plain pathetic." Adelstein seconded the notion, although altering the adjective to "pitiful." Copps also complained about what he saw as the FCC's silence on the issue of digital public interest obligations. "The FCC has a "bad case of lockjaw," he said. "

"The group is also demanding that at least 25% of broadcasters prime time schedule on that primary channel be programmed by independent producers."