By: Jeff Chester
Philadelphia Inquirer
AlterNet
May 2003
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission will announce new policies on U.S. media ownership.
The shame is that nobody is telling the public what these new policies mean. That might be because so many of the changes are bad ideas or not in the public interest. Here are some lowlights:
Current safeguards limiting the number of TV stations a single company can own both locally and nationally are expected to be weakened.
The big four commercial TV networks will be allowed to buy more stations, and broadcasters will likely be able to operate two or even three stations in a community (known in the trade as "duopolies" and "triopolies").
A long-standing rule that currently prevents a single owner from controlling both a community's major daily and a TV station may be overturned.
The New York Times Co. is just one of the major media firms that have asked the FCC to make a major policy change. Under chairman Michael Powell and his Republican majority, the Times Co. has found a sympathetic ally in its quest for "deregulation." In the last few weeks, some of the industry's most powerful CEOs have personally lobbied the FCC, including Viacom's Mel Karmazin, NBC's Robert Wright, and Fox's Rupert Murdoch. They have been joined by a long list of other well-connected media lobbyists, representing Belo, Tribune and the Newspaper Association of America.
Changes these companies are proposing would help further transform the U.S. media landscape, affecting journalism and TV programming. There would be even fewer owners of TV stations, cable systems, and newspapers. Yet for the most part, the media industry has failed to inform the public about what the implications of such changes might be, let alone how their own company stands to benefit from such a decision.
The debate over media ownership policy could (and should) fill up a significant part of the front page of this and other papers. But what's most distressing is the relative paucity of such coverage. Television -- especially the main network newscasts -- has all but ignored the issue.
The story of how the U.S. media world is being transformed as it proceeds with a transition to a largely digital system is linked with the current efforts at the FCC to end ownership limits. Companies want to position themselves to be media megagiants, with clout over more stations, cable channels, and newspapers (what the industry calls adding additional "platforms").
Yet the failure to report effectively on the implications of what the media companies are doing, both in Washington and in the marketplace, is an example of what's alarming about consolidation of media outlets into fewer and fewer hands. As media companies grow larger, with more financial links to other interests, what will happen to the critical watchdog role of news media? Specifically, in the digital age, which media entities with the power to inform the country will be able to serve as a check on the power and influence of their peers?
One example is the New York Times. Last year, the Times Corp. invested $100 million in Discovery Communications, making it a 50 percent owner of what is now known as the Discovery Times Channel. But the Times investment now makes it a partner with Discovery's owners, including Cox, Liberty Media, and Advance Newhouse. Yet with the exception of a single 367-word story last April, readers might not realize that the paper's owners have made a significant decision to expand into cable programming (including such ventures as the New England Sports Network). They are likely also unaware of the Times' new relationship with powerful cable TV interests.
Nor has the paper ever informed readers about the consequences of the Times Co.'s December 2001 filing at the FCC asking it to dismantle the policy on broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership. The Times isn't alone in this omission. In mid-April, the Belo Corp. wrote to FCC Chairman Powell that it was now advocating a new policy that would permit greater consolidation. Yet its flagship Dallas Morning-News didn't report on it.
The country is at a crossroads on media ownership. At stake ultimately are the First Amendment rights of the public to a system that promotes free speech and serves as a mechanism of private and public accountability. The media industry should use the next month to inform the country fully about the consequences of ownership changes, and what they may mean for democracy.
By: Jeff Chester
Philadelphia Inquirer
November 2003
A telecommunications and media revolution is taking place. Broadband technologies, which provide lightning-fast connections to the Internet, are quickly replacing the soon-to-be-antiquated system of dial-up access. In a few years, whenever we use our TVs, personal computers, cell phones, and other digital devices, it is likely that we will be communicating through a form of broadband.
Imagine a flood of multimedia content - messages and music, images and video - flowing in both directions and significantly expanding the range of media options we have today. It practically boggles the mind.
Or at least it should. But the danger is that the digital future of the United States will turn out to be more a reflection of our media past than a genuine unleashing of broadband's full power. (Although broadband today is defined rather modestly by the Federal Communications Commission as service in excess of 200 kilobits per second, roughly four times the speed of dial-up, it will soon operate at much higher speeds.)
We might end up with the illusion of more programming choices, but without taking advantage of the capacity of new media to meet society's needs through interactive services and applications. That is likely unless we approach broadband as something more than simply the latest technological breakthrough - part of the faster-smaller-cheaper triumvirate of irresistible new gadgetry.
Many believe that if we simply allow technical innovation and the commercial market to evolve, we will be assured of a positive outcome. After all, hasn't the Internet, seemingly on its own, blossomed into a service that now features access to millions of Web sites, unlimited downloads, and instantaneous access to friends and associates around the world?
However, such "technological determinism" - the notion that technology will eventually yield answers to all of our problems - doesn't guarantee us the kind of media system that will truly enrich our democratic culture. Compared with the original phone-line-based Internet, broadband represents a new "genetic" strain, one that can make significant positive contributions to a community in far-reaching ways.
The key institutions of civil society - for example, schools and libraries, community groups, and cultural organizations - might be linked by high-speed networks that will vastly expand their reach into the community. The possibilities for new local and national services are only as limited as our imagination. For those frustrated with commercial-TV news, there could be new independent news channels delivering in-depth reporting on issues affecting the neighborhoods of Philadelphia and its suburbs. Online video-conferencing might offer homework help, literacy training or election forums. Entrepreneurs, frustrated with today's sound-alike commercial radio, could launch music channels for a diverse city's listeners.
But for any of this to happen, the public will have to make concrete decisions to guide how and whom this new media system will serve.
Unfortunately, such decisions are mostly being made by a handful of insiders, including big telephone and cable companies and a few policy-makers. Not surprisingly, the "vision" that executives and officials have seized upon is one of encouraging private investment in order to accelerate the spread of broadband. With the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it has become official U.S. policy to ensure that everyone in the country will be able to travel on broadband pathways. In attempting to implement this policy, the FCC has recently crafted rules that allow cable and phone giants to have even greater control over how their broadband networks serve consumers and competitors, including elimination of any obligation for them to open their wires to competing Internet service providers. The theory is that these companies will be more willing to make the massive investments necessary to get us hooked up if they are granted preferential treatment in the marketplace.
Imagine being asked in 1934, at the dawn of broadcasting, how you and your family would want to be served by radio and, later, television. The public wasn't consulted then, and Congress passed the 1934 Communications Act, which largely determined our "analog destiny" of commercially driven radio and TV. Now we have a chance, especially at the local level, to determine our "digital destiny."
What's required first is an assessment of how broadband is being delivered to the neighborhoods of Philadelphia and the surrounding towns and cities. Is everyone scheduled to receive the service, and when? How much capacity will it have? What's being planned by such companies as Comcast in the form of applications and other content services? What will consumers, schools and local government have to pay to be hooked up to the 21st century? What we will actually require from broadband five to 10 years from now?
It will be particularly critical to identify what is missing now and envision new opportunities in the future. Can we use broadband to keep better informed about local and state public affairs, encouraging greater voter participation? Can museums expand their reach to the public? How can local content as a way of stimulating economic growth and diversity of expression best be promoted?
A few communities, recognizing the limitations of the marketplace in meeting our communications needs, have decided to erect broadband networks of their own; Kutztown has www.hometownu.com. A new project called Camden Resources (www.camdenresources.org) has a searchable "information commons" that lists hundreds of community services. West Philadelphia Data and Information Resources (westphillydata.library.upenn.edu) provides a Web-based "channel for information sharing, community building and economic development within the West Philadelphia area."
If left unchecked, broadband will likely evolve into a system that features more advertising, infomercials, multimedia spam, and the usual Hollywood and TV fare. After all, the biggest media conglomerates and advertisers will control the wires and much of the content.
It's important to recall the words of Edward R. Murrow in his assessment of TV in 1958: "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate, and, yes, it can inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it is nothing but wires and lights in a box." The power of TV, a one-way medium, pales beside the two-way interactivity that the broadband revolution will make possible. But the question remains: Have we learned enough to heed Murrow's words at the dawn of this new era of digital media?
AlterNet
June 2003
Editor's Note: The FCC is currently considering Rupert Murdoch's plan to acquire DirecTV, the biggest satellite cable provider in the nation. Jeff Chaster tells Steven rosenfeld why this deal will spell disaster for broadcast media.
Jeff, why is the proposed transfer of DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. of particular concern to progressives and liberals?
This deal by Murdoch will vastly enhance his political power in the United States and around the world, to shape news and information and entertainment programming. Once he takes control over the U.S.'s most powerful and important direct broadcast satellite system, DirecTV, Murdoch will really be just one of two people in the country who can literally create a national programming channel with the snap of his fingers.
So Murdoch, it's likely, if he gets DirecTV, will be able to create a suite of Fox News channels. Imagine Fox News on steroids -- that's what we're about to get if this deal goes unopposed.
Is this deal essentially a paperwork transaction for the FCC?
Well, unless there's significant opposition from public interest groups, consumers and unions, this is a done deal under the anti-trust rules and, really, FCC policies. It's unlikely they will oppose Murdoch's taking over DirecTV, because, in a fanciful theory of theirs, they don't see Murdoch's extensive holdings in broadcast and cable and motion pictures and newspapers as being in conflict with his also owning another major distribution service, direct broadcast satellites.
In addition, Murdoch is clearly wired to the White House. Fox News is a 24-7 campaign contribution to Bush and the GOP. So there's a lot of favorable political support.
I don't think the public is aware of the serious implications of this deal. It's going to enhance the power of conservatives all across the board. Murdoch is going to be able to create not just national channels, but even local channels: A Fox News for Cleveland; a Fox News for Detroit, or Atlanta, that will increase the power that conservatives and conservative causes have over the American political system. So it's something we really should be concerned about.
Who has tried to oppose this, with filing papers before the FCC?
There are a number of industry groups actually concerned about this proposed merger, including the National Association of Broadcasters, the principle lobbying group for the broadcast industry. They're worried that Murdoch will simply bypass local Fox affiliates -- stations that are not owned by Murdoch -- and simply provide programming direct from Fox itself, weakening local stations' ability to serve the public.
Major media companies like Cox, for example, and Cablevision, and small cable systems are also concerned about the power [of Murdoch-owned media]. I mean, if you read what the industry groups are saying, they acknowledge that this is an unprecedented proposed merger, where a major broadcaster like Murdoch is given control over the key satellite service, and that, they say -- as we say -- Murdoch will become an even more powerful gatekeeper.
Since public-interest arguments often aren't as persuasive as business-interest arguments before this administration, do you think those arguments will be persuasive?
Well, I think that there is going to be some pressure to force Murdoch to come to terms with these very powerful other media lobbyists, like Cox and Cablevision. But the larger questions about restraining his ability to create all these channels, including ideologically focused channels that favor his position, are likely to be off the table in the absence of opposition.
Now unions really do need to get involved here, because in this bizarre transaction, it turns out that employee pension funds from General Motors will actually control one-fifth of the Murdoch-DirecTV entity. Yet, at the moment, the unions haven't really focused on this deal. It's likely those pension funds will take a beating, as Murdoch soaks DirecTV dry to bolster the profits of his other ventures.
Have you spoken to anyone at the AFL-CIO?
We've alerted the unions. We've alerted the institutional responsible investor organizations. We're hoping they will look at this deal closely and take the interests of shareholders and pensioners to heart.
One of your objections to this merger is that the two companies, Hughes and News Corp., will not be run independently, as they claim. Why is that a problem?
Well, Rupert Murdoch, in trying to allay fears from critics, said that he's going to have the majority of the board of the proposed company, be in the control of "independent directors": that six of the 11 directors will be independent. And hence, the public has nothing to fear from any kind of self-dealings, where DirectTV favors News Corp.-Fox programming.
Well, it turns out that there have been five so-called independent directors named, and according to our research, at least three of the five have direct financial relations with Murdoch, either presently or in the past. So this notion that there's going to be some kind of independent watchdog to protect the public interest is truly a joke.
So what's the timetable here?
Well, Murdoch hopes to complete the deal by the end of the year, and absent any opposition, he will become a global Citizen Kane more than he already is.
We have to have Congress raising concerns about this merger, and complaining about the anti-competitive effects, complaining about how it will favor conservative causes. We have to have the public speak out, like they just did against the FCC's [media ownership] rules. We need people to flood Congress with letters and faxes and e-mails saying this is a bad deal for Americans. And if Congress gets a sense that something's wrong with this deal, we might be able to derail it.
Steven Rosenfeld is a commentary editor and audio producer for TomPaine.com.
By: Jeff Chester
The Nation
July 2003
We should be worried once again about Rupert Murdoch. For unless swift action is taken, Murdoch--and the conservative political causes he supports--will soon become an even more powerful presence in the United States and the world.
Murdoch is on the cusp of fulfilling a longstanding ambition that will finally give him a global network of powerful orbiting, interactive, direct broadcast satellites. Imagine a torrential downpour of dozens of Fox News Channels targeting major US cities; a super-broadband site continuously promoting the viewpoints of the Weekly Standard; and the ability to focus similar political messages simultaneously in Asia, Europe and North and South America. Murdoch's proposed control of DirecTV, the country's leading direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service, will ultimately harm the interests of those seeking greater political and social justice, let alone quality news and entertainment programming.
But despite the outpouring of opposition to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) new media ownership rules, Murdoch's DirecTV grab is expected to win quick approval from federal regulators. In addition to its more than 11.5 million DBS subscribers, Murdoch will also manage the assets of Hughes Electronics, DirecTV's parent company, which will give Murdoch's News Corp. increased clout over programming in Latin America and in the global broadband and video marketplace.
Hughes Electronics is currently a subsidiary of General Motors, which has been trying to sell off the satellite company for several years. GM initially spurned Murdoch and sought almost two years ago to have DirecTV's only major competitor, EchoStar, purchase the company. Livid at the rejection, Murdoch engaged in an elaborate political campaign to derail the deal, including, according to the Wall Street Journal, mobilizing the opposition of politically well-connected religious broadcasters. News Corp. also hired former New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams to generate opposition from local and state policy-makers. The Bush Administration's October 2002 rejection of DirecTV's merger with EchoStar was undoubtedly shaped by Murdoch's relentless--and well-funded--opposition.
Suddenly finding itself with only one possible suitor, GM quickly agreed to Murdoch's terms, which will give him working control of Hughes and a 34 percent stake in the company. Both the FCC and the Justice Department's antitrust division are expected to consent to the merger by this fall. Republicans in Congress, not surprisingly, praised Murdoch and the deal. Democrats did express some concern, especially at a private meeting with Murdoch. But no serious opposition has yet surfaced.
We should not only be aware of the more immediate threats from Murdoch's new acquisition but also reflect on why progressives, labor and others are shut out of any major electronic media resource. First, we should expect that Murdoch will be able to expand his influence over US television. Along with Comcast (now the country's largest cable-TV operator), Murdoch will become one of the most powerful forces in television. Because of the massive distribution platform it controls, News Corp. will be able to create new national programming channels. Satellite-channel technology will allow Fox to "spotbeam" local channels into distinct communities. Murdoch will also quickly enhance DirecTV's ability to provide a suite of interactive, digital channels. Given Murdoch's already significant local broadcast TV and cable channel holdings (including Fox News, FX, National Geographic and numerous Fox Sports channels), along with an increased ability to buy more media outlets, he will continue to be the GOP's own in-house Citizen Kane.
Murdoch already controls key DBS systems serving Europe, Asia and Latin America. As noted in its FCC merger application, News Corp. will benefit from the ability to create and distribute programming on a global basis (such benefits, it disingenuously says, will ultimately serve viewers). By capping its domination of satellite service with this acquisition, News Corp.'s power abroad will also be increased.
There is some opposition to the deal from US media companies, including Cox, Advance Newhouse, small cable operators and even the National Association of Broadcasters (which expressed concern about the fate of Fox affiliates that might be bypassed by Murdoch's spotbeams). These competitors worry about the leverage Murdoch will have in the programming market, although he has already made some assurances that he will treat them fairly. Both the DOJ and FCC may impose some minor conditions to allay these concerns.
But what's not addressed are safeguards that would limit the ability of Murdoch and his conservative allies to achieve significant access to new interactive satellite and cable channels. Or policies that would insure that those outside the corporate sector would have the clout to control their own programming services. Organized labor should be playing a role in shaping this merger, since 20 percent of the stock in the new Murdoch-led Hughes will be owned by GM pension plans (of both salaried and hourly workers). Although the pension stock will be controlled by US Trust bank, unions should be mobilizing to protect both their financial and political interests.
Moreover, progressives and leaders of the Democratic Party should also be engaged in serious media reform organizing. Instead of allowing the Murdochs of the world to own vast chunks of US media, there should be support for new policies that preclude the ability of a News Corp. or a Comcast to treat the digital media system as a private corporate fiefdom. It's time for policies that would provide nondiscriminatory access to satellite and cable channels to all comers; to separate the control these mega-giants have over both conduit and content; to insure that broadband serves community and civic discourse as well as it will serve commerce; and to carve out sections to be used by nonprofit groups.
Recently, Al Gore began exploring the creation of a new cable TV channel, an alleged alternative to the conservative media landscape. Gore has reportedly sought assistance from the cable moguls at Comcast, among others, begging for help. Perhaps Gore will get his channel. But unless we encourage a more serious public-interest intervention on media policy, we will continue to be political and cultural captives of Murdoch and his conglomerate cronies.
By: Jeff Chester
AlterNet
May 2003
Even as Michael Powell and the GOP sweep away long-standing media ownership safeguards, media mogul Rupert Murdoch is mobilizing to further expand his TV empire beyond broadcast and cable. His plans to acquire the key direct broadcast satellite service (DBS) – DirecTV – will allow Murdoch to advance his conservative political agenda, creating new channels and services that disseminate the rightwing ideology now espoused by Fox News.
News Corp. wants to buy Hughes Electronics – the parent company of DirecTV – from General Motors. If the deal is allowed to go through, Murdoch will have a triple play when it comes to influencing U.S. television with his control of broadcast, cable and satellite channels. His News Corp now owns 35 broadcast TV stations and significant cable channels like Fox News, Fox Sports and even National Geographic TV. Add to that DirecTV's 11 million subscribers and Murdoch will be able to greatly shape broadcast and new digital television services. While both the U.S. Department of Justice and the FCC have to approve the deal, don't expect any significant opposition. GOP lawmakers in the House practically fell on their knees when Murdoch testified about the proposed buyout recently. And why not! Fox News essentially provides a 24/7 campaign contribution to the Bush White House.
The need to oppose the DirecTV acquisition is urgent. Contrary to his promises, Murdoch will use DirecTV as a "death star" to force his programming on cable companies by threatening a price war unless they give Fox favorable access. Since News Corp will control cable TV's principal multichannel competitor, it will easily create new channels – unlike anyone else in the TV business. Rather than engage in open combat and competition, cable powerbrokers such as Comcast and AOL-Time Warner will likely accommodate Murdoch and add his new channels to their own services. Imagine Fox News on steroids. Worse, with DirecTV's capacity to "spotbeam" channels to serve distinct communities, localized versions of Fox programs could be available in major cities across the nation.
The purchase of DirecTV will also enhance Murdoch's existing clout in the U.S. media market. First, News Corp. has already secured key technologies that will act as a virtual tollbooth for the emerging digital TV marketplace. For example, News Corp. subsidiary Gemstar , better known as TV Guide onscreen, allows it to influence viewer programming choices though its control of the key electronic program guide. Murdoch's NDS service , which provides set-top box software, will expand their clout into new broadband digital applications.
Finally, Murdoch's acquisition of DirecTV, as noted in News Corp.'s "public interest" filing at the FCC will greatly expand its global power. The document openly touts the "efficiencies" of the merger, since Murdoch already controls key satellite TV systems serving Europe and Asia. The U.S. deal will cap a long-standing quest by Murdoch to add this country's market to his immense media empire, and further his political influence all across the globe.
Murdoch's determination to add a U.S. satellite service to News Corp's holdings was reflected in his campaign to defeat the takeover of DirecTV by its smaller DBS rival Echostar. Although the DOJ was correct in nixing the deal (for it would have merged the only two competitors), Murdoch scuttled the merger by orchestrating a political campaign hatched at the News Corp.'s offices (as reported by the Wall Street Journal and others).
The FCC is now taking comments on the merger. The official deadline to register formal opposition to the deal is June 16th. But critics and others will be able to weigh in – whether through congressional pressure or other means – through the late fall, when approval is expected. Murdoch has already promised not to discriminate against potential program competitors, such as Disney/ABC, GE/NBC, and Viacom/CBS, preempting any serious resistance from the heavy hitters.
Ideally, the merger should be denied, but such is the state of competition policy and anti-trust rules (let alone political corruption) that there is little likelihood for an outright rejection. But opposition is essential, covering a number of fronts, to develop some federally imposed safeguards on the deal. For example, Murdoch must be denied full control of the channel capacity of DirecTV. For groups left out of TV – including progressives, persons of color (there are no channels owned by African Americans, for example), women, nonprofits, and labor – this may be the time to seriously consider weighing in. Channels and bandwidth must be made available across the commercial and non-commercial spectrum. The union movement may have some influence in the battle, as GM-related pension funds will own 20 percent of the Murdoch-run DirecTV venture.
Furthermore, the new technologies under Murdoch's control, such as his electronic guides, also must be disarmed, permitting emerging and competitive programming services to flourish. Key Murdoch investor John Malone (another politically conservative media mogul) must be denied any influence as well.
But for any checks on Murdoch's DirecTV deal to be put in place, a strong and vociferous protest is necessary. If the U.S. (and the world) is to be protected from Mr. Murdoch's political agenda, the time to act is now.
By: Jeff Chester and Don Hazen
(This is a reprint the original article appeared in AlterNet May 2003.)
The Bush Administration will soon hand the nation's biggest media conglomerates a new give-away that will concentrate media ownership in fewer hands. On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission, run by Michael Powell (son of Colin), plans to end long-standing federal checks and balances on corporate media power.
Companies behind the measure include the powerhouses of corporate media power: Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox., General Electric/NBC, Viacom/CBS, Disney/ABC, Tribune Corp and Clear Channel. Once the rules are swept away, expect to see more mergers and buy-outs of radio and TV stations, major papers and even TV networks. It will then soon be possible for a single conglomerate to control most of a community's major media outlets, including cable systems and broadband Internet service providers. There will be fewer owners nationally of all major media outlets of communications.
Right-wing powerhouses are also likely to grow more powerful soon, unless opposed. Rupert Murdoch's Fox is planning to take over the country's most powerful satellite service, Direct TV. He will be able not only to control access to millions of households, he will use it as a "Death Star" to further expand his broadcast and cable TV empires. Meanwhile, liberals -- let alone progressives -- have no ownership influence over any major media outlet.
This is all happening despite the fact that growing numbers of the public are willing to stand up and express their unhappiness with the way media conglomerates are using the public airwaves. As Neil Hickey describes in his article, "The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership," in hearings across the country there has been a huge outpouring of public concern and anxiety about the direction of the media system.
Not surprisingly, the media conglomerates thirst for more control as they seek to end media ownership limits. What all this means for our nation hasn't been covered by the media. There has been no TV network news coverage on the impending media give-away. Nor have the major dailies explained to readers what their lobbyists are doing and how such changes will affect journalism, politics and the public's First Amendment rights to a system fostering diversity of viewpoints and expression.
A rare exception was a recent column in the New York Times by conservative pundit William Safire arguing that the media system is hiding the real story because it is unwilling to "expose the broadcast lobby's pressure on Congress and the courts to allow station owners to gobble up more stations and cross-own local newspapers, thereby to determine what information residents of a local market receive."
The proposed FCC rule changes will further weaken the ability of mainstream journalism to serve as a critical public safeguard. Soon, reporters at newspapers will have to pay attention to whether they get TV ratings, once their papers become part of larger TV empires concerned about promoting advertising and "brandwashing." More importantly, the country will have even fewer gatekeepers over the news and popular culture that informs much of public consciousness. (Read more about this problem from media mogul Barry Diller, who made many revealing statements to Bill Moyers on a recent edition of his program NOW, on PBS.)
As recent TV coverage of the Iraq war illustrates, US media companies aren't interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. "Embedded" reporters present information from a point of view shared with U.S. soldiers. News outlets hire retired military generals to dish up the prominent "expert" point of view. Journalists regurgitate communiqués disseminated by the Pentagon. Corporate TV stations avoid feeding viewers information and images they "don't like" such as coverage of civilian casualties and protests. The network that 36 percent of people watch for their primary war coverage (Fox News, according to a recent Gallup poll), is a deliberately conservative mouthpiece. Furthermore, for the media companies to be heavily lobbying the Bush administration for give-aways that will net them billions of dollars -- while they are providing mostly uncritical coverage of the war -- gets to the crux of our media problem. Danny Schechter of the Media Channel provides more details of this media conglomerate war cheerleading collusion in "War Coverage Rewrites History."
The FCC's Powell is also promoting massive consolidation in cable TV and with online communications for this summer. Soon just two massive cable companies -- Comcast and AOL Time Warner -- may be legally permitted to own almost all of the nation's cable TV systems. And Powell has already removed critical safeguards that will enable cable and telephone giants to dominate high-speed Internet access -- which has alarmed the ACLU (and even other monopolists like Microsoft and Disney).
Some key members of Congress may be undergoing some reality therapy as citizens are forcing them to confront the stark ramifications of the media deregulation they have enabled. One overwhelming result of their actions, for example, is the Clear Channel Communications buying spree (the company now owns more than 1200 radio stations), which has run roughshod over the nation's commercial radio system, turning it into a wasteland of conformity and commercialism. In contrast, back in 1996, the combined total of the number of stations owned by the two largest radio chains was a mere 115. Eric Boehlert, as part of a powerful and detailed series on Salon.com on media concentration, explains how the Clear Channel situation may be producing a backlash.
A less known but also disturbing trend is represented by another conservative company, Sinclair Broadcast Group, which, as Paul Schmelzer writes in "The Death of Local News," is pioneering the frightening model of local news from a central sources thousands of miles away from the market. Meanwhile, perhaps unrelated to media concentration, but clearly connected to the war, female voices have just about disappeared from the media as documented by Caryl Rivers from Women's ENews.
Despite all the bad news, Andrew Schwartzman of the Media Access Project offers: "These decisions in June are hardly the end of it. There is a real effort to keep the FCC in check going forward. Cable ownership rules are up for review this summer. There will be a spate of mergers after the rules change, and organizing may be able to beat some of them back, and pushes for legislation to gain back some of what has been lost."
But in the big picture, unfortunately, elected officials have been silent about what will be the most significant changes in media diversity rules since the Reagan era. It's time to send Congress a message that they should speak up now and defend the right to free speech, competition and ownership diversity in the digital age. To make your voice heard go to MediaReform.net, a comprehensive website that makes it easy for you to register your protest about the FCC's media deregulation policies.
By: Jeff Chester and Stephen Rosenfield
TomPaine.com
August 2003
Ever stop to wonder what is really happening to the Internet these days?
The crackdown by the music industry on illegal downloading tells just part of the story. Even with the dot-com bust, the digital boom is here, as high-speed connections, faster processors and new wireless devices increasingly become part of life. But the thousands of lawsuits are not just about ensuring record companies and artists get the royalties they deserve. They're part of a larger plan to fundamentally change the way the Internet works.
From Congress to Silicon Valley, the nation's largest communication and entertainment conglomerates -- and software firms that want their business -- are seeking to restructure the Internet, to charge people for high-speed uses that are now free and to monitor content in an unprecedented manner. This is not just to see if users are swapping copyrighted CDs or DVDs, but to create digital dossiers for their own marketing purposes.
All told, this is the business plan of America's handful of telecom giants -- the phone, cable, satellite, wireless and entertainment companies that now bring high-speed Internet access to most Americans. Their ability to meter Internet use, monitor Internet content and charge according to those metrics is how they are positioning themselves for the evolving Internet revolution.
The Internet's early promise as a medium where text, audio, video and data can be freely exchanged and the public interest can be served is increasingly being relegated to history's dustbin. Today, the part of the Net that is public and accessible is shrinking, while the part of the Net tied to round-the-clock billing is poised to grow exponentially.
One front in the corporate high-tech takeover of the Internet can be seen in Congress. On July 21, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held a hearing on the "Regulatory Status of Broadband." There, a coalition that included Amazon.com, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, Disney and others, told Congress that Internet service providers (ISPs) should be able to impose volume-based fee structures, based on bits transmitted per month. This is part of a behind-the-scenes struggle by the Net's content providers and retailers to cut deals with the ISPs so that each sector will have unimpaired access to consumers and can maximize profits.
The industry coalition spoke of "tiered" service, where consumers would be charged according to "gold, silver and bronze" levels of bandwidth use. The days where lawmakers once spoke about eradicating the "Digital Divide" in America has come full circle. Under the scenario presented by the lobbyists, people on fixed incomes would have to accept a stripped-down Internet, full of personally targeted advertising. Other users could get a price break if they receive bundled content -- news, music, games -- from one telecom or media company. Anybody interested in other "non-mainstream" news, software or higher-volume usage, could pay for the privilege. The panel's response was warm, suggesting that the industry should work this out with little federal intrusion. That approach has already been embraced by the industry-friendly Federal Communications Commission.
Meanwhile, in the courts, there has been a rash of new litigation spurred by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)'s pursuit of people who have illegally shared copyrighted music. The music industry no doubt hopes to discourage file-swapping piracy, and some big telecom companies, such as SBC Communications, have counter-sued, saying they will protect their clients' privacy. While that's good public relations, there's more to this story as well. Telecoms, like most big corporations, don't want other businesses, let alone the government, interfering in their operations -- so there's plenty of reasons to counter-sue -- even if the record companies and telecoms have parallel stakes in privatizing the Net.
But there's also a technologically insidious element to this side of the story. The software now exists to track and monitor Internet content on a scale and to a degree that previously hasn't been possible. The RIAA is taking people to court because it has the technology to track illegal Internet file swapping. This level of content-tracking is the next-generation application of what's been developed to keep children and teenagers from viewing porn at the local library or home. Consider this typical bit of sales arcana from the Web site of Allot Communications, which says its software can track and filter Internet communications and use that analysis to bill consumers.
"Allot Communications provides network traffic management and content filtering solutions for enterprises, IP service providers, and educational institutions... Allot's QoS [quality of service] and service-level agreement enforcement solutions maximize return on investment by managing over-subscription [unintended uses], throttling P2P [peer-to-peer, the music piracy software] traffic and delivering tiered classes of services."
This new world of metering, monitoring and monetizing Internet content has prompted new business ventures, such as cable firms exploring partnerships with the videogame industry, where there's plenty of money to be made in high-volume interactive uses. In fact, the reason Hollywood has delayed the deployment of next-generation digital television -- besides their fear of digital piracy -- is they have not yet figured out how to impose their pricing model -- to extend their current distribution and sales monopoly.
Of course, the last concern in corporate boardrooms and Congress is how the privatization of the Net will affect free speech and the public interest. Just as C-Span and public broadcasting were crumbs thrown to the public the last time new communications technologies were developed, there's been little talk about insulating public-interest uses from a more 'metered' Internet.
There is undoubtedly a legitimate business case to be made for having people pay for emerging high-bandwidth uses, but whether people will be charged to see streamed videos of political candidates or public meetings is another matter. Moreover, users need to know what part of the Net will be public and accessible and what part will be billed to credit cards -- and this is unclear.
While there needs to be a balance between private sector goals and public policy needs, that's hardly a topic of discussion on the Internet's frontline. Currently, America's media giants are planning the equivalent of a 19th-century land grab in cyberspace to ensure they will profit mightily in the 21st century. Metering data transmissions and monitoring content is how they will get there. And the tools and political climate to achieve this are here.
This century's new media giants are now working with Congress, Federal Communications Commission chairman Michael Powell and their industry partners to transform the Internet. The only open question is whether the public will influence this transformation before it's too late.
By: Jeff Chester
AlterNet
March 2003
With war looming on the horizon, the U.S. news media are already moving to wall-to-wall coverage of the conflict. But even as the outlets report on the war, their corporate bosses are seeking political favors from the Bush administration -- and the media executives know it.
The Big Four TV networks, other large broadcasting companies, and most major newspaper chains are currently lobbying the Bush-dominated Federal Communications Commission for new policies designed to promote their corporate interests. They want to end critical rules that limit the number of outlets a single company can control, both at the local and national level. These media giants stand to make untold billions of dollars in profits if the FCC safeguards are eliminated or weakened.
While the absence of critical analysis, including dissenting voices, on TV news programs, for example, can be attributed to the narrow, commercial mind-set of the U.S. media, viewers and readers should also be aware that these news organizations also have a serious conflict of interest what it comes to reporting on the policies of the Bush Administration. News organizations like to claim that their reporting and commentary are independent of the profit-oriented goals of their parent companies. But it is likely that decisions about how to cover the war on Iraq -- especially on television -- may be tempered by a concern not to alienate the White House. More so since the FCC is nearing a late spring ruling that may dramatically change the landscape of media ownership in the United States.
The public deserves to know exactly what the industry is asking for. Here's a thumbnail guide to the lobbying aims by some of the news media's most important companies with regard to the upcoming FCC decision. It doesn't include the many other political favors that the cable and broadcast industry are now seeking, including rules that will determine the future of broadband and the Internet.
Viacom/CBS; NBC/Telemundo; Fox (in partnership): Eliminate "cap" on the number of TV stations a single company can control nationally. End the "dual network" safeguard that prevents one TV network from acquiring another network. End the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule that prevents a broadcaster from owning the major daily in the same market. Finally, remove current limits on local radio station ownership.
Disney/ABC: Eliminate all existing FCC rules on broadcast ownership. Oppose a proposed new policy that would open network prime-time to independent producers.
New York Times Company (includes Boston Globe, and eight TV stations): Eliminate the rule that prevents broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership.
Gannett Company (includes USA Today and 22 TV stations): Eliminate the rule that prevents broadcast and newspaper cross-ownership.
Cox Enterprises (includes the Atlanta Journal Constitution, and a number of TV and radio stations): Repeal the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule. Maintain current limit on TV network station ownership (as opposed to what the four networks want).
Tribune Company (LA Times, Chicago Tribune): Total elimination of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership safeguard.
Belo (Dallas Morning News, 19 TV stations): Eliminate the broadcast- newspaper cross-ownership rule, and "relax" the rule that now limits ownership of multiple local TV stations.
Clear Channel Communications: Eliminate local radio ownership limits.
To find out what your local media outlet is asking the Bush administration to do, go to the FCC website and fill in the Proceeding No: 02-277 and then the name of your outlet. Be advised that many companies are represented by their trade association, such as the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) or the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) who are lobbying the FCC on behalf of their members.
The failure of US media to effectively analyze and critique the Iraq war policy of the Administration illustrates why the US needs to drastically restructure its media policies. With the most powerful media outlets in the hands of a few commercially-driven companies, the public is being harrmed. For example, polls show that 42 percent of Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11th attacks. Clearly, readers and viewers are not receiving a range of information and analysis essential for a healthy and vital democracy. The country urgently needs a plan to create an independent and diverse media system that serves the many rather than the interests of a few.
Time Is Now to Fight for Future of TV
By: Jeff Chester
AlterNet
April 2003
The rising tide of protest against U.S. media coverage of the war should also signal the need for a new progressive strategy about the future of the media system. Recent marches across the country protesting the networks, and a new focus by Moveon.org on media issues are vitally important. But they don't address the need to take advantage of fundamental changes taking place and alter how our media system is structured. The time is ripe, given all the activism and commitment now in place, to direct our energy towards achieving long-term positive changes for our media system.
A major transformation that is underway is reshaping broadcasting, cable and the Internet. The TV system in the U.S. is being reorganized because of digital technology, which should provide new opportunities for progressives to directly offer channels and program services to the vast majority of television households. But unless progressives and their allies pursue a proactive strategy, they will continue to be as marginalized as we are today.
The emerging structure of the television industry will flow primarily from cable television, a monopoly service that already serves 70 percent of all U.S. viewers (direct broadcast satellite controls the next 15 percent, with over-the-air broadcast serving the remainder). In the future, both cable and satellite companies will be sending their programming via servers, storage devices that will deliver programs and channels to individual households. There will be more channels since cable broadband technology can distribute a greater range of programming options. Already, more than 20 million U.S. cable households receive digital service. Within the next five to seven years, digital set-top and other connections will serve the vast majority of the viewing public.
But mainstream commercial programmers intend to keep a tight control over this new media landscape, dimming the possibility for the inclusion of alternative voices. Their goal is to use the new technology to make TV an even more potent commercial medium through targeted advertising. For example, Comcast, the nation's largest cable television and broadband Internet Service Provider, is now testing on-demand delivery by offering Philadelphia viewers 1500 hours of programming, with half of it for free (but with ads). Working with its partner NBC, Comcast intends to provide its captive viewers with the programs and channels of its choice to store on their server.
The next-generation of set-top boxes will also allow viewers to download and store programming on the hard-drive of their personal video recorder or PVR (similar to what Tivo today provides to more than 500,000 "early users"). Control of the PVR will be partly under the influence of the cable or satellite company since they provide the download connections that make such a device "intelligent." TV will also be interactive and personalized. Leading the way are people like Rupert Murdoch, whose company NDS is building cutting-edge software for television's next technological leap.
Cable also intends to effectively mold the future of the Internet as more households select broadband online connections. Both cable and large phone companies have recently secured new policies at the FCC that allow them to deny access to other ISPs -- in effect, they will become broadband monopolies. Cable's new set-top boxes include high-speed internet access and wireless connections. They hope that a single "bundle" of services, attractive to many users, will foreclose competition from alternatives.
The commercial cable and broadcast conglomerates have no intention of sharing their "broadband wealth" with others. Even PBS recently complained to the FCC that the cable industry is refusing to carry their proposed new digital channels. The FCC will soon allow even fewer companies -- perhaps as few as two -- to own the majority of cable systems. And although the Writers Guild of America (West) recently complained to the Commission that just five companies already control the vast majority of all the major television channels, the FCC will also soon permit more consolidation as it weakens media ownership safeguards as early as June.
A broadband system possesses the capacity to offer progressives and other groups the opportunity to create new channels and programming services by using a variety of business models. Imagine, for example, that 500,000 progressives agreed to pay $5 a month to support a news service. With a $30 million a year programming budget, that channel could be made available for free and seriously challenge the timidity of both commercial and public TV. A whole range of news and cultural services could be created, including ensuring that independent producers have access to the servers, PVRs, and electronic programming guides that will be at the heart of the new interactive TV landscape. But first we have to secure access to the treasure trove of channel capacity held by cable and satellite companies.
What can be done? First, progressives will have to craft a legislative strategy that breaks the cable and satellite stranglehold over channel capacity. They will have to mount efforts at the local level as well, challenging the ways in which cable, for example, intends to serve the public with its new technology. Finally, they will have to develop plans that will lead to the creation of real programming alternatives. While we should continue to pressure the networks through demonstrations and other efforts, we must also strive for more long-term fundamental changes.
The history of U.S. communications in the twentieth century was marked by a striking common theme. During each major transition to a new medium -- radio, broadcasting, or cable -- the media industry assured the public that they would use their new capacity to serve the public interest. But once they were able to lobby away any policy safeguards, the networks served only their narrow commercial goals.
Unless progressives embrace a strategy to intervene in the emerging digital TV marketplace, they may find themselves locked into a future commercial media system that once again marginalizes critical analysis and dissent. Let's avoid that rerun.