Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act – Page 2

As Sulzberger Reflects on Times Future, it is Critical to Work to Save Newspapers

We have always argued that newspaper journalism is a distinct news environment worthy of preserving. That’s so evident when you compare print reporting with what we largely receive via radio and television media. Newspapers are where in-depth news and analysis, investigative reporting, diverse commentary can occur (as bad as they often do it, it’s still better than what we get from the TV networks). It’s evident that journalism is in crisis; newspapers especially. That’s why we have urged new legislation that would help remove publically-traded newspaper companies from the pressures of having to make shareholder value its first priority. More on this later. But we want to be among the bloggers who reflect on what Arthur Sulzberger just said to a writer from Haaretz:

“I really don’t know whether we’ll be printing the Times in five years, and you know what? I don’t care either,” he says.

Sulzberger is focusing on how to best manage the transition from print to Internet.

“The Internet is a wonderful place to be, and we’re leading there,” he points out.

The Times, in fact, has doubled its online readership to 1.5 million a day to go along with its 1.1 million subscribers for the print edition.

Sulzberger says the New York Times is on a journey that will conclude the day the company decides to stop printing the paper. That will mark the end of the transition. It’s a long journey, and there will be bumps on the road, says the man at the driving wheel, but he doesn’t see a black void ahead.”

Certainly, the Times isn’t going to stop publishing. But Sulzberger remarks must signal the need to see a more serious–and very public– debate about the future of news in this country. The FCC isn’t going to do it–caught as it is in the mindless notion that media consolidation and a closed Internet is good for the country’s press. J-schools are timid too often. That’s why more from academia, advocacy, journalism, philanthropy, and the Congress should speak up. Now!

The Corrupt Telecom Law Helping Boost Fox Business Channel

Just a quick reminder to those interested in learning more about the new big business booster Fox Business Channel. The channel’s guarantee of all too rare carriage by the cable monopoly is made possible because of a corrupt law passed by (the still Democratic-controlled under the influence of the NAB) Congress back in 1992. “Retransmission consent”–a policy that has given tens of billions of dollars worth of cable, satellite, and now telephone (Verizon, etc.) channels to big broadcasters such as Fox, Disney/ABC; Scripps, Sinclair, CBS and others–is a huge scandal. The law has enabled the already too powerful to become ever more so. It is even being used now to extend the power of the largest television broadcasters onto the key broadband platforms controlled by cable and phone companies. That’s why companies such as Disney/ABC are silent now about the killing-off of network neutrality: they got their access via retranmission consent deals.

Murdoch’s Fox has used “retrans” consent to help get prime position cable carriage for its new pro-business channel from such key gatekeepers as Comcast and Time Warner (he also used the leverage of renewing the carriage for Fox News. Of course, Murdoch’s control over DirecTV has also helped boost Fox’s distribution). We don’t have time now to go into this (plug: I cover this issue in my book). But the point here is that media advocates should press for the repeal of retrans consent. It should be replaced by a universal access to all programming content rule where all platforms–PC, mobile, and cable/satellite/IPTV–must be fully open to all content. No “triple plays” for a powerful handful; no Mafia-like retrans deals where media giants carve up the digital TV and broadband `pie.’ It’s time to dismantle the gatekeepers.

A Public Agenda for the Future of Communications

We don’t think it’s time for half-measures or a narrow focus when it comes to principles to govern and shape our digital media system. It’s time for real action, going beyond the current focus on network neutrality and media ownership of broadcasting. Access to broadband–its connections and much of its content– is a “civil right” in this century. The emerging digital mediums (PC, mobile, IPTV) should be positioned squarely within the public interest. That means a thorough over-hauling of the nation’s communications policies, to put real people first in the digital era. Access to broadband for low-income and poor Americans should be free (or as cheap as a fast-food burger). The notion of “affordable”–as it states in various proposals–doesn’t really say anything. It’s time we declared that access to broadband in the home is a Right. Broadband should be envisoned and regulated as a public utility serving the needs of our democracy.
While fighting for network neutrality is important, I don’t believe it will fundamentally change the nature of the emerging digital landscape. It will be commercialized and consolidated, thanks in part to the efforts of the companies now supporting (even if half-heartedly for some) network neutrality. Commercial competition has its limits, although it’s important to strive for. But to ensure the Internet in the U.S. better fulfill its public interest potential, it will take more than commercial nondiscrimination. We will require a government and privately funded digital media “Marshall” plan to help create a vibrant and diverse public sphere. There will need to be a system of both non-commercial and for-profit services which place the civic, cultural, and community interests of the public before concerns over generating maximum financial returns for a few. One area requiring attention is to ensure that civic-related content have unfettered access to all devices–PC’s, TV’s, and mobile.
It’s not time to embrace “restrained” regulation, as much as that slogan may work with timid or narrow-minded policymakers. We should have a serious agenda calling for community owned networks; an expanded role for non-commercial multimedia producers; grants to promote ownership of digital content services by women, people of color, and low income Americans, and a privacy policy that can help protect us from what will be abuses by both government and industry.
Hey folks, let’s be bold in what we ask for (especially since this Congress, and probably the next, won’t really do anything!). But we should set the marker; make it high and hold our selves proud. It’s not the time to play it safe.

zavala mp3 abel acdc clips mp3 mp3 holiday dreadlock blogspot 10cc mp3 2pacalypse now 36 crazyfists mp3 a950 mp3 telus adnan sami mp3 90s mp3 archive Map

gallery movie adult free clips beastiality movie cum bigtits movies clips men black movie gay movie blade runner cabin fever movie celeb movies porn free chasey movies lane Map

Adding to the Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act

The other day we offered an initial proposal on what a public interest-minded Communications Act for the digital era should include. We hope everyone will add to such a plan. One issue we left out is public telecommunications. This is an area which needs to be thoroughly overhauled. Sufficient public funding is required; insulation from political interference [the “Stop Appointing Hacks to the CPB Board” provision]; greater public/community control by elected boards; a mandate to produce indepth news and cultural content; and absolutely no advertising at all. In other words, refashion public broadcasting so it can evolve as a non-commercial “Commons;” not the hodge-podge of commercialism and varying quality it is likely to further become.

We also believe that any legislation must expand the role of community media. Local public, educational and governmental communications must be given the mandate–and the financial support–to serve its community mission in the interactive media era. That means programming all the major platforms–including the mobile network. We need to craft a campaign where we press for public interest policies while we also actively attempt to shape the digital marketplace so it better serves democracy. I discuss some of these proposals–and more–in the recommendation section of my new book–Digital Destiny.