Category: media lobbying

The AEI-Brookings Joint

As we note in our book, there is an endless supply of academics and private scholars who engage in the communications policymaking field. Usually, most academics work for industry hire and supply–surprise–what is deemed intellectual support for corporate political agendas. Missing always is a clear statement of who is funding them. A November paper by two well-known researchers at the “AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies,” now being hailed by anti network neutrality supporters, attempts to undermine the effort to restore non-discrimination safeguards to U.S. broadband networks. Messrs Hahn and Litan acknowledge in a cover footnote that they “have consulted for telecommunications and information technology companies on issues discussed in this paper.” They do not actually list such consultancies. But a glaring omission is the failure to identify who helps fund the Joint Center they co-direct. They include AT&T (and its predecessor SBC), Verizon and the super media monopoly lobbying shop Wiley, Rein and Fielding (which has represented BellSouth, Verizon and others). Such conflicts of interest should have been prominently displayed by the authors, as well as full disclosure of their consulting contracts. We note that pro-net neutrality firm Interactive Corp. is also a Joint Center supporter. But how much each gives and the terms of the grant must be disclosed in any related research. Research from the Joint Center, and all other scholarly and advocacy groups, should clearly and prominently identify their funders and their related political positions on the issues raised within the main body of the paper.
The public deserves better from the folks at the Joint Center.

For an example of the paper’s reception, go to Forbes.com and see the 1/24 online piece entitled “Is Network Neutrality a Myth?”

movies teen sexmilf moviessample lesbian moviemovies free job blowhot xxx samples moviedoing movies sapphicjob blow moviesstars movie naked Map

Washington

We wish the editors and reporters covering telecommunications would follow the money–and ask all the interested parties who foots their bill. They would find–with academics especially–so many financial links as to wonder whether these so-called experts aren’t violating some scholarly code of ethics. Take today’s psuedo scholarly attack on network neutrality by David Farber, Michael Katz and Christopher S. Woo. No where in the piece does it state that both Professors Katz and Yoo have taken money from the cable industry. Such funding led–natch–to industry supportive research pieces. Disclosure of such financial ties is required to be prominently displayed in such a piece, so readers can better place in context what is being said. Super cable monopoly Comcast hired UC Berkeley’s Katz in 2003 to produce research which placed the industry in favorable light. Comcast, of course, opposes network neutrality [I cover the role of Katz and other communications -academics-for -industry hire in my new book, btw]. Professor Yoo worked for the cable lobby NCTA last year to write a net neutrality study as well. Even Davd Farber should have disclosed he has spoken under the banner of the Verizon Foundation at Carnegie Mellon.

The Post’s editors must have asked if contributors have any conflicts? If so, what exactly did Professors Farber, Katz, and Yoo reply? We urge the Post to publish any such submissions. Moreover, the Post op-ed page must now seek response from parties who don’t have a money trail littering their “scholarship.”

Sources: “Study Slams Cooper’s Cable Research.” Multichannel News. 8/26/03

butt movies girls ebonyceleb free movies nudemovie galleries sex freefree squirting moviesfuck movies machinekacey teen kacey movieslesbian free download moviemovies sex adult Map

New York Times and Network Neutrality: Great position. But the paper needs to disclose its own conflicts on the issue

This week the New York Times editorial page weighed-in to support national legislation requiring network neutrality (“Protecting Internet Democracy,” January 3, 2007. Reg. may be required). We share those sentiments, of course. It’s time for a law that restores and extends Internet non-discrimination in the U.S. But we also believe that news organizations need to inform readers/viewers/users about how their own corporate relationships are affected by communications policy issues. The New York Times Co. is staking much of its future on digital media, including interactive advertising. For example, it acquired the About.com informational web service in 2005 for $410 million. The goal, said Times Co. officials, was to “increase the company’s revenue from the expanding online advertising business.” The Times Co. has historically been a leader in developing interactive marketing techniques, including so-called “surround sessions” which enable advertisers to digitally follow New York Times online users as they access the paper electronically. Indeed, as we cover in our new book, Digital Destiny, the Times Co.’s Martin Nisenholtz (who heads its digital operations) has been a key ad industry leader promoting the advance of interactive data collection and personalized targeted marketing. Few Times readers and users really understand what the Times Co. is doing with all this data in the service of its advertisers.

The Times Co. requires network neutrality—otherwise it knows it will have to pay a digital version of the Mafioso-like vig to Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T. The major phone and cable conglomerates want to charge everyone an assortment of fees for higher-speed Internet distribution, creating a de facto pay toll road for broadband. Given that everyone will be distributing video-centered multimedia to TV’s, cell phones and PC’s, having such “premium for a price” Internet access will be a necessity to prosper in the Web 2.0 and beyond era. Therefore, the Times Co must have network neutrality if its investments in About.com and other “new media” related strategies will return the profits to help support its journalism (which is a key reason why the country requires network neutrality. Without it, serious journalism will be in future jeopardy—as it is today).

Today, the Times reported that its parent company was selling off its television station group. It’s another indication that the Times Co. (wisely) understands its future lies with broadband. But the success of such a business model depends in part on an open Internet. We believe that the Times should have explained to its readers that when it supports network neutrality, it has its own financial future at stake. The paper, and the rest of the Times properties, should also begin to inform its users about the range of data collection and targeted electronic marketing its doing. Complete and full disclosure should be the rule—not an after-thought serving as fodder for bloggers.

Time for a Bold Public Interest Media/Telecom Agenda

We hope readers will look at Matt Stoller’s blog and his important piece entitled “On Building a Progressive Governing Coalition Around Net Neutrality.” It should be a part of a much larger debate about what should be done—at this critical juncture with our digital media system—to ensure that it truly serves democracy. We believe that there now must be a major push—in Congress and the marketplace–to advance a comprehensive agenda that will:

• require broadband content non-discrimination;
• invest in digital content services designed to foster news and public affairs;
• invest and support digital media services owned by women, persons of color, and low-income Americans;
• “save” newspaper journalism through changes in tax laws, SEC rules, and via new policies encouraging employee and non-profit ownership;
• expand “universal service” so that everyone who cannot afford it receives free residential broadband service;
• open up Internet-connected cell phone/mobile platforms (the “deck”) and digital cable and satellite services to all broadband content (in other words, ensure network neutrality gets content wherever the Net is—not just on PC’s);
• foster the development of financially sustainable and diverse Web 2.0 social networks which build communities of interest that can help organize for a more equitable society;
• enact privacy and interactive advertising safeguards so that we aren’t digitally “shadowed” online from marketers and government. This will also act as a check against the stealth machinery promoting consumption that has been placed throughout our digital environment. [We know more must be added to this draft digital media agenda].

In the next few months, it will be important for all the groups and individuals concerned about the U.S. media system to come together and foster a serious plan and strategy. One reason why some groups haven’t focused on the emerging threat to democracy in the digital era [such as the loss of broadband content and network non-discrimination due to cable/telco lobbying the Bush FCC] is that advocates [including myself] haven’t made the case well enough about what the alternative vision can be. It should be a broadband content system that truly reflects U.S. diversity—and strives to promote the artistic, cultural, political, and even spiritual aspects of a “Just” society. I envision such a system everywhere—a diverse “digiplex” of dedicated and inter-networked public interest Web 2.0 sites in cities, state capitals and nationally [connected, of course, to many like-minded global services]. It would offer a range of programming and community-connecting efforts on cell phones, digital TV, and PC’s that would help challenge the status quo. If such services now existed in the Gulf Coast region, for example, there would be more powerful voices offering video and other programming that holds the country and political leaders accountable for failing to effectively rebuild. It would be run by—and better represent—those Gulf Coast residents who today do not own any major media outlet (namely, most people). I believe that such services could also generate revenues that would help pay for the programming and organizing which must be done.

One approach to some of this is to propose federal legislation–the Community Digital Diversity and Civic Engagement Act–that would provide a portion of the necessary funds and the equitable access policies. It would build upon the good work already being done by community cable, low power radio, citizen journalists, newspaper unions and many others. It’s time, frankly, that policy advocates looked beyond broadcast ownership: a new world has already dawned. A number of my proposals require a marketplace intervention that would explore business models for sustainability, so there’s a role for public interest minded funders here. We will be turning more to this topic in the New Year. Let’s have a serious debate, build and embrace allies, and work as hard as we can to make the necessary changes.

CDT Works to Undermine the Public Interest in Broadband/ Allies with PFF

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has long served as part of the political support system for the telecom and media industries. While many view CDT as a privacy group, a great deal of what the organization does benefits its corporate supporters—which have been some of the biggest media and data collection companies in the country. They have included Axciom, Doubleclick, Time Warner, AT&T, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google and Intel.

Now, CDT has joined forces with one of the key corporate funded groups that has been leading the charge against network neutrality: the Progress and Freedom Foundation. PFF, co-founded by Newt Gingrich, is also supported by numerous corporate media/telecom interests, including Murdoch’s News Corp. (Fox), AT&T, BellSouth, Comcast, Clear Channel, GE/NBC, Google and Microsoft.

Yesterday, the two groups jointly filed amicus briefs in federal courts supporting News Corp./Fox and NBC’s efforts to undermine the ability of the FCC to regulate communications. The TV networks are fighting the FCC’s recent decisions on broadcast indecency. But the CDT/PFF filing wasn’t only about over-turning the FCC’s foolhardy and inappropriate efforts on so-called indecent content. The message CDT and PFF gave to the courts was they should rein in any effort by the FCC to ensure that the public interest be served in the digital media era. The filing claims that convergence of various media, including the Internet, make any policy role for the FCC related to diversity of content a threat to free speech itself. A very convenient argument that must warm the hearts of both CDT’s and PFF’s corporate funders, because they are precisely the companies who wish to avoid having a public interest regulatory regime in broadband.

Missing from the brief is any discussion of the regulatory areas for broadband (including PC, mobile, and digital TV [IPTV] platforms) that will require federal policy, including a key role for the FCC. Among them, ensuring an open, non-discriminatory content distribution policy for the Internet—network neutrality. Other rules that will require FCC action in the broadband era include ensuring “free” and “equal” time for political speech; diversity of content ownership, including by women and persons of color; localism; public service; privacy; and advertising regulation. There will need to be ad safeguards, for example, protecting children from interactive marketing that promotes obesity as well as with prescription drug ads targeting seniors via immersive “one-to-one” media techniques.

CDT and PFF argue that the new media environment provides the public with greater choice, another reason they urge the courts to limit FCC authority. But what’s really happening with digital media is that we are facing a system where the “choices” are being meaningfully reduced by the market. Wherever the public goes, the forces of conglomerate media and advertising will confront them. Consider, for example, News Corp.‘s MySpace now running Fox programming. (It’s interestingly, by the way, that neither CDT nor PFF told the courts that they have a financial relationship with some of the interests involved in the indecency debate).

We have long opposed FCC efforts to “regulate” indecency, including being critical of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (whom we otherwise strongly admire). The indecency effort by the FCC has helped let it become vulnerable to this attack by the media conglomerates, and their supporters, who have a longstanding political agenda aimed at sweeping away all regulation and safeguards. Fox, NBC, Viacom, Disney and the rest want a U.S. media system where they can own as many media outlets as they want, not have to do any public service, nor worry about regulators concerned about threats to privacy and interactive marketing abuses.

The emerging broadband era in the U.S. will see us face further consolidation of ownership of media outlets, including the Internet, as well as an increase in overall commercialization. The cry that Wall Street has for broadband is “monetization.” But our electronic media system must also serve democracy—not just the interests of those who want to make money. Civic participation, public interest civic media, and safeguards from content and services designed to manipulate us must be addressed. There is a role for the FCC in all this. (We shouldn’t throw-out as “bathwater” the potential of our broadband media to serve democracy and a role for the FCC because we are upset about it catering to zealous social conservatives who don’t like some programming).

Finally, shame on CDT for joining up with PFF. PFF is an opponent of the network neutrality policy for the Internet. It has also long opposed any meaningful role for the FCC. But, perhaps that’s the point. If PFF gets it way, its backers–and many of CDT’s–will be free to do as they please, regardless of the consequences to our democracy.

wife moviesxxx forum moviemovie engine adult searchkeys movies anettatrip movie boatfetish movies freemuscle free movies gayfree milf hunter movies Map

agnes etheringtonamc barrington theatresphone wireless 120e motorola ringtone keypresssch ringtone samsung 630ringtone nokia 6340i monophonicsamsung keypress ringtone a300theater amc south barringtonbarrington dating in south illinois adult Map

NYT’s on Media Cross-Ownership: Too Much Frenzy and Not Enough Reporting and Reflection

Today’s business section column [reg. required] on why concerns over newspaper-broadcast ownership safeguards are “yesterday’s news,” illustrates how poorly informed too many media beat reporters are about their own industry. First, writer Richard Siklos fails to acknowledge that his own employer—The Times Co.—lobbied the FCC to sweep away such rules during the 2001-3 proceeding. Reporters need to do a better of digging to learn about what their own employers are doing—both politically and in terms of market investments. In addition, Siklos, like so many others, fails to address how the Internet, due to recent FCC decisions, may not be able to provide a meaningfully diverse array of information sources in the near future. The elimination of network neutrality for U.S. broadband permits a very few—including cable, telephone, and broadcast TV stations—to send their content on so-called “fast lanes” [and for the 98% of the public, captive customers at that]. Siklos argues that “… the most important reason that cross-ownership rules no longer make sense is this: the distinctions between print and television are starting to blur in a digital world. Video on the Web is the biggest thing since turkey and gravy.” But today’s wide-open broadband frontier is likely to be tamed by the growing power of the Internet monopolies, now freed from operating their networks under a non-discrimination requirement [broadcast TV stations are already using their legislatively-procured “retransmission consent” to obtain favorable digital transport and promotion. Such market power is enhanced by the Congressional digital TV spectrum giveaway—which the Times Co. stations also received. Digital “retrans consent” has made owning a station a strategic investment during this transition period in the broadband market. Such a selling point is no doubt part of what the Times Co. is now making as it sells its stations.]

Siklos also fails to meaningfully assess how the business models of so many publicly traded newspapers have helped bring the industry to its current crisis point. Tribune tried to squeeze every dime out of its operations—hurting journalism as a result. Mr. Siklos should be interviewing colleagues who work at the LA Times and other Trib papers. Or get embedded in a paper run by Dean Singleton. We also wish Mr. Siklos had spent more time thinking about the unique journalistic culture of a newspaper—and why maintaining its editorial independence from TV/show-biz focused businesses is important to protect.

Diversity of media ownership is an serious topic—not one to be treated so flippantly as Mr. Siklos does for his largely business readers. It’s about the First Amendment in the digital era; open broadband networks; local and national news operations with the resources and commitment to do a serious job covering private and public power; and ownership by people now largely left out—namely everybody else other than white men. Cross-ownership is an important part of the “check and balances” the U.S. has relied on to ensure the electronic media can serve the public interest. Granted, things are changing—but much is not in the short term. This is a story that Mr. Siklos should return to soon—but do more careful reporting. Whether we have a media system capable of doing the investigative reporting necessary so it can stand up to a future Administration wanting to go to war without real documentation is part of what’s at stake.

Political Games Advertisers Play: A GOP Protection Racket

The nation’s biggest advertisers and marketers have developed an effective political operation in Washington. Madison Avenue and its clients have been able to ward off calls for policies, for example, that would protect our privacy. How the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) conduct its lobbying efforts have largely been off the radar screen. After all, the press cannot examine itself (since the ad lobby is ultimately tied to the fate and fortunes of broadcasting, cable, newspaper, and much of online).

So we thought it was worth pointing out a telling comment in a recent Advertising Age story written by its indefatigable and enterprising D.C. bureau chief Ira Teinowitz. In his story titled “What Democratic Control May Mean for Marketers” (Oct. 16, 2006), he quotes AAAA VP Dick O’Brien. A change in control, said O’Brien, would mean that “[T]he sort of protection we have had on the House Commerce Committee will disappear.”

While not a bombshell, such admissions help tell the story of how all too often, Commerce chair Joe Barton and Telecom subcommittee chair Fred Upton have worked to help the big buck special interest agenda (think Bells, cable and no network neutrality for broadband). While we don’t believe the Democrats are Saints, at least once in a while they will yell and scream. The Ad industry, in our opinion, needs to lose its protection racket defense.

AT&T’s “30-Month” Net Neutrality Merger Trade-in Offer: What a Joke!

So desperate to become a digital colossus once it swallows BellSouth, AT&T offered the dissident Democrats on the FCC a network neutrality “concession” today. Unbelievably, AT&T offered to operate its broadband Internet system as an open and democratic network—but only for 30 months! The offer illustrates how unethical and cynical the top executives are at Ma(d) Bell. `Yes, U.S. public,’ they say. `We will give you a democratic Internet for a brief moment, if you let us grow as an even larger unaccountable monopoly.’ AT&T’s offer underscores why permanent network neutrality safeguards are worth fighting for. The very companies who will provide the vast majority of broadband service, such as AT&T, really don’t want the public to have it.

AT&T is trying to sell to FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein the digital equivalent of the Brooklyn Bridge. They should say: “sorry, wrong number.”

rate 0 transfer credit cardscredit canada accept cardaccept store by card credit paymentcards on credit accept your websitecard accept credit businesscredit direct americanschool accreditation of aacreditado Map

Way to Go on AT&T Broadband Monopoly! FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein

I’m sure the sell-outs who make up most of the Washington telecom lobbying corps believe that FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein must come from another planet. But these all too rare two officials represent so much about what is right with the U.S. They are doing more than standing up for the public interest and demanding merger safeguards. Each has made a powerful and honest critique about what is at stake. They recognize that the U.S. broadband digital media system has been handed over to an ever-shrinking few. They realize that the U.S. media system, especially news, is in a deep crisis. Copps and Adelstein correctly critiqued what the Bush Department of Justice just did yesterday when it blessed the merger without safeguards. How refreshing to have officials who work for the public–and not really on behalf of a handful of self-serving media giants who place corporate and personal profit before the real needs of a democratic U.S.

Copps and Adelstein: Onwards to the Noble Peace Prize (Media Policy division!). Nobel citation: Trying (probably in vain) to restore honesty, integrity, and real public service to the FCC.

The RTNDA Undermines TV Journalism—with a little help from the most powerful pro-consolidation media lobbyist. RTNDA asks for a cover-up of the VNR scandal

The Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) is working to further undermine the ability of TV reporters and producers to engage in serious electronic journalism. In a nearly two dozen-page filing to the FCC on October 5, RTNDA comes to the defense of the use of Video News Releases. RTNDA actually told the Commission “…VNRs often are a source of newsworthy material of particular interest to the public which stations may not be able to obtain through other means.” Why would the RTNDA support the practice of using VNRs? It’s because the organization is both shortsighted and a political tool of TV owners. RTNDA doesn’t really represent the interests of reporters—but the bosses. It is trying to quash an FCC investigation into 77 TV stations identified in a report for failing to disclose VNRs. Everyone in the news biz knows that the reliance on VNRs—even by network O and O’s– is a cancer on electronic journalism. VNRs—placed by both commercial and government PR efforts—undermine serious reportage. But with station owners and news managers forcing local news to be a ever growing profit center, VNRs have become a form of information `cocaine.’ Too many stations are willing to sell time for the promotion of propaganda at worst and stealth commercial spots at best. Or they want to rely on free materials coming from special interests in order to save money on actually producing their own news.

Richard Wiley
The RTNDA should be telling the FCC that such outside “spin” oriented content should be prohibited by the industry itself. News should be produced by a local station, its contractors, network feeds, wires. Not by a pyramid scheme coming from PR flacks. One sign that RTNDA is working for owners—and not journalists or the public—is the use of arch media lobbyist Richard Wiley’s law firm [that’s Mr. Wiley’s picture above]. It is the Wiley firm which has been leading the media lobby campaign to wipe out ownership diversity safeguards—all so its clients can control more properties both in a single community and nationally.

The RTNDA wants the FCC to immediately kill its investigation of the stations involved in the VNR scandal. Incredibly, the RTNDA told the FCC that by investigating the charges made by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), it is “following the lead of an organization that is unrelenting in its hostility to the principles of free speech and a free press…” Such venomous, inaccurate, and out-right loony language illustrates how out of touch RTNDA’s leadership is. An organization concerned about electronic journalism requires leaders who place the First Amendment rights of TV reporters, producers and the public first. Not, as RTNDA just did, the political agenda of station owners, the National Association of Broadcasters, and media lobbyists such as Dick Wiley.

We think the RTNDA is violating its own Code of Ethics, which requires that “[P]rofessional electronic journalists should recognize that their first obligation is to the public.” We hope there are board members courageous enough to call for the organization to re-think its whole approach to media policy.

Disclosure: My organization occasionally works with a close colleague of CMD—Free Press. I also admire the work of CMD—which has done a first-rate job at exposing the invisible connections between the public relations industry, its clients, and public policy. I don’t believe, as Wiley argues, that such an FCC investigation will have a chilling effect. There do need to be limits about what government can do with the news media. But when news organizations act irresponsibly in a way that deceives the public, action is required. What is wrong—Ms. Cochran and Mr. Wiley—with a little sunshine?