Category: journalism

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

Time Magazine: You’ve Got Hypocrisy

Time’s person of the year issue named You– and everyone else—as its annual award recipient. Hailing what it called “Citizens of the New Digital Democracy,” the Time Warner flagship publication breathlessly published a series of exuberant articles about how the new media is dramatically changing our country and the world. “You control the Information age” claimed the magazine headline, complete with a mirror-like cover device so you could admire yourself. But the failure of Time to seriously address the key issues raised by Web 2.0 and broadband illustrates the many hurdles to overcome if we are to have any semblance of a digital democracy.

Perhaps the best example of Time’s failure to truly be honest with readers/users was its failure to address the elimination of network neutrality. Time magazine’s parent company is one of the corporate leaders opposed to an open and non-discriminatory Internet. Time Warner is part of the cable industry lobbying apparatus that has eliminated broadband non-discrimination in the U.S. If Time Warner–and its allies Comcast, Verizon and AT&T–have their way, a handful of cable and phone conglomerates will actually determine much of our digital destiny. These old media giants want to extend their monopolies into the digital era, ensuring that their content receives preferential treatment; that broadband becomes a pay as your surf and post toll-road; and that they become powerful barons of the digital domain.

Time magazine should have acknowledged that its parent company is opposed to limits on media consolidation. It wishes to own as much of cable as it can (so it could continue to swallow up cable systems, such as what it and Comcast recently did when they carved up giant Adelphia cable). The magazine should have acknowledged that its parent once before had predicted great things for the U.S. public with new media—when AOL and Time Warner merged in what was then the largest media merger in U.S. history. It should have acknowledged the numerous lies given by Time Warner executives to shareholders, consumers, and policymakers when it claimed to be a sound and public-minded deal.

The cover story should have acknowledged how the new media poses great threats to our privacy, as data is collected about our every move by AOL and many others. It should have discussed how Time Warner’s AOL made public our personal search data, and also turned over records about our searches to the Bush Administration. Instead of mindlessly claiming that to see the future of our media we should look at raw videos on YouTube, it should have said that the public should learn about how Time Warner’s interactive ad subsidiary—Advertising.com—targets us with personalized digital marketing.

As we discuss in our new book—out tomorrow—much of today’s new media “vision” is driven by a desire to create a stronger mechanism for personalized and targeted interactive marketing. Companies such as Time Warner, Google, and Yahoo want to combine the branding power of video with the data collecting and interactive capabilities of the Internet. It will be a digital democracy shaped by Madison Avenue. That was the vision originally developed for our new media future by AOL and Time Warner’s leaders Steve Case and Richard Parsons. Much of Web 2.0 is based on that vision: a system designed to promote the “brandwashing” of America.

Yes, we have endless possibilities with new media, including the Web 2.0 paradigm. But powerful political and economic forces will shape what ultimately develops. If Time Warner has its way, they will hold a key copyright over our digital democracy.

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.

Progressive 2.0–We Need to Build a "New" New Media System for U.S.

We are convinced that the only way to ensure a more democratic and diverse communications system in this era of “anytime/anywhere” media is to “build” it. Public policy will not be able to play a leading role to help us do that–certainly in the short term. What’s required is a strategic effort designed to harness the power (and challenges) of convergence by fostering large-scale collaboration and partnerships. The potential of Web 2.0 sites that foster community building is a critical area for progressive endeavors. As we have said, the Web 2.0 model offers the opportunity for communities and the nation to have diverse, public-interest-oriented and sustainable digital communications services. We should not cede media influence to services who are primarily interested in financial profit–they will dominate unless we can challenge the new media status quo.

We will need to tap into the expertise of new media business types who wish to harness the power of the media for social good. In that respect, we believe that the Huffington Post’s hire of a Time Warner executive familiar with online ad sales (and who will help it better connect with the growing revenue stream of Web 2.0 media) is something which should be replicated.

loan stock of issuing advantagesall 1 loan 888loans 106 mortgageapproval 100 loans garanteed6 rates month loans interestloans 1.25000 unsecured loanrate loan acquisition finance floating Map

bbw samples free moviebbw free samples moviemovie devil cry mayslut free moviesfree huge tits movieshorror trivia moviemovies amateur nudecry devil movie may Map

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.

Yahoo!’s Deal with the Newspaper Industry: Papers should come clean about the data they will now collect/share and our privacy

We are troubled, as are many, about the crisis occurring within the U.S. daily newspaper industry. The lay-offs, cut backs, and other problems besetting such distinguished papers as the Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, Philadelphia Inquirer, and too many others, requires the attention of policy makers and civic leaders. We believe a principal cause for the current problem are publishers and newspaper holding companies whose first interest is squeezing out maximum revenue returns—for themselves and shareholders. Newspapers can make a reasonable profit and support serious journalism. But when they are seen as just another vehicle designed to generate lots of cash, the defenders of the First Amendment have been replaced by white-collar criminals. It’s time for new federal laws that would enable newspapers to be operated without regard to maximizing shareholder return.


 We also know we are in a key transition period for all media. That’s why we should publicly examine all the major deals shaping our future information landscape—to determine how well they will serve the public interest [Yes. We think that’s more important than just making money from the deals]. So, when William Dean Stapleton, CEO of MediaNewsGroup, says in a joint statement that the new partnership with Yahoo! and 176 newspapers is “transformational”–it requires a closer look. Some of the biggest names in the news business—Belo, Cox, Hearst, Scripps and MediaNews—have now hitched their digital wagons to Yahoo! Papers such as the San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, and Dallas Morning News are now a part of what is called the “most comprehensive advertising network in the online industry.” A major facet of the deal, notes the release, is for the papers to “[U]se Yahoo!’s search monetization functionality on newspapers Web sites, such as Web search, downloads of the Yahoo! toolbar and sponsored search.”

We recognize that newspapers must boldly work to secure new digital revenues. But in doing so, they must be responsible. That includes explaining carefully to every reader and user the kind of personal and other data Yahoo! is now able to collect and financially harvest. Readers/users need to know how Yahoo! and its newspaper partners will “target” them. When Yahoo! acquired rich media ad firm AdInterax last month, they noted that “Rich media technology enables marketers to create more compelling and interactive advertising units online using sight, sound and motion to deliver a message to target consumers. Yahoo! plans to further integrate rich media capabilities into its current leading offerings by developing a self-service model for marketers based on the AdInterax platform. This new rich media solution will enable advertisers and agencies to create and run rich media campaigns coupled with other Yahoo! capabilities including behavioral targeting, geo-targeting, demo-targeting, and dayparting.” The release also noted that “the AdInterax tracking and reporting module tracks traditional metrics including impressions, clicks, and reach and frequency, in addition to other key branding and direct marketing data.”

Newspapers should be protecting the privacy of the public—from both the excesses of government as well as commercial interests. Journalistic-related companies should make deals with online marketers such as Google and Yahoo! which place the privacy interests of readers/users first. We suggest that the editors from the papers now working with Yahoo! commission stories that will explain the deal in terms of what data is being collected and how it will be used. Then, the papers should run editorials calling on Congress to pass meaningful privacy safeguards on electronic data gathering. But—if they did that—wouldn’t it now threaten the very deal they just made? We will be tracking this story.

PS: We also want to see the same privacy-related disclosure from the 50 papers now involved with Google, via a deal announced earlier this month. They include the New York Times and Washington Post.

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.

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?

The Tribune Company’s Bad Journalistic Karma: Why Promoting Media Consolidation Can Come Back to Haunt You

A tragedy of Shakespearean proportions continues at the troubled Tribune Company. It has dismissed the Los Angeles Time publisher who bravely stood with those at the paper opposing further editorial budget cuts. The once-glorious Times Mirror chain–including its Los Angeles Times jewel–has been seriously journalistically wounded by the Tribune Co.

Perhaps no company lobbied the FCC as hard to sweep away media ownership safeguards as did Tribune. During the Michael Powell era, it used raw political power—and editorial might—in an attempt to eliminate the key federal safeguard promoting diversity of news ownership (the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule). Trib DC lobbyists—and top executives such as Jack Fuller—staked the company’s future on television. The shortsighted strategy was based on greed. If only the company could own more TV stations in the same places where it owned newspapers, all kinds of positive financial synergies would emerge (think cost-cutting). Tribune execs especially desired the quick and easy profits from the TV syndication market, where it sells such programs as Beastmaster and Mutant X.

So the Tribune Company paid more attention to pleasing Wall Street than its mission to provide serious support for print journalism. Now, the empire is unraveling—although too many good reporters, editors (and it appears) even publishers will suffer as a consequence. We believe that profits beyond covering expenses must come second when running a news media business. The seeking of ever-higher revenues cannot be the principle corporate mission for journalism. That’s why Congress needs to exempt publicly-traded news companies from having to place the needs of shareholders ahead of the public interest. Nor should media companies lobby to promote further concentration of ownership. Indeed, we need to break-apart the news organizations now in the hands of vast entertainment empires. Running a theme park and a movie studio–along with a news organization–creates all kinds of conflicts and distractions. Media consolidation is not the answer. But producing a quality news product—especially a newspaper—is. It’s time for reporters and others who care about news to seek new policies that would ensure independent and serious journalism thrives in the digital era (which is one of the key reasons why the U.S. needs to restore network neutrality for broadband).