In the Media Storm

July 14th, 2005 - by: danny

Today, the Federal Communications Commission will revisit media ownership rules for the first time since its previously proposed rules were blocked by a federal appeals court and sent back to the agency for review.

Press release from Media Reform Coalition:

“Much is at stake, and leaders of several public interest, consumer and media groups will be available after the meeting to comment and ensure that public concerns are included as the FCC begins to rewrite new ownership rules that will affect how every American gets the news and information they need for a democracy to thrive. The speakers in this tele-press conference helped lead a powerful citizen coalition that opposed greater media concentration and developed the strategy that resulted in a significant legal victory in which the court last year threw out the rules and told the FCC to go back to the drawing board.”

WHY FIGHT BIG MEDIA?

The Village Voice features an interview with Bob McChesney on this very issue:

“A piece from Adam Thierer, ‘What Ever Happened to the Big Media Boogeyman,’ claims that ‘the age of scarcity has given way to the age of abundance,’ and thus concerns of media overconsolidation are exaggerated.

“The largest media firms and communications firms in this country, without exception, are the recipients of enormous government monopoly privileges and/or subsidies. They aren’t tinkerers out in the garage competing without any government role. The government’s in the kitchen making this media system.

“The whole media reform movement is dedicated to the proposition that we have to have informed public participation… to weigh in on the policies and subsidies that are made in its name, but heretofore without its informed consent.

“A recent study published by the Pew Research Center suggests that Americans still have a pretty favorable opinion of newspapers.

“I don’t think that Pew survey was meant to be a referendum on whether we need to change our media system, and it shouldn’t be regarded in such a way.

“My sense is that there’s phenomenal concern in this country about media. We saw it with a massive outburst in public interest in the media ownership fight in 2003; we’re seeing it this year in the fight over PBS.

“Had that been a huge challenge to overcome, convincing the public that there is a problem?

“The thing that people hadn’t believed until recently is they could do anything about it. It was no more practical to try to change the media system than it would be to try to get rid of the Rocky Mountain range. What’s changed in the last three years is that people understand that the media system isn’t natural. And we have got a right and a duty to raise hell about it.”

THE NEW YORK TIMES TO THE L.A. TIMES, RE: JUDITH MILLER

“[Editor Bill] Keller writes: ‘How clever of the Los Angeles Times to propose that Judy Miller debate Mike Kinsley on the subject of press freedom. Sadly, Judy is not on a fellowship at some writers’ colony. She is in JAIL. She is sleeping on a foam mattress on the floor, and her communications are, shall we say, constrained.

“I have to tell you that Mike’s contrarian intellectualizing on the subject of reporters and the law was more amusing when it was all hypothetical. Back then it was just punditry. But that was before Norm Pearlstine embraced acquiescence as corporate policy, and before Judy Miller braved the real-world discomforts of the moral high ground. Of course this is an important issue, and clever minds should wrestle with it. But at the moment Kinsley and Pearlstine seem perversely remote from the world where actual reporters work… ”

Romanesko’s column, Poynter, July 11, 2005
www.nyu.edu

WHO YA GONNA CALL?

If you are unhappy with the work of the White House press corpse, here is someone to write to. ABC News Radio’s national correspondent Ann Compton was just elected president of the White House Correspondents Association.

The Independent reports: “Former U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell has joined Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers, one of the original backers of Google.”

OVERSEAS: CHINA TIGHTENS CONTROLS ON TV AND INTERNET

The Wall Street Journal reports:

“China on Wednesday tightened controls on its television and radio stations, announcing a ban on forming partnerships with foreign broadcasters to operate channels. The measure represents a step back from more liberal rules unveiled late last year in an effort to open China’s media market.”

Tim Johnson of Knight Ridder reports: “In China, sophisticated filters keep the Internet near sterile:”

“SHANGHAI, China — (KRT) – To get an inkling of how China controls and sanitizes the Internet experience, it helps to step into any Internet cafe in Shanghai.

“Each incoming user must give a name and address, then hand over identification to a clerk. Closed-circuit TV cameras monitor from overhead. Every computer terminal is loaded with software to track all activity. If a user heads toward a prohibited Web site, cafe employees know right away.

“‘A blinking light goes off,’ said Lin Fusheng, owner of the sprawling Shigong Network cafe, off Shanghai’s main pedestrian walkway.

“The software also alerts authorities at a Shanghai municipal security post across town, and inspectors eventually may drop in to check on the infractions.

“These are only a few of the security measures that have created what some call a Great Fire Wall around the world’s fastest-growing population of Internet users.”

Note: It has been widely reported that U.S. software firms made some of these Internet filters for the Chinese government.