" Broadcasters Must Be Made to Serve the Public Interest "

[Kanary]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0811-09.htm


Broadcasters Must Be Made to Serve the Public Interest
by Chellie Pingree and Jonathan Rintels

With the encouragement of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael K.
Powell, the country's broadcasters and cable operators have agreed to meet behind
closed doors to decide what Americans will see on their televisions as the nation
transitions from analog to digital broadcasting.

Representatives of the public interest were not invited. Neither were the commissioners of
the FCC, nor members of Congress.

Why do we call the public's attention to this private meeting? Because these two
corporate oligopolies that control television are meeting to decide what the public will see
on airwaves that are not their property, but the property of the public.

Television is acknowledged to be the most potent information medium ever, with
tremendous power to influence our citizenry and our democratic process. With the public
interest so obviously at stake, the public must be involved.
(snip)

[pacalo]

1. I hope this issue is high on Kerry's to-do list when he wins in Nov.

[Cleita]

3. Me too.

I hope a legitimate media can take over and point out those outlets that practice "yellow journalism", a word I remember from high school and that every thinking journalist should be concerned about.

[liveoaktx]

2. What to do about this? Call FCC and demand public hearings?

Seems to me that was the course taken when the FCC tried to push through the Media Ownership Rules.

I'm guessing that this has a lot to do with the Ala carte issues as well.

Including a video from the Unity Conference/Mark Lloyd that talks about WHY it's so important to vote for Kerry in order to FIX the FCC

Mark Lloyd on FCC

[Kanary]

7. One of the reasons why I posted this

is because I was *disappointed* that the article didn't actually give any suggestions what common, ordinary folk can do.

I liked the suggestions of what stations *should* be broadcasting, and agreed that the public should have input, but it certainly didn't give any helpful info on how to go about doing that.

So, I was hoping some very smart DUers could give some ideas. :hi:

Not that DU is well-known for taking action, but one can always hold out hope, I guess. :)

Kanary

[liveoaktx]

17. Action: Email right now, and CALL the FCC tomorrow to complain

SEND the article to at least 3 news outlets that you want to pay attention to this about, and then WRITE a letter to your local newspaper and at the end, ask THEM to email or call the FCC and demand public hearings. POST about it on at least one general bulletin board that is not this one.

when the media ownership rules came out, Powell was not going to have public hearings either and there was such an outcry that he was forced to do it. But we have to make this a very visible issue, not only letting the FCC know, but the public.

[Kanary]

27. Thanks, Dac_76, for the info!

I'll try to get out some letters tomorrow.

If you happen to have an email for the FCC around, I'll get that out, too.

Would it do any good to call any congresscritters?

Kanary

[sendero]

4. This has GOT to be...

... a top priority. The airwaves belong to the people and broadcast stations in particular are supposed to operate "in the public interest". There is no way to spin one-party rhetoric as serving the public interest.

If the FCC thinks it appropriate to basically revoke someones license over some "obscene" words, they need to get it through their heads that the threat to democracy manifested by one-sided one-party "news" is worthy of license forfeiture also.

[cthrumatrix]

5. I agree...and wish this were the case

[Wind Dancer]

6. Thanks for posting!

One of my favorite's wrote this:

Dear Friend,

When I anchored the evening news, I kept my opinions to myself. But now, more than ever, I feel I must speak out. That’s because I am deeply disturbed by the dangerous and growing influence of people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on our nation’s political leaders.

Especially after Robertson and Falwell both shamefully blamed America’s courts and the highest levels of our government for the horrific September 11 attacks on our nation. They said it happened because we “insulted God.” Falwell went on to blame feminists, pro-choice Americans and other groups he despises.

Like you, I understand that freedom of speech is a founding principle of our nation, and I respect people with the courage to speak their minds. As a concerned person of faith, however, I have watched with increasing alarm as the Christian Coalition and other Religious Right groups manipulate religion to further their intolerant, political agendas. Over the years, Robertson and Falwell have gained considerable influence on local school boards, in the administration, and in Congress. They have shrewdly twisted the traditional healing role of religion into an intolerant, political platform.

Using religion as a tool to push their personal political beliefs – especially, in a time of national tragedy – not only insults people of faith and good will, it also diminishes the positive healing role religion can and should play in public life. This is why I am speaking out today, and why I urge you to speak out, too. It is time we challenge those who equate religious beliefs with partisan politics, and if you agree, there is something you can do about it today.

Join me as a proud member of The Interfaith Alliance today.

When you do, you’ll join a diverse group of people of faith and good will who promote tolerance, respect and the inherent dignity of all human beings. The Interfaith Alliance is a non-partisan, grassroots organization of people from more than 70 faith traditions. It’s the only organization working full time to challenge religious political extremism, while promoting the healing role of faith in public life.

In short, The Interfaith Alliance offers a mainstream alternative for people of faith and good will to stand in opposition to the extremism of the Religious Right. The Christian Coalition has more than two million members and a growing coffer of funds, helping it influence elections and political candidates. In response, many members of Congress are forced to cave into its demands. Even politicians – who privately dislike its tactics or are uncomfortable with its political agenda – have been scared into submission.

So, I ask you today to stand with The Interfaith Alliance to challenge the intolerant influence of the Religious Right in civic life.

I am proud to stand behind The Interfaith Alliance – a courageous group of people of faith and good will led by my good friend, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,– and I know you will be proud, too. Please take a moment to see how your support will be used to counter the dangerous influence of the Religious Right.

Please join me in this critical effort with a special contribution today.

Thank you,



Walter Cronkite

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/About/AboutList.cfm?c=101

[Kanary]

9. Fine letter!

I hadn't seen that before, thanks for posting it!

I completely agree with him that the first priority should be broadcasts free of "bias" (or as much as possible). But, given that we are so very far from that, it is now important for ALL to speak up and shout out the truth.

Kanary

[robcon]

8. This is unconstitutional

No one should ever be forced to act in the "alleged" public interest. This is the most chilling idea on free speech of all.

[Kanary]

10. .

.

[snippyMcNippy]

25. You rate that a 10?

What is the scale you are using?

[dumpster_baby]

13. Those airwaves are OUR property. We can do with them as we please

We LET the broadcasters use our frequencies. We stipulate the conditions. We can set any conditions we like.

[LastDemocratInSC]

26. The broadcast frequencies are our property, but cable and satellite?

Stations that broadcast by conventional means, being towers for AM stations and tower-mounted antennas for FM and TV, are licensed to use the public's radio frequencies. Cable and satellite broadcasters do not use a public resource because the radio frequencies they use are confined within their infrastructure (cable system or satellite footprint) and are duplicated by other operators with no interference.

Technology is moving far faster than the law, no doubt about that. I can see the Fairness Doctrine being applied again to conventional broadcasters, but I think it would be tough to apply it to cable and satellite operators using the "public resource" argument. For example, there was never a Fairness Doctrine for newspapers because no public resource is used.

What might work would be an argument along the lines of this: Cable and satellite broadcasts don't use public resources but they provide information to the public, have become the dominant means of disseminating information in our culture, and have an obligation to fairness along the lines of the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine.

By the way, Congress voted down Reagan's assault on the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 but couldn't override his veto of the legislation that continued the Doctrine.

[dumpster_baby]

11. cheap wireless broadband, digital cameras, and P2P network apps

Once we get cheap wireless broadband (which should be here in about 5 years), combined with cheap digital cameras, and P2P network apps, the little guy can start to fight against the Big Money on the video propaganda stage. You are right about video being the killer app for propaganda. But picture how it will be in 5 years from now: if you and I and several other DUers lived in the same area, we could get together and write a script for a movie, one which highlights progressive political ideas, or if not a movie, a sitcom. THen we could shoot the movie using a $150 digital camera. And edit it using free software. THen toss it on Kazaa. And let it wend its merry memetic way into the brains of America.

MOST of the people who work in Hollywood making movies and tv shows got there by dint not of talent, but via connections. Anyone in show biz who is honest will tell you that. It aint that hard to make an entertaining movie.

Even Steven Spielberg thinks that in a few years the entire entertainment industry will be vastly changed. To quote him, "I think that the Internet is going to effect the most profound change on the entertainment industries combined. And we're all gonna be tuning into the most popular Internet show in the world, which will be coming from some place in Des Moines." When Couric remarked, "Great, I'm gonna lose my job," Spielberg interjected, "We're all gonna lose our jobs. We're all gonna be on the Internet trying to find an audience."

So in a few years we can propagate progressive memes just as Big Money has propagated right wing neoliberal memes. And once you get into people's heads that way, you can change the way they think. And they do not even realize it. I guarantee you 10 years from now, most of these freeper/libertarian/right wing types who support bush and the neoliberal GOP/Democrat agenda will be talking out of the other side (left side) of the political spectrum.

Wireless broadband will start to break out sometime next year, so they say. Within a couple of years, it should force down broadband prices low enough so that most Americans will be on broadband. Then we can go to work....

I am already learning how to make a movie. I have taken some video clips (using my $120 digital camera, put them on my computer, and am trying make a movie right now using Acrobat Premiere editing software. You can get it on Kazaa (a p2p network) for free.

It is the only way to fight back, Kanary. I know you want justice, and you want it bad. Me, too. But there is only one way to get it: video propaganda.....entertain and educate....

[dumpster_baby]

12. BTW, TV broadcasters are already asking permission to stop broadcasting

Some of them have asked to FCC to let them broadcast over the Net and cable. It is expensive to broadcast a signal over the air like that.

So they know what is coming, too.

You can already watch TV over the Net. I watch stations from all over the world. They of course have the money to pay for the server bandwidth.

But when enough people have broadband, you can just upload the shows onto p2p networks. No cost to you!

Times are a-changin'....

[Kanary]

16. Welll, now I really am depresssed. ONe more thing those of us

on the bottom rung will be missing out on.

sigh......

I think I've outlived my usefulness.......

Kanary

[Kanary]

14. Yes, I want justice bad, and glad you do, also.

I appreciate your detailing of your vision. I'm sure you're quite sincere in your goals, and may very well attain a lot of success in this area...... I will certainly hope so!

Now, I"m going to give some of my responses.

First of all.... look at what has happened in just the last four years.......... do you *really* think we can wiat for five more years? Maybe it's my sense of urgency because I know that cuts are coming which will be affecting me, and don't even believe anymore that I'll still be alive in 5 years. I just don't have that same sense of hope and time that you have.

Second..... We *used* to have the Fairness Doctrine, and with some Dems with a sufficient supply of calcium, I think we can have it again: and desperately need it! It would do much to reach the goals stated in the article.

Third.... you seem to imply (and maybe I'm not reading you correctly on this) that *ANYONE* can afford to get the needed equipment. *I'm* certainly not in any way, shape or form able to do that. Just impossible. What I *have* done some is to make tape copies of videos and programs that are helpful to others in helping them to get issues across to fencesitters they know. Until my VCR breaks down, that's something I can do, and have been doing. I'm doing it gladly, because I like having *something* I can offer.
But, the rest of what you talk about is waaay out of my reach. If I was among people who actually were interested in any of my ideas, I could offer those, but that's about it. And at this point, I have little confidence in our ability to form enough community to do even that. Yes, that's how discouraged I am at what I see around me.

However, I'm very glad to hear that there are people like you who are pursuing this. It's quite exciting to contemplate! If I don't get to see any of the results, just know that I'm there, cheering you on!

I don't see this in any way as an either/or. This is a both/and.

Kanary

[liveoaktx]

18. We can do this, but as Mark Lloyd points out, this is a POLITICAL issue

Kerry has already said that he voted AGAINST the media ownership rules that consolidated power into the hands of only a few. He will be able to appoint commissioners to the FCC so that the balance will not be 3 repugs versus 2 dems.

One more video that I found inspiring

Linda Foley

[Kanary]

21. I hope he will do that.

I think that's what I was saying earlier.

I'm not able to watch most video on this defunct machine of mine.

Kanary

[dumpster_baby]

19. possible paths

Kanary wrote:
>>>>>>>>>.
First of all.... look at what has happened in just the last four years.......... do you *really* think we can wiat for five more years? Maybe it's my sense of urgency because I know that cuts are coming which will be affecting me, and don't even believe anymore that I'll still be alive in 5 years. I just don't have that same sense of hope and time that you have.
>>>>>>>>>>


What choice do we have? I want to live a better life, too, but I also want revenge for what they have done, for how they have used propaganda to manipulate America over the last few decades. Ever since the mass media came into being, the Big Money has used it to manipulate us. Now it is our turn, or it will be shortly....


But I do think we can work on kerry once he gets elected. Get as much help as we can from the establishment.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Second..... We *used* to have the Fairness Doctrine, and with some Dems with a sufficient supply of calcium, I think we can have it again: and desperately need it! It would do much to reach the goals stated in the article.
>>>>>>>>>


We need Fairness back. But they would never put on someone truly radical. Not anyone like you or me.

And although I do doubt we could get it back before the Internet practically moots it, if we are able to get it back, it would be helpful. And I do think that its absence is the major reason we do not have a better social safety net right now.



>>>>>>>>>>.
Third.... you seem to imply (and maybe I'm not reading you correctly on this) that *ANYONE* can afford to get the needed equipment. *I'm* certainly not in any way, shape or form able to do that. Just impossible.
>>>>>>>>>>



Ok, but in a collaborative effort, you do not need to do everything yourself. Can you help write a script, play a part, help create a studio set?



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But, the rest of what you talk about is waaay out of my reach. If I was among people who actually were interested in any of my ideas, I could offer those, but that's about it. And at this point, I have little confidence in our ability to form enough community to do even that. Yes, that's how discouraged I am at what I see around me.
>>>>>>>>>>>


I am also VERY discourged by the lack of substantive community on the left. I mean it is so sad. Look at what the computer geeks have been able to do with open source software: working collaboratively, mostly for free, they have radically altered the world of web server software with GNU-Apache-Linux. They effectively crippled server giant Sun. And those are young nerdy types. We should be able to do MUCH better. But we don't.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't see this in any way as an either/or. This is a both/and.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


yeah, I agree....

[Kanary]

20. those paths.....

>What choice do we have?

I'm going to repeat here, because there are so FEW voices bringing this forth, that many of us don't have 5 more years before we are no longer surviving because of cuts. I'm not talking about "a better life" -- I'm talking about a LIFE AT ALL. I really don't think that most DEMs can actually understand what that is doing to some of us, to be living with that reality, day after day.

So, all this seems quite possible and exciting to you, and for me...... it just leaves me empty and heartheavy. Because, it makes me feel all the more isolated. I *really* want people to begin to understand that. Not just for me, but for the thousands and thousands and thousands who are so left out! It is DEADLY.

Furthermore, it is taking a lot out of me to be such a lone voice expressing this. So, I'll leave it at that, and hope it makes an impression.

Yes, I do agree we "need to work on Kerry", and I also agree with you that there won't very likely be many "radical" voices, although there is certainly some interest in Chomsky et al. That part I do see as something we have to do on our own. Like women's consciousness raising in the 60's and 70's. But, that takes, again, that willingness to get past ego ad work together, and I just don't see that happening.

>Ok, but in a collaborative effort, you do not need to do everything yourself. Can you help write a script,
play a part, help create a studio set?

First of all, I don't think you really heard me that I, and thousands of other voices who NEED to be heard, cannot afford any of this. I really don't think most middleclass people can grasp this.

And those skills, no. I'm fresh out. What I have to add is what I know from living as a person on the bottom rung, which is important, and needs to be heard, but there isn't interest from those who have the skills and equipment. We simply aren't on the radar, so to speak.

>I am also VERY discourged by the lack of substantive community on the left. I mean it is so sad.

Well, I'm glad that at least you share that with me. I'm so tired of bringing this up and having people pump sunshine. Your example of the computer geeks is very illustrative. Just makes me that much more sad. You see, I lived through a time when peole DID get past their egos, and work on this stuff together. Just thinking about it is depressing.

That's a big part of why I don't see the change of faces in government to mean all that much, or any of the others stuff. Unless/until we can all come together and CARE about each other enough to work past this shit, we're just not going much of anywhere. And my efforts to speak to others about that go nowhere, so I don't have hope that much of anything else I say will find open ears.

I"m glad, as I said, that you have this vision. I fully sense that you will go far with it. It's for me, just one more isolation.

Kanary

[dumpster_baby]

22. There is hope. In fact, there is a bill in Congress right now to reinstate

A bill to reinstate fairness doctrine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2199888

But of course the FCC can do it on their own, too.

I think it is a crime that while other western nations will help its own citizens, we do not. That is why I supported Kucinich and Nader. That is why I call for and indicting our politicians and trying them in a court of law for negligent homicide for the failures of our anemic welfare state....

[CaTeacher]

28. I wish that Kerry would make this

one of his campaign issues--I honestly think that most people would love to hear this!

[cprise]

29. The difference between the software Left and "The Left"

The former movement (known as OSS and 'CopyLeft') grew up post-Regan and is gaining in strength.

The latter does not exist in the USA anymore.

The American Left believed that the word of law was magic; that the government --itself composed of a marvelous set of checks and balances-- could automatically bring such fairness and balance to anything subjected to its coercion. Want radio and TV to serve the public interest? Decree it! Who cares that the broadcast market was comprised of private corporations and a small charity called PBS? We have the Fairness Doctrine now! If those money-holics get out of line, we'll send the FCC after them and we know THEY never succumb to the green stuff.

It didn't work. The networks simply could not put their heart into the "balancing" material they aired to defend welfare and public enterprise. The public formed their impressions based on increasingly snazzy and creative images associated with big business and supply-side sentiment; meanwhile public enterprise went from Apollo glory to having all the appeal of blind date wearing orthopedic shoes.

A private corporation --above everything else-- is an instrument of the wealthy. It is a Rightwing power structure and will always promote conservative economics in the long term. The OSS community recognizes that the community of private software corporations is structurally incapable of putting the needs of the public first; We hate Microsoft but recognize that a wholly proprietary (private) market structure is the real problem. We do not expect the government to force Microsoft and similar to put community interests first... only to make them civil and competitive.

The OSS solution is to use 'CopyLeft' to grow a non-private segment of the software market, thereby changing the demographics of the average software stakeholder. Now private software corporations have competition whether they monopolize the proprietary market or not plus they answer to a more and more plebian demographic. And its working: Microsoft is finally adding stability, functional and security features to Windows that have been on hold for a decade --and what they won't do and have prevented from emerging due to anti-competitive behavior is being implemented and used by software developers as community property.

Major goals that have emerged in the OSS community are:

a) Gain major market share. When private software becomes manipulative and greedy, the OSS alternative ought to be prominent enough to make the greedy bastards stick out like a sore thumb; even better, the contrast may make them FEEL greedy and manipulative!

b) Empower democracy. Insinuate OSS software and standards into government so that data and processes do not perish simply because closed-source products become unavailable or their vendors impose onerous prices and restrictions. Rich and poor alike can employ OSS to communicate with public institutions.

My advice: Spend time reading discussions in OSS hangouts like Slashdot.org and notice the extent to which open-source principles are applied to practical matters; how notions of property rights are examined and reconsidered; how observation of human nature and awareness of the class of users served is a factor in everything relating to software; how conflicts of interest are expounded as anathema; how they are not afraid of using their own terms when dealing with the 'other side'. You see these general features in the European Left. But not here.

What are the lessons I can take from OSS and apply to mass media? 1) Change the news culture by taking market-share away from private corporations; the options here range from co-ops to public corporations. 2) Articulate what democracy and government NEEDS from your alternative news model. 3) Do you have a process or contract to offer that promotes information sharing and industry standards?

[dumpster_baby]

30. OSS == Open Source Software; OSLM == Open Source Leftist Media?

cprise wrote:
>>>>>>>
"The difference between the software Left and "The Left""

The former movement (known as OSS and 'CopyLeft') grew up post-Regan and is gaining in strength.
The latter does not exist in the USA anymore.
>>>>>>>>>

I agree! Effectively, there is no organized political Left in America!



>>>>>>>
The American Left believed that the word of law was magic; that the government --itself composed of a marvelous set of checks and balances-- could automatically bring such fairness and balance to anything subjected to its coercion. Want radio and TV to serve the public interest? Decree it! Who cares that the broadcast market was comprised of private corporations and a small charity called PBS? We have the Fairness Doctrine now! If those money-holics get out of line, we'll send the FCC after them and we know THEY never succumb to the green stuff.

It didn't work. The networks simply could not put their heart into the "balancing" material they aired to defend welfare and public enterprise. The public formed their impressions based on increasingly snazzy and creative images associated with big business and supply-side sentiment; meanwhile public enterprise went from Apollo glory to having all the appeal of blind date wearing orthopedic shoes.

>>>>>>>


Yes, yes! They sold the sizzle, the image, the pizzazz of neoliberalism, supplyside-ism; it is ALL MARKETING! And now after 20-30 years of this crap, we have all these people aged 20-45 who think that lasseiz faire capitalism is the end-all be-all of politics and government. They killed Keynesianism and the welfare state(social safety net/progressive taxation) with marketing propaganda. But just like Open Source Software (Free Software Foundation, GNU, Linux, Linus, Stallman, Raymond, et al) effectively killed/crippled Sun Microsystems, and other companies, and is currently working on Microsoft, a collaborative, broadband-internet-based multimedia collaborative can effectively counteract the neoliberal, rightwing-propaganda corporate media machine.

Or at least we have a chance of doing so once most American internet connections are broadband. Right now we have about 15% of connections that are broadband. Once wireless protocols such as 802.16 have the cheap hardware to get sufficient market penetration of residential wireless broadband, then telco dsl and cable broadband will have to cut their prices. And then the OSLM (Open Source Leftist Multimedia) collaborative party starts.

Don't get me wrong. I think a form of capitalism has a place in America for the foreseeable future. But corporate capitalism run rampant is a disease that is killing us right now. And we need to tame it. Ask Kanary about that....


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The OSS solution is to use 'CopyLeft' to grow a non-private segment of the software market,
....
>>>>>>>>

Yes, I am familiar with OSS, and have used Linux and and use Mozilla (I'm soaking in it NOW!). I envision a similar model for OSLM: a copyright license that allows free distribution of the OSLM multimedia products over a network, and free viewing and limited editing rights. Revenues may be generated through short embedded ads, similar to website ads.

>>>>>
My advice: Spend time reading discussions in OSS hangouts like Slashdot.org
>>>>>>

Oh, I'm down with that. I have been posting on /. since the late 90s. In fact, I had a story submission accepted that was on the front page last Saturday.


>>>>>>>

What are the lessons I can take from OSS and apply to mass media? 1) Change the news culture by taking market-share away from private corporations; the options here range from co-ops to public corporations. 2) Articulate what democracy and government NEEDS from your alternative news model. 3) Do you have a process or contract to offer that promotes information sharing and industry standards?
>>>>>>>>

Well, I am not sure about all those items. I don't know whether they apply to a progressive/leftist multimedia collaborative effort. They sound reasonable, but I will need some help on them. I was hoping to get some help here, but no one really seems to be interested, and really only a few people even seem to realize what has happened here in America. You seem to understand that it is the corporate media and entertainment industry that has propagated memes that have pushed America to the right.

Most everyone on DU and other progressive websites seem to only be interested in campaign and political minutaie and gossip, like what "Tweety" or "Novakula" said on teevee last night. They do not really seem to be interested in addressing the root problem--no multimedia creation and distribution entities that are friendly to progressive/leftist ideas, and by that I mean ECONOMIC leftist/progressive; the SOCIAL progressive leftist ideas are indeed accepted by the corporate media machine--they serve as convenient wedge issues for dividing the populace and distracting them from the real problem of corporate capitalism.

I know I am not crazy--even Spielberg knows it is coming, as I mentioned in my earlier post above.

Here is a new article interviewing Howard Rheingold that talks about some of the ideas I have mentioned:

http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/040811/nf200408111095_db_81_1.html

[dumpster_baby]

31. KICK

[Swede]

15. Who will watch the watchers?

[cprise]

23. Are you from Sweden?

What is the media like there?

[snippyMcNippy]

24. Does this mean no more MTV broadcasts?

If so I'm all for it!

[Kanary]

32. kicking for the day crowd

:kick: