Recent postings on media issues from Benton.org

February 2005

THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH: Taiwan's media have the reputation of being among the most aggressive in Asia. In a region where print and broadcast reporters are often de facto cheerleaders for governments and billionaires, Taiwan's no-holds- barred journalism is alternately seen as a gutsy check on authority and the embodiment of chaos. Concerned about the media's excesses and ability to ruin reputations and lives, reformers in and outside the industry are trying to stem the sensationalism, partisanship and corruption that characterize the business. Some argue that the media are merely a reflection of Taiwanese society, which is one of the most freewheeling in Asia. [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Mark Magnier] http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-hounds28feb28,1,2781554.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage (requires registration)

ADVOCACY ADS: EASY MONEY: The 2004 elections may be over, but broadcasters are likely to continue to reap in million in 2005 in political advertising. Social security, tort reform, gay marriage and even telecommunications reform are among the hot button issues coming to a TV near you. TV-station owners love the cash but are discovering that advocacy ads can also be a headache. Because of the high stakes, activists not only mount ad campaigns but have taken to public-relations attacks on stations that run opponents' ads or fail to run their own. More worrisome, some activists -- on both the right and left -- hint they'll force stations to fend off costly FCC complaints or challenges to their broadcast licenses for showing favor. The prospect of paying lawyers' fees and spending months navigating an FCC investigation is a worry many activists don't mind planting in station managers' minds. [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Bill McConnell] http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA506891?display=News&referral=SUPP (free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

ADS EMBEDDED IN ONLINE NEWS RAISE QUESTIONS: Using an online news article's words as ads poses new questions for reporters and their publishers, said Aly Colón, who teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute, a journalism education organization. The biggest risk, he said, may be turning off readers. "If we want to be taken seriously for the work that we do as journalists, we should try to devise a way of presenting our material so the users, the readers, know that we are first and foremost about the news," he said. Forbes.com recently experimented, but dropped the practice citing reporters' unease. But the New York Post has started linking ads to article text. [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Nat Ives] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/business/media/24post.html (requires registration)

ONLINE AD SPENDING HITS NEW HIGH: Research by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the Internet Advertising Bureau finds that Internet advertising grew to a new high of $2.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2004. Estimates for all of 2004 online revenue totaled just under $9.6 billion -- a 32% increase over the $7.3 billion spent in 2003. That tops the biggest previous ad spend year until now -- the dot-com boom year 2000 when annual ad revenue reached $8.1 billion. The fourth quarter of 2004 spiked nearly 24% over the same quarter in 2003, when it was $2.2 billion. And, the total online ad spend is 17% higher than it was in the third quarter of 2004, when it was $2.3 billion. The estimated ad spend total is reached by surveying and aggregating 2004 fourth-quarter data from the top 15 online ad sellers. [SOURCE: AdAge, AUTHOR: Kris Oser] http://adage.com/news.cms?newsId=44383

WHERE'S THE PRESS?: The latest media and political scandal involving a pseudo reporter at White House press conferences raises deeper questions, writes Danny Schechter. How do we explain the silence of the media lambs who watched but did not expose or protest being infiltrated by a partisan propagandist? [SOURCE: MediaChannel.org] http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert327.shtml

NEWS MEDIA GROPE FOR THE RIGHT FORMULA: [Commentary] For better or worse, the one-size-fits-all media era is now history. In the future, readers and viewers will be able to get only the news and features they really want at a price they are willing to pay for them. For those who are satisfied with a quick overview of the news, and easily accessible data on everything from bowling scores to stock prices, they'll find it free in newspapers and Web sites and TV channels supported by advertisers seeking large audiences and low costs per reader for reaching them. And those who need or want the most comprehensive and sophisticated kind of news products, in print or video, will have to spend a dollar a day or more to get a customized package delivered to their homes or made available through their computers or cable modems. The advertising supporting such higher-end products will be more expensive, and there's likely to be less of it. It will take years of experimentation, involving companies of all sizes and vintages, for the news media to refine the new models and settle into a sustainable new structure. No doubt great fortunes will be made or lost in the process. But in the end, I suspect, our industry, like most others, will come to be dominated by a handful of national and super-regional news organizations that can offer readers and advertisers a full range of differently priced news products through a variety of media. [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Steven Pearlstein] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33670-2005Feb17.html (requires registration)

KIDS SAY THE DARNDEST, MOST STALINIST THINGS: [Commentary] A new survey found that a majority of high schoolers think newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval. And almost one in five said that Americans should be prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions. Maher looks into the face of the post-9/11 generation and fears he'll be out of work soon. [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR:Bill Maher, entertainer] http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-maher18feb18,1,5921530.story?coll=la-news-comment (requires registration)

BUSH ADMINISTRATION BLURS MEDIA BOUNDARY: First came video "news releases" produced by the Bush administration using a TV news format. Then came three conservative columnists who got big paychecks from federal agencies. Now, there's Jeff Gannon (not his real name), a journalist (maybe) who gained surprisingly easy access to the president, only to lob a sympathetically slanted question. Taken together, these recent controversies suggest that the Bush administration may be pushing that craft of message management into new territory - and testing the limits of presidential public relations. Since President Bush took office, contracts for public relations work with the federal government have jumped from $39 million to $88.2 million last year, according to a report by Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee. These contracts cover everything from promoting the newly revised food pyramid to funding major initiatives from schools to Social Security. In a preemptive move last month, senior House Democrats called on the White House to halt "use of propaganda" to push the president's plan to create private or personal accounts in Social Security. Democrats are requesting all materials created for radio, TV, or newspapers and other venues to promote the plan. [SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Gail Russell Chaddock] http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html (requires registration) See also -- Commentator Caught Up in Controversy Tries to Move On [SOURCE: New York Times] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/politics/17williams.html (requires registration)

RADIO CHANGES ITS TUNE: The radio business may be undergoing its biggest shakeup ever. So many new digital technologies are beckoning to its traditional listeners that it's hard to know what radio _is_ anymore. It's no longer limited to the airwaves, thanks to cable TV's music offerings, the Internet, and one day, perhaps, cellphones. It's not strictly live because online "podcasters" and others let you download music to play at your convenience. About the only thing that really separates radio listening from, say, uploading music to an iPod is that on radio, someone else plays deejay. That spells upheaval for the industry. But for consumers, the result looks mostly positive: more choices of programs and more control over when they can hear them. [SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR:Gregory M. Lamb] http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p14s02-stct.html

WHAT'S INDECENT? [Commentary] Clearing up confusion about just what programming is "indecent" should be a priority for the next chairman of the FCC. Currently the Commission defines broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory references.” And its Web site adds with emphasis: “Context is key!” As long as there is uncertainty, TV executives will err on the side of not airing or producing shows with the slightest chance of bumping up against the indecency strictures. That will include programs on important, if sensitive, topics. The lack of clarity also undermines any valid concerns about indecent programming. The new chairman should take a new look at the agency's indecency rules and process. He or she also should start a dialogue with the public and industry to find some kind of a consensus about what exactly are the nation's proper “community broadcast standards.” There also needs to be a mechanism that provides quick and ongoing guidance to broadcasters. [SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR:John Solomon] http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050209/oplede09.art.htm

REMEMBER OUR FIRST PRIORITY: [Editorial] Just how scary is the new Knight Foundation report that found that nearly three-quarters of American high school students are clueless about the First Amendment, more than a third think it would be a good idea if journalists received prior approval from the government before they report anything, and that one-third think news organizations need even more restrictions on what they produce? Well, put into the context of increased FCC indecency fines, legislation in Congress to limit the flow of information, and a White House bent on keeping every document under lock and key. Television's First Amendment rights are in serious jeopardy, B&C's Editor in Chief writes. Far too often, Big Media giants say nothing to defend their First Amendment rights, too fearful to fight back and have the government take retribution out in some other area of their far-flung enterprises. The whole atmosphere of cowardice and inaction is only worsened by errant news organizations that abuse the rights they possess. [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: J. Max Robins, Editor in Chief] http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA501669.html?display=News&referral=SUPP (free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers) A second B&C editorial thanks NAB Chairman Phil Lombardo for finally speaking out against indecency fines, but questions why his message appears to be "fine everyone." [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff] http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA501640.html?display=Opinion&referral=SUPP (free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)

ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO BE GIVEN AWAY: The rising expectation that news should be free has implications for both the industry and a democracy that depends on it for information. On the one hand, some observers believe that the proliferation of free newspapers and free news sites on the Internet means a larger number of voices that cater to niche audiences. But others worry that websites and newspapers supported purely by advertisers may not be able to sustain a vast network of professional news gatherers. Whatever its perils and promises, the march toward free news seems unstoppable. [SOURCE: Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Stephen Humphries] http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0203/p12s01-ussc.html

AFTER DEATH, A STRUGGLE FOR THEIR DIGITAL MEMORIES: As computers continue to permeate our lives, what happens to digital bits of information when their owners pass away has become one of the vexing questions of the Internet age. Much of that data are stored in accounts on remote servers and have no physical manifestation that can be neatly transferred. There are no clear laws of inheritance, meaning that Internet providers must often decide for themselves what is right. Many Internet firms have found themselves facing criticism no matter what they do. If they decline to release the information, they are labeled villains by people supporting the families. If they give it up, they are chastised for violating their own privacy statements. Complicating such disputes is the very nature of e-mail, which many consider to be more personal and informal than regular letters; some even use it to correspond anonymously, to hide aspects of their lives they may not want revealed to others. [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Ariana Eunjung Cha] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58836-2005Feb2.html (requires registration)

THE COSTLY RIGHT TO KNOW: [Editorial] The People for the American Way Foundation would like to know the secret numbers of immigrants who were rounded up after the terrorist attacks and never heard from as their court records were sealed. But the Department of Justice is demanding the foundation pay $400,000 for the collection of that information. The group pursuing the information wants to know how many requests the government made to seal proceedings and what rationales were offered. Vital security information is not part of the request, just an honest idea of government lawyers' resort to stealth. It's hardly a secret that when national security is heightened, the values of government accountability, an informed citizenry and robust journalism can get short shrift. Close to a dozen reporters, for example, have been served with subpoenas or threatened with jail sentences in the past year for refusing to reveal confidential sources to federal investigators. It is encouraging that two concerned members of the House Judiciary Committee, Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, and Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat, have proposed a Free Flow of Information Act that would mandate guidelines to rein in prosecutors. We agree strongly with Mr. Pence that journalists' promises of confidentiality are essential to the flow of information the public needs about its government. [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/02/opinion/02wed2.html (requires registration)

US JOURNALISTS FARE WELL ON TEST OF ETHICS, STUDY FINDS In a new study, journalism turns out to be one of the most morally developed professions in the country, ranking behind only seminarians, physicians and medical students. Journalists who did civic journalism or investigative reporting scored significantly higher than those who did not. Tom Rosenstiel of Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism says the findings echo what the Pew Research Center found in a survey of journalists in 1999. "Most of them got into the business out of a sense that journalism helps democracy work and that they are helping their fellow citizens," he says. "Journalists get in this business out of an overriding sense of wanting to serve the public interest. They work bad hours, are grossly underpaid, they are derided by other media in Hollywood and increasingly distrusted by the public. So if you're not motivated by a sense of public mission, there's not a lot of reason to do it." [SOURCE: USAToday] http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20050202/d_mediamix02.art.htm http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/life/20050202/d_mediamix02_chart.art.htm Are bloggers journalists? Do they deserve press protections? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0202/p03s02-usju.html

LAW BARRING JUNK E-MAIL ALLOWS A FLOOD INSTEAD: Since the Can Spam Act went into effect in January 2004, unsolicited junk e-mail on the Internet has come to total perhaps 80 percent or more of all e-mail sent, according to most measures. That is up from 50 percent to 60 percent of all e-mail before the law went into effect. To some antispam crusaders, the surge comes as no surprise. They had long argued that the law would make the spam problem worse by effectively giving bulk advertisers permission to send junk e-mail as long as they followed certain rules. "Can Spam legalized spamming itself," said Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project, a London organization that is one of the leading groups intent on eliminating junk e-mail. And in making spam legal, he said, the new rules also invited flouting by those intent on being outlaws. Not everyone agrees that the Can Spam law is to blame, and lawsuits invoking the new legislation - along with other suits using state laws - have been mounted in the name of combating the problem. Besides Microsoft, other large Internet companies like AOL and Yahoo have used the federal law as the basis for suits. [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Tom Zeller Jr] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/technology/01spam.html?hp&ex=1107320400&en=f7486f68b21cb2cc&ei=5094&partner=homepage (requires registration)

STOP TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR ALL BROADCASTERS! END PUBLIC BROADCASTING! Why stop at funding propaganda? Conservative media activist Accuracy in Media called on public television and radio to give up their $400 million in taxpayer subsidies. AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid says that it is obvious that the liberal media are only against taxpayer subsidies for journalists when they are conservative. [SOURCE: Accuracy in Media Press Release] http://www.aim.org/press_release/2567_0_19_0_C/

DEFIANT COLUMNISTS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BRUSH OFF TRANSGRESSIONS: [Commentary] Journalism today is awash with cross-dressers - people who, one moment, show up on TV or op-ed pages as commentators and columnists, and then quickly morph into the role of activists or politicians. When someone who assumes the role of a journalist also works to promote the interests of others outside the media, he or she blurs the line that separates journalists from carnival barkers. The people who employ them are as much to blame for this as these flip-floppers. [SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: DeWayne Wickham] http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050201/opcom01.art.htm

Click here for other Benton files.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Benton Foundation 2003. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message:
Communications-Related Headlines are compiled, summarized and edited by Rachel Anderson (rachel@benton.org), Andy Carvin (andy@benton.org) and Charles Meisch (charlie@benton.org) of the Benton Foundation -- we welcome your feedback. Based in Washington DC, the Benton Foundation's mission is to articulate a public interest vision for the digital age and demonstrate the value of communications for solving social problems. Other projects at Benton include:
Digital Divide Network (www.digitaldividenetwork.org)
Digital Opportunity Channel (www.digitalopportunity.org)
OneWorld US (www.oneworld.net/us)
Sound Partners for Community Health (www.soundpartners.org)