Postings on media issues from Benton.org (most recent at top)

May 2006

(May 25) UNUSUAL ALLIANCES EMERGE IN NET NEUTRALITY DEBATE [SOURCE: Technology Daily, AUTHOR: Heather Greenfield] What do Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails have in common with the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America and Google? They are all working in support of network neutrality. In the past, if Reznor and Christian groups were mentioned in the same sentence in Washington, the topic likely was labeling to warn parents about raunchy lyrics -- and they were on opposite sides of the issue. While all is not entirely forgiven, the battle to ensure net neutrality has created an atmosphere where the lion can lie with the lamb. "We believe this issue is so important because of free speech," Christian Coalition spokeswoman Michele Combs said. She said her group is concerned that if a cable company has a board that favors abortion rights, it could charge an anti-abortion group more to deliver its messages over that firm's broadband network. Combs said embracing unusual partners is worth it to fight for "a family issue," noting that "Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a zero on our congressional report card, but we partnered with him on this." http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-GCBA1148490433740.html

THE INTERNET'S LONG WAR [SOURCE: TomPaine, AUTHOR: Dawn Holian, Common Cause] [Commentary] Telephone and cable companies would like to transform our Internet from a medium that allows people to connect to one another, engage in debate, and learn about the world into little more than a portal to sell goods and transmit television programs, films and games. And they’re likely to get their way unless Congress acts. On Thursday, the House Judiciary will be voting on a key piece of legislation to protect the Internet we know it, an Internet that is in jeopardy because of recent decisions by federal regulators. Why is Common Cause so concerned about a seemingly obscure telecommunications issue? Because we care about the potential of the Internet to spur citizen engagement in their democracy. We know how democratic discourse has benefited from this technological marvel. In 2004, according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 63 million Americans went online for political news. An estimated seven million individuals asked for e-mail updates from candidates, and four million donated money online to parties and campaigns. That involvement is only growing. Millions of citizens access information from advocacy web sites ranging from Amnesty International to the National Rifle Association. And e-activists are transforming the way citizens communicate with their elected officials and have their opinions heard on the most pressing issues of the day. But this Renaissance will be cut short if access to the Internet is determined by corporations more interested in selling goods and entertainment than in encouraging democratic discourse. The Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act is critical to protecting our digital future. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/24/the_internets_long_war.php * Consumer Groups: Network Neutrality Is an Antitrust Issue http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=137 * Pending Internet neutrality legislation is vital to preserving independent Web content and expression http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/3883948.html * House Judiciary Committee Mark-up Today http://judiciary.house.gov/markup.aspx?ID=132

'RECOUPING AN INVESTMENT' MEANS 'HOLD ON TO YOUR WALLET' [SOURCE: Paul Kapustka's Blog] [Commentary] When the telcos argue against network neutrality, one central theme is that without tiered pricing plans, they won't be able to "recoup their investment" in all these great new services they plan to build. The question to ask is, from where will that "recouping" come? The answer can be found in your wallet. In a conference call this morning with reporters, proponents of network neutrality are finally coalescing behind this idea, and it's a powerful one: The battle is not (as the telcos want you to believe) between them and the Googles of the world, but between telcos and customers -- with customers the ones who will have to pay the freight for the telcos' new shiny networks. Why? Even I can figure this one out. If the phone companies are allowed to charge for tiered Internet services -- much like how cable companies charge for channel plans -- their "partners" in the deals (for video, music, gaming, whatever) are most likely NOT going to "share the costs." On the contrary: just like cable, the telcos are going to have to PAY EXTRA to host specialized content. Just like cablecos pay ESPN a few bucks per customer, so will phone companies have to pay for their content. And who will pay the vig? That's right, you and me. http://paulsblog.pulver.com/archives/2006/05/recouping_an_in.html

A VOTE FOR ENGLISH [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: George Will] [Commentary] What public good is advanced by encouraging the participation of people who, by saying they require bilingual assistance, are saying they cannot understand the nation's political conversation? By receiving such assistance they are receiving a disincentive to become proficient in English. Declaring English the national language is a mere gesture. But by ending bilingual ballots, American law would perform its expressive function of buttressing, by codifying and vivifying, certain national assumptions and aspirations. Among those is this: The idea of citizenship becomes absurd when sundered from the ability to understand the nation's civic conversation. What makes Americans generally welcoming of immigrants, and what makes immigrants generally assimilable, is that this is a creedal nation, one dedicated to certain propositions, not one whose origins and identity are bound up with ethnicity. But if you are to be welcomed to the enjoyment of American liberty, then America has a few expectations of you. One is that you can read the nation's founding documents and laws and can comprehend the political discourse that precedes the casting of ballots. Is this unreasonable? Of course not. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/24/AR2006052402433.html (requires registration)

HALT PENTAGON PAYMENTS TO IRAQI JOURNOS, DOD REPORT RECOMMENDS [SOURCE: Editor&Publisher] The Department of Defense investigation into revelations the U.S. military was paying for favorable Iraqi press concludes the propaganda effort could harm American credibility -- and the payments should stop. According to a summary of the investigation led by Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, the Pentagon failed to consider whether the payments would "undermine the concept of a free press in Iraq," and must now implement procedures to "ensure proper oversight" of the private contractors leading the propaganda effort. This appears to be a reference to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based firm that, according to press reports last fall, was paid to plant articles in Iraqi newspapers without revealing the stories were written by the military. The Lincoln Group also paid some Iraqi journalists directly for favorable press. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002575384 * U.S. Urged to Stop Paying Iraqi Reporters http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/world/middleeast/24propaganda.html

STUDY SHOWS HOW KIDS' MEDIA USE HELPS PARENTS COPE [SOURCE: Kaiser Family Foundation press release] Electronic media is a central focus of many very young children’s lives, used by parents to help manage busy schedules, keep the peace, and facilitate family routines such as eating, relaxing, and falling asleep, according to a new national study released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Many parents also express satisfaction with the educational benefits of TV and how it can teach positive behaviors. The report, The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers, and Their Parents, is based on a national survey of 1,051 parents with children age 6 months to 6 years old and a series of focus groups across the country. According to the study, in a typical day more than eight in ten (83%) children under the age of six use screen media, with those children averaging about two hours a day (1:57). Media use increases with age, from 61% of babies one year or younger who watch screen media in a typical day (for an average of 1:20) to 90% of 4 to 6 year-olds (for an average of 2:03). In many homes, parents have created an environment where the TV is a nearly constant presence, from the living room to the dining room and the bedroom. One in three (33%) children this age has a TV in their bedroom (19% of children ages 1 year or younger, 29% of children ages 2-3 years, and 43% of those ages 4-6 years). The most common reasons parents give for putting a TV in their child’s bedroom is to free up other TVs in the house so the parent or other family members can watch their own shows (55%), to keep the child occupied so the parent can do things around the house (39%), to help the child fall asleep (30%), and as a reward for good behavior (26%). http://www.kff.org/entmedia/entmedia052406pkg.cfm * Who's Watching the Kids? TV http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6337463?display=Breaking+News * Parents Making Use of TV Despite Risks http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/us/25crib.html * Toddlers' TV Habits Run Counter to Medical Advice http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114847544019661809.html?mod=todays_us_personal_journal * Kaiser Stirs Debate Over Kids and Media Exposure http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002575246

TV STATIONS REVENUES TO RISE $1.5 BILLION, SAYS BIA [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton] Political bucks will drive a boost in TV station revenues in 2006, according to BIA Financial Network analysts. BIA Financial predicts 2006 TV market revues will be up more than 7% to a total $22.2 billion. That is versus a drop of more than 7% last year to $20.7 billion, again partly because of the drop in election ads form the presidential year of 2004. The 2006 increase is expected to be primarily driven by states with competitive Senate and governor races, a pattern BIA has picked up over the last several years. Fox is the leading moneymaker among network TV groups, raking in $2.3 billion in 2005, according to BIA, followed by CBS, NBC, Tribune, then ABC. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6337725?display=Breaking+News

PRODUCTS PLACED IN TELEVISION PLOTS ARE HERE TO STAY [SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: David Bauder] Product placement -- a can of soda casually placed on a table while the characters are standing around it -- has been a part of TV for decades, usually creating little controversy. But producers John Wells of "ER" and Neil Baer of "Law & Order: SVU" say they're worried about being forced to use products in their stories in ways that make them look silly. The producers, representing the Writers Guild of America, said they recognize ad integration is here to stay. What they want is to negotiate with networks a process that gives creators a say in what can and can't be done, and they said the networks haven't been willing to put that on paper. They'd like to get a cut of these deals too. There's increased pressure toward integrated ads from several directions. Advertisers are worried that digital video recorders are encouraging more and more consumers to fast-forward through commercials. Between dwindling viewership and increased competition from the Internet, networks are eager to keep their sponsors happy. Product integration has been more prevalent on reality shows, where contestants recently won a bottle of mouthwash in a reward challenge and let it swirl around their mouths like fine wine. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0605230377may24,1,7735248.story

MERGERS MAY BE NEXT TREND FOR BIG INTERNET COMPANIES [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Eric Auchard] Speculation is rife on Wall Street that a big Internet deal or alliance is in the works, with Google, Yahoo, eBay or Microsoft as possible partners -- and a Yahoo-eBay partnership seen as most likely. "A partnership or merger between eBay and Yahoo! is the most strategically feasible," a report authored by analyst Imran Khan and the JP Morgan Internet team said on Monday. "A combined company would have the leading position in auctions, communications, payments, graphical advertising, audience reach, and geographic breadth," the report said. Silicon Valley insiders, high-tech bankers and financial analysts are giving new credence to potential merger deals, which fly in the face of common wisdom that the Internet's rapid growth has always outweighed the logic of consolidation. But Internet growth is slowing and competition among the biggest companies -- Google, Yahoo, eBay and Microsoft -- is intensifying. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-05-24T160950Z_01_N23175188_RTRUKOC_0_US-INTERNET-MERGERS.xml ** BREAKING NEWS: Yahoo and eBay announced a strategic partnership for Internet searches, advertising, online payments and a co-branded toolbar. **see http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125887,00.asp & http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/05/25/ebay-thurs.html

(May 17) DOWN TO THE FOURTH ESTATE [SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Jonathan Turley, George Washington University ] [Commentary] This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications — an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times. What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders. In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistleblowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand. Now, it appears Congress is finally acting — not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistleblowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources. The Framers gave us a free press as the final safety net if all other checks and balances in the three branches of government should fail. With the failure of both parties in Congress to exercise oversight responsibilities, the importance of a free press has been vividly demonstrated. The public now has a choice. It can live in self-imposed ignorance, or it can fight for an open society. Not hearing about alleged crimes by your government is certainly a comfort, but not having crimes occur would be an even greater one. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060517/oplede17.art.htm

THE US WILL NOT MANDATE NET NEUTRALITY [SOURCE: Forrester Research, AUTHOR: Maribel D. Lopez] Many have called for the US government to mandate "network neutrality" that will ensure all Internet traffic is delivered equally, consumer choice is upheld, and Internet innovation is not stalled. But, it won't happen in the next three to five years. Why? Because no problem exists today and legislating neutrality will not give consumers the best results. In five years, when rich content taxes networks and broadband adoption approaches saturation, the Federal Communications Commission will take a more hands-on approach and intervene if a consumer's access to content and service is being denied. In the meantime, operators should err on the side of limited prioritization and content owners should build priority delivery into carriage agreements. http://www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,39310,00.html (available for fee only)

WHAT CONGRESS IS LEARNING ABOUT 'NETWORK NEUTRALITY' [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Holman Jenkins] [Commentary] Google, eBay, Amazon, Microsoft, and Intel are spending millions to tie up Congress in a bogus debate about "net neutrality" at a time when other important telecom work is being left undone. Verizon and AT&T are the targets, thanks to superfast Internet connections they are just starting to provide to consumers over which to deliver TV in competition with cable and satellite. Being peddled is a kind of IP fetishism -- a claim that any network that uses Internet protocol must operate like the Internet consumers think they're used to today, one undivided pipe between them and the world's Web sites. Of course, that's not really what consumers are getting today. Your cable operator may sell you one, two or three megabits of capacity for a broadband connection, but most of his pipe is reserved for his TV offerings. Verizon and AT&T have made clear they, too, will reserve a big share of their new pipes for their own value-added services, namely TV, and for other content distributors who are willing to pay for access to it. That's how they hope to recoup their investment. Yet it's obvious that, even as they roll out their TV services, they will be under competitive pressure to keep giving consumers bigger and bigger pipes for their own Web browsing. How do we know? Because that's what cable is already doing, and because Ed Whitacre and Ivan Seidenberg aren't so dumb as to try to make a business model out of denying consumers Web content at home that they freely get at work or at the local Starbucks. And, c'mon, there's plenty of time for Congress to act if a real problem materializes. The issue is Internet survival. The real issue is where will the big bucks come from to create an Internet capable of handling the services now envisioned, let alone those not yet dreamed up. Think back to the beginnings of radio and TV: Those business models would never have worked if consumers had had to foot the bill directly for programming. It's clear today that giving consumers the kind of Internet that will support high-definition video and gaming will require the bill to be shared by companies with a stake in putting the new services in front of consumers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114782606290854866.html?mod=todays_us_opinion (requires subscription)

IF IT'S NOT NEUTRAL IT'S NOT INTERNET [SOURCE: Daniel Berninger, Tier1 Research] [Commentary] The success of a proposal by AT&T and Verizon to end net neutrality does not threaten the Internet. The broadband customers of AT&T and Verizon will just no longer have access to the Internet. The development appropriately creates alarm among AT&T and Verizon's customers, but the combined customer bases of these companies represent less than 2% of the billion or so users of the Internet. The fact access to the Internet requires net neutrality does not depend on laws passed by the US Congress or enforced by the FCC. Neutrality arises as a technical and business imperative facilitating the interconnection 250,000 independent networks that choose to participate in the Internet. Net neutrality will remain a requirement as long as it serves the interests of the global Internet community. The opposition to net neutrality arises like all regulatory debates as the means to raise prices, but people in the US already pay more for less bandwidth than citizens of Europe and Asia. Communication serves as an input to all economic activity, so expensive communications drags on the economy in the same way as high energy prices. Policy makers must decide between protecting the Bells 20th century business model or working to make sure US enjoys the benefits of the Internet. Internet traffic outside the US already dwarfs the traffic from within the US, and the failure of policymakers to defend net neutrality will only continue the trend of the US toward third world status in connectivity. http://www.danielberninger.com/dbessays/2006/05/if-its-not-neutral-its-not-internet.html * Information Highway Robbers [SOURCE: InTheseTimes, AUTHOR: Joel Bleifuss] [Commentary] What makes the Internet revolutionary is that it is democratic, open to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. That could soon change. http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2653/ * Why Network Neutrality Is Important for the Future of Disaster Communication http://www.digitaldivide.net/blog/Taran/view?PostID=14026

WHY DON'T WE JUST AUCTION THE 'WHITE SPACE'? [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Thomas Lenard, Progress & Freedom Foundation] [Commentary] In this new wireless era, the electromagnetic spectrum is surely one of the most important economic policy issues the government faces, with hundreds of billions of dollars of economic benefits at stake. Economists who study the spectrum issue are virtually unanimous in concluding that the only way to assure that spectrum is allocated to its highest-valued uses is by allowing a market in spectrum rights to develop. They argue that spectrum is analogous to real estate, which operates efficiently only under a market-allocation regime. Managing spectrum the right way will speed the delivery of innovative new wireless communications technologies to consumers. Doing it the wrong way will impose hundreds of billions of dollars of costs on the economy. The FCC will follow a market allocation model when it auctions the advanced wireless service spectrum later this year and the DTV spectrum in 2009. There is no obvious reason that the TV broadcast white space should be allocated any differently. The white space bills now pending in Congress are doing it the wrong way and, if enacted, will constitute a significant setback on the road to a rational spectrum policy. http://news.com.com/2010-1036_3-6072534.html?part=rss&tag=6072534&subj=news

RECORDING INDUSTRY SUES XM SATELLITE RADIO [SOURCE: Associated Press] The recording industry sued XM Satellite Radio yesterday over its new iPod-like device that can store up to 50 hours of music for a monthly fee. The federal lawsuit, filed in Manhattan by the largest record companies, accused XM Satellite of "massive wholesale infringement" because its $400 handheld Inno device could record hours of music and automatically parse recordings by song and artist. The device is sold under the slogan, "Hear it, click it, save it." The lawsuit seeks $150,000 in damages for every song copied by XM Satellite customers using the devices, which went on sale weeks ago. The company said it played 160,000 different songs every month. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/technology/17radio.html (requires registration) * Music Industry Sues XM Over Replay Device http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114782148515554753.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace * Music Labels Sue XM Over Recording Device http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601826.html

TV STAFFS ARE LIGHT ON WOMEN, MINORITIES [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Ben Grossman] The Writers Guild of America, West, (WGAw) says that women and minority writers remain underrepresented on television staffs, according to the preliminary findings from its forthcoming Hollywood Writers Report. Among the early findings are that, while women make up 51% of the nation’s population, they remain underrepresented on TV staffs by nearly 2 to 1. The report also says that, while minorities make up more than 30% of the population, they remain underrepresented on writing staffs by nearly 3 to 1. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335199?display=Breaking+News

TEN STORIES THAT DESPERATELY NEED TO BE TOLD [SOURCE: Inter Press Service News Agency, AUTHOR: Thalif Deen] Every year, the U.N.'s Department of Public Information (DPI) unveils its list of the world's 10 most under-reported stories, implying that politics, murder and sex scandals still take precedence over poverty, peace-building or economic development. The list, released by the United Nations Monday, covers a wide range of stories -- from the plight of asylum seekers and refugees in ongoing conflicts to earthquake relief and post-war reconstruction -- that received little or no play in the world media: post-war reconstruction in Liberia; the new challenges faced by bona fide asylum seekers; the upcoming historic elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo; children caught in the ongoing conflict in Nepal; and the compounding effects of a drought threatening to undermine stability in war-devastated Somalia. The list also singles out several other stories under-reported by the world media: the plight of millions of refugees living in limbo; the problems of relief efforts in the aftermath of the South Asian earthquake and tsunami; the alarming number of children in conflict with the law; the collaborative solutions that have prevented conflicts over scarce water resources; and renewed violence that threatens to undermine the peace process in Cote d'Ivoire. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33238

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANNOUNCES 10 MOST RELEVANT COMPANIES [SOURCE: Telecommunications Online, AUTHOR: Bob Wallace] Focusing on companies with the greatest potential to redefine telecommunications and networking, Telecommunications magazine announced the winners of is 10 Most Relevant Companies of 2006 awards. The winners include TiVo, NetFlix, Google and Red Hat, in addition to agenda-setting service providers AT&T, BT and Level 3 Communications. Intelligent infrastructure providers Alcatel and Juniper were selected from the infrastructure equipment market segment, while Microsoft was chosen from the networking software industry. http://telecommagazine.com/newsglobe/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_2063

LOGS NOW HAVE A WORLD OF INFLUENCE [SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Tom Regan] [Commentary] Blogs have developed in the past few years into a cultural force. A study done for Jupiter Research says that blogs have a "disproportionately large influence" on society. The reason? It's not how many people read a blog, it's who reads it. The Jupiter study, which focused on blog use in Europe, found that while "active users" of the Internet make up a small portion of overall Internet users, they were starting to dominate public discussions and even have an impact on people's buying habits. AOL Music, for example, recognizing that blogs can make or break a music artist, is letting bloggers use its music charts and information for free. Using RSS feeds, a music fan's blog can now offer readers the latest music trends and news, helping them (and AOL Music) sell more music. "We're seeing this growing," Julian Smith, an online advertising analyst with Jupiter Research and author of the report, told the Guardian newspaper in London. "The strongest part of their influence is on the media: If something online suddenly becomes a story in the local press, then it matters." Mr. Smith added that while media organizations who follow blogs should not overestimate the power blogs have, it's hard to ignore the impact they have on public discussion. http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0517/p14s01-cogn.html

ICANN APPROVES .TEL DOMAIN [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Ingrid Marson] The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved the creation of the .tel domain. The idea is for people to use .tel as a way of communicating directly with the person or company behind a particular Web site, using technologies such as voice over Internet Protocol, e-mail or Short Message Service (SMS). http://news.com.com/ICANN+approves+.tel+domain/2100-1033_3-6072888.html?tag=html.alert

(May 16) FBI SOURCE CONFIRMS ABC REPORT ON MONITORING OF REPORTERS' CALLS [SOURCE: Editor&Publisher] Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News reported on the networks "The Blotter" web site this morning that a senior federal law enforcement official had informed them that "the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources." This source quipped: "It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick." Late Monday, the ABC reporters updated their account: "The FBI acknowledged late Monday that it is increasingly seeking reporters' phone records in leak investigations. "It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration," said a senior federal official. He said it wasn't so much that the calls were being "tracked" as "backtracked." http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002502624

HOLLYWOOD VOICES DECRY INDECENCY CRACKDOWN [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton] The Center for Creative Voices in Media, which includes some voices from the Hollywood production community, has added its voice to the court challenge by networks and TV stations of some of the FCC's indecency crackdown. "These Commission decisions put creative, challenging, controversial, non-homogenized broadcast television programming at risk, harming not only media artists, but the American public," said Center Executive Director Jonathan Rintels, announcing his group's filing of a motion to intervene, which it is doing in support of the challenge. The Center also warned Monday against raising the indecency fines 10-fold or more, as would bills in Congress. "The consistent inconsistency of the FCC decisions, and the 'chilling effect' they place on free speech should concern and give pause to legislators now considering increasing these chilling FCC fines tenfold or more, and extending those fines to creative artists. Such legislation will chill even more speech that is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment." http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6335036?display=Breaking+News * Creative Voices Seeks to Intervene In Network Suit Against FCC Indecency Decisions http://www.creativevoices.us/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=157&PHPSESSID=60b7c18b5ea0bb4e24d6a01ea70d90c5

ONLINE DEGREE PROGRAMS TAKE OFF [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Lois Romano] An extraordinarily fast-growing number of students nationwide and worldwide are turning to online degree programs to complete or advance their educations while they work, decisions that are driven by economics as well as by a society that is increasingly mobile. Congress passed a law in March that drops the requirement that colleges offer at least half their courses face to face to receive federal student aid. The new law will undoubtedly attract more students and schools into the fledgling online industry. Online enrollment, including multiple courses taken by a single student, jumped from 1.98 million in 2003 to 2.35 million the following year, accounting for 7 percent of postsecondary education, according to Eduventures, a Boston firm that studies trends in education. Another study, funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, reports that 65 percent of universities offering face-to-face graduate courses also offer graduate courses online. By early 2008, Eduventures predicts, about one in 10 college students will be enrolled in an online degree program. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051501496.html (requires registration)

PROJECT TACKLES CREDIBILITY OF ONLINE INFO [SOURCE: eSchool News, AUTHOR: Laura Ascione] For students, and even for many educators, judging the reliability of information they find online can present a challenge. Now, a new project, Credibility Commons, launched by two university researchers -- Michael Eisenberg, professor and dean emeritus at the University of Washington, and David Lankes, an associate professor at Syracuse University -- aims to change that. The project seeks to provide users with tools to more easily gauge the credibility of information they find through web searches. The project is funded by the MacArthur Foundation for two years, but organizers plan to seek out additional funding to sustain and expand on the web site. http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/showStoryts.cfm?ArticleID=6306 See http://www.credibilitycommons.org/

GOD'S CALL COMES BY CELLPHONE [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Stephanie Simon] Bible verses on a BlackBerry, sermons on an MP3 -- an explosion in digitalized spirituality is making true believers of online e-vangelists. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-digital16may16,1,2653947.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage (requires registration)

(May 15) DO YOU OWN SONGS BOUGHT ONLINE? WELL, SORT OF [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Duncan Martell] do you really own the tunes you buy online? It depends on how you define ownership. "Owning implies control and if you bought the tracks on iTunes you don't have complete control," said Rob Enderle, president of market researcher the Enderle Group. Those songs you bought online from Apple play just fine, of course, so long you do so on the company's iTunes digital jukebox software, on an iPod, burn a CD, or stream them wirelessly to your stereo using another Apple gizmo. But Apple's FairPlay digital rights management, or DRM, software prevents you from listening to those purchased songs on a music player from Dell, Creative, Sony, or others. The same thing goes for songs you've imported to your computer from CDs you already own. The DRM software is Apple's way of preventing piracy and is a large part of the reason why the recording industry has so warmly embraced the iTunes Music Store. "A lot of people would argue it's the closest thing you're going to get other than buying a CD," said analyst Mike McGuire of market research firm Gartner of the restrictions Apple and others place on music bought online. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-05-13T134907Z_01_N123790_RTRUKOC_0_US-COLUMN-PLUGGEDIN.xml&archived=False

LET'S LABEL "CANNED" NEWS VIDEO [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Diane Farsetta, Center for Media and Democracy] [Commentary] Last month, the Center for Media and Democracy released a report documenting how TV stations across the United States use video news releases (VNRs). The responses we've received from TV stations confirm what we all know -- what the Project for Excellence in Journalism, among others, has reported: TV newsrooms are being asked to do more with less, so they're increasingly turning to "provided" video. But we're also hearing, time and again, that newsroom staff are confused as to the origins of such video. So, in contravention of station policies, journalistic codes and possibly even FCC rules, stations air VNRs without disclosing to their viewers that the video was funded by and scripted for clients with particular -- ally monetary -- interests in the topics covered. As we noted in our report, the PR firms that produce VNRs name their clients in the opening slates and in accompanying materials. What can be done to clear up newsroom confusion, then? We recommended that the FCC require continuous on-screen disclosure of the source of provided and/or sponsored video. A viewer's right to know where her or his news comes from must be respected. Disclosure is not some lofty ideal. It's something newsrooms (especially those using the public airwaves) simply must provide. And until disclosure is the rule -- instead of the exception, as it is currently -- VNRs will continue to be controversial. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6334593?display=Opinion

TELEVISION TECHNOLOGY ENTERS NEW ERA [SOURCE: The Epoch Times] In February of 2009 all television stations in the United States are required to convert to digital transmission. This move will bring an end to traditional analog television that has been the standard for decades. The television industry is optimistic the costly transition will be successful. One of the biggest supporters of the conversion from analog to digital is the Washington, D.C.-based National Association of Broadcasters. Spokesperson Dennis Wharton says that only 200 American TV stations have yet to make the conversion. "There are about 1,700 TV stations in the United States," he noted. "Over 1,500 have already made the digital television transition. Which means they are either simulcasting a digital signal along with their analog signal, but most of them are doing High Definition television during a lot of the day parts. Most of prime time, for example, is in High Definition television; all of the major sporting events are in High Definition television, late night shows are all in High Definition television. I'm not going to be Pollyannaish and not admit that there are some challenges still to go, but considering where we were and where we are now, things are going great." Mr. Wharton says the biggest problem has been the cost, especially to stations that serve smaller population areas. He estimates a basic conversion from traditional analog to what is called SDTV (Standard Definition digital television) costs a station at least $2 million. To go all HDTV with good equipment can push that price tag up to $10 million. http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-5-13/41524.html

ADULT INDUSTRY WELCOMES .XXX DOMAIN REJECTION [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Ingrid Marson] On Wednesday, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) voted against the proposal, which would have led to the creation of an .xxx domain suffix for pornography sites. Conservative groups in the U.S., such as the Family Research Council, have welcomed the decision. Some in the adult industry are equally happy about the decision. Adult-industry observer Scott McGowan, in an article on the EyeOnAdult Web site, said he "just couldn't be happier." He claimed that ICM Registry, which proposed the new top-level domain, was driven purely by the desire to make money. http://news.com.com/Adult+industry+welcomes+.xxx+domain+rejection/2100-1047_3-6071748.html?tag=fd_carsl

SNAP.COM MINGLES ADS IN SEARCH RESULTS [SOURCE: Associated Press] Internet search engine Snap.com is hoping to expand its sparse audience by making Web surfing more like channel surfing on a TV, but the start-up might attract more attention with another change that further blurs the lines separating ads from listings retrieved by objective formulas. Under a new format to be unveiled today, Snap will lump search results financed by advertisers in the same column as non-paid Web links that are the most relevant responses to a user's request.That combination is a departure from the practices of leading Internet search engines such as Google Inc., Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN, which isolate advertising results in shaded boxes at the top of the page or group them together in a separate stack to the right under the heading "sponsored results." The distinctions are meant to comply with Federal Trade Commission guidelines urging that Internet search engines provide "clear and conspicuous" distinctions separating their noncommercial results from ad-driven links. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-search15may15,1,4606280.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business (requires registration)

(May 12) AS TECH ADVANCES, PRIVACY LAWS LAG [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Joseph Menn and James S. Granelli] Never has it been so easy to know so much about so many. Thursday's disclosure that three of the nation's biggest telephone companies gave customer calling records to the National Security Agency again demonstrates that technology is rewriting the rules of privacy faster than the law can adapt. And with their powerful database programs tracking a massive amount of personal details of Americans' daily lives, a growing number of companies find themselves sandwiched between the privacy expectations of their customers and the national security demands of the federal government. "It's so easy to say yes," said technology security expert Bruce Schneier. "The government sings a patriotic song, and you want to do what's right. We all want to band together." With the rise of lightning-fast ways to collect, collate and distribute digital data, county sheriffs, credit card companies and even nosy neighbors can dig up private information. But in many cases it is the federal government that has been looking over the public's virtual shoulder. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-techsnoop12may12,1,1505395.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage (requires registration) * Disclosure of program reignites the debate on liberty vs. security http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060512/1a_cover12x.art.htm

YAHOO TURNS TO WASHINGTON FOR HELP WITH CHINA [SOURCE: Reuters] Yahoo said on Thursday it was seeking the government's help in urging China to allow more media freedom, after reports linking information it gave to Chinese authorities with the jailing of a dissident. "Governments change governments. Governments who are in trade together can certainly change governments," said Yahoo Chairman and Chief Executive Terry Semel. "We tried and we are going to continue to try as an industry to have our government help us." He also said that closing down Yahoo's operations in China would not help boost free speech and he hoped other news and publishing companies doing business in China would stay despite the limitations. "You have to get whatever news you possibly can into China as opposed to pulling back," he said. "Will they be edited? Yes. Should you go home? No." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-05-11T154037Z_01_N114360_RTRUKOC_0_US-YAHOO.xml

EU EXECUTIVE SLAMS "INTERFERENCE" IN SEX SITE VOTE [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Huw Jones] The Internet governing body's decision to reject a new .xxx Internet domain for porn sites is a clear case of U.S. political interference in the Web's governance, the European Commission said on Thursday. The EU executive said the decision underscored the need to make ICANN independent quickly, following unsuccessful demands last year by a group of countries including the EU to make ICANN fully independent. "We see here a first clear case of political interference in ICANN," said Martin Selmayr, spokesman for EU Information Society and Media Commissioner, Viviane Reding. He said correspondence between ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, highlighted the "interference". http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-05-11T164758Z_01_L11387050_RTRUKOC_0_US-EU-INTERNET.xml&archived=False

AMAZON VP PAUL MISENER MAKES THE CASE FOR NET NEUTRALITY [SOURCE: E-Commerce Times, AUTHOR: Erika Morphy] An interview with Paul Misener, vice president of Global Public Policy for Amazon.com. An engineer by profession, Misener has worked at the Federal Communications Commission -- a background that allows him to speak from both a regulatory and technical perspective when he testifies to Congress, which he does frequently. What's a worse case scenario, if net neutrality isn't made law? "Carriers say they would prioritize content based on economic reasons. But if they have that latitude for financial purposes, then they can also do it for political reasons. A carrier could block access to a labor union site during a dispute. It could block access to a Web site after a special interest group makes a lot of noise about it. It could even block a political site to curry favor with the current administration. All that sounds far fetched, but the whole point is that there is nothing in place to stop carriers from doing it. So why dismantle the protection? http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/50442.html

WHY CABLE COMPANIES, GOOGLE ARE EYEING WIRELESS SPECTRUM [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Marguerite Reardon] The Federal Communications Commission's upcoming auction for wireless spectrum is attracting interest from several unlikely bidders, including cable companies such as Time Warner and Internet companies such as Google. But what, exactly, will these companies do with this expensive asset? The spectrum could be used to roll out more third-generation, or 3G, mobile networks or newer, 4G wireless technology that would shuttle voice, data, video and other services at even higher speeds. "It's ideal spectrum," said Craig Mathias, an analyst with Farpoint Group. "I'd say it's as good as PCS (personal communications services) spectrum. It allows the owners of the spectrum to use any number of technologies, including next-generation cellular technology and Wimax." Cable operators see wireless as a way to distribute their content to mobile devices. They also see potential in wireless to let customers interact with existing services in a new way. For Google, the licensed spectrum would provide an alternative way to reach its users. http://news.com.com/Why+cable+companies%2C+Google+are+eyeing+wireless+spectrum/2100-1039_3-6071163.html?tag=nefd.top

AS FREEDOM SHRINKS, TEENS SEEK MYSPACE TO HANG OUT [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jill Serjeant] Although originally aimed at 20-somethings interested in independent music, Web sites like MySpace.com, which is owned by News Corp, have attracted an enormous following among middle school students, and cultural theorists say it's not hard to see why. As the real world is perceived as more dangerous with child abductors lurking on every corner, kids flock online to hang out with friends, express their hopes and dreams and bare their souls with often painful honesty -- mostly unbeknownst to their tech-clumsy parents. "We have a complete culture of fear," said Danah Boyd, 28, a Ph.D student and social media researcher at the University of California Berkeley. "Kids really have no place where they are not under constant surveillance." Driven to and from school, chaperoned at parties and often lacking public transport, today's middle-class American kids are no longer free to hang out unsupervised at the park, the bowling alley or to bike around the neighborhood they way they did 20 years ago. "A lot of that coming-of-age stuff in public is gone. So kids are creating social spaces within all this controlled space," said Boyd. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-05-11T122933Z_01_N09287157_RTRUKOC_0_US-LIFE-MYSPACE.xml&archived=False

UNIVERSAL MUSIC SETTLES CLAIMS OVER RADIO PLAY [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Ethan Smith ethan.smith@wsj.com] New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer fired the latest salvo in his battle against corrupt practices in the music industry, announcing a $12 million settlement with Universal Music Group in a probe involving payola allegations. Spitzer's office produced emails and other documentation that showed Universal executives agreeing to give radio programmers computers, travel, concert tickets and other inducements in exchange for specific amounts of airplay for specific songs. That practice is illegal under decades-old laws against payola. Although other behavior that was detailed, such as buying ad time and using it to play songs, are less clearly violations of the law, Universal nonetheless agreed to discontinue such practices. Many of the transactions cited depict radio station employees soliciting goods from Universal employees in exchange for airplay. But they also depict Universal employees as complicit. In an internal email exchange, one Universal executive tells another to produce two "good" U2 tickets for radio station executives and to give "cheaper" ones to listeners who won a contest. The Federal Communications Commission has launched its own pay-for-play investigation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114737907462850504.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription) * Universal Music Settles Big Payola Case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/business/12payola.html * Universal Fined a Record to Settle Payola Claims http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-uni12may12,1,7251825.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

BLOGGERS STRIKE BACK [SOURCE: AlterNet, AUTHOR: Glenn Greenwald] [Commentary] Reporting from the blogosphere has already changed the face of politics, journalism and even publishing. And the changes have only just begun. http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/36100/ * Liberal Bloggers' 'Patriot' Act Left-leaning bloggers help propel S.F. publisher's book to the top of the Amazon best-seller chart. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/12/BLOGBOOK.TMP

(May 11) BUSH BROADBAND GOAL FADING [SOURCE: EarthWeb, AUTHOR: Roy Mark] President Bush's goal of "universal, affordable" broadband access for all Americans by 2007 is becoming a flagging notion, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) (see http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2246). In the report, the GAO determined only 28 percent of Americans had a broadband connection in 2005. In addition, 30 percent of the surveyed households use a dial-up connection to access the Internet, leaving 41 percent of U.S. homes without any Internet connection. The GAO report also found that rural Americans are much less likely to subscribe to broadband than those living in cities. In all, only 17 percent of rural households have broadband service. The report also questions Federal Communications Commission numbers showing that 99 percent of Americans live in the 95 percent of ZIP codes that have at least one broadband provider reporting to be serving at least one subscriber. "For its ZIP-code level data, FCC collects data based on where subscribers are served, not where providers have deployed broadband infrastructure," the report states. Although it is clear that the deployment of broadband networks is extensive, the data may not provide an accurate depiction of local deployment of broadband infrastructures for residential service, especially in rural areas. The GAO concluded the price of broadband service remains a barrier for some consumers, but the availability of broadband applications and services also influences whether consumers purchase high-speed connections. According to the GAO, even when cost-and-demand factors are favorable, "technical factors can limit the deployment of broadband service in certain contexts." For instance, the GAO notes, copper DSL connections can generally extend only three miles from the central office, precluding many U.S. households from obtaining DSL. The GAO also found that broadband deployment can stumble at the local level, with disputes over rights-of-way, pole attachments and wireless tower sites. http://news.earthweb.com/infra/article.php/3604971

STUDIES LINKING TV VIEWING TO VIOLENCE SHORT ON EVIDENCE [SOURCE: Asbury Park Press, AUTHOR: Paul K. McMasters, First Amendment Center] [Commentary] Children whine about monsters under their beds, but their parents have more adult fears: They cower under the covers whimpering about those scary television sets in their living rooms. But there is no sure way to predict how media, violent or otherwise, will affect a particular individual. While some links between TV viewing and defined effects are suggested, it is a rare study that asserts a cause-and-effect relationship. Hours of TV watched daily by children have increased dramatically over the past three decades, yet the rate of youthful violence declined dramatically during that same period. Another uncomfortable fact is a clear link between this cycle of panic and bad public policy. When legislators and regulators punish and restrict certain programming, choices for viewers, creators and broadcasters dwindle. Attention and resources are diverted from real problems affecting children's well-being. And the role parents should play — and that polls say the overwhelming majority want to play — in guiding children's choices is usurped or compromised. http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060510/OPINION/605100389/1030

AN AGENCY'S WORST NIGHTMARE: ADS CREATED BY USERS [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Julie Bosman] User-generated content, best known for fueling the popularity of Web sites like YouTube and MySpace, is rapidly taking hold in advertising. Dozens of entries were recently submitted for a contest on the cable channel Current TV to create an ad for Sony. In the coming weeks, more user-generated ads for companies like L'Oréal and Toyota will follow the Sony commercial. User-generated content, best known for fueling the popularity of Web sites like YouTube and MySpace, is rapidly taking hold in advertising. "User-generated content is sort of the word of the day," said Anne Zehren, the president of sales and marketing for Current TV, which was started last August. "And I think smart marketers will start harnessing that." Current relies on user-generated content for roughly one-third of its programming, from fashion features to foreign documentaries. The network operates under the theory that its programming will be more relevant if its audience, primarily 18- to 34-year-olds, have a voice in creating it. If the audience is interested, there is less of a risk that they will tune out in favor of other entertainment like the Internet and video games. User-generated content owes part of its popularity to the younger age group's increasing agility at working with video and audio tools at home to mimic what television studios and advertising agencies do for hefty fees. For people who are relatively obscure professionally, Current is an instant national platform. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/business/media/11adco.html (requires registration) More advertising news... * Marketing the Unmentionable? Talk to the Web http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114731646074149879.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace

TV PROGRAMMING FOR BABIES TO PREMIERE AMID CRITICISM [SOURCE: Associated Press] Escalating an already heated national debate, a first-of-its-kind TV channel is set to premiere today designed specifically for babies -- an age group that the American Academy of Pediatrics says should be kept away from television altogether. The round-the-clock channel is called BabyFirstTV. For $9.99 a month, it is available initially by satellite through DirecTV and later through cable TV providers as well. The three companies behind BabyFirstTV are Regency Enterprises, a film and TV production company that is a partner of News Corp.'s Fox Entertainment; Kardan, an investment group based in the Netherlands and Israel; and Bellco Capital, a private Los Angeles-based investment fund. TV offerings already abound for older toddlers, and a lucrative -- though controversial -- market has developed for baby-oriented videos, attracting Walt Disney Co. and the makers of Sesame Street. But until now there had been no ongoing TV programming aimed at infants. Critics of TV for infants also are skeptical of assertions by BabyFirstTV and other companies that their products are designed to be watched by babies and parents together in an interactive manner. "Experience tells anyone that it's not going to be used that way," said Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston. "Parents use it to park their kids in front of the TV so they can get things done." http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-baby11may11,1,3480611.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business (requires registration)

REPUBLICANS TARGET SOCIAL NETWORK SITES [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh] MySpace and other social-networking sites like LiveJournal.com and Facebook are facing a new threat: a proposed federal law that would effectively require most schools and libraries to render those Web sites inaccessible to minors, an age group that includes some of the category's most ardent users. "When children leave the home and go to school or the public library and have access to social-networking sites, we have reason to be concerned," Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, said. Rep Fitzpatrick and fellow Republicans, including House Speaker Dennis Hastert, on Wednesday endorsed new legislation that would cordon off access to commercial Web sites that let users create public "Web pages or profiles" and also offer a discussion board, chat room, or e-mail service. That's a broad category that covers far more than social-networking sites such as Friendster and Google's Orkut.com. It would also sweep in a wide range of interactive Web sites and services, including Blogger.com, AOL and Yahoo's instant-messaging features, and Microsoft's Xbox 360, which permits in-game chat. Fitzpatrick's bill, called the Deleting Online Predators Act, or DOPA, is part of a new, poll-driven effort by Republicans to address topics that they view as important to suburban voters. Republican pollster John McLaughlin polled 22 suburban districts and presented his research at a retreat earlier this year. Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican, is co-sponsoring the measure. The group, which is calling itself the "Suburban Caucus," convened a press conference on Wednesday to announce new legislation it hopes will rally conservative supporters -- and prevent the Democrats from retaking the House of Representatives during the November mid-term election. http://news.com.com/Congress+targets+social+network+sites/2100-1028_3-6071040.html?tag=nefd.lede

THE PERFECT NEWS SITE, 2016 [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Dave Pettit dave.pettit@wsj.com ] In connection with WSJ.com's 10th anniversary, the Wall Street Journal asked readers to look ahead and describe the perfect news site, circa 2016. Some ideas: 1) People are awash in news and information. What they really need is highly edited coverage that makes the best use of their time. 2) News sites should be portable -- with content moved easily, by the user, onto other sites. 3) Advertising-free sites. 4) Much has been made lately of citizen journalism and the perfect site of the future would build on that -- allowing input from readers. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114717839352947700-Nsu_HUWPFswsM7wBQ7vJSgDhonQ_20060516.html?mod=blogs (requires subscription)

(May 10) PLAN FOR ADULT AREA SPARKS A FIGHT ON CONTROL OF WEB [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Christopher Rhoads christopher.rhoads@wsj.com] Stuart Lawley wants to create a new Internet neighborhood for the adult-entertainment industry: dot-xxx. The 43-year-old British entrepreneur believes the new three-letter ending for Web-site addresses would help protect children from online pornography, by making it easier to filter such material. He also hopes to make a pile of money by collecting fees for registering dot-xxx sites. The matter, which could be voted on as early as today by the organization that governs domain names, has triggered a rancorous global debate involving freedom-of-speech advocates, child-protection groups, adult-content providers, foreign governments and conservative Christian groups. Mr. Lawley's proposal also raises thorny issues for the U.S. government, which funded the creation of the Internet and has long played a behind-the-scenes role in running it. As the Internet grows as a place of business and a forum for exchanging ideas, some have argued that it shouldn't be dominated by any one country. That discontent has prompted a few countries and regions to begin breaking away and forming their own Internet-like computer networks -- a threat to the universality that makes the Internet such a powerful tool. The Commerce Department has expressed reservations about the dot-xxx measure, amid a flood of email from conservative groups, according to internal government documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. In one document, the department made clear that it could block the proposal if the domain-name organization, called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, approves it. As a result of the concerns, Icann has postponed several scheduled votes since last August. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722804052548561.html?mod=todays_us_page_one (requires subscription)

(May 9) TAX FOES ATTACK NET NEUTRALITY [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton] Calling itself a conservative response to moveon.org's pro-"network neutrality" regulation lobby, the Internet Freedom Coalition has formed to "fight regulation of the Internet." The new coalition, including limited-government groups like Americans for Tax Reform, the Center for Individual Freedom, and Tennessee Center for Policy Research, argue that tough network neutrality language in the bill would be "the first major attempt by Washington to regulate the Internet." They will fight moveon.org's Internet fire with fire, promising to launch a massive e-mail campaign, take out Internet banner ads to fight what is says will be a tax on the Internet. Why is network neutrality regulation a tax? If networks aren't allowed to recoup their build-out costs by charging more for bandwidth, security or other services, the argument goes, they will have to pass them along to customers. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6332711?display=Breaking+News

NEWSPAPER CIRCULATION FALLS, WEB READERSHIP GAINS [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Robert MacMillan] U.S. newspaper circulation slid 2.5 percent as of the end of March as readers defect to the Internet and other media outlets, though publishers were able to lure more viewers online, according to industry data released on Monday. A Newspaper Association of America analysis of semiannual data from the Audit Bureau of Circulations found that average daily circulation of 770 daily newspapers fell to about 45.4 million readers, compared with about 46.6 million in the same six-month period a year ago. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-05-08T195958Z_01_N083887_RTRUKOC_0_US-DJCMEDIA-NEWSPAPERS-CIRCULATION.xml&archived=False * Precipitous Circ Drop Defies Geography, But Not All News is Bad http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002464330 * Circulation Falls, but Investors Read Ahead http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-newspapers9may09,1,5857280.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

WARNER BROTHERS TO SELL MOVIES AND TV SHOWS ON INTERNET [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Julie Bosman & Tom Zeller] Warner Brothers plans to announce today that it will make hundreds of movies and television shows available for purchase over the Internet using BitTorrent software, which is widely used to download movies and other copyrighted material illegally. The agreement between Warner Brothers and BitTorrent is an unusual deal between a major Hollywood studio and a company whose file-sharing technology has raised the ire of the movie industry. For its part, Warner Brothers says it is trying to stem the piracy of movies on the Internet by offering consumers an easy and fast way to download movies legally. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/business/media/09movie.html (requires registration) * Studio Sees Profit in What Was Piracy http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-torrent9may09,1,1639939.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage

(May 8) NO FREE LUNCHES ON THE NET [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Gerald Wesel] [Commentary] The network neutrality debate has generated plenty of emotion and rhetoric. One side argues that the creation of "fast lanes" of Internet traffic constitutes "informational apartheid," while the other calls such views nuts. The answer lies beyond the rhetoric, requiring an understanding of technology and the networks themselves. This is the approach that should inform Congressional decisions. Networks need traffic management. We need a solution that reflects experience and facts, not rhetoric. The result will be better and faster Internet service for everyone. http://news.com.com/No+free+lunches+on+the+Net/2010-1034_3-6068868.html?tag=html.alert More commentary * Net neutrality and politics [Commentary] "The Internet is not threatened by access tiers. In fact, it can be enhanced by making new bandwidth-heavy services more economical and reliable in ways that would be impossible given a naive enforcement of "net neutrality" rules." http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/?p=1563

WORLDWIDE SURVEY ESTIMATES 694 MILLION ADULT WEB USERS [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Eric Auchard] Seeking to standardize global online measurements, comScore Networks introduced on Friday a new global survey with an estimate that 694 million people, age 15 or higher, used the Internet during March, or around 14 percent of adults. The survey, called the comScore World Metrix, estimates there are 168.1 million users across four Asian countries -- China, Japan, India and Korea -- or nearly 25 percent of the total online population. By contrast, the United States is home to 152 million users, or 22 percent of the world's Web users. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-05-07T190623Z_01_N07349327_RTRUKOC_0_US-INTERNET.xml

THE NEXT TECH BATTLE: INTERNET SEARCHES ON CELLPHONES [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Cassell Bryan-Low cassell.bryan-low@wsj.com and Kevin J. Delaney] The push by the world's biggest Internet search firms to dominate what customers see when they turn on their cellphones has accelerated in recent months with Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Corp. all striking deals with service providers and others in the cellphone industry. The tech giants want their search engines and logos to pop up on cellphone screens, enabling people to also use their phones for other services the companies provide, such as downloading maps, or sending email and instant messaging, just as they do on their computers. The companies contend that even though only a small number of people currently use their phones to search for information online, there is a huge potential market with twice as many cellphones in use globally as PCs. And, as search engines become better at tailoring results to a user's location, mobile searching will become more attractive, they say. "The leading edge battleground between us and Google in local search really will come on the phone," predicts Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer. Internet searching in general is a huge market, with U.S. search-related advertising spending totaling $5.1 billion last year, according to research firm eMarketer Inc. But advertising on cellphones is still in its infancy, generating just about $100 million last year, analysts say. And, mobile searching generates little if any revenue. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114704408802546163.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription)

ON A FIRST, WARNER BROTHERS TO LET LOCAL TV PUT SITCOM ON WEB [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brooks Barnes brooks.barnes@wsj.com] In a groundbreaking move for the TV industry, Warner Bros. will allow local TV stations that buy reruns of the comedy "Two and a Half Men" to stream the episodes on their Web sites. The initiative is the first time local TV stations will share in the migration of TV shows onto the Internet. Warner Bros.' move is a sign that the TV industry is beginning a broader embrace of digital technologies. Major TV studios have been reluctant to allow hit shows to be streamed online for fear it would cannibalize the money they make from sale of reruns or DVDs. The only exceptions have been in cases where studios and networks fall under the same corporate umbrella, which was the case with ABC. Warner Bros., a unit of Time Warner Inc., is the biggest supplier of primetime shows to the major networks. The move is sure to have ripple effects. Once "Two and a Half Men" reruns are available on station Web sites, other shows sold into the rerun syndication market may follow. Warner Bros. will benefit as well. The studio will likely be able to charge stations more for the reruns of "Two and a Half Men" than it might have otherwise. Stations that buy "Two and a Half Men" will share their online ad revenue with Warner Bros on a 50-50 basis. Warner Bros. said it will also control how the episodes are streamed to protect against piracy and to limit viewing by certain geographical area. Mr. Rosenblum's plans call for stations to stream five episodes of "Two and a Half Men" on their Web sites at a time; the episodes will consist of the previous week's five aired installments. The episodes will be free, available on demand and supported by advertising. A 15-second video commercial that can't be skipped will run at the beginning of each episode. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114704748966046240.html?mod=todays_us_page_one (requires subscription) * Warner Bros. Launches Online Syndication Effort http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6332456?display=Breaking+News * Two and a Half Broadband http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6332369.html?display=Breaking+News * ABC affiliates join online streaming program http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyID=2006-05-08T075825Z_01_N08406798_RTRUKOC_0_US-ABC.xml

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR TV. BUT WHO? AND HOW? [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Randall Stross] [Commentary] The digital video recorder is slowly, but surely, tunneling through the television industry's foundation. Ten million homes had DVRs in 2005, according to Forrester Research; the number is expected to jump to 15 million this year, 30 million next year and 42 million in 2010. Scientific-Atlanta, which supplies set-top boxes to all the major cable companies, reports that fully half its boxes going out today are equipped with DVR's. What this means for traditional advertising can be divined in data collected by TiVo, which has 4.4 million subscribers. Davina Kent, a TiVo vice president, said that when its customers watch recorded programs, they skip 70 percent of the commercials. This has not escaped the notice of advertisers. Josh Bernoff, a principal analyst at Forrester, predicted that "next year, you'll see significant decline in TV ad spending as a result of digital video recorders." The television industry has not figured out how best to respond. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/business/yourmoney/07digi.html (requires free registration)

SOME PUBLISHERS OF SCHOLARLY JOURNALS DISLIKE BILL TO REQUIRE ONLINE ACCESS TO ARTICLES [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Sara Ivry] Scholarly publishing has never been a big business. But it could take a financial hit if a proposed federal law is enacted, opening taxpayer-financed research to the public, according to some critics in academic institutions. The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, proposed last week by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) would require 11 government agencies to publish online any articles that contained research financed with federal grants. If enacted, the measure would require that the articles be accessible online without charge within six months of their initial publication in a scholarly journal. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/business/media/08journal.html (requires registration)

(May 5) REPORT: DVR AD SKIPPING COULD BE COSTLY [SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Karen Brown] JupiterResearch says that consumers are losing valuable information about available goods and services when they erroneously skip advertisements using digital video recorders. No, actually, the company estimates that 53% of digital-video-recorder subscribers are zipping through ads, and if that holds true, as much as $8 billion in cable- and broadcast-TV advertising revenue could be at risk. The report also noted that DVR viewers who skip ads watch an average of 18 hours of television weekly -- not much more than the average 17 hours watched by viewers in non-DVR households. In response, television networks and advertisers need to rethink their strategies -- and that includes dropping the idea of charging DVR customers for primetime reruns. http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6331601.html?display=Breaking+News

SIGNING AWAY THE CONSTITUTION [SOURCE: Center for American Progress, AUTHOR: Eric Alterman] [Commentary] Last Sunday, the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage broke a story that, "President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." Amazingly, most of the mainstream media does not appear to think this is much of a story. If a tree falls on the front page of the Boston Globe and is heard only in the blogosophere, does that mean it hasn't really fallen? In other words, will the Bush administration’s lawlessness continue unabated without even exciting any interest on the part of the mainstream media? Just how much contempt for Congress and the Constitution is too much? http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1624525

ICE SAYS FREE COUNTRIES MUST INFLUENCE OTHERS TO REMOVE PRESS RESTRICTIONS [SOURCE: Canadian Press 5/3, AUTHOR: William C. Mann] Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that free countries must try to influence governments who restrict press freedom and named five countries that she said do that, including Russia and China. In a statement marking World Press Freedom Day, Rice said actions against the journalists include physical mistreatment as well as reinforced libel laws, media ownership in the hands of too few people, Internet restrictions and dwindling press outlets. (Wow, can we apply those standards here in the US, too?) http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=88371d5f-f753-4d6a-8233-a43e26676584&k=82638

(May 4) THE WRONG WAY TO FURTHER THE SPREAD OF BROADBAND INTERNET [SOURCE: CNet|News.com, AUTHOR: Rep Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)] [Commentary] The Internet is the most important new communications platform in American history. Through an open Internet, ordinary individuals can directly reach an audience of hundreds of millions of people around the world with their words, music, art, photography and literature--with just about any kind of creation imaginable. That freedom for ordinary people to connect with one another has led to some remarkable innovation. But recently the freedom of ordinary people to connect with one another has come under attack. A few large corporations don't seem to value the Internet's empowerment of individuals and are asserting a desire to control technology. The latest chapter in that attack on freedom is the fight against network neutrality. For most Americans, our options for broadband Internet come down to two choices--a phone company or a cable company. Instead of continuing our freedom to use those connections with whatever content, devices and services we want, some corporations want to control what we access over the Internet. This would include giving better connections to their favored content, and charging money for that privilege. What would the world look like if the Internet had been controlled in this way a few years ago? Imagine if the students who created Google or Yahoo had been charged a fee by a phone company for the privilege of letting their potential users have fast access. These small projects would not have turned into big ideas that revolutionized the World Wide Web. The proposed control of content goes directly against the level playing field created by Internet technology. The concept of freedom written about by Thomas Paine is being challenged by this threat to net neutrality. The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate with one another and do business. It's just common sense to keep that revolution where it belongs--in the hands of ordinary individuals, instead of a handful of big corporations. Americans' Internet freedom depends on it. http://news.com.com/The+wrong+way+to+further+the+spread+of+broadband+Internet/2010-1028_3-6068364.html?tag=html.alert

THE FOX NEWS EFFECT [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Richard Morin] A brief look at a study that suggests that the Fox News Channel does convince some to vote Republican -- and how that changed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. Also... Do people apply a political litmus test to the news? Yes, suggest the results of the latest online experiment by The Washington Post, washingtonpost.com and Stanford University's political communication lab. The test found Republicans preferred to get their news from Fox -- even when the news stories were about subjects far removed from politics, such as sports or travel. On the other hand, Democrats avoided Fox when it came to political news and preferred National Public Radio and CNN. And when the news focused on controversial issues such as the Iraq war and politics, "partisans are especially likely to screen out sources they consider opposed to their political views," said Stanford professor Shanto Iyengar, director of the communication lab. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/03/AR2006050302299.html (requires registration)

OFFICIALS TARGET HONG KONG PUBLIC RADIO [SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Robert Marquand] A quiet battle over whether the only free and independent broadcaster on the land mass of China will remain so is intensifying. Over a 77-year span, Hong Kong public radio has dished out a blend of credible news and cultural programming in three languages, served as a link between expatriates and the Hong Kong street, and has gained increasing editorial autonomy and respect. Yet that is exactly what bothers influential pro-Beijing forces who wish media to more fully trumpet government policies. Many of them see Radio Television Hong Kong, or "RTHK" as it is popularly known, as an irritant at best and a damaging critic at worst - allowing a broad range of opinion, including mild satire and programs that may challenge official proposals, all at taxpayer expense. The basic issue: Will RTHK be cut, restricted, or turned into a cheerleader for government policies? Or will it evolve into a subsidized but separate identity, similar to the BBC or Channel 4 in London? http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0504/p07s02-woap.html

PAID-FOR PUNDIT [SOURCE: New York Post, AUTHOR: Tim Arango tim.arango@nypost.com] Major U.S. newspapers often quote Jeff Kagan - regarded as one of the most influential telecommunications analysts - but invariably leave out the fact that he is paid by many companies in the industry to offer his comments to the media. His Web site declares: "Kagan is a 'fee-based' analyst. He gives interviews, analysis and insights to the media for free, and charges everyone else." Kagan declined to talk specifically about fees, but one source said a typical arrangement is for the company to pay $10,000 a month in exchange for his services. Kagan admits he is rarely asked by reporters if he is being paid by the companies he is speaking about. He said he is more frequently asked if he has an investment relationship with a particular company, and does not hold stock in the companies he counts as clients. "If they don't have me on retainer I will talk about them" in the media, Kagan said. "But my comments won't be that deep." The Wall Street analyst scandal has made it common practice for reporters to disclose investment banking relationships when quoting analysts from Wall Street firms. But when quoting analysts from other organizations, conflicts are rarely discussed. "It's not a securities issue," said an analyst at a Wall Street firm. "It's a question of public trust in journalism." http://www.nypost.com/business/67923.htm

WI-FI REVOLUTION? NOT SO FAST! [SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Olga Kharif] Disagreements over standards, rival technologies, and concerns about hotspot security are bringing the industry's hopes down to earth with a crash. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060502_738925.htm

(May 2) KEEPING A DEMOCRATIC WEB [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff] [Commentary] "Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause. The House Energy and Commerce Committee defeated a good Net-neutrality amendment last week. But the amendment got more votes than many people expected, suggesting that support for Net neutrality is beginning to take hold in Congress. In the Senate, Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, are drafting a strong Net-neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/opinion/02tue3.html (requires registration)

MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE SET TO WAGE ARMS RACE [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Steve Lohr & Saul Hansell] The rivalry between Microsoft and Google is growing more combative, and with good reason: the outcome is likely to shape the future of competition in computing and the way people use information technology. A measure of how seriously Microsoft takes the challenge came last Thursday when it announced that its spending would rise sharply next year, about $2 billion higher than previous estimates. Much of the extra money, analysts say, is going to meet the threat from companies offering advertising-supported Internet services and software, led by Google. To succeed, Microsoft has to make strong inroads into Internet services and software, where Google is a leader. Microsoft enters that battle from a stronghold: its lucrative, powerful business in personal computer software. Google has asserted that Microsoft's next Web browser typically steers users to Microsoft's search service, limiting consumer choice and potentially hurting Google, the leading Internet search engine. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/technology/02google.html (requires registration)

INTEL AIMS TO BRIDGE DIGITAL DIVIDE [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Don Clark don.clark@wsj.com] Intel is pledging to invest $1 billion over five years to help provide broader access to technology and educational resources in developing countries. The big U.S. chip maker said the program, called World Ahead, combines projects the company has funded previously with new activities -- all aimed at giving people in developing countries more access to computers and the Internet. Intel said the program has three primary goals: to design affordable computers that are tailored to needs of developing regions; to make high-speed Internet access more ubiquitous, in some cases through use of a wireless technology called WiMAX, and to provide training to teachers and students on the use of information technology. As part of World Ahead, Intel said it plans to donate 100,000 PCs for use in classrooms in developing nations. The company had already been spending about $100 million a year on educational programs. The company has trained about three million teachers so far in the use of technology, and plans to train 10 million more over five years as part of the World Ahead program. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114652603653140919.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription) * Intel to Offer Its Own Plan for Global Internet Access http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/technology/02chip.html * Tech rivals target the world's poor http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/14479435.htm

GROUP SUES VIDEO FIRMS ON TOT-LEARNING CLAIMS [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Caroline E. Mayer] The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, saying Baby Einstein Co. and Brainy Baby Co. should not be able to say their products inspire "logical thinking," foster "the development of your toddler's speech and language skills," or give "your child a jumpstart on learning." The group said the claims are deceptive, since there is no proof that these increasingly popular videos are beneficial and educational. In fact, it said, "research shows that television viewing is potentially harmful for infants and toddlers," because it could adversely affect cognitive development if it replaces creative play and interaction with a child's parents and surroundings. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101372.html (requires registration)

CHINESE INTERNET ACTIVISTS CHALLENGE CENSORSHIP [SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Chris Buckley] A coalition of Chinese Web activists has launched a petition decrying censorship of the Internet and challenging the legality of government information controls on China's more than 100 million net users. Hundreds of citizens signed the petition along with representatives of 13 local Chinese Web sites recently closed or targeted by censors. It began circulating on Saturday via email and overseas Chinese-language Web sites unaffected by domestic censorship. The signatories said China's constitution grants citizens freedom of expression and publication, and those rights "should be respected and protected, and should not be subject to any unlawful restrictions and obstructions." http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-05-01T133012Z_01_PEK138535_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHINA-CENSORSHIP.xml&archived=False

(May1) ANTITRUST LAW AIMED AT NET NEUTRALITY [SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn] Reps. Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), members of the House Judiciary Committee, are drafting a bill designed to impose antitrust penalties on broadband-access providers that attempt to demand fees from Web-content providers in exchange for priority treatment of their search, shopping and information-retrieval services. Depending on how the bill is written, antitrust violations can carry criminal or civil penalties, including prison terms for criminal violations and heavy fines for civil offenses. http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6329736.html?display=Breaking+News

CONGRESS MAY CONSIDER MANDATORY ISP SNOOPING [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh] It didn't take long for the idea of forcing Internet providers to retain records of their users' activities to gain traction in the Congress. Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave a speech saying that data retention by Internet service providers is an "issue that must be addressed." Child pornography investigations have been "hampered" because data may be routinely deleted, Gonzales warned. Now, in a demonstration of bipartisan unity, a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus is preparing to introduce an amendment -- perhaps during a House of Representatives floor vote this week -- that would make such data deletion illegal. Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette's (D) proposal says that any Internet service that "enables users to access content" must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user's account was closed. http://news.com.com/Congress+may+consider+mandatory+ISP+snooping/2100-1028_3-6066608.html?tag=html.alert * See the amendment: http://dw.com.com/redir?destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fenergycommerce.house.gov%2F108%2FMarkups%2F04262006%2Fdegette_001_XML.PDF&siteId=3&oId=2100-1028-6066608&ontId=1023&lop=nl.ex

ARE VIDEO NEWS RELEASES ALL BAD? [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Kevin E. Foley, creator of "sponsored news content"] [Commentary] A video news release apologist argues that fake news is good news. "Times have changed, and the commercial interests in television today demand financial accountability from news operations. With fewer resources at their disposal, the pressure is on the producers to fill airtime with newsworthy, informative and even entertaining content. It’s a daunting challenge in many TV markets without outside help. Indeed, one of the most common practices in print journalism is to lift quotes and even blocks of copy from press releases. Reporters from local weekly newspapers to The New York Times do it every day without ever disclosing to the reader the source of the material. And you know what? Nobody cares." http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329692?display=Opinion

TV WANTS CLEAR RULES ON WHAT'S A BAD WORD [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 4/30, AUTHOR: Jim Puzzanghera] The legal battle that began this month between the four major networks and the Federal Communications Commission revolves around an I-word that is disturbing in its own way to TV executives: inconsistency. Why, they wonder, did the FCC allow the F-word and the S-word in the airing of Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan," but rule that the same words in the Martin Scorsese documentary, "The Blues: Godfathers and Sons," were indecent? Why did the FCC say in 2003 that the F-word was OK if used as an adjective, then several months later change course and say there was no acceptable grammatical construction? "At one time I could explain indecency to you in seven words," said Washington communications attorney John Crigler. "Now I need seven volumes." Frustrated by that growing complexity and confusion, the broadcast TV networks showed rare unity in filing notices of appeal April 14 alleging that a March 15 ruling by the FCC was unconstitutional. In so doing, networks executives knowingly embarked on what probably will be a long legal struggle. But their goal — bringing more clarity to what they describe as the increasingly blurry and outdated world of federal indecency rules — was key, several said, to assuring the continued viability of the broadcast TV business. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-decency30apr30,1,5446675.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business (requires registration)

LOCAL FLAVOR [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Stewart Schley] Once an afterthought in local cable advertising, Hispanic, African-American and Asian-American viewers are increasingly on advertisers' radars. And operators are helping advertisers reach them with more culturally sensitive ads and smarter ad buys. Executives who work in multicultural cable advertising stress that advertisers must begin by understanding multicultural audiences as people, not just as numbers on a Census report. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329695?display=Special+Report

 THE VIEW FROM SESAME STREET [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Gary Knell, CEO of Sesame Workshop] [Commentary] When the groundbreaking show "Sesame Street" was created in 1968 to help children prepare for school, it was not without its critics, but it has won more Emmys and been the subject of more postgraduate theses than any program in television history. Nearly 38 years later, our newest initiative has also come in for criticism. Upon launching "Sesame Beginnings," a series of videos for parents and children under the age of 2, the nonprofit educational organization Sesame Workshop was immediately accused by some "experts" of "betraying children and families." Somehow, by merely entering the market, we are promoting television as babysitter when caregivers should be engaging in hands-on parenting, free of TV. But the reality is that with the explosion of media, more families are allowing their youngest children to watch television, whether we like it or not. Television is a powerful teacher. Research to date has looked more at total viewing time than content. What we've learned, with our own decades of research on the impact of "Sesame Street," is that content does matter -- programs designed to be age-appropriate educational viewing experiences do have beneficial educational effects. That is why we support a closer look at media for children based on content rather than screen time. We need to examine whether marketing guidelines are required for products and whether parents have the information they need to make informed decisions. Most important, we have to make sure we take an honest look at the reality of media today and base our decisions on the real-world needs of parents and children. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043000868.html (requires registration)

PRODUCTION DAYS FOR 'REALITY' TV SOAR [SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Richard Verrier] The number of production days for "reality" TV shoots — one day representing a day of work at a single location — soared to 1,942 during the first quarter of the year, up 128% from the same period a year ago, according to Film L.A. Inc., which coordinates film permits in the city and in unincorporated areas of the county. The surge in unscripted TV shoots by MTV, VH1 and other cable channels and broadcast networks triggered a modest increase in overall film and television production, which totaled 9,278 permit days, up 4% from a year ago. Such activity is usually slow in the first quarter. Although Los Angeles remains on track to exceed last year's record level of production, local film industry promoters weren't cheering the latest statistics, scheduled to be released today. They noted that unscripted TV had fewer economic benefits than other types of television shows, and that Los Angeles continued to lose ground to locales outside the state, including other countries, that have lured productions with a bevy of tax incentives offered to film, TV and commercial producers. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-tv1may01,1,2680372.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business (requires registration)

NETWORKS PUSH ONLINE PACKAGE FOR TV ADS [SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Aline van Duyn] US television broadcasters and cable networks are for the first time pitching for millions of advertising dollars by highlighting their ability to reach Internet and on-demand audiences alongside traditional viewers. Media buyers said they had noticed the trend during annual negotiations over US television time. Donna Speciale, president at Mediavest, a large ad-buying agency, said: “What is new is that the networks are really focusing on digital. Some of the presentations are even starting with the digital component. That has never happened before.” http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0900c472-d874-11da-9715-0000779e2340.html (requires subscription)

Click here for earler 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)

Return to top

Use this tool to search our site or the web.

WWW Guidomedia.com