Recent postings on media issues from Benton.org

October 2004

NEWSPAPER ENDORSEMENT ANALYSIS BY OWNERS: Jacob Kaplan-Moss, who works for the Journal-World in Lawrence (KS), has taken Editor & Publisher's list of newspaper endorsements and done the work of breaking them down by ownership. You can find his complete breakdown on his personal site (http://toys.jacobian.org/endorsements). Knight Ridder is most pro-Kerry chain, backing Kerry him by an 18-2 count (with its papers in Forth Worth and Wichita as the exceptions). In the other corner, the MediaNews Group scores for Bush by 16-2 (with the Daily News in Los Angeles and The Oakland Tribune being the odd fish). See more at the URL below. [SOURCE: Editor & Publisher, AUTHOR: Greg Mitchell] http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000691964

THE NEW VOICES: HYPERLOCAL CITIZEN MEDIA SITES WANT YOU (TO WRITE)!: From Bakersfield, Calif. to Columbia (MO) to Skokie (IL) and to small-town New Jersey, community news sites are springing up with a bottom-up "open source" approach, written and photographed by citizens and overseen by journalists. But is it sustainable? [SOURCE: Online Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Mark Glaser] http://ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1098833871.php

WEB OFFERS HEFTY VOICE TO CRITICS OF MAINSTREAM JOURNALISTS: This year's election has been filled with accusations of the media practicing cheap and dirty politics, playing fast and loose with the facts and even lying. The criticism is coming from Internet writers and journalists covering the campaign believe the intent is often to bully them into caving to a particular point of view. Some worry the criticism could eventually have a chilling effect. "The traditional players, including the press, have lost some of the control or exclusive control they used to have," said Jay Rosen, chairman of the journalism department at New York University, who keeps his own Web log, or blog. But, he added, "I think there's a campaign under way to totally politicize journalism and totally politicize press criticism. It's really an attack not just on the liberal media or press bias, it's an attack on professionalism itself, on the idea that there could be disinterested reporters." [SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Jim Ruttenberg] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/politics/campaign/28blog.html (requires registration)

INTERNET BROADENS U.S. POLITICAL DEBATE, SURVEY SAYS: The Internet serves more as a town hall in the United States than an echo chamber as users are more likely to be exposed to a wide range of political views, according to a survey released on Wednesday by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The Internet still takes a backseat to television as a source of news for most of the Internet users surveyed. But 31% of broadband users said the Internet was their primary news source, roughly the same as the 35% who said newspapers were their main source of news. One in five told the nonprofit group they preferred to get their news from a source that challenged their point of view, and 30% said they had visited the Web site of a nontraditional news source. See "The Internet and Democratic Debate" at http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/141/report_display.asp [SOURCE: Reuters] http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=6633960

WESTIN BLASTS OPINION IN MEDIA: Is network news obsolete? ABC News President David Westin's opinion may not surprise you -- he told the Institute of Politics' John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum that network news is far from dead but that the networks must adapt to changes in media. Due to the rise of 24-hr all-news cable channels, the networks face demands for continual coverage and constant deadlines. But he also focused on the rise of commentary on TV. "The more time we express our opinions, the less time we have to talk about the facts,” Westin said. “Unfortunately, opinion is driving out facts too often in most of what we see on television today. Expressing opinion on TV is vivid, entertaining, and in all honesty, less expensive than the alternative. Therefore, the explosion of news outlets has in its own way encouraged the explosion of opinion. It can be very entertaining to have two very spirited people discussing heath care in this country, but I for one would be better benefited by someone coming on and telling me exactly what the state of health care is before we talk about what ought to be done and telling me what my real options are. If viewers see news people on different channels that look pretty much the same, on sets that look pretty much the same, and graphics that look pretty much the same, with some expressing opinion some of the time and some expressing facts, is it surprising that the audience believe that they're all expressing facts?” [SOURCE: Harvard Crimson Online, AUTHOR: Michael Chion] http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=504085

HIGH-SPEED INTERNET POLICY FAILURE: The Bush Administration's Internet policy has resulted in high prices that are retarding the spread of high-speed Internet service and widening the digital divide, a report released today by the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union concludes. The report, Expanding the Digital Divide and Falling Behind in Broadband, documents the advantages that Internet households, particularly those with high-speed access, have in conducting economic, social and political activities, and concludes that it is critical to aggressively close the digital divide by promoting universal service at affordable prices for all. The report notes that in 2001, FCC Chairman Michael Powell and the National Telecommunications Information Administration declared the digital divide a non-problem and proceeded to ignore it, adopting policies to eliminate all public interest obligations for the advanced telecommunications networks used to provide high-speed and voice over Internet service. "Allowing cable and telephone companies to squeeze out competition is a double-barreled failure," said Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America. "Americans pay ten to twenty times as much as consumers in Korea and Japan for broadband, and the U.S. has fallen from third to thirteenth in the world in the percentage of citizens with broadband service. Meanwhile, the percentage of households that have the Internet at home has stagnated at about 60 percent." "The digital divide is growing because consumers pay inflated prices for the basic services needed to connect to the high-speed Internet," said Gene Kimmelman, senior director of public policy for Consumers Union. "About half of all households with incomes above $75,000 have broadband, but half of all households with incomes below $30,000 do not even have a slow Internet connection at home." See the report at http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/ddnewbook.pdf [SOURCE: Consumers Union Press Release] http://www.consumersunion.org/pub//001464.html#more See also -- REPORT: U.S. LAGS IN SPEEDY INTERNET [SOURCE: San Jose Mercury News, AUTHOR: John Wollfolk] http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/10025760.htm

ADVERTISERS TUNE IN TO NEW RADIO GAUGE MobilTrak installs devices around metropolitan areas that can track what radio stations passing cars are tuned to. The company then sells the results to advertisers eager to better reach audiences. The monitoring aims to help retailers choose where to advertise by giving them a snapshot of which stations consumers tune into as they drive by their businesses. The approach is the most recent example of the powerful ways marketers are using technology to track customer behavior in natural settings. [SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Dina ElBoghdady] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60013-2004Oct24.html (requires registration)

A GLOBAL ASSAULT ON ANONYMITY: Headlines may not be your one-stop for privacy issues, but News.com is running a series on domestic security this week including this piece on balancing security and privacy. For more on the intersection of technology, security and privacy visit EPIC (www.epic.org) or the Center for Democracy and Technology (www.cdt.org). [SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: John Borland] http://news.com.com/2009-1009_3-5405947.html?tag=dasec

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS FOR RUSSIA'S CTC TV: Hampered by a Kremlin crackdown, Russia's independent media outlets are searching for ways to survive. CTC, a television channel based in the suburbs here, has a novel strategy: no news, no pundits, no pissing off President Putin. [Say that five times fast.] Who needs government censorship when you can do it yourself? [SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Guy Chazan at guy.chazan@wsj.com] http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109830242371150889,00.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace (requires subscription)

ACTIVISTS WEIGH IN ON RESTRICTING TV VIOLENCE: The Center for Creative Voices in Media, the Caucus for Television Producers, Writers & Directors, and children's TV activist Peggy Charren have told the FCC it should embark on a public education campaign to promote healthy viewing habits instead of restricting violent programming. "Censorship should always be a very, very last resort, not a first resort,” the groups wrote in comments filed with the FCC Friday. Instead, the FCC should encourage parents and TV programmers take to responsibility for what kids watch on TV. For instance, FCC education campaigns modeled after a new effort to promote digital television could educate the public and the TV industry on the danger “gratuitous violence” does to children. Other suggestions include a media-literacy drive to promote critical thinking about media messages, as well as promotion of the V-chip channel-blocking device and parental controls available from cable and DBS operators. The group also called on the FCC to promote the “Healthy Media, Healthy Children” program that members of Congress and private executives are sponsoring to identify research examining the impact of violent programs in kids. [SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Bill McConnell] http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA472559?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP (free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers) See the filing at: http://www.creativevoices.us/cgi-upload/news/news_article/CCVMViolencePackage101504.PDF

MAKING PEACE WITH THE PHONE BILL: In his recent book, The Future of Work, Thomas Malone argues that continuing reductions in the unit cost of communication are changing the face of business, leading to decentralization, innovative use of markets, and eventually, workplace democracy. But are we enjoying those reductions at home? In real dollars, US households probably pay twice as much for communications as we did 20 years ago. Speaking with Brown, Malone is quick to point out that he's talking about the unit charges of communications dropping, not the total cost. “When the unit cost of something goes down, people usually buy more of it,” he said, going on to explain that this "elasticity of demand" is unusually high in today's telecom market. It's so high, in fact that “when the unit cost goes down, people buy so much more of it that their total cost actually increases. Today's freelancers have cheap and easy access to many orders of magnitude more information than they did in the 1980s,” he said. “They have flat rate long distance and can take and receive calls wherever they are. They can send e-mail to as many people as they want for free and find information in seconds that, if it could be found at all, would have taken numerous phone calls and letters. In fact, in many cases, freelancers have access to better information than was available to the most senior managers of GM, IBM, and the U.S. government back in the '80s.” [SOURCE: Technology Review, AUTHOR: Eric S. Brown] http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_brown101304.asp

PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN TV SHOWS MOVES OUT OF BACKGROUND: Marketers are using scripted content to get their brands noticed and making it harder to tell what's a show and what's an ad. "Advertisers are taking the next step to … go beyond product placement," says Andy Donchin, media buyer at Carat. "They are trying to be there at the inception of a show to see if there is any way to integrate a product or service organically into a program." The new thinking has brought shifts in ad dollars. For example, ever since it found success with placement in Fox's American Idol and 24,Ford has moved spending to such appearances. It now spends less than 80% of its ad budget on traditional TV and print ads. "We're seeing some blips in data that there is more impact that comes out of these deals than from 30-second ads,” says Rich Stoddart, marketing communications manager at Ford. The risk is that viewers eventually get turned off by the commercial clutter in shows. “It's a very fine line between doing something that works and something that could turn off viewers,” warns ad buyer Donchin. [SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: Theresa Howard] http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/money/20041015/placement.art.htm

FREE AIR: [Commentary] Local TV stations have consistently been among the most lucrative businesses in the country, but they have never been asked to pay for their use of the public airwaves. In a sense, broadcasters are the modern equivalent of the railroads. In the nineteenth century, the railroads were given tens of millions of acres of land (adding up, eventually, to roughly 10% of the country); now broadcasters have been given billions of dollars' worth of electromagnetic real estate. The government has subsidized TV stations because it wanted the media to serve the public interest. Broadcasters get their licenses free, and, in exchange, they're supposed to keep the citizenry informed. Commendable as this mandate may seem, it has very little to do with the business of broadcast television. Today, most Americans -- 90% or so -- have cable or satellite TV. The airwaves are used less and less. Nor is there any evidence that the public interest is better served by broadcasters than by cable channels. That the major networks showed just an hour of coverage per night of the national political conventions suggests that it is not. For some reason we seem to believe that free commercial television is an inalienable right. We may not be willing to pay for all Americans to have health insurance, but we're content to pay for them to watch “Scrubs.”

By endowing local broadcasters with free channels, the government effectively made them little spectrum monopolists, and the one thing we know about monopolies is that they do not disappear of their own volition. The broadcasters, thanks in large part to their monopolies, have enormous lobbying resources, and their control of the airwaves has made local television -- and, in particular, local television news -- a powerful weapon to wield against politicians who cross them. Politics drives the business, and the business shapes the politics. As for the public interest -- does “Desperate Housewives” count? [SOURCE: The New Yorker, AUTHOR: James Surowiecki] http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041018ta_talk_surowiecki

WILL SATELLITE, 'PODCASTING' BRING A RENAISSANCE TO RADIO JOURNALISM?: Don't look to satellite radio to re-energize radio journalism, a victim of massive corporate buyouts. These operators are making investments in personalities -- not news -- to draw in new listeners. But while satellite radio will always have limited appeal due to the monthly charge, podcasting offers a free way for you to create your own radio station on the fly each day, listening when you want. There's commentary out there -- but mainly technology radio shows. Beyond the smaller productions, there are now more polished podcasts from public radio station WGBH as well as KOMO 1000 AM news in Seattle. Offering audio programming can be cheap: can spend about $1,000 on audio equipment, maybe $2,000 on an Apple laptop, and with the right training, start reporting stories and put them online. It may take some time, then, for quality programming to find an audience. [SOURCE: Online Journalism Review, AUTHOR: Mark Glaser] http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1097614994.php

PRESS-PUBLIC DIALOGUES ABOUT MEDIA CREDIBILITY PROMPT CHANGES IN NEWSPAPERS THAT PARTICIPATE: With help from the Associated Press Managing Editors Association, newspapers around the country are discussing journalistic credibility with their readers, and a survey released today shows that such discussions are prompting them to make changes to improve their accuracy, broaden their pool of news sources, and increase the diversity of their coverage and their newsroom staffs. The APME survey looked at the results of the first two cycles of public discussions held as part of APME's National Credibility Roundtables Project. Launched in 2001, the project trains and coaches newspapers in how to have dialogue with their communities around issues that influence readers' trust in what they read. Approximately 10% of American daily newspapers have held or are scheduled to hold roundtable discussions as a result of the project. The survey reported on 94 newspapers that held roundtable discussions in a 2001-2003 period. In responses to a series of questions, 92 of the 94 newspapers said that engaging in the community discussions had influenced their practices or policies or both. The topic for each roundtable was specific to that community, but the three top categories of topics were diversity and minority issues, special issues of local concern such as the reporting of certain crimes, and general credibility of the media. [SOURCE: Associated Press Managing Editors Association Press Release] An 8-page executive summary of the survey is available on-line www.apme.com/credibility or, by request, by email from credibility@ap.org

CRACKDOWN ON INTERNET JOURNALISTS: Iranian authorities have arrested at least six Internet journalists and webloggers in recent days in a further blow to limited press freedoms in the Islamic state. News-based Internet sites and online journals known as Weblogs have flourished in Iran where the disproportionately youthful population often turns to the Internet for information and entertainment. The hardline judiciary's muzzling of print media through the closure of some 100 publications in the last four years also meant the Internet became a haven for liberal journalists seeking a place to write. [SOURCE: Reuters] http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=6489252

Ed's note: Partisan broadcasting was a hot issue during the 2004 USA presidential election. Here's a sample of some of the debate.

SINCLAIR FIDDLES WHILE FCC SLEEPS: America's Big Media system has become a menace to our democracy. Americans granted these media companies our very first constitutional protection. In return many media groups have short changed American democracy by putting their corporate interests before those of the public. Unfortunately, the FCC has been lax in ensuring that bad actors such as Sinclair are held to a more meaningful set of public interest obligations, including a minimum of fair coverage of electoral and civic affairs. Free from the consequences of a more forceful FCC, media groups like Sinclair will continue to push their extreme bias onto the public. It's now time that the public turns the tables on Sinclair. Along with the other groups here today, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy have issued a challenge that Sinclair uphold its obligation to the public interest by offering on all 62 of its stations an equal amount of pre-election, prime viewing airtime for the broadcast of a program that is controlled by those representing an opposing view to "Stolen Honor". But there's more that we can, and will, do. If Sinclair doesn't act now to repair its shoddy intentions on behalf of the public, MediaChannel and Media for Democracy pledge to mobilize local activists against the 62 stations that operate under Sinclair's banner. We already have more than 21,000 activists on the ground in Sinclair markets. More citizens across the nation are responding with a willingness to take action if this station group moves ahead with "Stolen Honor". Actions will include comprehensive monitoring of Sinclair stations, call in campaigns to station general managers and news directors, public forums and meetings to reach others and educate the community about Sinclair's public interest obligations, and, if necessary, a formal challenge to Sinclair license renewals, station by station, when they come due. [SOURCE: MediaChannel.org Press Statement, AUTHOR: Timothy Karr] http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert278.shtml

COMMON CAUSE, MEDIA GROUPS CHALLENGE SINCLAIR BROADCAST: Like all broadcasters who receive their public airwaves licenses for free from the government, Sinclair Broadcast Group promises to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. At the heart of that promise is the commitment to report the news as fairly as possible, and to air diverse points of view on issues of national and local importance. Airing the anti-Kerry documentary, Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal, or portions of it, and billing it as “news” is not fair, and fails to provide viewers with the even-handed journalism that they require. Sinclair reportedly is giving its 62 stations no choice in whether to air the movie. This is one of the key flaws of concentrated media ownership: Sinclair, headquartered in Maryland, gets to dictate programming for communities in North Carolina, Ohio and Florida and across the United States without local citizens having a say. Sinclair's plans reinforce the need for the FCC to place restrictions on media concentration and to define in specific terms what broadcast licensees must do to serve the public interest. When media conglomerates with political agendas decide what constitutes “news” for the American public, true democratic discourse is threatened. [SOURCE: Common Cause Press Release] http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=194883&ct=252769

MEDIA REFORM GROUPS CHALLENGE SINCLAIR BROADCASTING TO UPHOLD PUBLIC TRUST: Our broadcast system is founded on the public trustee system - a system in which broadcasters get licenses for free to use the publicly owned airwaves in exchange for a promise to serve their communities and fulfill public interest obligations. Sinclair's announced plan to air “Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal” threatens to breach that trust, since Sinclair's decision appears to be driven more by a political agenda than by news judgment. However, the airing of this or any other particular program is not what is in question. The question is whether, as a public trustee, Sinclair will make sure that all viewpoints are given equal opportunity to be heard. Any decision by a broadcast station to use the publicly owned airwaves to promote one candidate over another raises questions about its fitness as a public trustee. The courts have ruled that broadcasters are exempt from certain campaign finance laws dealing with corporate expenditures on behalf of candidates - so long as their activities fall within their legitimate press function. Acts of extreme bias may be outside of this standard, and should be addressed by the Federal Election Commission. Similarly, acts of extreme bias may violate broadcasters' statutory public interest obligations, and should be addressed in license renewal hearings at the Federal Communications Commission. Of course, that assumes a vibrant and functional license renewal process and clear guidelines on the responsibilities of being a public trustee - both of which are in question today. For five years, the FCC has failed to take action on the public interest obligations of broadcasters in the digital age. Secure in the knowledge they face few consequences or sanctions from the FCC, station groups like Sinclair will continue to push the bounds of their public trust. And the ultimate losers in this game of chicken are the American people who will not have the balanced information they need to be informed and educated voters. [SOURCE: Alliance for Better Campaigns Press Release] http://www.bettercampaigns.org/press/release.php?ReleaseID=63

SINCLAIR'S PLANS DEMAND RETURN TO PERSONAL ATTACK RULE, FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: "Sinclair Broadcasting's plans to show an anti-Kerry documentary days before the presidential election demand restoring the personal attack rule and the Fairness Doctrine," Gloria Tristani, managing director of the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ told reporters at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. The FCC's Fairness Doctrine policy, which was in effect from 1949 to 1987, required television broadcasters to cover controversial issues in their community by offering balanced and contrasting views. The personal attack rule, which was in force from 1967 to 2000, gave individuals an opportunity to respond to character attacks during discussions of controversial public issues. "While Sinclair can order its 62 television stations to air the documentary, each station holds its license as a public trustee and is obligated to serve its community of license," Tristani said. But although media outlets and corporations have fundamental public interest obligations embodied in the Communications Act, nothing in current FCC rulings or policies would require Sinclair Broadcasting to give others the air time to provide a contrasting or balancing view, she added. "It is high time that the FCC, or even better, the United States Congress, reinstate the personal attack rule and the Fairness Doctrine," Tristani said. [SOURCE: United Church of Christ, Office of Communications Press Release] http://www.ucc.org/news/u101304.htm

SINCLAIR VS. SUNDANCE: [Commentary] You think what Sinclair is doing is bad? Get a load of the Sundance Channel! Operated by Viacom's Showtime Networks, this channel is preempting its scheduled lineup in order to devote nearly one-sixth of its airtime through Election Day to programming opposed to President Bush and the GOP. So far, however, this highly partisan scheme has slipped under the news media's radar. And you can forget about "equal time." Not one film on Sundance's schedule can be construed as pro-Bush, pro-GOP or even politically balanced. Its pre-election political film selection is instead uncompromisingly monolithic and deeply hostile to Republicans and President Bush. Never before in the annals of U.S. broadcasting has a television network so vigorously and unabashedly pursued such a totally one-sided political agenda, unquestionably intended to influence voters ahead of what's shaping up to be a very close presidential election. [Editor's note: Sundance is not a broadcaster -- as Sinclair is -- and is not subject to public interest obligations broadcasters are.] [SOURCE: National Review Online, AUTHOR: William P. Kucewicz, former editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal] http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kucewicz200410131008.asp

Click here for other Benton files.

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