A paean to the Media Access Project: The loss of "a champion most people never knew they had"
May 1, 2012
Posted by Mitchell
Entry 685
Most people have never heard of the Media Access Project (MAP), and that's a shame, especially considering the many positive impacts that MAP has had on our media, both in stopping the media from getting worse and in positive actions to improve the media. It's a bigger shame that the Media Access Project is closing its doors today after a run of nearly 40 years. To quote one compatriot: the public "lost a champion most never knew they had"
A bit of explanation for readers unfamiliar with MAP: MAP is a Washington-DC law firm that specializes in media and telecommunications policy for the public interest (the real public interest, not the hoo-hah "public interest"). Since 1973, MAP has been involved in advocating media policies for the public interest, against a vast corporate media and corporate legal apparatus arrayed against them, on a budget that's but a small fraction of the corporate law firms they routinely combat.
MAP has been in the front lines repeatedly on a great many struggles, and to no small extent is due credit for a great many victories and achievements on media and media policy. To list some of the more prominent examples:
* Prometheus v. FCC: This is the historic lawsuit which blocked the FCC in 2003 from implementing its dismal gutting of the nation's major remaining media ownership rules, and would have dramatically escalated media concentration. Prometheus was filed by the Media Access Project, and won the suit not once but twice.
* The Brand X case and network neutrality: This is another lawsuit which MAP took to the Supreme Court challenging the FCC's authority to undo its public protections on the internet. MAP lost the suit, as did we all, but the net neutrality wars of 2006 and subsequent years, rallied public support regarding the future of the internet.
* Low Power FM: You can hear the importance of MAP from the Prometheus Radio Project (yes, the same group that was the lead plaintiff in Prometheus v. FCC) in this statement: "When Prometheus started out as a small grassroots organization more than ten years ago, we could not have created change in Washington without MAP's guidance. MAP helped us to navigate a path to transform our demands and demonstrations into lasting policy decisions. We are grateful to MAP, not only on our own behalf, but on behalf of the communities across the country who have better media thanks to MAP's tireless efforts." Indeed, the Low Power FM fight was won in 2010 and will expand soon.
* Chicago Media Action's license challenge: Yes, the license challenge against nine Chicago-area TV stations is still alive, seven years and four rejections later. Suffice it to say that MAP proved immensely helpful in navigating the treacherous waters of media policy -- no mean feat for a group which counts media policy as one of its specialities.
The corporate media lobbies who have locked horns with MAP havebeenmum to the closure of MAP, but you can bet your bottom dollar that in private those same lobbies are slapping high-fives and cracking open champagne in celebration, now that one of their most effective opponents has called it quits. And with their deep knowledge of media policy and the intricacies of the corporate-government-media-web, plus the integrity to fight for the forces of good given the massive financial temptations of the other side, the end of MAP could well leave a big gaping hole in the public media policy struggle that won't be filled anytime soon, if ever.
Will broadcasters public files' be made available online soon?
March 18, 2012
Posted by Mitchell
Entry 684
One of the (few) mandatory public obligations of a TV or radio broadcast station license holder is to maintain a public file -- a collection of documents related the public such as written viewer and listener correspondence, legal filings, schedules of TV programming, records of what was reported on the news, records of advertising buys (including and especially ads from campaigns for political office), and documents filed with the FCC. The current law requires the public file to be maintained, keeping at least the last three years of such records, and made available for anyone who visits a radio or TV station during normal business hours (typically 9AM to 5PM, weekdays).
Broadcasters seldom announce to their audiences that they have these public files, and understandably so, since those files can sometimes include some juicy or informative facts about the stations and their content. So it's often news to American TV and radio viewers that (a) stations maintain public files, (b) they can view these public files, and (c) those files can sometimes have pretty damning information. The public file is typically kept in print format in one or more filing cabinets in a designated office in the station (that includes emails that come in to the station, which are typically printed out and placed in the same cabinet), and that's very often the extent of it. Accessing it is out of the way for most people -- you'd have to visit the station in person during normal business hours, and that often means taking time off from work to do so (assuming of course you have a job that allows this).
But that could soon change, at least in part. The Federal Communications Commission is considering a rule change requiring TV broadcasters to post a portion of the contents of their public files online. Indeed, the FCC has already had a round of feedback on the issue. Broadcasters are opposing this because, they claim, (a) it would add undue cost and logistical burden to stations already reeling from an industry hit by cable and internet competition, (b) those other industries don't need to make their files available to the public so broadcasters shouldn't either. Another likely reason, though broadcasters are loathe to mention it, is that they don't want their dirty laundry aired and made the focus of far more feasible study and analysis (the joke goes that broadcasters "seem to be the only industry in the modern world that prefers filing cabinets to an electronic filing system"). And if a portion of the public file is made available online or in readily digitable form, that could open a slippery slope for calls for more contents of public files that would be made available online.
Activists and media reform groups are encouraging the rule change, because (a) considering that the broadcasters have been squatting on public licenses to score private profit with little in return to the public, making their public file data easier to access is the least they could do, (b) broadcasters are and have been avoiding cost obligations for years, with the most recent round of covert consolidation merely the latest means, (c) it would allow far easier and faster gathering of information that activists could use to charge against the broadcasting industry -- imagine a detailed analysis of ad buys from digital public file databases in the wake of the Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, (d) very often broadcasters are part of larger conglomerates (e.g., the recent buyout of NBC by Comcast), so claiming that TV stations are rivals to other industries in an either/or struggle is often a disingenuous claim.
Very often, the commercial broadcast industry gets its way when it comes to broadcast policy. But in this case, despite broadcaster opposition, the FCC looks like they're going to pursue this further, and could well act on it reasonably soon, if for no other reason that it's embarrassing to not obligate broadcasters to digital files when so many other things are going digital and rather quickly. Indeed, some Senators have echoed this very concern, and even some in the industry seem to have had second thoughts on opposing the proposal.
There would arguably be a great many advantages to standardizing public file content, posting them online, and using that information to glean insights about our media and our society. But one concern in the wake of this is that the public has the right to walk in to a station, request to the the station's public file, and view it right then and there. We the people certainly do not want to lose the rights we currently have.
Future of Chicago Media Action protests at risk with new proposed Chicago city ordinance
But the G8 apparently thought that visible public protest (at least visible in the corporate media -- it never went away) went into terminal decline, so they (or somebody) went ahead and scheduled in June 2011 to bring the G8 into Chicago, beforethe rise and prominence of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which probably wasn't even imagined yet. So now, locked in to a situation in a city that's certainly not Sea Island, and facing widespread and growing discontent that has captured widespread public awareness (even in the corporatemedia), officials in Chicago are apparently responding the only way they can -- making it much harder to hold public protest.
The latest back-and-forth on this is a proposed rewrite of the Chicago ordinance regarding public displays of political protest, which would redefine "resisting arrest" to include passive resistance (like going limp, as many activists commonly do), increasing the range of fines (fat lot of good that will do; many protesters can't afford current fines), requiring $1 million dollars of liability insurance per protest (maybe the 1% can pay for the insurance), registering with the city at least one week in advance (assuming the city grants a permit), requiring one marshal for every 100 protesters in attendance (note to officials: protests don't have RSVPs), and -- particularly relevant to Chicago Media Action -- imposing all of these requirements on sidewalk protests.
Chicago Media Action has held anumberof protestactions over the years, which have never been on the scale of the massive street protests against the Iraq war or those staged by Occupy Chicago, but which have nevertheless shown their value, raised awareness, and inspired others to action. And frankly, we fear that these added restrictions would adversely affect our ability to carry out public actions, which is why Chicago Media Action opposes this rewrite. (We have learned that a revision to the ordinance is slated for release on Wednesday. January 12th; we'll see things improve or not.)
Nevertheless, if you live in Chicago, we encourage you to contact your Alderman insisting him or her to vote against this ordinance, and attend the council hearings on January 17th and 18th, 2012, which will take up the ordinance for debate. They're located at:
10 AM, Tuesday, January 17 in the City Council Chambers, 121 N. LaSalle Street, 2nd floor
1 PM, Tuesday, January 17 in Room 201A, 121 N. LaSalle Street.
AM, Wednesday, January 18 in the City Council Chambers, 121 N. LaSalle Street, 2nd floor
Remember, the rights you help save might be your own.
Video updates: Media, Technology, and Hackergate
December 31, 2011
Posted by Mitchell
Entry 682
And we also have some video to share. First, a segment with longtime Chicago Media Action contributor Mitchell Szczepanczyk on the Chicago TV show "26 N. Halsted":
And, a short film produced for Chicago Independent Television featuring CMA's protest this past summer at Fox Chicago over Hackergate:
Audio updates: Media Democracy Day, and Net Neutrality
November 29, 2011
Posted by Mitchell
Entry 681
It's not often that we get to update the CMA audio podcast, but we're in good stead to say that we've got not one but two updates from the past month:
(1) On November 5, 2011, the Human Thread art space in Pilsen played host to Media Democracy Day 2011, the third such presentation in Chicago in as many years. We recorded the full audio of the opening panel, which features three current members of Chicago Media Action, and posted it in the podcast (about 75 minutes).
(2) On November 11, 2011, the Cafe Society hosted a presentation and discussion at the Chicago Cultural Center on Net Neutrality, with CMA's Mitchell Szczepanczyk. The audio of that discussion, nearly an hour, is also online.
Enjoy!
Online petition to act: Help Secure the Future of CAN TV
October 30, 2011
Posted by Mitchell
Entry 680
Chicago Media Action is a longtime supporter of CAN TV, Chicago's fleet of public access cable television channels. And CAN TV is in the middle of contract negotiations with each of Chicago's cable companies, and it turns out that RCN, which has not been friendly to CAN TV in the past, is once again behaving badly. Here's a post, with a link to a petition that we strongly encourage you to sign.
CAN TV gives our communities a voice in television. The Committee for Media Access has been fighting to ensure that the public does not come last in the current City re-franchising of cable companies. But after the expiration of RCN's regular franchise in June, RCN has provided no funding for the public's channels. In fact, RCN has been operating without a city cable franchise since September 30th.
It is unacceptable that RCN has not completed its new funding agreement with CAN TV. The City of Chicago should take immediate action to enforce RCN's public obligations and to ensure that the new franchise sets a high standard for public benefits by all cable companies.
We urge you to sign our petition calling on the City of Chicago to hold open community hearings for public input on the enforcement of cable company obligations and the future of CAN TV.
Corporate Media's Endless Validations of its Own Limitations
October 17, 2011
Posted by Scott
Entry 679
Once the Occupy Wall Street protests belatedly broke through key mainstream media barriers, a collective sigh of relief could be heard. Unfortunately, many barriers to adequate telling of the necessary OWS story remain, buried deeply within the professional norms and behaviours that are learned and practiced - sometimes unknowingly - throughout corporate journalism.
To be fair, one recent NPR report intelligently focuses on OWS's international aspects,
another, though, significantly, not broadcast, on the ways impactful social change movements work.
But often overlooked yet ingrained within public media's coverage of OWS are found corporate professional journalism's endless validations of its own limitations.
We all have read, heard, and seen corporate media reports that scold the OWS protesters about their lack of clearly identified goals and lists of demands ad infinitum. In response, one viewer writes to the PBS ombudsman concerning NewsHour:
"I sure hope you aren't paying those "reporters" anything, since they seemed incapable of even suspecting the demonstrations have anything to do with Wall Street or our financial industry and its impact on the lives of most Americans." -- Bob Walker, Bowling Green, OH
Here, New York based NPR media correspondant David Folkenflik attempts to validate NPR's limitations:
"Lacking easy labels, Occupy Wall Street proved difficult for the media to categorize and therefore to cover."
This professional need to validate public radio's limitations is also behind Chicago Public Radio web site content honcho Justin Kaufmann's coverup of the holes and distortions in public radio's coverage.
Kaufmann again felt the need to excuse public radio's - and professional journalism's - limitations when he patronizingly attempted to take one complainer to the woodshed here: "Yeah, you pegged us. WBEZ is usually just a mouthpiece for richer Chicagoans. Get off your horse and stop being so selfish."
Certainly WBEZ - through its "enhanced underwriting", well-heeled board of trustees, as well as the professional norms and standards of its journalism - is never a mouthpiece for the 1%. Uh-huh.
In pictures: Worldwide protests over economic crisis. (BBC News)
Photos and report-back from Chicago Media Action protest at Fox Chicago: July 22, 2011
July 30, 2011
Posted by Mitchell
Entry 677
Protesters assembled outside of the Fox Chicago headquarters at 205 N. Michigan during rush hour on Friday, July 22, in response to a call from Chicago Media Action to protest Fox Chicago, reiterate a call to the FCC to revoke the licenses of broadcasters convicted of crimes. (CMA has a petition to deny in its fifth appeal currently before the FCC, and WFLD Fox 32 is one of the targeted stations.) We held a press conference, displayed our signs, handed out flyers, rubbed elbows with police and security, and had a generally good response and some positive discussion even with some folks who disagreed with us.
Photos of the protest (gathered below) were taken by Julian Zeng on the Windy Citizen website. We also recorded some video which we'll hopefully have assembled into a short film soon. Interestingly, there was a cameraman affiliated with Fox Chicago (see photo below) who did record some video and, as we understand it, tried to get the footage into that night's Fox Chicago news broadcast. Unfortunately, that night's Fox Chicago broadcast didn't include footage of our protest, but somehow they were able to squeeze in coverage of the growing fad of using fishing bait for women's hats.
We were encouraged by the response that Chicago Media Action organizers have agreed to have a follow-up protest on Sunday, August 7th, from 1pm to 3pm (yes, we know that coincides with Lollapalooza -- that's the point).
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed on this
website are those of the individual members of Chicago Media
Action who authored them, and not necessarily those of the entire
membership of Chicago Media Action, nor of Chicago Media Action
as an organization.
Most people have never heard of the 
One of the (few) mandatory public obligations of a TV or radio broadcast station license holder is to maintain a public file -- a collection of documents related the public such as written viewer and listener correspondence, legal filings, schedules of TV programming, records of what was reported on the news, records of advertising buys (including and especially ads from campaigns for political office), and documents filed with the FCC. The current law requires the public file to be maintained, keeping at least the last three years of such records, and made available for anyone who visits a radio or TV station during normal business hours (typically 9AM to 5PM, weekdays).
Chicago Media Action is