The 2014 Net Neutrality Wars saw two dramatic turns in the month of November, with analogues to recent history in both cases

Posted by Mitchell - November 13, 2014 (entry 710)

First came news that the FCC was drawing up a much-maligned "hybrid" approach to net neutrality, essentially dividing the internet in two, putting the back-end infrastructure under Title II common carriage provisions, while giving the front-end away to the big bad cable and phone incumbents to do with as they please. Needless to say, news of this proposal drew widespread scorn -- from both the phone/cable duopolists who wanted it ALL, and from the grassroots Heroes of the Internet who decried the proposal as too much of a capitulation to the Evildoers, and who also feared that such a policy would lose in court when it got sued (as did the FCC previous two attempts at net neutrality).

This proposed "hybrid" policy approach to net neutrality in 2014 brings to mind the "compromise" approach to media ownership that the FCC passed in 2007. At the time, then FCC-chair Kevin Martin (now a "consultant") took in a great many comments and feedback, including seven hearings held across the United States including one in Chicago. The result of this flood of feedback was a warmed-over version of the leftover dismal policies to Big Media, including some sweetheart gifts to the Tribune Corporation (which did squat to elude their march towards bankruptcy and a split of the company). The effect, then as now, was to piss off everyone: the public interest community, because it went too far; the corporations, because it didn't go far enough. In the end, the policy was overturned in court.

Days after word leaked of the proposed net neutrality "Frankenstein" plan of 2014, grassroots groups across America (including here in Chicago) organized emergency rallies decrying the proposal and calling for a geniunely protective policy -- that of Title II reclassification of the internet. Those calls got a very large boost in visibility when President Obama himself publicly supported that very reclassification. That call is quite significant; it is a strong encouragement to the FCC, and caused an evident freakout among the corporate hoi polloi.

Why make the call, and why make the call now? Part of it, to be sure, is the resounding success of public input on the docket -- some 3.7 million comments from the public, the overwhelming majority of which support a reclassification of the internet back to Title II common carriage. (Of course, what the public thinks doesn't always -- read: rarely does -- correlate to what the public wants or needs. Indeed, the FCC rammed through dismal media ownership policies in 2003 and 2007 in direct opposition to widspread popular will and the facts.) Another part of it is that, with the Republican victories in Congress in 2014, the window for Democratic-supported legislation is poised to close for the next two years, so a mentality of go-for-broke is probably enervating the Democratic party.

The trajectory of net neutrality in the latter parts of 2014 echoes the successful passage -- a decade in the making -- of the Local Community Radio Act in 2010. As in 2014, Republicans claimed one half of Congress in the wake of the 2010 elections. As in 2014, Congress had a rare window to get as much done as possible before the new Congress took hold. And as in 2014, a formidable lobby -- the National Association of Bastards Broadcasters -- stood in the way. But once the lobby was broken, passage of the bill and its signing into law became breathtakingly swift and hugely inspiring. Result: the FCC is currently considering more than 2500 applications (including a number in Chicago) for local community radio stations.

The net neutrality fight in 2014, however, also has some key differences from the community radio fight of 2010. (1) It's just a single agency -- indeed, a single man -- who holds sway over the future of policy. (2) A forthcoming Republican Congress that takes power in 2015 will almost certainly oppose a strong net neutrality statute (or, for that matter, any net neutrality statute). Congress could (in theory) override the FCC with a Resolution of Disapproval, as happened before. Whether or not that will happen, or what could happen afterwards, remains to be seen.

But for the net neutrality wars of 2014, the votes are there, the public support is clearly there, and support from the White House is now there. All of that is due to the work -- large and small -- of many MANY good folks guided by conscience. The trajectory of change is rocky but clear: We have to fight on, as we always do.

UPDATE: As I was writing this blog post, sources reported that the FCC was going to proceed ahead with its "Frankenstein" "compromise" despite Obama's support for Title II. FCC spokesperson (and former policy activist / Public Knowledge president) Gigi Sohn said that the reports are wrong and that things are still very much in formation -- so much so that a final policy recommendation shouldn't be expected until the start of 2015.

A Tale of Two Net Neutrality Freakouts

Posted by Mitchell - May 29, 2014 (entry 709)

On April 23, the (Rupert-Murdoch owned) Wall-Street Journal leaked news that the Federal Communication Commission would offer "paid prioritization" in its planned forthcoming net neutrality provisions. The first two attempts to enforce net neutrality failed to pass court muster. Indeed, the most recent attempt was largely crafted by corporate lobbyists for the tech industry and internet service providers, and which stood on shaky legal ground that doomed it to defeat.

Within a day of the announcement, the panic spread far and wide across America accompanied by a panoply of spontaneous actions in opposition -- blog posts, activist actions, videos, petitions, even a round-the-clock encampment outside the FCC itself in the days leading up to the vote. The groundswell reached historic proportions: estimates were that the number of people who commented on the docket at some way reached an estimated 3.4 million people, which would break the record of three million respondents set by the Media Ownership Uprising of 2003. The flood of commentary in opposition reach the point that FCC chair and former cable and telecom lobbyist Tom Wheeler was forced to respond.

His words, in blog posts, in public statements, and in the Notice for Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that the FCC passed on May 15, 2014, made Wheeler sound like he was the biggest internet activist in America and that those who raised a hue and cry were flat out wrong.

Words are one thing, but the policies at play point to an opposite approach, regardless their stated intent. The FCC, ever the environmentally-conscious citizen, recycled practically the same lukewarm policies crafted by corporate lobbyists for the tech and internet service industries (which lost in court). One hinted-at approach -- the so-called Section 706 -- would force the FCC to abandon net neutrality if it were applied. But in the final NPRM, there was one critical -- and encouraging -- difference: the FCC brought to the table the reconsideration of Title II Classification of the internet, which would restore the legal foundation that would help the FCC succeed in defending its net neutrality policies.

When word leaked that the NPRM put Title II back on the table, we saw another freakout -- this one by the internet service providers who were counting on a toothless net neutrality not getting in the way. If the opposition is freaking out about this possibility, then the FCC must be doing something right. And the fact that Title II is up for consideration is a credit to the historic torrent of support in support of geniune net neutrality -- one all the more remarkable given the paucity of corporate TV coverage the issue has gotten (but what else is new?).

The expected schedule is roughly as follows: The NPRM is up for comment until July 15, 2014. Follow-up to the first round of comments will be accepted for another two months, until September 15, 2014. The FCC is expected to vote on the final rule before the end of 2014. We strongly encourage you to comment (you can do so here) and demand the FCC restore the internet's classification as a Title II telecommunications service. In addition to the links here, if you need more information, here are some additional resources:

  • The Benton foundation's summary of #NetNeutrality
  • Net neutrality: How did we get here and where do we go now?
  • Net Neutrality: Your Cheat Sheet To The FCC's Proposal
  • The FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal Explained
  • The FCC Changed Course on Network Neutrality. Here is why you should care.

    The Chicago Media Action website also has a great many resources to the history of the net neutrality wars, including the fight in 2006 (which we helped galvanize). And in a new development, here's an MP3 file of a recent 44-minute interview about net neutrality which aired on Chicago radio station WZRD on May 18, 2014.

    Anti-NATO activists face the brunt of the Tribune's op-ed pages, just as media policy activists have done

    Posted by Mitchell - March 15, 2014 (entry 707)

    On February 10, 2014, the Chicago Tribune published an op-ed headlined "NATO 3 belong in prison", referring to three Florida activists who faced terrorism charges for reputedly planning to attack the 2012 NATO summit in Chicago. The trial of the NATO 3 concluded days before the publication of this op-ed, and the NATO 3 were found not guilty of terrorism. Even so, the NATO 3 -- who were entrapped by two undercover police officers amid a climate of widespread regulatory and physical intimidation -- were found guilty on mob action and incendiary device charges, and face up to 30 years in prison.

    Activists who were involved with the anti-NATO efforts in Chicago responded back to the Tribune with an op-ed of their own. Chicago grassroots activists criticized the Tribune op-ed for its factual inaccuracies, for its double-standard on public funding of pursuing the NATO 3 (while criticizing the use of public funds for education and mental health facilities), and for its ignoring important and relevant facts -- such as the presence of the agents provocateur and the refusal by the sitting judge to reject hearing any First Amendment-related arguments during the trial.

    The Tribune refused to publish the activists' op-ed response, much to the stern objection of the NATO activists. It's a tune that members of Chicago Media Action are all-too familiar with. The Tribune has published op-ed after op-ed making its case for horrible media policies that increase media concentration, give the public the shaft, and line the pockets of Tribune owners and investors. Activists and citizens, including those from CMA, submit response after response, only to face the cold shoulder from the Tribune and are forced to reach (a much smaller sliver of) the public by other means.

    Indeed, freedom of the press is guaranteed to those who own one, according to A.J. Leibling's famous quote. But if there's any consolation it's that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice (which comes from another famous quote). The Tribune's op-eds now smell like month-old fish, the public hates media concentration (and has grown increasingly active over it), plus activists blocked the policies the Tribune wanted resulting in (among other things) the cleaving of the Tribune Corporation. The shame on the Tribune regarding the NATO 3 case will be a self-evident point in the future, just like we now regard the Tribune's treatment of the Haymarket 8 (which included an attempted juror buyoff).

    Review of the Chicago kickoff screening of the documentary Shadows of Liberty

    Posted by Mitchell - March 6, 2014 (entry 706)

    On February 25, 2014, Chicago played host to the first screening in a continent-wide tour for the documentary film Shadows of Liberty. The film is an in-depth critical examination of the American media, including (and especially) the struggle for the public to enter and influence American media policy. The Shadows of Liberty screening in Chicago, in a peculiar bit of historical irony, took place in Lincoln Hall at Northwestern University Law School in downtown Chicago. The irony is, as longtime Chicago media activists will recall, that the same room that showed Shadows of Liberty in 2014 to a crowd of about 200 people in Chicago also played host in 2003 to that year's Midwest Forum on Media Ownership. That forum, along with a dozen other official and unofficial fora in 2002 and 2003, coupled with a great deal of other efforts by a lot of people, helped to rally awareness and opposition to the Federal Communication Commissions's controversial media ownership rule evisceration in 2003. That's no small matter; the opposition helped make those rule changes the second-most popular news story of 2003, and fueled a successful court ruling that overturned the rules' implementation and prevented our concentrated and bad media from getting much more concentrated and far worse.

    As to the film Shadows of Liberty itself, it is, in a word, outstanding -- quite possibly the best documentary film about the American news media and American media system ever made. (That's not a topic that has engendered a lot of critical filmmaking, which makes it rather sad that the hurdle to jump over is so low.) The film provided a number of case studies of where the American news media went wrong or went awry, pointing an accusatory finger at corporate control, government malfeasance, and the almighty dollar. The film, to its eternal credit, did review some the popular efforts in 2003 and 2007 to oppose the FCC's beheading of its media ownership rules, but there I felt it showed an incomplete picture. Shadows of Liberty showed the protests at the 2003 FCC meeting where FCC chair (and present-day cable TV lobbyist) Michael Powell voted to ballwhack the ownership rules. But the film didn't mention the buildup of the opposition over those months (of which the Midwest Forum on Media Ownership was a key part), nor did the film discuss the widespread outrage that followed, nor did it mention the court ruling in 2003 that overturned the FCC's ruling in its entirety, nor did it mention the subsequent positive consequences (like the corporate flailing that followed, the advance of LPFM due to the behind-the-scenes sniping, and the breakup of Viacom and the Tribune Corporation). To be fair, there was so much that the film could NOT mention due to time constraints, and as the filmmaker himself mentioned at the Chicago screening of Shadows of Liberty, and some painful decisions had to be made. But the opposition was featured where it is almost always ignored in American media, even in a form that's admittedly incomplete, and for that the film deserves our support.

    You can judge for yourself: The film is viewable at one of the many screenings at the long-awaited American screenings tour of the film (encompassing a planned 171 cities). You can also get a DVD of the film or view the film via online pay-per-view. End commercial.

    I had the good fortune to be a panelist at the post-film panel, which included an all-star cast including CMA contributors Dale Lehman (of WZRD radio in Chicago, 88.3 FM) and Mike Kalas (of Chicago's MultiKulti). The panel, moderated by Chicago radio host WC Turck, was recorded and the video has been posted online:



    The film's promotional organizers have launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds to complete the tour of North America, and by "funds" we're talking a goal of $13,500. In a world where Comcast and Facebook can throw out multi-billion-dollar mergers, it's a shame that authentic grassroots efforts to raise awareness of such an important issue has to scrape and claw to get even the pittance that's being asked for. Hence, we strongly encourage you to contribute to the campaign if you are able to do so.

    Media activists played a key role in the forced exit of WBEZ CEO Torey Malatia

    Posted by Scott - July 29, 2013 (entry 704)

    former WBEZ CEO Torey MalatiaThe story of Torey Malatia's long overdue firing by the Chicago Public Media trustees was broken first by media critic Robert Feder at his facebook page, and is covered and discussed at Crain's Chicago Buisness and elsewhere as well. It is important to understand two things that are being overlooked in the coverage of Malatia's exit. 1) Media activists played a key role in his removal, and 2) the larger related problem -- the democratic deficits in WBEZ's decision-making process -- remains unaddressed.

    The station's "Smiley & West" debacle is but one result of those deficits. Last fall, Torey Malatia’s decisions forced “Smiley & (Cornel) West” onto two local commercial niche stations with a combined average audience one third smaller than WBEZ’s. How should this be interpreted by marginalized groups the station is supposed to serve? Tavis Smiley declared, “(I)t is easier for an African American to be president of the United States than it is to host a primetime radio program on Chicago Public Radio.” In classic Orwellian newspeak, WBEZ claimed it was acting in the interest of "inclusiveness”. This type of thing is old news to WBEZ; Malatia was also in charge back in 2003 when Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting cited WBEZ for having no daytime weekday programs with non-white hosts.

    It is important to remember Malatia's main concern that "Smiley & West" had "developed much more of an ‘advocacy’ identity”. On this point he compared “Smiley & West” to the Pacifica radio program “Democracy Now!” -- a daily independent broadcast news and discussion show hosted by Amy Goodman that airs on over a thousand public and community stations - but not on WBEZ. Malatia then also compared “Democracy Now!” to “The Rush Limbaugh Show”, a choice that lead to a sharp public response by the democratically-elected Pacifica radio governing board. Pacifica stated, "It is disappointing when the term advocacy is used as a smear to trivialize the presentation of intelligent and passionate discussion that is sometimes critical of the American status quo."

    Over a thousand Chicago media activists gave WBEZ and Malatia a resounding "thumbs down" by calling and writing the station and/or attending an event last November organized in opposition to Chicago Public Media's modus operandi.

    In Chicago, as elsewhere, the commons of public media, like public education, are besieged as never before by an epidemic of corporate engineered privatization. Part of that attack is to de-legitimize any role of regular people in shaping the media and education systems that they rely on. The more important question is not who the CEO of WBEZ is but rather who should have ultimate control over Chicago Public Media's decisions: working and poor Chicagoans or the wealthy corporate elite currently pulling the strings?

    Background on Malatia's "Smiley & West" debacle here and, via Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's Steve Rendall, here.

    A primer on the Koch industries plans to buy the Tribune's newspapers

    Posted by Mitchell - April 22, 2013 (entry 703)

    The New York Times reported on Sunday, April 20th, that Koch Industries, run by the infamous Koch brothers -- they of oil and global warming infamy -- is considered the frontrunner in the race to buy the Tribune corporation's newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

    Understandably, revulsion is widespread over the very prospect, but many folks apparently need to be updated on a few things.

    For one, the very fact that the Tribune is being broken up, and that this sale is even happening, is the consequence of grassroots political activism going back at least a decade. The Tribune corporation, in 2002 and 2003, sought to become a first-tier media corporation, like Time Warner, or NewsCorp, or Viacom, and the plan was for the Tribune to expand via expanding its suite of profitable and influential cross-media ownership holdings -- like owning TV stations and newspapers in New York and Los Angeles and Chicago. But instead of owning them in a handful of cities, the vision was to own them in _every_ city in America. The FCC, then led by the infamous Michael Powell (who's now America's chief cable TV lobbyist), was only too happy to oblige. But grassroots activists rallied Americans to what was happening just in time, and the resulting outcry galvanized a court challenge which overturned the FCC's attempt to overwrite those media ownership rules. (A second attempt in 2007 to rewrite those rules failed a second time in court.)

    The Tribune corporation, whiny over its loss, moaned about the turn of events on its editorial pages, and filed appeals to overturn the ruling. Those appeals failed, and when Tribune shareholders saw that the Tribune had no Plan B for carrying out this planned expansion, staged a revolt to demand an ownership change. They got it, in the form of Chicago-area real estate billionaire mogul Sam Zell, who then proceeded to make a bad situation far worse. Instead of charting a trajectory of growth, Zell led the Tribune into bankruptcy for four years, fending off well-heeled creditors who made hell for Zell.

    In early 2013 the Tribune emerged out from bankruptcy, but all reports say that the commutation is actually a death sentence, as Tribune plans to sell off most if not all of its media properties. (It has already sold off the Chicago Cubs baseball team, which it owned since the 1980s.) First on the chopping block: the newspaper holdings.

    It's an irony that grassroots political activism played a key role in what could be a buyout of a major American newspaper chain by two of America's most reviled billionaires. If the opposition were smart they would exploit this fact to discredit America's media reform and justice movements. Nevertheless, the efforts to block the immediate media ownership rules at the FCC, while successful, haven't (yet) addressed deeper concerns regarding undue political influence, and corporate involvement in media and politics. I've been working on this myself; no doubt others will as well. But suffice it to say that the Koch buyout of the Tribune newspapers isn't a foregone conclusion for a number of reasons.

    For one, the Kochs will now get the full-throated response of the environmental movement in addition to the media reform and media justice communities in its attempted buyout. That's not insignificant; the environmental movement has increasingly been flexing its muscle on the climate crisis. Suddenly, once they hear that the Kochs may look to widen their influence by buying out a number of prominent newspapers, they will add their voices to the resistance. And it's been the growth of voices of resistance which proved critical in blocking previous attempts at widening media concentration.

    For another, the FCC (the government agency which would have to approve a transfer) is in a state of flux. They are short of their full complement of five commissioners, with Republican Robert McDowell departing and chair Julius Genachowski about to depart. The FCC might be leery to proceed on this without a full complement of commissioners, though its unclear how long it would be before it got back to full strength. Remember, the last two times the FCC tried to proceed on increasing media ownership concentration, the FCC got their rewrites smacked down in court. It might not bode well to go down that rabbit hole again for a third consecutive time. Even so, the FCC might still grant a one-time waiver or waivers for a transfer without having to enact a full and thorny media ownership rewrite. But even that might not work: the FCC actually granted an exception to the Tribune itself in 2007, and that action did nothing to prevent its current travails.

    What's more, the Tribune could choose a less-notorious (or less-well-known) company to buy out its newspapers. Sure, the Kochs are currently the leading candidate, but it might not stay the leading candidate. A deal could get scuttled in ways we can't yet foresee, but which grassroots political activism could foment. What's more, investors might be less than enthused to see Koch get into an industry that's seen in many corners as moribund and steadily decreasing as a source of news and journalism, but which remains a prominent source of local community information.

    Meanwhile, the effects of global warming will escalate, the conservative media establishment will continue to look like a bunch of headless chickens, and to quote one friend: "a new, right wing maneuver to capture the corporate media will make its biases even less implicit." The endgame is far from assured.

    Stay tuned...

    UPDATE: The Kochs are coy about the report. See also this tweet.

    New article

    Posted by Scott - April 4, 2013 (entry 701)

    The new 'professionalized' Al Jazeera will not solve democratic deficits in US public media - We need a revolution.
    by Scott Sanders

    This article was first published by the Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net).
    Thousands of jubilant news professionals are tossing their hats into the air and their resumes into Al Jazeera's inbox because Al Jazeera America, a new international cable news channel, is launching this summer. But while they celebrate, Tavis Smiley, Cornel West and Amy Goodman call for a democratic revolution to transform public media. Smiley, Goodman, and West at podium
    The new channel is the result of the $500 million sale of Current TV and its 40 million U.S. cable households to the Emir of Qatar, a fossil-fuel monarch who also controls a $100 billion "sovereign wealth fund". Current TV co-founder Al Gore engineered the deal, and has been its main cheerleader in media interviews {39:30 - 42:30} lately. But Tony Burman, the previous head of Al Jazeera English, Al Jazeera America's model, cautions us to understand that the elite who fund the network also control it to their benefit: "My sense of Al Jazeera today is that it is becoming a more 'top-down', centrally driven news operation than ever before. All news programs and most editorial decisions now come out of Qatar."

    That's funny. Not too long ago, Tavis Smiley voiced something similar about another award-winning, public service news outlet -- WBEZ Chicago Public Media: "Something is wrong when even public media has become the playground of the 1%, when public media has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the 1% rather than speaking to the trouble and travail and tribulation of the 99." Smiley was speaking at a media and democracy forum entitled "Poverty, Power, and the Public Airwaves: Post-election analysis and commentary from Tavis Smiley, Cornel West & Amy Goodman in Chicago". The event came about as a result of public opposition to WBEZ's decision to cease airings of "Smiley & West", perhaps the only program consistently advocating for the poor and marginalized on over 70 public radio stations. A few scattered stations had dropped the show previously. The controversy mushroomed when Smiley responded to WBEZ and CEO Torey Malatia in turn called the show "crap".

    WBEZ's decisions forced "Smiley & West" onto two local commercial niche stations with a combined average audience one third smaller than WBEZ's. How should this be interpreted by marginalized groups the station is supposed to serve? Smiley declared, "(I)t is easier for an African American to be president of the United States than it is to host a primetime radio program on Chicago Public Radio." In classic Orwellian newspeak, WBEZ claimed it was acting in the interest of "inclusiveness". (See also Steve Rendall, Feb. 2013 FAIR "Extra!", [subscription required].) This type of thing is old news to WBEZ; Malatia was also in charge back in 2003 when Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting cited WBEZ for having no daytime weekday programs with non-white hosts. Similarly, how ought WBEZ's purchase of WRTE-FM, the only low power Latino radio station in the Chicago area, be understood?

    In fact, Congress founded both PBS and NPR via legislative acts in response to a famous 1967 Carnegie Commission report that called for broadcasting service to "provide a voice for groups in the community that may otherwise be unheard" and "help us see America whole in all its diversity." Current TV spokespersons recently claimed that Al Jazeera would also follow that path, "Al Jazeera shares Current TV's mission to give voice to those who are not typically heard, to speak truth to power, to provide independent and diverse points of view."

    Al Jazeera and WBEZ are guided by lofty ideals, but only sometimes. What can be done to hold them to account to those ideals? I took a closer look at both WBEZ Chicago Public Media and Al Jazeera America and what I found confirms the need for an in-depth examination of the governance of U.S. public media -- and the need for a wide distribution of the findings. Qatar Emir Al Thani and WBEZ CEO Torey Malatia

    How is Al Jazeera funded and controlled? Qatar is the host of immense natural gas reserves, much U.S. investment, and key forward U.S. military bases. It is best not to view Qatar as a country with a government, but instead as a royal family's business interests and a massive guest worker program; the "sovereign wealth fund" includes the Treasury. Qatar provides very little public data on the finances and governance of the privately held corporate parent Al Jazeera Media Network and its 20 or so channels. Al Jazeera's news channels air very few ads and that is a BIG problem for the U.S. cable distributors and Al Jazeera America -- even though these same cable companies pass domestic public tv through their wires without feeling the need to interrupt programming. Al Jazeera says "the plan is to work quickly toward a self-sustaining business model." In a little-reported 2011 decree, the Emir said Al Jazeera Network, a public institution, would become Al Jazeera Media Network, "a private institution of public utility". That year, its advisory "International Board of Visitors" consisted of a range of professional journalists and a few financial and political elites with media ties, but no representatives of working or low-income persons or other marginalized groups. The network's current director-general is a member of the country's royal family and has no background in journalism.

    What do those knowledgeable about news and propaganda think about the new Al Jazeera? Adel Iskandar, Georgetown University lecturer and co-author of the book "Al-jazeera: The Story of the Network that is Rattling Governments and Redefining Modern Journalism" said, "The Al Jazeera of 2010 is not the Al Jazeera of 2013. . . We've seen the departure of various people at the network who claim that it no longer practices independent journalism." Former BBC reporter Ali Hashem resigned his post at Al Jazeera Arabic saying, "The Qataris. . . are forcing Al Jazeera to commit suicide." Tellingly, Iraq invasion co-architect and former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told David Frost on Al Jazeera English in September of 2011 that he was "delighted" by the new Al Jazeera.

    Today's Al Jazeera English is basically like some previous version of the mediocre and flawed CNN but with more emphasis on the global south. U.S embassy cables released by Wikileaks say the U.S. Embassy in Doha, Qatar and officials from Washington have been using a variety of direct and indirect methods to increase Al Jazeera's compliance. Perhaps surprising to advocates of impartial professional journalism, the primary tool to restrain critical reporting on the Qatar network is repeated monitoring and training.

    In Maximilian C. Fortes' in-depth article "Al Jazeera and U.S. Foreign Policy: What WikiLeaks' U.S. Embassy Cables Reveal about U.S. Pressure and Propaganda", Fortes explains how journalism's professional norms are used to block and obfuscate the truth: "When it comes to the substance of U.S. relations with Al Jazeera, the questions that should come to mind are: What does responsible mean? Responsible for what? Responsible to whom? What is balance, and how is the truth balanced when the idea itself implies that something else must be a lie? Why is balance important, when airing long-suppressed & regularly marginalized voices? What is objectivity, when one is subject to pressure and made to fear for his/her career? What is professionalism and why does it always seemingly resolve to a default position of not upsetting the status quo?" (For more concerning these questions, see also James E. Owens, master's dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago, 2008.)

    Closer to home, WBEZ Chicago Public Media, like Al Jazeera, also relies on claims of professionalism to discipline journalists and police the politics it broadcasts.

    In late September of 2012, deep in the election season, WBEZ cancelled "Smiley & West" without bothering to call Smiley to talk about it first. Station officials cited ratings as a cause but argued, "more importantly, the show had developed much more of an 'advocacy' identity" and on this point, station CEO Malatia compared "Smiley & West" to the Pacifica radio program "Democracy Now!" -- a daily independent broadcast news and discussion show hosted by Amy Goodman that airs on over a thousand public and community stations. Malatia then also compared "Democracy Now!" to "The Rush Limbaugh Show", a choice that lead to a sharp public response by the democratically-elected Pacifica radio governing board.

    When WBEZ first announced the cancellation, I created the Facebook page, "Smiley & West dumped by WBEZ Chicago Public Media: Take Action." That page contributed to public pressure and discussion of the events. Smiley publicly addressed that discussion in his uncompromising open letter to Malatia. Smiley's letter charged that there are systemic problems at U.S. public media's core, particularly regarding problems with race and class exclusions on station governing boards. In the face of this growing public criticism, Malatia called Smiley and West's show "crap." The growing public debate won mainstream and independent news coverage, adding to interest in the November 8th forum at Northwestern University Law School's Thorne Auditorium. Over "a thooouusand" (as Amy Goodman might intone) attended. Including this writer.

    In the lead up to the Chicago event, mainstream media provided space rarely accorded to question the politics shaping public media. For example, the Tribune Company-owned WGN-TV and WGN-AM interviewed Smiley. On WGN-AM, he stated: "There's an orthodoxy even inside public radio. . . I've had to fight an uphill battle in public radio trying to. . . create a democratic space for some ideological diversity and some ethnic diversity." Similarly, in Current, the magazine for public media professionals, Smiley asked: "How can people organize to ensure that public media outlets like WBEZ are responsible, representative, and responsive?. . . How do we ensure that the public media treats our airwaves as the vital resource that they are?"

    At the public forum, Smiley called Chicago "ground zero" in the fight for democratic accountability over public media. He also joined West and Goodman to call for grassroots action to democratically transform public media right now. overflow, capacity audience"We ain't got but a couple of years. . . to let our voices be heard and I don't want us to wait too long to figure that out. . . Public media is going to have to be pushed. . . [Y]ou can get a conversation started about how we democratize and bring some diversity to public media."

    Goodman made it clear that the role of an active public is necessary to win programming that challenges corporate and political power. "These are your public airwaves and you have a right to determine how they're used. . . What are you going to do about it?" Goodman also pointed out that corporate employed or funded professional stations depend on and enable their corporate backers. Later that same night on PBS Goodman stated, "I can't think of a greater group of advocacy journalists than those in the corporate media."

    "John Dewey [said] Show me a democracy that has a impoverished public life and I'll show you one that is dominated by oligarchs and plutocrats driven by profit maximization,"
    said Cornel West as he connected the problem of elite control of media to the crippling of democracy, "There's no way. . . we'll ever be able to reinvigorate and rejuvenate our public life unless we have (as Socrates told us) Parrhesia. Parrhesia is fearless speech, plain speech, frank speech, unintimidated speech. . . There's too much mendacity and lyin' going on in the corporate, truncated, multiplex." West made it clear that the fight over media is not merely over truth but over a fundamental recognition of the right of people outside of elite circles to shape media to defend their legitimacy as democratic actors and their material interests in social life: "We need a revolutionary change that shifts from the power of oligarchs to the power of everyday people. And you do that democratically, step by step."

    The citation of John Dewey is strikingly appropriate. His scholarship recognized that participation in communication and education are necessary to create and keep a vibrant democratic commons. In Chicago, as elsewhere, the commons of public media and public education are besieged as never before by an epidemic of corporate engineered privatization. Part of that attack is to de-legitimize any role of regular people in shaping the media and education systems that they rely on. West and Goodman gave shout-outs to the Chicago Teachers Union and its President Karen Lewis, who was in attendance. The CTU is organized using direct democratic practices and pursues the return to public election of the Trustees of the Chicago Board of Education, a franchise lost over fifteen years ago.

    In my observation, journalists at WBEZ rarely initiated discussion of public school governance. WBEZ coverage seemed to find the notion that regular people could participate in shaping WBEZ entrance doorpublic policies unthinkable (or insulting). In fact, the public also has no direct say in the selection of WBEZ Chicago Public Media's Trustees.

    The late comedian and social critic George Carlin argued that the singular reason that education and journalism suffers is that an educated critical populace is what the rich corporate elites simply do not want: "The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. . . they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. . . They don't want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They're not interested in that. That doesn't help them. That's against their interests."

    The "Smiley & West" incident in Chicago created a ruckus in corporate and independent media and new public discussions emerged outside traditional media that put the public media establishment on notice. But the incident failed to create some kind of member or publicly elected WBEZ governing Board. Nor did we see the birth of a mass movement to create such a body or win the right to participate in shaping the media we need to defend other public treasures, like our schools. The fact that Smiley, West, and Goodman called for such a revolution was hardly noticed by the broader debate in alternative or mainstream media. But such a revolution is what is needed to create the public commons.

    Almost every other model to "save journalism" fails to interrogate professional claims of impartiality and winds up reproducing the old chain of command that separates disadvantaged communities -- people of color, the poor and working classes, political dissidents, LGBT communities, and other groups -- from decisionmaking. Synergizing community and other public media producers into a new, publicly controlled, radically reorganized, public media system could enable social justice movements to change social conditions for the better.

    At the November 8th event, I asked a certain famous Chicago advocate for community controlled public education, reparations, the late Mayor Harold Washington, and fancy hats, if she thought most average people believe that the Trustees on the boards of large public media outlets are all friendly and nice -- like Big Bird. She said she wasn't sure. Had I asked her if she thinks the average person knows the rules by which these Trustees make decisions, she might have offered the same response. We need to expose those rules so that people understand the means by which the rich corporate class controls the development and content of public broadcast systems and in-progress digital public online networks. The shape, and politics, of those networks will be powerfully affected by the National Broadband Plan (NBP).

    The force of federal law, through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), mandates the NBP to provide for the transformation of the 20th-century U.S. public broadcasting system into a digital public media network, ubiquitous in access, promoting innovation, competition, and free expression, and supporting the growth of accountability journalism. Subsidies for a variety of anchor institutions and other community-based entities are actually crucial for reaching these NBP goals. But, with scarce exception (i.e. stations controlled by local tribal governments and the five Pacifica radio stations), the recipients of these Corporation for Public Broadcasting subsidies charged with the creation of those networks are not grassroots community anchor institutions and they are not led by the principles of direct democracy. The governing boards of the CPB stations will make the decisions and set the conditions under which community organizations get to participate in creating those necessary networks.

    Increasing public knowledge of the political forces controlling development of publicly funded digital networks could offer advocates a pro-active opportunity to shift public and policy debate from a narrow focus on station budgets to a larger question: Should federal policy enable the same corporate and affluent sectors culpable for the recent economic crisis to also shape development of new public communication resources needed by communities disproportionately hurt by that crisis? Important research on public media policy is already out there (New America Foundation, Center for Social Media, Victor Pickard et al, Ellen P. Goodman and Anne Chen). But the fact is we also need research into the political relationships enabled by the new networks: will corporate connected elites again manage the money and make the decisions? Above all we need a social movement to raise hell and win the right to shape public media to meet the needs of regular people.

    As our very good friend Tavis Smiley said in The Chicago Defender: "Now is the time to ask and answer the hard questions on how the public media space can better serve fellow citizens who have traditionally been politically, economically, socially, and culturally disenfranchised." The clock is ticking. We cannot -- we must not -- rely on the largesse of royalty and the "corporate, truncated multiplex" for the connections, communications, and news needed for a public commons and a living democracy.
    _____

    James Owens made invaluable contributions to this article.

    Link here to view the 11/8/12 event, or here to listen.

    Scott Sanders, a 2011 winner of the Nelson Algren Committee award, has co-founded a number of media activist organizations, including Chicago Media Action, and led efforts to constitute public community media centers with member-elected boards and to increase diversity on non-elected public media boards. He also led campaigns resulting in the only FCC fine of a major public TV station concerning commercialism. He has a number of years of experience working as a video documentarian and as a periodicals and technology librarian. Scott has produced social science research for MMTC, MAP, and, for the last four years, for the University of Chicago. He is responsible for the Trustee research in the CMA study "Chicago Tonight: Elites, Affluence, and Advertising" starting on p.18 here. He is the author or co-author of articles for Truthout, Extra!, Counterpunch, Z magazine, and a number of daily newspapers.

    In memory of Jan and Robert Sanders.


    "Broken Deal" forgot one thing: WE killed the Tribune

    Posted by Mitchell - March 2, 2013 (entry 700)

    In January 2013, the Chicago Tribune did the closest equivalent to self-reflection journalism that it probably ever has done, and likely will ever do, in its mammoth four-part business story about the Tribune itself, entitled "Broken Deal". The story by Steve Mills and Michael Oneal documented the saga from when the Tribune changed ownership hands in 2007 to the Tribune's departure from bankruptcy in early 2013. The report chronicled the change of ownership to that of Chicago-area billionaire tyrant Sam Zell, the red flags over the deal both before and after the changeover completed, the ensuing complications in the boardroom and the newsroom while Zell and Tribune CEO Randy Michaels were in charge, and the roller coaster in bankruptcy court over the control of the Tribune Corporation.

    The report, unlike the haughty reporting usually found in the business pages, has a rare air of fatalism to it, not only because it's talking about a topic close to home -- the travails of its corporate parent -- but because it's widely believed that the Tribune Corporation will soon be no more in its current form, as most if not all of its properties are expected to be sold off by the end of 2013. The patient has survived surgery and emerged from its years-long coma, only to be ready to have its limbs and head chopped off and all the pieces thrown to hungry cannibals waiting outside. (Indeed, the week this post was being written, word has broken that the Tribune has hired an investment bank to help weigh the sale of its top newspapers.)

    The Tribune report deserves credit for summarizing in one place the years-long mess that ensued from meager beginnings. But the report, like the Tribune's reporting across its history, has grave shortcomings (pun very intended), not the least of which is that it glossed over the circumstances which led to the Tribune going into different ownership and into bankruptcy in the first place.

    The Tribune discussed a small bit of history in the first part of the report, when it reports on "the legacy of a frustrating $8 billion deal in 2000 to merge with Los Angeles Times parent Times Mirror Co. The merger produced a bitter culture clash between the two companies that resulted in [Tribune CEO Dennis] FitzSimons and his team being demonized in Los Angeles as zealous cost cutters despite the need to rein in spending at the Times Mirror properties."

    That deal put the Tribune in the mildly awkward position of breaking the law -- the FCC's cross-ownership rule which forbade (and still forbids) the ownership of a newspaper and television station in the same city, because concentrated media are inimical to democracy and free speech. In response, the Tribune bribed convinced the FCC to grant it waivers to allow it to keep those newspapers in face of the law, thinking (as did everyone) that they could get the FCC to abolish that law, at which point it could then buy and profit from waves of cross-ownership holdings across the country and grow to become a top-tier media company. And they would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for meddling media activists like those with Chicago Media Action. We had our Seattle moment with the media ownership uprising in 2003, raising such an outcry over media concentration that even the corporate media sat up and took notice, as did the Third Circuit Court of Appeals which heard the outcry and blocked the FCC's attempt to abolish cross ownership and a number of other key media ownership rules.

    It's no exaggeration to say that the Tribune gambled their future on that FCC ruling taking hold and sticking. Consider what happened when it didn't: The Tribune unleashed its fury against media activists and the public on its editorial pages, and tried to appeal away the ruling in the subsequent years, but all the appeals failed. Finally, in 2006, Tribune stockholders staged a revolt, distressed that the explosive growth they were promised was stymied (since those pesky media ownership rules were still in place). Here's what Broken Deal had to say about that:

    "[The fallout from the Times Mirror purchase] was distracting, but the more significant threat to [Tribune CEO Dennis] FitzSimons' security was the growing unrest among the extended clan of legendary former Los Angeles Times publisher Otis Chandler. The Chandlers had controlled Times Mirror until the merger and held the second-largest block of Tribune Co. stock, after the McCormick Foundation. They were furious that the family fortune had been diminished under FitzSimons' watch and frustrated that exiting their position required cooperating with Tribune Co. to dismantle two partnerships the family had put together to limit taxes. Then in June 2006, the Chandlers brought matters to a head by launching a public campaign for FitzSimons' ouster. The CEO and supporters on the board pushed back. But what became clear in the following months was that even some longtime shareholders had had enough of the status quo."

    Ultimately, the shareholder revolt succeeded in ousting FitzSimons and demanding new ownership. That's when Chicago-area billionaire tyrant Sam Zell became the Tribune's new owner and, as Broken Deal reports, ran the company into the ground.

    The tenor of much of Broken Deal is marked by a sense that the Tribune was a victim of circumstances it couldn't control -- the banking collapse of 2008, the subsequent drying up of money in media markets, the incessant demands by banks, shareholders, and creditors. It's possible that these circumstances in combination could still have driven the Tribune into its present predicament, even if you take away our victory over the FCC in 2003. But suppose that the FCC hadn't been blocked, and the media ownership rules went on as proceeded. Billions of dollars of media ownership deals would have transacted in the fall of 2003, and the Tribune, in all likelihood, would have grown to become one of the largest media properties in America, with cross-ownership setups in dozens of cities nationwide. Fast forward five years to 2008 when the economy goes in the toilet; the Tribune would be a much larger company with a greater war chest, so that when the Great Recession hits, it can weather the storms more easily. It might even have to sell off some of its properties in order to stay afloat, just like what Clear Channel did. But at least the Tribune would have properties to sell; what's more, it wouldn't be in bankruptcy, it wouldn't be forced to choose between bad moves and worse moves, and it wouldn't spend four years fending off armies of ravenous creditors.

    Plus, it's not like there was a huge media-fomented clamor over media ownership. Yes, there was a huge outcry, but that was generated as the result of grassroots actions, and not as the result of the media artificially ginning up awareness. Quite the contrary: the major corporate media clammed up about the media ownership proceedings in 2003 precisely because they didn't want to take the chance that the public would get in the way of the proceedings. The source of the victory on this score is clear. And it's not that much of hyperbole to say that WE (as in Chicago Media Action) killed the Tribune.

    Fear us.

    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.