Hate Radio and the War on Immigration

 July 26, 2010

     Unless the courts prevent it, the contentious Arizona immigration law Senate Bill 1070, which gives police power to racially profile people of color, will go into effect Thursday, July 29.  Both friends and foes of the law are girding for battle, and the war of words is escalating.  Language from opponents of the law like the Border Action Network, which plans protests and acts of civil disobedience in Arizona and across the country, is measured: they promise "civic engagement campaigns all over the state encouraging people to register to vote and to vote by mail." The language from SB1070 supporters, however, is more virulent: a press release from Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project states they are rushing a delegation of lawmakers to the border. "We will be accompanied by armed Minutemen. Our guests are appraised of the situation and have made additional safety arrangements as well. The day of picnics and ice cream at the border is over," says Gilchrist. 

     Anti-immigrant rhetoric is ramping up on the public airwaves as well.  On July 10, Arizona Republican Sheriff Paul Babeu told listeners of the openly "pro-white" Political Cesspool radio show they should apply for his department's "posse" program.  (It is worth noting that, according to research from Media Matters,  Babeu has appeared at least 18 times to promote the controversial law on Fox News, while two Arizona border sheriffs who spoke out against the law have never been invited to appear.)  The Clear Channel radio station in Columbus, Ohio has been running the following contest:"610 WTVN would like to send you where Americans are proud and illegals are scared, sunny Phoenix, Arizona! You'll spend a weekend chasing aliens and spending cash in the desert, just make sure you've got your green card! Win round trip airfare to Phoenix, hotel accommodations, and a few pesos in spending cash." Rush Limbaugh, predictably prevaricating on 600 radio stations, has targeted Flagstaff's City Council for their opposition to the law, resulting in death threats to council members.  The list of hate radio rhetoric goes on and on and on.

     Perhaps that's why Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) at the recent Netroots Nation convention (aimed at the progressive blogosphere) in Las Vegas told me he is targeting the media as a significant factor in the escalating war over immigration reform.  "You've got Dobbs, you've got Beck...  Dobbs for six to seven years has consistently been demonizing every immigrant as a criminal."  Talk radio falsehoods such as increased border crime and beheadings in the desert are typical.  "When people think that is 'news,' it's a problem," Grijalva says. "We're closed out of that media.  There is no equal time."

     The issue of media consolidation was a theme at the convention. Sen. Al Franken, (D-MN), told the audience in his keynote, "Resisting this trend towards media consolidation, resisting attacks on net neutrality – we should throw ourselves behind these causes with the same energy and urgency that we showed in 2006 and 2008."  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV),  echoed those sentiments, deriding media consolidation and encouraging the bloggers to fight for net neutrality and "keep calling out the Right Wing on misinformation."

     Tuscon Congressman Grijalva brought up Congress' rewrite of the Communications Act as a needed solution to the media misinformation problem.  The 1996 rewrite of the Act deregulated radio ownership, changing the rule which capped radio ownership at 40 stations per person (corporate or otherwise,) and allowing companies like Clear Channel to buy unlimited numbers of radio stations.  (Clear Channel snapped up 1200 stations at the time, and programmed most of them with "Conservative" Talk Radio.)  The current rewrite, led by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Rockefeller (D-WV) and Reps. Waxman (D-CA)  and Boucher (D-VA), is mainly focusing on issues of net neutrality and broadband.  "As we struggle with the Communications Act," say Grijalva, "it's all about new media.  We need to take this opportunity to fix what's wrong with old media."

Immigration Reform: A Victim of Misinformation?

                                                                                                                                           July 10, 2010

A diverse group of conservative, mainly Republican religious leaders are touring the country in support of comprehensive immigration reform.  Their goal:  to target Republicans who can be convinced that immigration reform is a moral imperative. 

In a conference call Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform held Wednesday in Miami, moderator Juan Hernandez said their group has been meeting privately on the Hill with Republicans in the House and Senate who said they needed President Obama to pave the way for reform.  Now that the President has made his speech on immigration, pressure is racheting up on both sides of the aisle.

Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) said that a bipartisan working group in the House has developed a bill that calls for increased resources at the border,  employer sanctions, and an earned path to a green card.  Diaz-Balart says that if the House were to pass the bill, it would provide arguments for the Senate, but says House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refuses to bring the bill to a floor vote.  "The speaker - who has the ear of the President, needs to allow a vote."

Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the working group includes some "heavy hitters" on both sides of the aisle, but noted that when he met with Pelosi, the Speaker said Democratic House members are not willing to put their seats on the line when a bill would face almost certain defeat in the Senate.

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, says Republicans are divided between their short term objectives for 2010 and their long term objectives for 2012.  "The Tea Party may win 2010 , but lose in 2012.  A tea party without chips and salsa is no party at all."

Rev. Guillermo Maldonado, Senior Pastor of El Rey Jesus, the largest church in Miami,  blames misinformation for the divide, saying that many Republicans falsely believe
that Hispanics want open borders and amnesty.  "I believe there's no good information to them.  This is what most Hispanic leaders are talking about."

Tea Parties, Fraud, and the BP Fund: Something in Sacramento's Water?

June 28, 2010

   Just days after resigning as Chairman of the Tea Party Express,  Mark Williams, former KFBK radio talk show host, began encouraging people to file claims for the BP fund
which is being set up to provide financial assistance to those damaged by the Gulf oil spill.  He's not just encouraging residents of the Gulf or those who do business with Gulf Coast fisheries to file claims;  he is encouraging everyone in the country to file a claim against BP, and brags about having done so himself. 

    Williams asserts on his blog, MarkTalk.com, that in so filing, people are not stealing.  He writes,"You are only recouping some of your own money  that the Obama regime is
stealing from you to redistribute," and he cites fund administrator Ken Feinberg as telling people “we should '...all file a claim…' because specific criteria for valid claims has not yet been set."

     He further writes, "Let’s show the Marxists who occupy our government and their flying monkey supporters what life under socialism is really like when the productive stop producing and join the gravy train."

     So let me see if I get this right:  A multinational corporation drilling off our shore in international water causes a disastrous oil spill which imperils not only wildlife, but the opportunity for Gulf residents to earn a living.  The President of the U.S. puts political pressure on said oil company to pay not just for clean up, but for compensation for loss of business opportunity. 

     The BP fund, according to a conversation I had with Mr. Feinberg's office today, "is paid entirely by BP."  Even the administration of the fund is paid by the private corporation which caused the spill.  "There are no merits to the claim that U.S. taxpayers are footing the bill."

    So how can Williams in any way call the BP fund "socialism?" 

     There is one federal government agency which will likely use taxpayer dollars.  Again, according to Feinberg's office, "As with the 9/11 fund," (which Feinberg also administered,) "Mr. Feinberg will be working with the US Department of Justice Fraud Division to ensure there is no fraud in the fund."

     So in other words, it is Mark Williams who, by knowingly promoting ineligible people to apply for BP money, is costing taxpayers untold dollars to ferret out fraud.  So much for "conservative" fiscal responsibility.   And oh, yes, so much for a "conservative" talk show host
getting facts straight. 

     Funny, too, that Williams uses the tag line, "It's Not Right vs Left, It's Right vs Wrong."  Readers will have to make their own judgment about that.

     It's interesting to note that the state capital of California somehow launches national Right Wing voices.  Williams, Rush Limbaugh, NewsMax's and WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah, and the Tea Party Express all hail from Sacramento.  Must be something in the water, and not just in the Gulf.

    Glad my water comes from a well.

Communications Act Redux: A Chance for the States to Unite!

 June 10, 2010

Four Democratic leaders, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller, Virginia  Rep. Rick Boucher, and California Rep. Henry Waxman are taking aim this month at what I like to call Public Enemy Number One:  the 1996 Telecommunications Act.   It took that Act of Congress to allow the right wing's lies and vitriol to dominate every
radio market in this country, and it will take another Act of Congress to restore facts to our public airwaves and true debate to our kitchen tables.

True, much of the coming debate will center on new media issues of who can access high speed internet, (broadband,) and who can or cannot control access to content on the web (net neutrality.)  As digital television and the internet will merge into the same thing over the next
several years, it is critical for either the FCC or Congress to build a regulatory framework now.  The FCC is facing legal hurdles over its authority to regulate the internet, so it looks like Congress is stepping in.  

But old media issues need to be addressed as well.  At an FCC media ownership hearing in Seattle in 2007, citizens bemoaned the loss of their local radio stations.  The audience jeered FCC Chairman Kevin Martin when he said the FCC had no control over radio ownership.  But Martin was correct.  Modern day radio ownership went through a seismic shift with the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and there is little the FCC can do about it.  So any rewrite of the Act needs to correct the media ownership rules which have deeply damaged our democracy, and will otherwise haunt us for many election cycles.  

When the original 1934 Communications Act was written, one person, be it individual or corporation, was allowed to own only 6 radio stations nationwide.  Those ownership rules relaxed over the years, culminating with the 1996 rewrite, which allowed one person to own as many radio stations nationwide as they could buy, and as many as eight in one radio
market.

In '96, a handful of radio companies were laying in wait for the bill to be signed.  By the time the ink from President Clinton's pen had dried, companies like Clear Channel pounced on the radio market, buying up virtually every 50,000 watt, 25,000 watt, 15,000 watt, 10,000 watt, and 5,000 watt station in the entire nation, leaving only tiny, 1,000 watt unprofitable stations to their competitors.   Those corporate persons then programmed their AM stations with a pro-corporate political agenda.  In 2004, according to a study by Free Press and the Center for American Progress, 90% of talk radio was conservative, and much of the country could not get even one minute of the opposing viewpoint on their airwaves.

Plus, the corporate giants programmed their FM stations with homogenized music designed to satisfy shareholders, not artists or listeners.  

Fourteen years later, the effects of the Act are clear:  The 1996 Telecommunications Act is the reason why Rush Limbaugh and company dominate the public airwaves and the political discussion.  It is the reason why Bill Clinton was impeached, why John Kerry was swiftboated,
why George Bush was elected and why the Tea Parties have flourished.  It is the reason why we as a nation are so polarized, why we shout at each other rather than debate with each other, and why we as a culture are growing accepting of hate radio which incites violence.  

It is why local bands can no longer get on the air, and why midwesterners can no longer get tornado alerts.  It affects the quality of our news, our information, and the health and public safety of our communities.   

It is why local people have no say over the content provided by the very radio stations licensed to serve their interest, the public interest.      

In short, the 1996 Telecommunications Act has worn away the very fabric of America.   It is time to restore discourse to the America the founding fathers envisioned.  

(Note: the swiftboating of John Kerry during the 2004 election was what inspired me to make a film on these topics for Public Interest Pictures, Broadcast Blues.  Perhaps not coincidentally, Sen. Kerry is one of the four senators leading the rewrite of the Act.)

What Happened to Broadcast Blues?

I have been receiving so many requests for the film I wrote, produced and directed on media reform topics, Broadcast Blues, and I am grateful for each and every one!

But I am no longer marketing the film, so please direct your inquiries to the owner of the film, Public Interest Pictures' Earl Katz.

Keep fighting to take the media back!  

A Funny Thing Happened at Stanford's FCC Hearing

                                                                                                                                        May 24, 2010

Last Friday, the Federal Communications Commission held a hearing about Media Ownership at Stanford University.  It is part of an ongoing requirement that every three years, the FCC take public comment about who owns licenses to broadcast,  what rules license holders should follow, where underserved communities lie, how to balance business needs with the needs of the democracy, and why the public interest is paramount.

Yawn.  Who cares?

Compared to the FCC ownership hearings of 2007, not many.  Those hearings had FCC Commissioners as headliners;  Friday's biggest star was the Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau, (a happy coincidence for me. More on that later.)

Hearings in 2007 overflowed with several hundred angry citizens, demanding the right to solid information to protect our democracy.  The 2010 Stanford hearing attracted only about 200 people throughout the course of the day, and mainly featured representatives of media reform groups Free Press, the Media Alliance, Prometheus Radio, Davis Media, and news gatherers from Poor Magazine.

But many media activists in 2007 thought their battle was against the Bush Administration's FCC.  In truth, many of the powers to be at the FCC remain the same as.with the Obama Administration.  And the issues raised back then by activists have not yet been resolved, and have in many ways worsened.

But the activists in this crowd got it.  The ever popular Raging Grannies encapsulated the mood of the 2010 crowd best with their rendition of "Corporations Must Not Rule" (sung to the tune of the Battle Hymn of the Republic:)

When a faceless corporation is our only source of news
And big brother at a distance can control what we can view
We're in trouble and it threatens fairness and democracy
Corporations Must Not Rule!

The conversation has shifted some since the 2007 hearings, but it still goes back to the effects of increasing consolidation of media ownership.  In 2007, media activists tried to prevent newspapers and TV stations from having the same owners, fearing that shared news organizations would simply cut journalists in order to increase profits.  Three years later, the activists have lost ground in that battle, and now are seeing their greatest fears realized:  journalists, the gumshoe reporters that hold government accountable to We the People, are being fired in record numbers. 

The corporate ownership argument is that the internet is providing platforms for multiple journalists to do their work.  The reality, as pointed out by panelist James Hamilton, Professor at Duke University, is that when news consumers surf the web, they still seek out the same well known mainstream news sources they have always known.  So the opportunity for breakout investigative journalism is relatively small, while the need for maintaining strong journalism in traditional media, both broadcast and newspapers, is essential for our democracy.

Panelist James Joyce, President of Communication Workers of America, cited his organization's research about the direct effect of what happens when local TV stations are allowed to have "shared services agreements"   Half of those stations newsrooms are typically shut down, resulting in fewer reporters and one less point of view about the local community.    

He also cited the troublesome new development of "Local News Sharing," where various TV local newrooms share one crew to report on a given local story.  Again, this is a way to cut station costs.  Cutting newsroom staffs by 50% saves a lot of money;  but it is important to realize that stations are earning 20-30% profits.  Shareholders are thrilled, especially in this economy; but is the public interest really being served?

Remember, broadcasters are licensed to "serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity."  If they do not do so, they can and should have their licenses stripped away.  It's a rule that both the corporate owners and the FCC prefer to ignore.

But James Joyce tied the decline of newsrooms to the issue of licensing.  Shared service agreements allows one local station to take over operation of a second local station, effectively transfering a broadcast license to a competitor without having ever having to file with the FCC.

So licensing and ownership are inherently tied together.

Which brings me to my own testimony at the Stanford hearing.  

For many months, I have been covering the FCC response to the trial of Sacramento's Entercom radio station, KDND, which a jury found liable for sponsoring a reckless water drinking contest that resulted in the 2007 death of 28 year old wife and mother, Jennifer Strange.  The attorney for the family asked that the station's license be revoked; the FCC responded it would look into the matter, but never acted, and instead has since rewarded Entercom with 14 more station licenses.  Entercom's 2008 Annual Report states that all six of its Sacramento licenses are being challenged, but advises investors, that based on past FCC actions, they are confident that they will maintain their licenses.  

In other words, a corporation that owns a broadcast station can act so recklessly that they believe they can kill someone and still maintain their license to broadcast to millions.  

I brought up this issue quite forcefully at the Stanford hearing, in front of William Lake and William Freedman, the very people who run the media bureau, the same people who actually control license challenges. This is the same bureau which responded to my Freedom of Information Act request on the issue of license challenges, saying that they had no idea how many challenges are pending in front of them, nor do they remember the last time they actually took a station's license away.  

Here's where it gets interesting:  Immediately following the hearing, I was interviewing Mr. Lake on camera, and took the opportunity to ask about the these license challenges, (formally called "petitions to deny licenses.")  After just two questions, which an uncomfortable Mr. Lake struggled to answer, the Bureaus' Public Relations person, Janice Wise, cut me off.  "Questions,"  she said, "must be restricted to the topic of this hearing."  

So somehow, the Obama FCC Media Bureau, which decides which corporations get to own broadcast licenses, does not see a relationship between media ownership and broadcast licensing.   

The national conversation around station licensing is to make broadcast stations once again renew their licenses every three years, rather than eight, as is the rule today.  But eight years or three, if the FCC abjectly fails to hold stations liable for reckless actions,  it is just an agency in the pocket of the corporations it is supposed to oversee.  

And the Media Bureau appears to act independently of whichever party is in the White House.

Do not forget, We the People have the right to challenge station licenses.  We need to do so often, and publicly.  We need to remind the real Washington media establishment who they are working for:  us.


See more on these issues my blog, www.SueWilsonReports.com , and a recent McClatchy Newspapers Sacramento Bee article.  

Update: FCC apologizes to Sue Wilson

In the four years of making Broadcast Blues, I found that the Federal Communications Commission, the federal agency tasked with oversight of the broadcast airwaves, was completely ignoring the public. The key thread of the film surrounds the public's petitions to deny station licenses.  (Most people don't know that we own the airwaves, and we can petition to have a station's license taken away.)  At one point, an FCC media rep told me they do not keep track of these petitions, and had no idea when the last station's license was removed.   (Not recently, obviously.) 
 
That forced me into filing a Freedom of Information Act Request with the FCC in July, 2007, to discover how many petitions to deny licenses have been filed in recent years, and to discover when the last petition to remove a license was successful.  The FCC never answered (They are required by law to respond within 20 business days.)  Four months later, I complained about it in person to the FCC Commissioners at a formal hearing in Seattle, Washington, and handed a copy to the FCC personnel attending the hearing.   Still no reply.
 
But after one public showing of Broadcast Blues in Sacramento, the public rose up with letters to the FCC, asking why citizens have to sue the government to make it do its job.  The FCC responded that they had never received a FOIA request from me.  Unfortunately for them, I had sent the request via certified mail to two members of the FCC, and had signatures to prove it.
 
Now the FCC is apologizing, and asking that I resubmit the FOIA request.  I have done so.   How long will it take to get the information?  I am not holding my breath.

Update:

The FCC finally did respond to me in writing.  It turns out their rep was correct:  The FCC has no records of how many station licenses are currently being challenged, nor do they have records of the last time a license was taken away.

Denying stations' licenses to broadcast is the next battleground.  See the story, "A Funny Thing Happened at the Stanford FCC Hearing."
  

The High School and The End

April 17, 2010

I wrote a piece that is appearing in today's Sacramento Bee about why KDND 107.9 The End's license to broadcast should be taken away.  See it here.

I have been reading comments on the SacBee site;  so far, they generally follow the post-trial public opinion that Jennifer Strange was dumb and responsible for her own death.  They miss the fact that Jennifer Strange, with no college education, was earning nearly $60,000 a year in the medical field.  She was no dummy.  And they miss the fact that the jury who actually heard the case unanimously and quickly decided that Mrs. Strange would not have died had it not been for that contest, and that of the twelve jurors, only two thought she had some (not full) responsibility for her death;  ten said she had no responsibility whatsoever.

Somehow, people today seem to think that a corporation which invites (lures?) people into a contest so they can increase their own profits are not to be held responsible when their own contest goes awry, to the point of killing someone.   These people cite personal responsibility; let's not forget, corporations are "persons" too;  where's their personal responsibility?

I am reminded of the Roald Dahl short story "Man from the South."   It's the story of a man who makes a bet with a second man to light a cigarette lighter ten times in a row.  If the second man succeeds, the first will give him his car.  If he fails, the first man will cut off one of the second man's fingers. 


So what if a radio station sponsored a contest like that?  Not too many people know you can die from drinking too much water, but any fool knows what having your finger cut off would mean.   So would it be okay for a radio station to put on a contest like that?  You know it would be a ratings bonanza, and ratings mean advertising dollars.  Why not just allow corporations to prey on stupid people and make a fortune doing it?  After all, they're not killing anybody.


Part of the answer is radio stations are licensed to serve the public interest.  Clearly, a contest like that does not serve the public.  Neither did The End's water drinking contest. 
 

Citizens Rally in El Dorado County

April 16, 2010

Gino and Lori Gallentine thought they'd be the only people present at a public hearing in Placerville yesterday to determine whether their closest neighbor would have "vested" rights for surface mining.  Even though the proposed Big Cut Mine is a mere mile and half from downtown Placerville, official hearing notices only went out to people within 500 feet of the Big Cut property.

Mining Permit Under the Radar Screen in El Dorado County

April 13, 2010

Determination of Proposed Mine 1.5 miles from Downtown Placerville Thursday

Thursday, April 15, the State Mining and Geology Board will hold a little noticed public hearing about determination of vested rights for the Big Cut Mine. Operator Rick Churches proposes to have the mine, located at 2261 Donovan Ranch Road, turned into a rock quarry; the hearing will determine whether the property should be regulated under current environmental rules, or should be vested back to regulations in place January 1, 1976.