Sue Wilson Reports

Hate Radio and the War on Immigration

2010-07-26T17:00:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-07-10T11:21:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-28T16:31:00.000-07:00

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!

2010-06-10T15:53:00.000-07:00

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?

2010-06-10T15:28:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-24T15:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-17T09:46:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-16T09:46:00.000-07:00

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.

But to the Gallentines' surprise, 30 people showed up at 9:00 AM, ready to testify at the meeting which had been rescheduled for 1:30 PM. Several upset citizens left, unable to return to the afternoon session.

But at 1:30, More than 100 El Dorado Countians packed the Board of Supervisors office, and waited through two hours of legal testimony from the Big Cut lawyers to make their own statements to the State Mining and Geology Board.

They were worried about noise, about asbestos pollution, air pollution, hillside erosion, and more. But in the end, not one of those concerns officially mattered. As Board member Brian Baca told the crowd, "This hearing is not about impacts to the environment."

Instead, the hearing dealt with the narrow legal question as to whether the Big Cut Mine was "vested." To be vested, (grandfathered in) they would need to show they had authorization to mine, had continuously operated a mine, and had substantial expenditures.

Owner Joe Hardesty wants to surface mine for gold at the site, which was granted a patent in the 1850's. A man named Triplett bought the site in 1921, and the mine was closed by order of the government during World War II .   Triplett sold the property to a man named Donovan in 1988; Donovan did commence mining in the 1990's, but did so illegally.

Then Donovan entered into a real estate deal with a company called Legacy Land. There were reclamation issues standing in the way of his sale, so he went to the county and filled out a form that officially closed the mine.

Big Cut attorney Kerry Shapiro argued that Donovan was illiterate and did not know what he was signing. Shapiro stated that Donovan had so testified in a later deposition; Donovan has since died.

After a long afternoon, the SMGB Board deliberated for only 25 minutes. Board Member Ben Licari summed up the matter in one sentence: "I think this is an honest application, but I think the previous owners abandoned the right."

The Board then unanimously voted that Big Cut Mine does not have vested rights, and the crowd erupted into applause. This decision means the site is subject to El Dorado County ordinances which disallow mining wihtin 10,000 feet of any residence. 3560 parcels are within two miles of the site.

Big Cut operator Rick Churches vows to fight on. "We spent $400,000 on a five inch thick book of evidence, and this board heard only an hour and a half argument. These board members are not lawyers. We will take this to a judge."

Mining Permit Under the Radar Screen in El Dorado County

2010-04-13T14:43:00.000-07:00

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.

SMGB has been sending notices on this hearing to adjacent landowners for months; however, according to neighbor Gino Gallantine, because of the lot lines, really only two landowners have been notified. However, Gallantine says Downtown Placerville and thousands of homes are within a mile and a half of the proposed mine, and that Marshall Hospital and surrounding hospital and medical buildings, homes off Cedar Ravine including Texas Hill Estates and Country Club Estates, Lyons Park, and Sierra School will all be adversely affected and are affected by the outcome of Thursday's hearing.

"We've just learned that although the public can make comment Thursday, this hearing is really to hear the legal arguments surrounding the mine's vesting. That was not made clear in SMGB's letters to us, and we have made no legal arguments. We will be asking for a 90 day postponement of this determination to allow the community to have meaningful input on what could impact our lives forever."

SMGB wrote in an email to me that "A vested right means that no mining permit had to be obtained from the County, and that no California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document for the mining operation itself was necessary." and "If the Board determines that the operators do not have vested rights, mining on the site may be limited, if not prohibited because of a local ordinance that bans mining within 10,000 feet of a residence."

The hearing, which was scheduled for 9AM Thursday, is now listed on SMGB's website at 1:30 PM. It will be held at the Board of Supervisor's Hearing Room, County Government Center, Building A, 330 Fair Lane, in Placerville, CA 95667.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Pages/APRIL2010.aspx

L.A. Puts the Public Back into the Public Interest

2010-03-18T12:45:00.000-07:00

March 11, 2010

Broadcasters are licensed to serve the public interest. If a radio or TV station does not serve the public interest, the FCC can take its license to broadcast away, and give the opportunity to make millions using the public airwaves to someone else.

Yes, we the people do have some power over what is broadcast in our own communities, at least in theory. But in fact, as shown in my film, Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues, petitions to deny stations' licenses languish for years, and the FCC has no record of the last time any station's license has been pulled. Even the case of a TV station that a court ruled deliberately distorted the news didn't meet the FCC threshold of not "serving the public interest."

It used to be that stations had to prove they were serving the public interest every three years; now they just send in a postcard to get rubberstamp approval every eight years.   It used to be that stations had to produce hours of local community programming to satisfy their license requirements; now, most claim they serve the public by producing local news. And local TV news is key: Pew reports 68% of people say local TV news is their primary news source. So is local TV news serving the public interest?

Today's USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center report entitled "LOCAL TV NEWS IN THE LOS ANGELES MEDIA MARKET: Are Stations Serving the Public Interest?" co authored by Center Director Martin Kaplan, PhD and Seton Hall's Matthew Hale, PhD, quantifies the answer. The big news from the report is that only about half of the news is news at all. Of a typical local news half hour, just 15 minutes 44 seconds deal with real news (the remainder of time is made up of teases for other programs, advertisements, and sports and weather.) And roughly half of that is not local news.

The report documents what most of us intuitively know: if it bleeds it leads. One in three lead stories involve crime: common crime, celebrity crime, crime in Los Angeles, or crime anywhere else. Crime stories fill an average of 2 minutes 50 seconds in a given newscast. Oddball stories at 2:26 and entertainment at 2:02 are a close second and third. Stories that actually inform the local community about issues of civic importance add up to just four minutes daily; local government coverage – including budget, law enforcement, education, layoffs, new ordinances, voting procedures, personnel changes, city and county government actions on health care, transportation and immigration – get a whopping 22 seconds.

So. Back to the public interest.

Certainly people enjoy stories about sports, about entertainment, about the guy who gets stuck in a washing machine. Yet hours of profit making programming already cover those topics.   Those kinds of stories are quick and cheap and easy to produce, as opposed to sending a reporter to sort through City Hall meetings.

But if TV news doesn't tell us what we really need to know about what's happening at City Hall, who will? The study also compares TV news to LA Times coverage; the Times comes out better, but not much better. But there is a big difference: anybody can start a newspaper. Yes, you may need more money than God, but by God, you can do it.    Nobody can just start a new TV station; the frequencies, even in this digital age, are scarce, and the FCC has already licensed their use to others. You might be able to buy one of the stations if you're rich and lucky, but there is zero opportunity to start one anew.

That's why it is so important that these stations, which in 2002 were profiting as much as 46% according to the FCC, put some of that profit back into serving the community. Local groups understand that, and came out in force today to support the findings of the study. Says California Common Cause Executive Director Kathay Feng, “Our city is on the brink of bankruptcy, social services are being watered down, but we receive so little coverage from local TV stations,” "The concentration of ownership of local television stations has resulted in a massive failure of local TV being responsive to the needs of the communities they are supposed to serve,” says Tapia Martinez-Russ, co-founder of the Los Angeles Media Reform Group.

“There is serious cause for concern here,” says Manatt, Phelps & Phillips attorney George Kieffer, a member of the Los Angeles Civic Alliance.

Kieffer says that he expects the civic community now to begin to weigh in on license renewals based on the degree of local hard news coverage. That means people filing petitions to deny or revoke stations' licenses. These petitions represent the only means the public has to hold local stations accountable to the public interest. The FCC has ignored them for too long.

But these local groups have a big ally; FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stood along side the report's authors in L.A. to lend his support. Copps, long a hero of media reform advocates says the FCC license renewal process is today “a paper tiger.” Copps says “every time a media company comes in to renew a license, it should have to prove it is serving the public interest."

It's time to give that tiger some teeth.

Brad Friedman, the New York Times, and the Need for News Quality Standards

2010-02-24T17:37:00.000-08:00

February 24, 2010

I met Brad Friedman in January 2008 at a journalism conference in Santa Cruz, California, where I was promoting the idea of a Good Housekeeping-style "seal of approval" for journalists. The idea, now promoted at Ceasespin.org as a “News Quality Rating System,” is to provide online readers with some measure of bloggers' accountability to ethical journalistic standards. Not all writers are journalists, and not all journalists are created equal, and I thought then (as I still do today,) that it would be helpful for people to cut though the chafe to the wheat of genuine news reporting.

Friedman, the venerable investigative reporter at Bradblog.com, bristled a bit at the concept. It seemed like a good idea, overall, but he said, "Why just bloggers like me? Why not the New York Times?" I had to admit that he was right.

What I didn't know was that he was prescient.

In recent days, a battle has escalated between blogger Friedman and NY Times public editor Clark Hoyt, over the "paper of record's" reporting on the now infamous story by James O'Keefe, purporting to reveal that ACORN employees had advised O'Keefe, dressed like a pimp, with his pretend girlfriend, Hannah Giles, posing as a prostitute, how to avoid paying taxes on her night time income.

Two problems with that story. Friedman's careful examination of the transcript of the unedited ACORN video showed the non-profit's employees had actually advised Giles she had to pay her taxes.

The second, more ingrained in the American psyche (thanks to You Tube) was of a ridiculously pimped out O'Keefe strolling into ACORN offices, promoting the idea that ACORN dealt with people in like get ups everyday. But that image was a creation of careful video editing; O'Keefe actually dressed like an everyday college student for the hidden camera set up. His partner in pseudo journalism Giles admitted as much on videotape, and O'Keefe's erstwhile employer Andrew Breitbart was also forced to so admit last week at CPAC.

But the New York Times refuses to correct its coverage about the pimp costume, even though it has called O'Keefe's reporting unethical. In a letter to Bradblog, Public Editor Hoyt says, "the story says O’Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera on Acorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time."

A blog comment on this brought a smile to my face. "Just because I write 'I got drunk and took my kids for a car ride' doesn't mean I did them at the same time." No, no, of course not. Why would anyone think that?

Now Hoyt accuses Friedman of having a political agenda, and at the same time, a petition has cropped up online asking the Times to correct its reporting.

It's fun to watch.

But it does bring back the idea of the benefit of some kind of metric for readers to understand journalistic standards. On a scale of one to five, I'll give Bradblog five stars, the New York Times two, and O'Keefe... well, maybe a jail term.

Boycotting Beck on Fox "News" - an Issue of Credibility

2010-02-17T16:24:00.000-08:00

February 16, 2010

     What started as a Twitter campaign by a lone law school student in Madison Wisconsin has morphed into Glenn Beck's worst nightmare: advertisers are dropping him like flies, and his show in the UK does not have even one advertiser.   Still, thanks to the power of News Corporation, the show goes on.

     It started on July 2, 2009, when Angelo Carusone began a campaign called StopBeck.com , Tweeting his followers to pressure companies to stop advertising on Beck's FOX News TV program. It was a maverick journey, but not for long: on July 28, 2009, Beck told his legion of viewers, Obama "has a deep seated hatred of white people." That's when Color of Change, the largest African American online political organization in the country used its muscle to target Beck with its own campaign. To date, 285,000 people have signed onto the CC campaign's petiton to call on advertisers to drop Beck.

     Within three months, Fox News' Glenn Beck Show had lost 80 advertisers; that number has now grown to 116.    The only advertisers remaining on Fox News in the US are purveyors of gold, Rupert Murdoch owned organizations like the Wall Street Journal, the State of Utah, and ironically, Murdoch's Direct TV competitor, Dish TV.

     StopBeck's Carusone then took it a step further, targeting UK sponsors of the Glenn Beck Show in the United Kingdom. Brits apparently take their sponsorship PR seriously; for the past six days running, not a single company has purchased ads on the Glenn Beck Show. Instead, Rupert Murdoch's Sky News now runs in timeslots previously sold to advertisers.

     Fox still shows no sign of abandoning their populist hero; how shareholders will react to lower earning reports remains to be seen.

     Beck's cable TV ratings, in the US at least, continue to rise. His FOX News viewership of 617,000 (as of Friday Feb 12, according to mediabistro.com,) is second on cable only to Bill O'Reilly's 713,000.

     While StopBeck and Color of Change tout victories over Beck in TV land, Beck's radio show continues to thrive unabetted. Carusone is trying to boycott companies that advertise on Beck's radio program, which garners 9 million listeners, nearly 15 times his TV audience, but is finding the terrain more difficult. Whereas companies like Best Western and Kraft are senstive to their logo being visibly associated with Beck on FOX News, "radio sponsors have a right wing agenda going in and don’t really care" about a negative association, says Carusone.

     Color of Change campaign manager Dani McClain says that targeting the show on Fox News is important, precisely because it is Fox "News." "Fox News says they are a news organization. When people tune in, they should have the expectation of getting real news, not misinformation, distortion of truth and race baiting." Executive Director James Rucker adds that this is an issue of credibility. "When you have so many mainstream companies, from AT&T to Walmart, who don’t want to be affiliated with Beck, it strips Beck's ability to position himself as mainstream. Could all these companies possibly be in the pocket of the left?"

Get the Message?

2010-02-02T13:41:00.000-08:00

February 3, 2010

Last Friday, many Americans witnessed a rare bit of political theater when President Obama addressed the GOP Retreat in Baltimore. By insisting that live TV cameras be allowed into the exchange, the President took his one opportunity to take control of his message in full view of the public, calling out the GOP on their lies and dirty tricks, and challenging them to tone down their rhetoric so Washington could focus on issues rather than the next election. Headlines burst from newspages: "Extraordinary!" "Remarkable!" "Historic!" The GOP instantly regretted their decision to allow cameras. It was a big moment for Obama to get his message out; but how many more will he get?

CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC ran and reran the discussion. But FOX News chose not to show the actual exchange at all, instead choosing to "characterize" it for their audience, editing an hour and twenty minutes into a few meaning-twisted soundbites, prompting Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman to confront FOX CEO Roger Ailes about his network's "deliberate misinformation" Sunday on ABC's This Week.

It is doubtful that FOX, the "most trusted news network" according to Public Policy Polling, will ever stop misinforming the public; doing so would interfere with the GOP message, and he who controls the message controls the masses.

Messaging is the new buzzword on Capitol Hill. For three days, the President has been using the bully pulpit to take his message to the people, first at the GOP retreat, next at a town hall in New Hampshire, today at the Senate Democratic Caucus. He understands he must reach the American public with the facts. Still, Fox News and more importantly, Talk Radio will not allow their audiences to hear the unvarnished truth.

“I just can’t understand how the President lost the message,” These the words of Cokie Roberts on ABC News’ This Week January 24. Before Christmas, Roberts, on the same program, said “I think if people understood what was in the healthcare bill, they would really like it. But the Democrats aren’t getting the message out."

As shown in Public Interest Pictures' media reform documentary Broadcast Blues, the reason Democrats have not succeeded in getting their message out is that the GOP, while complaining about a non-existent "liberal media," has for a generation created a Right wing media juggernaut which excludes facts and debate. And while Inside the Beltway pundits recognize the cheerleading power of cable TV's FOX, they have not yet recognized the messaging forest through the talk radio trees.

As Danny Goldberg, one time CEO of now defunct Air America Radio wrote for Alternet, the power of talk radio is the problem for Democrats and Democracy.

"One-hundred-thirty-eight million people commute to and from work in automobiles, where they have no access to computer or TV screens. For around a third of them, or 48 million, AM talk radio is their entertainment of choice. Of the top 10 AM talk radio shows, nine are hosted by extreme conservatives, giving the right wing a captive audience of around 40 million listeners a week—at least seven times greater than the combined audiences of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. Talk radio's audience dwarfs that of every other category in the news political arena, including the network news and Sunday shows, NPR's public affairs shows and political Web sites."

And what did talk radio listeners hear about the Obama/GOP exchange? King Rush bellowed, "Obama lies! He's delusional! This business that he 'inherited a $1.3 trillion budget deficit' is a lie. It's a lie through and through." (Except, of course, it isn't. Government statistics are clear. But who will the 15 million people who heard Rush's message, but not the President's, believe?)

Consider, also, that talk radio reaches into every corner of the country: every home, car, barber shop and garage can tune in to free AM radio and hear Rush and Glenn and Hannity and Savage. But few of those little corners get to hear Thom or Ed or Randi or any liberal perspective, the corporate radio owners see to that. And remember, these are places that, because of the digital transition, no longer get free TV. But they get free radio (just not free speech.)

Conservatives understand that new government policies could undermine their grip on the public airwaves, and are mounting attacks to maintain it. The right leaning Heritage Foundation recently put out a "National Survey on the Obama Agenda." Under the heading "Free Speech," they ask, in push poll fashion, "Do you believe that President Obama and/or Congress will take action to destroy conservative talk radio?" (As if a popular billion dollar industry could just go away.)

But today, there is new evidence that the Obama administration does understand that talk radio is the road to the message. On his Organizing for America website, the President is asking people across the nation to research talk radio: to focus on three pre-identified radio shows, determine whether they are political, what language they are in, and whether they take callers.

What exactly will Obama do with that information? Restore aspects of the Fairness Doctrine? Rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act? This much is certain: he has broken through the right wing messaging juggernaut once; it is a safe bet he's on the road to do it again.

Hocus Pocus SCOTUS

2010-01-29T12:02:00.000-08:00

January 29, 2010

Note that the Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United V FEC is really a media reform issue.

In my film, Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues, (which was generously funded in part by the Streisand Foundation, thanks Barbra!) I detail how 75% of politicians' time is spent fund raising, and how all that money goes into TV/Radio Advertising. The SCOTUS decision will exacerbate that situation. The winners are the broadcasters, who are licensed to serve the Public Interest, but who are earning as much as 46 percent profits. The losers are the public, whose interest is being co-opted by Corporate Money and Corporate Media.

So media reform is a new front in the battle to regain power for We the People.

Here's what is possible:

With a stroke of his pen, Pres. Obama could tell the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to provide time to political candidates, and to give equal time to all of them. It wasn't until after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Reagan that money began to pour into TV and Radio coffers. Some people don't like this idea because they think it infringes on Free Speech; but let's be clear: Radio and TV speech is not free, it is owned and managed by a few corporations who solely decide which points of view to air. (See my post here at Sue Wilson Reports for more on that issue.)

Congress could also enact free airtime rules, or it could enact public financing rules. Either would take an act of Congress; any bets on that happening anytime soon?

The single most important thing Congress must do is to repeal those sections of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which stack the deck against We the People.

President Obama made media an issue in his State of the Union address. It is time for a revolution, this one to retake that which is ours: the media that informs our democracy.

What Happened to Broadcast Blues?

2010-01-14T10:42:00.000-08:00

Any questions about the documentary film Broadcast Blues which I wrote, produced, directed and narrated should be directed to the owner of the film, Earl Katz at Public Interest Pictures .

Join me at my blog SueWilsonReports.com and let's make mayhem with the mainstream media!

The Plame Case Could Be Reopened, IF...

2010-01-13T10:14:00.000-08:00

In December, I reported that there was a possibility that the Valerie Plame case could be reopened, given the revelation of millions of missing White House emails that could shed new light on the outing of the covert CIA spy. A spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago's US Attorneys' Office told me, "the matter may only be opened for purpose of responding to congressional or other requests."

But the Plame case is a federal case, and further investigation reveals steep hurdles to reopening the case which caused untold damage to our National Security.

Most Federal crimes have a five year statute of limitations, but there are a few exceptions. Had Cheney/Libby/Rove molested a child, they could still be held accountable. Had they burned down the Plame/Wilson home, they could be held to account. Had they fled to another country as Roman Polanski did, rather than hiding in some undisclosed location, they could be held accountable for their crimes at any time.

But perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving the leaking of classified information? Hide out for five years, and you can beat that rap.

So the only hope to resurrect the Plame investigation appears to be hidden in the Wartime Exclusions section of Federal Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 213:

Sec. 3287. Wartime suspension of limitations

-STATUTE- When the United States is at war or Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces, as described in section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)), the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not, or (2) committed in connection with the acquisition, care, handling, custody, control or disposition of any real or personal property of the United States, or (3) committed in connection with the negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment for, interim financing, cancelation, or other termination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the war or directly connected with or related to the authorized use of the Armed Forces, or with any disposition of termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency, shall be suspended until 5 years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by a Presidential proclamation, with notice to Congress, or by a concurrent resolution of Congress.

So MAYBE, if a Congressperson were so inclined, he or she could request the case be reopened under this statute. Guess we shall wait and see.

Emails found, evidence also?

2009-12-21T13:45:00.000-08:00

Last weeks revelation that the Obama administration has discovered 22 million missing Bush White House emails, including those concerning the outing of covert spy Valerie Plame, has brought the veracity of the Bush administration back into the light. The Washington Post reports that the public will not see any of those emails until any least 2014.

But could the man who convicted Lewis (Scooter) Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in that National Security breach get those emails regarding the Valerie Plame case? Is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald could reopen the Plame case, and reveal who really leaked the covert spy's name to the press? Is it possible that Dick Cheney could be questioned again?

According to the US Attorney's office in Chicago, the answer is yes. A spokesperson for prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told me, "the matter may only be opened for purpose of responding to congressional or other requests."

So are there such requests? I'm looking into it. DC is snowed in and it's hard to get answers. More when I know it.

Entercom Sacramento licenses under challenge

2009-11-11T15:43:00.000-08:00

Entercom Communications 2008 Annual Report states that petitions to deny the licenses of all of six Entercom Sacramento radio stations are pending at the FCC, and that licenses of other stations are
under challenge due to listener complaints.

Entercom's Report notes that should the FCC conclude that programming broadcast by their stations was obscene, indecent or profane, they could face loss of licenses or fines up to $325,000 for a single incident, with a maximum fine of up to $3.0 million for continuing violations.

From the 2008 Annual Report: "In the past, the FCC has issued Notices of Apparent Liability and a Forfeiture Order with respect to several of our stations proposing fines for certain programming which the FCC deemed to have been indecent. These cases are the subject of pending administrative appeals. The FCC has also commenced several other investigations based on allegations received from the public that some of our stations broadcast indecent programming. We have cooperated in these investigations which remain pending."

Several calls placed to the FCC by this reporter on this matter have been ignored. If anyone has more information about these complaints, please contact this reporter at suewilsonreports@gmail.com .

Jennifer Strange Trial: Insurance Will Pay $16 Million Award

2009-11-11T11:25:00.000-08:00

According to Radio Online, the $16 million awarded by jurors to the family of Jennifer Strange in the KDND Entercom water drinking contest will be fully paid by Entercom's insurance company.

See post here: http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=n19985

This brings a whole new meaning to the DeeJay's comments during the Morning Rave contest, "Be sure we have insurance on this."

Radio Magic

2009-11-06T17:06:00.000-08:00

Dateline: June, 2007. Republican President George W. Bush had the support of the opposing Democratic party to pass his immigration reform legislation; by most political calculations, the bill should have sailed
through Congress. But then Conservative Talk radio went on an anti-immigrant tirade, and a majority of the president's own party rose up to defeat the bill. Senator Trent Lott, R-MS, then told the New York
Times that "Talk radio is running the country," which in turn inflamed the Talk Jock rhetoric toward Lott.   Lott has since retired from his Senate seat.

In David Brooks' October 2 New York Times article entitled "The Wizard of Beck," he likens talk hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity to the little man behind the curtain creating grand illusions in
the Wizard of Oz.   But their real wizardry is to make illusory mountains out of molehills; and while it’s easy to sweep aside a molehill, a mountain is hard for a politician or the press to ignore.

Case in point, the tea parties.

According to TaxDayTeaParty.com, the tea parties started with "just three online grassroots organizations with an idea."   Had the tea party promotion remained online, it likely would have resulted in a molehill of
a protest with a few hundred angry citizens making their views known locally.

But then talk radio host Glenn Beck and Fox News decided to cross the line from reporting on the tea parties to promoting them. According to the research group Media Matters, Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests and aired at least 73 in-show and commercial promotions for the events. Other conservative talk hosts joined the cheerleading squad on radio stations nationwide, and soon the Tea Party Protests were a phenomena. A mountain of people showed up.

But the real slight of hand is how the wizards conjured up a spectacle that news could not resist;   News organizations like McClatchy's Sacramento Bee covered the Tea Parties on the front page.   Although polls showed otherwise, the wizards created the impression that most Americans, on April 15, 2009, had already had enough of President Obama and wanted change. The mainstream media was magically transformed into a public relations pawn for the right wing war of words.

Fast forward to November, 2009.    Just days before a critical House vote on Healthcare reform, Rep. Michele Bachman, R-MN, staged a Tea Party protest in the nation's capital.   Again, Fox News and Radio Talkers Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other on thousands of radio stations moved into action, using their giant microphones to whip up public sentiment against healthcare reform. The thousands who showed up at the Capitol made news in national publications from Washington to Los Angeles, and according to a poll from USA Today, the Tea Partiers are making inroads into gaining the coveted independent vote.

It's not that the Tea Partiers don't legitimately believe in their cause; it's that the media wizards are using the public airwaves to publicize only the views of this vocal minority, while ignoring the voice of the majority who do support reform and the "public option" (57% of Americans according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll.)

So, thanks to the wizards, the molehill of opposition against the public option in healthcare now looks like Mt. Everest, when it should look like a speed bump. And there's no magic way for the rest of us to be heard.

Good trick.

Strange Trial Analysis

2009-10-29T22:34:00.000-07:00

Today, a divided jury rendered a unanimous verdict against Entercom Sacramento in the case of Jennifer Strange, a mother of three who died as a result of radio station KDND's water drinking contest in January 2007. The jury of seven men and five women awarded Jennifer's family more than $16 million compensation.

For much of the past two months, I have been observing and live blogging the trial. (suewilsonreports.com .) There is much to process before I comment at length. But in brief:

KDND 107.9 "the End's" Morning Rave ruled the airwaves in Sacramento's morning drive.    The on air personalities ruled the radio station, too, the proverbial inmates running the asylum. And they clearly knew a person could die from drinking too much water: just a month before the contest, the Morning Rave spent an entire show making fun of a local college kid who had died from water intoxication.   They made fun of Matthew Carrington's death , and they knew someone could die from drinking too much water.

But the Morning Ravers never gave Jennifer or any other contestant that information when they sponsored the "Hold Your Wee to Win a Nintendo Wii" contest. Instead, they encouraged contestants to drink first 48, then 96 ounces of water an hour in a party atmosphere, while at the same time they were joking on the air about the potential of someone dying from water poisoning. Listeners were calling into the contest (nurses among them) to warn the on air crazies that someone could die from water intoxication, but Lukas and Trish and Maney laughed them off, saying contestants had signed release forms, so the station wasn't responsible if somebody died. (Contestants couldn't hear any of the radio comments.)

The jury understood. They rendered a very careful verdict.

But the public doesn't get it. They don’t get that the release form Jennifer signed was deemed worthless by the court; and that the radio station actually withheld information about danger from the contestants. No, by a two to one margin on online polls, the public thinks that Jennifer Strange is responsible for her own death. And the comments are vociferous.

So a radio station, a broadcaster licensed to serve the public interest, sponsors a contest it knows is dangerous. A woman dies as a result; and the public stands up for the corporation who was trying to profit from the stunt.

There's so much more to this story.     Later.

See video of the Broadcast Blues Jennifer Strange story ond hear audio from the contest at broadcastblues.tv
.

Jennifer Strange Trial: Entercom Sacramento negligent

2009-10-29T15:42:00.000-07:00

After nine days of intense deliberations, a jury of seven men and five women today rendered a verdict against a local Sacramento radio station in the civil trial of William A. Strange et al v. Entercom Sacramento LLC and Entercom Communications Inc. et al. The trial was to determine accountability for the death of Jennifer Strange, who died as a result of a water drinking contest sponsored by Entercom Sacramento's radio station KDND.

By unanimous vote, the jury decided that Entercom Sacramento was negligent in Strange's death; by unanimous vote, they also decided that the parent company, Entercom Communications of Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania was not responsible. By a vote of ten to two, the jury decided that Jennifer Strange did not contribute to her own death.

Economic damages were assessed at $1,477,118. Non-economic damages were assessed at $15,100,000.

Jurors said finding Entercom Sacramento negligent was a relatively simple decision, mostly because Entercom on-air employees ignored phone calls warning them of the dangers of the contest. They said they believed it was the responsibility of Entercom Sacramento to vet the contest with the parent company's legal department, which employees failed to do.

However, jurors reported that they were sharply divided over other issues in the case. They said no one thought Jennifer was 100 percent responsible for her death, but that two jurors thought she shared some responsibility. As only nine jurors had to agree to render a verdict, that issue was quickly decided. Deciding non-economic damages proved much more difficult, and took days of deliberations. According to juror LaTeshia Paggett, some jurors thought that criteria they'd been instructed to consider for compensation like love, companionship, and moral guidance were invaluable, and as such, the family should receive zero compensation for those areas. She said other jurors disagreed sharply and felt the compensation should have been as high as $48 million dollars. In the end, according to juror Tammy Elliott, the jury agreed to averaging the dollar amount each juror felt appropriate. "Each juror's number was weighted equally," Elliott said.

According to Entercom's annual report, Entercom Communications reports a 2008 revenue of $439 million; Sacramento is one of their more profitable markets.

The FCC is still investigating the incident.

See the Jennifer Strange story and hear actual contest audio in Public Interest Picture's Broadcast Blues.

Broadcast Blues in Hot Springs: "You've got a Hit!"

2009-10-28T12:03:00.000-07:00

Audiences didn't just applaud at the end of Broadcast Blues, they cheered!! And shouted "Thank you for making this film!" to filmmaker Sue Wilson.

Former Hot Springs Mayor and film festival founder Melinda Baran said "You've got a Hit movie!" Festival goers "rated it right up there with Food Inc. and Tapped," also playing at the festival. There were Many thanks for "such an amazing and important film."

Audiences LOVE this film... Distributors, where are you?

Broadcast Blues Goes to Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival!

2009-10-20T15:13:00.000-07:00

Vast Right Wing Media Conspiracy Revealed!

In the midst of the 1998 Clinton Impeachment, grassroots groups of citizens from across the country staged a protest against Ken Starr in Washington DC. One of those groups was the Truth in America Project; headed by journalist Sue Wilson, it focused on the vast right wing media conspiracy against President Clinton.

Years later, Wilson continues to expose right wing bias in the media with her new film, Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues. She uses a series of vignettes to show how media policy changes stemming from the Reagan era have corrupted our news, information, and even public safety. In a searing interview with former Right Wing "hit man" David Brock, she reveals the Conservative media's calculated misinformation campaign to bring down President Clinton, and shows its impact on politics and news today (including the recent Fox News' court ruling that news does not have to be true.)

Broadcast Blues is playing 5:30 PM October 22 at the Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival.

Information about the film is available online at www.broadcastblues.tv and information about the film festival is at http://www.hsdff.org/home .