Unfortunately, Alex Jones, Sandy Hook Did Happen #StopTheHoax


December 14, 2018

Last July, after Facebook and Twitter and You Tube banned radio host and performance artist Alex Jones from their platforms, I did a little digging, and found that his program and all his affiliate stations are breaking a longstanding Federal Communications Commission rule prohibiting hoaxes.  And what Jones has been doing goes way beyond the original 1938 Halloween broadcast of War of the Worlds, which prompted passage of the rule in the first place.
.
The nationally syndicated radio host is currently being sued in Connecticut and Texas by at least eight families who have faced the unthinkable: losing their children in a school shooting. The Sandy Hook school shooting. The school shooting Alex Jones broadcast never happened.
.
Court filings document the Alex Jones broadcast saying: “Children did not die, teachers did not die on December 14, 2012.”  “How do you even convince the public something's a total hoax?... The general public doesn't … know they had the kids going in circles in and out of the building as a photo-op” “… Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured.” Referring to video of the parents of children killed in the shooting, Jones stated that "they ... bring in actors to break down and cry.”  
Once Jones planted that seed, people began to attack the real grieving parents of small children. Among them, the parents of slain six year old Noah Pozner received death threats, had to relocate seven times, and now live too far to even visit their son’s gravesite.  “Sometimes I lie awake at night worrying that despite our efforts at security, a determined conspiracy fanatic might gain entry to our home,” said Noah’s mother, in reports of her court declaration. Declared her husband, “Due to Mr. Jones’ broadcast, I have also suffered severe emotional distress and trauma which I cannot even begin to adequately describe. No human being should ever be asked to suffer through the torment Mr. Jones carried out.”  
.

"The station may be in violation if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false; (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm." 
(1) Did his affiliate stations know that what Jones' said about the Sandy Hook school shooting being faked was false?  Of course.  (2) Did they know those lies could cause substantial public harm? Yes, because he had caused substantial harm before with his hoaxes. After Jones falsely broadcast in 2016 that Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex ring out of a Washington, D.C. pizza place, one of his listeners went out and shot the place up with an assault rifle.  (3) Did the false information Jones broadcast about Sandy Hook directly cause substantial public harm?  Indeed it did.
.
But the FCC says there is a simple way for stations to air hoaxes without violating the public trust: 
If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction … the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm.” 
To help right this wrong, the Media Action Center has launched a letter writing action to request that the FCC enforce its rule about hoaxes on Alex Jones' radio program.  Despite what Infowars is saying about this action in recent days, this is not an effort to silence Jones, but the remind the affiliate stations of their legal duty to protect the public interest.  
.
Here is a recent OpEd I penned for the Sacramento Bee a few days ago:  

Start writing. #StopTheHoax.









Fake news is only the beginning. The FCC is about to let monopolies decide what local news you see

originally published in the Sacramento Bee November 7, 2017

What would happen if the politician you love to hate were indicted, but your local news didn’t report it? No newspaper stories, no TV news, no radio news on the hour, nothing.
.
Couldn’t happen? Think again.
.
The Republican-controlled Federal Communications Commission will vote Nov. 16 to allow just one corporation to own the local newspaper plus nearly every commercial TV station in your town. Nifty way to reduce down to just one newsroom then dictate whatever information that corporation does – and does not – want you to know in this democracy.
.
It’s exactly what’s happened with radio. Back in the day when lots of companies owned 40 radio stations, the broadcast industry made big promises that local information would be much more diverse if they could simply own many more stations. The 1996 Telecommunications Act resulted in a handful of corporations owning thousands of stations – and force feeding conservative programming down our country’s throats ever since, no debate, no opposing opinions allowed.
.
The Media Action Center showed during the Scott Walker recall in Wisconsin that “conservative” radio giants there gave millions of dollars in free airtime to the GOP candidate – while refusing to allow a single Democrat on the air at all. GOP operatives there still gloat about radio winning elections for them. After 21 years of this kind of divisive public policy, 60 million people listen to conservative radio... about the same number that voted for Donald Trump.
.

Media Action Center WIns $13.5 Million Victory Over Entercom

April 10, 2017
Originally published at BradBlog.com

Over the weekend, Dan Morain, editorial page editor at Sacramento Bee, wrote an article about what I've been working on, and writing about here at The BRAD BLOG and elsewhere, for many years now.
.
Morain's article starts this way:
.
From her home outside the no-stoplight settlement of Fiddletown, Sue Wilson tilted at a corporate windmill, and a funny thing happened.
.
Sue from Fiddletown won, on our behalf. You can hear the sound of that victory at the end of the FM radio dial in Sacramento. Where there once was commercial pop music, hooting deejays and stupid radio stunts, there’s static.
.
"We the People own the air waves," she said, and repeats: "We the People."
It's a very nice article, that begins with a tragic story. That story, however, now has at least a somewhat encouraging ending for, yes, We the People.
.
Here's what happened...

Ten years ago, a Sacramento mother of three died at the hands of an out of control radio station seeking to boost ratings and profits. Her family's attorney, Roger Dreyer, wrote to the Federal Communications Commission asking that the broadcast license of Entercom Sacramento's KDND 107.9 "The End", be revoked due to their tragic stunt, a live, on air, "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest.
.
In 2009, upon winning a civil trial and a $16 million award against the station, Dreyer dropped that request.
.
As a former broadcaster turned Public Interest advocate, I believed the FCC, which hasn't actually revoked a broadcasters' license in anyone's memory, needed to make a statement to the radio industry. Because the airwaves belong to the public, and since radio spectrums are so scarce (there are only so many frequencies in any one geographic area, therefore competition is extremely limited), broadcasters make a deal with We the People: they may operate only if they "serve the public interest."
.
Having covered the trial, I learned that KDND lured listeners into a contest the station knew was deadly, then obfuscated that threat, then made fun of contestants as they became violently ill, then abandoned Jennifer Strange after she cried for help. Then, upon learning Mrs. Strange had died, chose to call attorneys rather than other contestants who may have needed medical attention.
Was that "serving the public interest"? Clearly not. The DMV takes drivers' licenses for reckless driving; if ever there was a case for denying a broadcaster's license, this was it. Otherwise, why have licensing or a process for revoking it at all?

New FCC Will Determine Your Internet Speed

August, 2017
This article is still accessible online at the Sacramento Bee, but in case it disappears, read below what is at stake when we talk about "Net Neutrality." With President Trump leading the way, the government may well allow corporations to throttle free speech on the internet just as they have on our publicly owned radio airwaves.
.
Takeaway: Net neutrality means keeping the Internet as it has been since its inception. You may make a comment at the FCC until August 30, 2017.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/california-forum/article2674439.html#storylink=cpy


UPCOMING FCC DECISION WILL DETERMINE YOUR INTERNET SPEED

You’re enjoying your weekend java, wanting to learn what happened at last week’s school board meeting. Your local newspaper doesn’t cover that beat, but a local blogger does a good job, so you try to pull his site up on your laptop. Meanwhile, your 5-year-old opens up “Sesame Street” on her iPad, and on his, your teenage son is bringing up “Spider-Man” on Netflix. You instantly hear the sounds of “Spider-Man,” but your daughter is getting impatient, as her show hasn’t yet appeared. In another minute, the “Sesame Street” theme song finally plays, but your school board blog still isn’t up. You get another cup of coffee and wait. And wait. And wait. Finally, the site fills your screen.
.
This is what the Internet will look like if the Federal Communications Commission does not pass strict “Net neutrality” rules. While opponents have painted Net neutrality as government takeover of the Internet, it is actually meant to prevent a corporate takeover of free speech on the Web. Net neutrality means keeping the Internet as it has been since its inception, with users paying their Internet service provider a fee to access the Internet, and then freely choosing what to watch, hear, read or post – with no outside interference. Proponents include Google, Microsoft, AOL, Mozilla, eBay and thousands of small businesses. There is very little opposition to Net neutrality – except from the giant Internet service providers themselves.
.
Verizon, ATT, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are among the chief opponents of the current model. They are now the largest Internet service providers and have devised a more profitable model (for themselves) called “paid prioritization.” They want to charge higher fees to content providers (writers, moviemakers, application developers) who have the means to pay. Those providers who cannot pay more will suffer slower speeds.

Battling the Genesis of "Alternative Facts" in Our Communities - NOW!

 January 28, 2017
Congratulations to Devil's Advocate for getting on the air in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to counter the right-wing "alternate facts" out out on our publicly owned airwaves every day! Now El Dorado Hills, CA has an opportunity to get it's own low power FM station. Going back into the archives, here is why it is important:
.
FEDERAL RULES GIVE CORPORATION BACKED CONSERVATIVE RADIO ALL THE LOCAL VOICES
.
originally published by the Sacramento Bee, May 11, 2008
.
    There's a mournful hush in Sacramento these days, the empty sound of an entire political viewpoint quieted. More than 32,000 weekly listeners who once tuned to KSAC (1240 AM) to hear partisan Democrats beat up on President George W. Bush, now hear only Christian hip-hop.
.
There's nothing wrong with Christian hip-hop; it's a great outlet for artists breaking out of the gangsta rap mold. But there are six other commercial radio stations licensed in the Sacramento area programming the Christian message. In the political realm, three local radio stations program 264 hours of partisan Republican radio talkers beating up on Democrats every week. Now, zero stations program any Democratic view whatsoever: 264-0.
.
     This follows the national trend revealed in the 2007 Free Press and Center for American Progress study, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio." Nationally, 90 percent of commercial talk radio is conservative; only 10 percent is liberal. (This study does not include Public Radio, which by statute is required to provide differing points of view. One is as likely to hear a Republican's views as a Democrat's. And NPR hosts don't beat up on anybody.)
.
     KSAC shared another characteristic with other liberal radio stations: It had a tiny, 1,000-watt transmitter. Tough for a little station that barely reached Sacramento's suburbs to compete with 50,000 watt giant KFBK, whose signal stretches from Chico to Modesto, from Reno to that little town of San Francisco. Despite KFBK reaching millions more potential listeners, KSAC mustered an audience nearly 20 percent that of KFBK's. (Its ratings were double local conservative station KTKZ, which has a 5,000-watt transmitter.) And Arbitron showed the progressive station's audience was steadily growing. KSAC was the little station that could.
.
Until it couldn't.

Bill Maher: Here's the Fix for Fact Free Media

November 8, 2016
.
I’m a fan of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” but Friday night, for the umpteenth time, I wanted to reach right through the TV screen and shake somebody. 
.
How the media is destroying our country is one of Bill Maher’s favorite topics, and he’s right about it. But this time, it wasn’t just Maher deriding the collapse of facts, it was everybody on the show: funny man Martin Short, liberal Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Neo-conservative writer David Frum, and even President Barack Obama: “How do we create a common space where truth gets eyeballs… and we can create a common conversation?” Yet not one of them had any clue about how we got to this point or what to do next.
.
AAAUUUGGGHHHH! (beating head against wall…)
.

For twenty years I have been sounding the alarm that our very democracy is at stake due to pro-fascist changes in broadcast media policy. Changes in policy which made one-sided conversations the norm. Changes in Law which allow a handful of corporations to control those one-sided conversations. Changes which have allowed a determined faction to replace fact with fiction. Changes which came about with the stroke of a pen in 1987 and again in 1998, and now, on the eve of the Trump/ Clinton election, we’re all just waking up to it.

Brainwashing Trumps Reason

March 17, 2016

I’d like to punch him in the face.” Fighting words from presidential contender Donald Trump  that foreboded real violence at Trump rallies, manifesting last Friday at the University of Illinois Chicago, and first in North Carolina, where Trump supporter John McGraw first sucker punched peaceful protestor Rakeen Jones in the face, then told a news reporter later, “Yes, he deserved it, the next time we see him, we might have to kill him. 
“We don't condone violence,” Trump told Fox News’ about the incident, “but the kid did, from what I hear, stick up a certain finger right in everybody's face. And this man has had enough, because I'll tell you what, people in this country are very angry. What about Chicago? Did his incendiary language cause the clashes at the U of Illinois? "I don't think so," Trump argued. "I represent a lot of people who have great anger."
.
Anger? You bet there’s anger. But as revealed by Jen Senko’s new documentary “The Brainwashing of My Dad,” it is faux anger, caused by more than a generation of propaganda stemming from a coordinated far right takeover of media – and brains.
.

THE BRAINWASHING OF MY DAD  - Trailer from Jen Senko on Vimeo.
THE BRAINWASHING OF MY DAD  - Trailer from Jen Senko on Vimeo.
.

Those familiar with my work know I’ve dealt with government policies which allow corporate media giants to take over our airwaves with lies painted as “news.” But in “Brainwashing,” Senko goes deeper into the historical underpinnings of far right media indoctrination and the virtual brainwashing of family members and society. Senko’s film shows over time how her open-minded Kennedy Democrat father transformed into a raging right-winger after excessive exposure to Talk Radio and Fox News. Says Senko, "What I mean by brainwashing is that people like my dad have become so taken over by right-wing media and its disinformation campaign, that they speak, vote and even act against their own interests - even against the very core of who they are.”

Trump and Cruz: Will Somebody Sue Already?

February 29, 2016
originally posted at BradBlog.com

One of them could do us all a great favor by holding broadcasters accountable in a way that We the People cannot...
.
 Republican Presidential contenders Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are at war over what they charge to be false political ads against each other. It's one battle in this bizarre and contentious campaign year which could actually benefit us all.
.
The Cruz campaign has been running a series of attack ads about Trump's position on abortion, which Politifact reviewed and described as "flawed." In response to what he calls Cruz' "lying ads", Trump has threatened to file a suit charging that Cruz, who was born in Canada, may not be eligible for the Presidency.
.
Meanwhile, a SuperPAC called the American Future Fund ran an attack ad against Cruz calling him "weak" on defense, which the group Fact Check reviewed and found to be "misleading." Cruz' response was to have his attorneys write a sternly worded letter to the TV stations running the ad against him, demanding they pull it, citing FCC public interest obligations and more.
.
"Because this advertisement makes a flatly false factual claim for which your station is ultimately liable," the Cruz attorneys wrote, "we strongly urge you to exercise your discretion as a licensee to refuse to continue to broadcast this advertisement, and, because it is already airing, immediately pull the advertisement from your rotation."
.
In this case, the Cruz attorneys are right, at least in regard to the legal issues at stake...
Why is Cruz going after the TV stations, but Trump is going after Cruz personally? Trump can't sue Cruz over a "lying" campaign ad, because there's no law against candidates lying on air. Therefore, he's threatening litigation on the separate issue of Cruz' birthplace. (Whether we like it or not, any Federal candidate who runs their own "I approve this message" ad on TV or radio is free to lie to the public as much as he or she likes. Broadcasters are legally not allowed to vet candidates' ads for fictitious statements, and stations are required to run those false ads over our public airwaves.)

Rush Limbaugh Stepped Into It This Time

 June 10, 2015
.
Rush Limbaugh stepped into it this time.
.
The most popular radio host in America is famous for spreading lies, propaganda, misogyny, and hate over our publicly owned airwaves. But the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the public interest in broadcasting, has consistently stood by Limbaugh's First Amendment right to say whatever he wants, no matter how many people he harms or offends.
.
Until, perhaps, now.