Why Did Donna Brazile Use the F-word in Oprah's Magazine?

October 16, 2010

In the October issue of O magazine, the DCCC's Donna Brazile did the unthinkable:  she used the "F" word - in Oprah Winfrey's publication, no less.  Eyebrows are being raised across the political spectrum.

Okay, not that "F" word, but one that is far more controversial:  Brazile says her top priority is to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine." She says she'd like to require "holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable, and balanced fashion."

To the uninitiated, bringing Fairness to the public airwaves – radio and TV - is a no-brainer.  But to Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and an army of 550,000 amassed to keep the nation's radio airwaves under "Conservative" control, this could be a call to arms.  Is it possible that the Democratic establishment is finally ready for a fight to take control of their message?

Okay, time for a bit of history. 

Our elders will remember a time when radio was America's number one source of news and information.   And they remember being horrified at how Tokyo Rose and our enemies used the radio to promote hate and propaganda. 

So they watched as the Federal Communications Commission and radio station owners worked together to prevent propaganda from ever being broadcast in these United States of America.  This coaltion of government and business put the "Fairness Doctrine" in place to ensure a healthy, reasoned discourse so critical to our democracy. 

The thing is, radio is still America's number one source of news and information.   . More people listen to radio than watch television, read newspapers, or go online.   Nearly fifty million people in the U.S. listen to talk radio.

But Fairness?  Equal Time? Reasoned discourse?  Those went out the window in 1987 with – drumroll, please – President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was, of course, a consummate media man.  Not simply the star of B movies like "Bedtime for Bonzo," Reagan also hosted television's "GE Theater."  The so-called "Great Communicator" then went on to become President of the Screen Actors Guild, profiting from programs while robbing actors of royalties.  

More than any president before or since, Reagan understood the power of TV and radio.  So it's no coincidence that President Ronald Reagan, by fiat, eliminated fairness in broadcasting.  He knew what would happen if one side – his side – could control the message. 

(It's interesting to note that after Reagan's action, both houses of Congress immediately passed bills – co-sponsored by Newt Gingrich - to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.  But both Reagan and George Bush the First vetoed those bills.  For the 2009 documentary film I made on this topic, "Broadcast Blues," Gingrich refused to answer questions about why he's changed his tune.  No great surprise: put simply, Gingrich must understand that Republicans can win elections only if they can control Radio.) 

And control it they do, and not just by promoting unfair one-sided propaganda and hate to the exclusion of all other ideas (and facts.)  In 1996, Republicans passed an Act of Congress so a few pro-GOP corporations could own all the nation's radio stations to spread their lies.   By 2007, according to a Free Press /Center for American Progress study, 90% of talk radio was conservative; that study was done before the downfall of Air America Radio, so it's likely that today 95% of the country has no opportunity to hear a progressive or Democratic message.   

Think about that.  Just five percent of the nation can hear the Democratic message on the most dominant form of media in the country.  Small wonder that Democrats have been complaining they can't get their message out; they don’t have access to the microphones. 

This paradigm is not about ratings.  I've debunked that theory  both in Broadcast Blues and McClatchy's Sacramento Bee, only to draw the ire of Rush Limbaugh.  (Wish I had his microphone.)  And it is not accidental.  According to former right wing author turned conservative misinformation critic David Brock of Media Matters, the "Conservative Movement" is lying to the country intentionally.  

It's created a culture shift, especially in midwestern and Blue Dog states.  For example, in what was once Gephardt country, former Missouri Democrats turned Republican now hush progressive views in local meetings from AA to the PTA.   The fictional oral history promoted by Talk Radio has turned into group think;  group think has turned into Tea Parties. 

So why is Brazile starting to talk about the Fairness Doctrine? 

Perhaps because there are only three ways to restore true fairness and balance to the publicly owned radio airwaves. 

First, local communities could challenge stations' licenses through the FCC.  There is a movement going on to do just that,  but it's not likely to work on issues of talk radio, at least not yet.

Congress could rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act  so persons – corporate or real -  can own only 40 stations nationwide, as they did in 1995, rather than 1200, as they can today.  Any bets on that happening, especially if Republicans take control of Congress? 

Or President Obama could take a cue from the Reagan administration and bring back elements of the Fairness Doctrine:  Equal Time, no personal attacks, free airtime for political candidates, local community programming.  Imagine what that would do for democracy.  (Imagine the outcry from the Conservative Elite!  That's what scaring Dems so.)

One thing is certain:  We the People are ready to do battle on this issue.

Democrats, are you?


--------------------
Shameless plug:  I'm coordinating a new effort to empower communities to hold local radio and TV stations accountable by challenging their licenses.  Please vote here to bring this session to Free Press' National Media Reform Conference!

Thank You for Voting for Real Media Reform!

Thanks to you, my suggested session for the Free Press National Media Reform Conference, "Empowering Local Communities by Holding the FCC Accountable" received the most votes in the competition in the Politics and Policy track!  This means it is very likely that we will be holding this panel, which is the first step to reminding the FCC who they work for:  We the People. 

     We will focus on creating a national, managed, publicized means of challenging broadcasters' licenses nationwide, working with existing regional media reform groups and Community TV and Radio.  It will be a brainstorming session to bring interested parties and funders together to create a new FCC Empowerment Project which will truly put the Public Interest back ahead of the corporate interest in broadcasting.

     We will use the case of the Sacramento Entercom station which killed a mother of three in a reckless water drinking contest as the initial case; that will garner nationwide publicity and will pressure the FCC to act in removing KDND's license. 
     The FCC has ignored We the People for long enough; it is time to get their attention on this critical issue of broadcast licenses.  Don't forget, stations get licenses for free - only if they serve the Public Interest. 

     Please see the Murder by Radio story - below on this blog - to learn why this case is so important. 

The full list of proposed sessions can be found here, see what other sessions are likely to be in the April Conference: http://agenda.freepress.net/

We the People are Taking the Media Back!

THANK YOU AGAIN!  

FCC Doesn't Need No Stinking Rules.................... but "Murder by Radio" has Got to Stop!

September 7, 2010

Wow.   The FCC just fined a radio station $4,000 for getting a date wrong in some radio contest rules.  If that infraction is worth four grand, whatever will  the FCC do to the
station which killed someone because it failed to give contestants any rules at all?

Will the FCC find that such a 'murder-by-radio' did not, in fact, serve the "public interest" which broadcasters are supposed to uphold in exchange for their free license to use our public airwaves?

DJs at Nassau Broadcasting's WWEG-FM, "106.9 The Eagle" in Myerson, MD had broadcast rules that a Father's Day contest would be open "through June 13, 2008." But the contest actually ended June 12, apparently depriving would be contestants of their right to enter. Two years later, the FCC is punishing WWEG for violation of Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which state that broadcast licensees must "fully and accurately disclose the material terms" of any contests that it conducts, and "conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised."

Okay. Let's now contrast that swift accountability in the public's interest, against what happened when Sacramento's Entercom Communications station, KDND, the unfortunately nicknamed "107.9 The End", didn't follow its own rules when it ran a water drinking contest which resulted in the January 2007 death of a mother of three, Jennifer Strange. This is a case where a jury found the station liable for Strange's death, awarding her family more than $16 million, even as the corporation who has been granted the broadcast license has yet to face a single sanction from the FCC…

Upon reading comments about the award, I find that public opinion is leaning heavily against the family; most people seem to think that Jennifer was stupid for drinking two gallons of water, and is responsible for her own death. Of course, most people did not sit through the trial. I did. Here's what really happened…

It was bad enough that just a month before they sponsored the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest, the "Morning Rave" DJs went on the air and made fun of the death of Matthew Carrington. Carrington was a 21 year old college student at Chico State who died in a fraternity hazing incident from - guess what? Drinking too much water. "Water Intoxication," they call it.

Even on the fateful morning of the Wii contest, "Morning Rave" host Trish Sweet said ,"Can't you get water poisoning and like, die?" To which Peter Inzerillo (gag guy "Fester") started talking about "that poor kid who died," only to be cut off by the other on-air hosts. (Contestants were sequestered in the lunchroom and were not allowed to hear those remarks, or the listeners calling in to warn the on-air personalities of the pending danger of hyponatremia.)

So the DJs clearly knew they were promoting a dangerous stunt; they just did not bother to tell the contestants of the danger. And so the issue of "contest rules" became the lynch-pin of Plaintiff attorney Roger Dreyer's case.

See, KDND had a release form, and it also had contest rules, but those two documents were not the same. When contestants walked into Entercom's lobby that cold January 2007 morning, they were handed a generic "Release for All Claims Including Personal Injury" form to sign, which was so vague that the judge instructed the jury that under California law, that document was insufficient to constitute a waiver.

But Promotions Director Robin Pechota had drafted a set of contest rules that said "participants acknowledge participation may be hazardous and involve physical contact." That set of rules, however, was kept hidden. Station manager Steve Weed testified he'd never considered giving rules which actually spelled out hazards of the contest - to the contestants.

Those rules also indicated that contestants would drink eight ounces of water every fifteen minutes. (Last one to hold their wee - wins!) Problem was, too many people were holding their wee, and the morning drive program was scheduled to end, so the DJs (and possibly the promotions department) took it on themselves to change the rules, more than doubling the amount of water contestants would drink. This, they reasoned, would get people peeing much quicker, and the contest would end while their show was still on the air.

Trouble is, eight ounces of water every fifteen minutes is considered safe; twice that amount is deadly.

You would think they would have figured that out as contestant after contestant fell ill, suffering severe headaches and vomiting into wastebaskets, all while the callous KDND staff took their pictures. Even after the contest, when Mrs. Strange told the Morning Rave crew she was too ill to drive home, they abandoned her to the station's lobby.

She did drive home, then died alone in her house a few hours later.

Oh yes, then there was the rule that in any contest involving physicality, medical personnel be present. None were.

This is a case where radio contest rules really mattered.

So if getting a date wrong in a radio contest rule is worth $4,000, what's this reckless violation of the public trust --- one that resulted in the actual death of a contestant --- worth? How about stripping KDND of its broadcast license? In theory, broadcasters get licensed only if they serve the "public interest;" surely there was no public interest being served in this case resulting in the death of one of its listeners who participated in one of its on-air contests.

FCC rules say there must be a pattern of activity to strip a broadcaster of its license. Does that mean KDND will have to become a serial killer to pay the ultimate price?

FCC, we the people are watching you closely on this one.

Full coverage of the Strange v Entercom trial is at www.suewilsonreports.com  

Florida: Weak Election Audits Only, Thank You.

August 5, 2010

In Sarasota, Florida today, a four year long battle over real election accountability has come to a bitter end.   

Way back in January, 2006,  Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections started gathering petitions to qualify a charter amendment to appear on the November ballot, calling for paper ballots and mandatory audits of those ballots to verify proper functioning of voting machines within Sarasota County. They succeeded, but in August 2006, the battle began: Sarasota County Commissioners, the Supervisor of Elections, and the Florida Secretary of State joined together to file a lawsuit against SAFE, positing that the measure conflicted with state law and therefore their election accountability measure should not appear on Sarasota's ballot.  SAFE won that case in September 2006, the referendum went on the ballot, and the measure easily passed with the help of voters of all political parties.

Current Florida law allows for only two percent of precincts to be audited, and the audit could apply to as little as only one item on the ballot.  (And that's only after election results had been certified, when it's too late to change the results.)   

Sarasota County's charter measure put real teeth into election accountability:  it required an audit of 5 percent of precincts to be completed before certification.   The audit was to be performed independently, and would include every item on the ballot.  

But in the land of hanging chads, state election officials challenged the will of the voters in a protracted court fight which went all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.  The good news for voters was that in February of this year, the high court decided in favor of Sarasota's rigorous election audits.

But lawmakers, spurred on by election officials, went back to the drawing board, and in April, just two days before the end of the legislative session, passed a sweeping elections bill, preempting counties from having more rigorous election standards than the state.  Again a court battle ensued, again a ruling issued, this time by Circuit Judge Charles Roberts, who this time sided with the state.

Today, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections decided to throw in the towel over its court case, but met with the Sarasota Board of County Commissioners to get the Commission to adopt a resolution calling for continuing use of voter verified paper ballots for all voters of Sarasota County (as long as they are approved by the Florida Secretary of State.)  The commission voted to move forward on SAFE's request.

SAFE President Kindra Muntz says only the battleground for safer Florida voting  has changed, and that the group will now focus on changing state law to provide for more rigorous voting audits for all of Florida.  "We suffered a setback when the State gave all powers over elections to itself in HB131, but we must press on for verified elections statewide, to preserve democracy in Florida and in this country. Voters need to know their votes count as cast. We need meaningful audits of ballots vs. machine counts at the very least. Democracy can't function with computerized voting and internet voting with no hard copy ballots.  To what anonymous programmer will we be pledging allegiance?"

SAFE is expanding its efforts to call for state and national legislation regarding paper ballots and mandatory audits of machines. 62% of states in the U.S. do require voter verified paper records; 36% require audits.

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.)

See Broadcast Blues Today!

BROADCAST BLUES  

is now available to view for free on You Tube! 

https://youtu.be/peVN7_LZYPM

See the award winning documentary film that is sparking a national grassroots broadcast media reform movement!  (scroll down for trailer)

This 2009 documentary sounded the alarm about purposeful misinformation and its negative effect on our Democracy.  Truly prescient as now seen through the lens of the Trump presidency, Broadcast Blues not only educates us as to why Fake News rules, but encourages people to ACT!


Media Policy - laws and rules which act to the detriment of We the People - is the real problem. Terrible media policy is killing people in this country. Literally. And it is killing our democracy, too. Corporate financed lawmakers have stacked the media policy deck against We the People.

Until now. We the People are Taking the Media Back!


Learn your rights as the owners of our public airwaves by watching Broadcast Blues and reading SueWilsonReports.com.   

Then take real action at Media Action Center, which in 2017 cost Entercom $13.5 million by stripping its license to broadcast in Sacramento.     
  
The film is still available in high quality DVDs. Get your personally signed Director's cut of BroadcastBlues below to help fund our work.

Buy one, or more to raise funds at screenings!

Single DVD $14.95 USD Four DVDs $49.95 USD Ten DVDs $99.95 USD

If you prefer to pay by check, please email me directly at SueWilsonReports@gmail.com .

Listen to the Broadcast Blues Theme Song - performed by the "Don't Tell Clear Channel Band" - for FREE!

Thank you SO MUCH for helping restore our publicly owned airwaves to their true owners, We the People. 
__________________________________


"You've Got a Hit Movie!" ... Melinda Baran, Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival Founder

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.