"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Change for a Quarter -- Creative Voices' Quarterly Update
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"Because original, independent, and diverse creative voices
enrich our nation’s culture and safeguard its democracy."
April 10, 2007
Contents:
* What the FCC is Happening to Free Speech - a Troubling Update
* Net Neutrality Update
* Media Consolidation and Concentration
* Please Help!
==================================================================
What the FCC is Happening to Free Speech - a Troubling Update
==================================================================
Recently, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression awarded the Federal Communications Commission a "Muzzle Award" for its censorship of free speech and expression over our nation's publicly-owned airwaves, explaining that the Commission's reasoning as to what it chose to censor "amounted to little more than 'because we said so.'" Some might think that such an un-coveted "honor," from such a prestigious organization, might persuade responsible public officials to reflect, reconsider, and once again act with appropriate restraint before imposing their own subjective tastes upon what hundreds of millions of Americans view on television.
But, in fact, in addition to censoring "indecent" content, the FCC may soon start censoring "violent" and "graphic" programming, however the Commission might define those extremely subjective terms. Should Congress enact the necessary legislation, which will no doubt be signed by the President, the result will be an exponential and unprecedented increase in the power of the federal government to restrict free speech and expression over the public airwaves.
A recent survey shows 75 percent of Americans think that parents, not the government, should decide what their kids see on TV. Nevertheless, many observers believe politicians will find it tough to vote against "protecting America's children," as the proponents of increased censorship falsely frame the issue. As Creative Voices documented in its report, Big Chill: How the FCC's Indecency Decisions Stifle Free Expression, Threaten Quality Television, and Harm America's Children, the practical effect of the FCC's inconsistent and confusing indecency enforcement has been that broadcasters censor, delay, or drop prestigious, award-winning shows like Eyes on the Prize, Saving Private Ryan, 9/11, and so many others. Peggy Charren, who won the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her longtime efforts to improve the quality of children's television, says, "Many parents want to watch this programming together with their children. By causing quality television to disappear, the FCC has taken a powerful tool out of the hands of parents who use television to open up a dialogue with their kids about controversial topics like violence, poverty, racial disparity, and cultural diversity. Consider how many parents watched Roots with their children and then engaged in a dialogue with them about the issues raised by that provocative program. For the FCC to deny them that opportunity - that's not helping kids, it's harming kids."
Proponents of giving the government the power to censor "violent" and "graphic" content say it is a public health issue; violence in media causes violence in society. But after exhaustively examining the evidence, Professor Craig R. Smith of the First Amendment Center at CSU-Long Beach writes, "the most recent evidence does not support the thesis." And it's interesting to note that from 1996-2005, a time when the Parents Television Council claims the number of violent incidents on TV was up 75 percent, the FBI's crime statistics show violent crime in America was down over 17 percent.
As you may recall from our last quarterly report, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard the broadcast networks, along with Creative Voices as an Intervening Party, argue that the FCC's recent indecency decisions are illegal and unconstitutional. In the opinion of most legal experts, the question was not if the Second Circuit judges would overturn the FCC, but how quickly. Unfortunately, justice has not been swift; the Court still has not decided the case. Which is a shame. Because a Court of Appeals decision that finds that the FCC has acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" in regulating "indecency" might help derail this wrong-headed and ill-considered expansion of the federal government's power to censor.
At Creative Voices, in addition to speaking and writing about the perils of government censorship, we frequently debate its advocates, most recently in a half hour debate televised on C-SPAN, link here, and earlier on CNBC, link here. Like nearly all parents, we have concerns about television programming that is not appropriate for children. The question is what to do about it? Private enterprise and the free market have given concerned parents numerous useful tools to help them avoid objectionable content on TV. Onscreen ratings, the V Chip, channel blocking, and many others have now been supplemented by new tools such as TiVo's "Kid Zone" digital video recorder and Apple TV.
Together, these tools effectively give families the power to program their own television "network." Nevertheless, extremists are pressing to have Congress turn over to a few unknown, unelected, politically appointed government officials the power to decide behind closed doors, often without judicial review, on the basis of "because we said so," what over 300 million Americans will be able to see and hear on the publicly-owned airwaves. To us, that's more than just bad public policy - it's flat out dangerous.
=============================================================
Net Neutrality Update
=============================================================
Net Neutrality suddenly became a very hot topic all across Washington last quarter. With the Democrats taking over control of Congress, legislation was introduced in both chambers, with some Republican sponsorship, to create meaningful safeguards against a takeover of the Internet by the cable and telephone company monopolies that control over 98 percent of the broadband connections in America. ["Net Neutrality" is a policy designed to preserve the power consumers have today to choose what websites they visit, rather than have the monopolists take over that choice for them, based on deals they make with various websites for favored carriage.]
With momentum in Congress building to pass Net Neutrality legislation, the FCC and even the Federal Trade Commission quickly swung into action. The FTC, which has been hostile to Net Neutrality since it emerged as a serious concern, held what it described as a "public workshop on 'Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy.'" In giving heavily "favored carriage" to panelists hostile to NN, the FTC unintentionally but compellingly demonstrated why NN is so necessary; to preserve the ability of citizens to access all viewpoints over the Internet, including those of independent and diverse voices, and then make their own choices, rather than have the government or the cable and telco companies choose for them.
The FCC also mobilized, launching an official "inquiry" into Net Neutrality. An FCC "inquiry" is often a no-deadline, never-ending process that results in no action. As Brooks Boliek noted in The Hollywood Reporter, critics contend that the FCC "majority on the five-member panel is stalling because they don't want to do anything to prevent such big network companies as Comcast or Verizon from turning the Internet into their own personal amusement park" That's spot on; this is little more than an attempt to give NN opponents an argument to fend off calls for meaningful Congressional action to preserve the freedom of consumers to choose what websites they can visit on the Internet.
At Creative Voices, we continue our advocacy in all these arenas, sounding the alarm on the devastating impact that a hostile corporate takeover of the Internet would have on not only creative media artists, but on all Americans seeking independent and diverse viewpoints and voices.
=============================================================
Media Consolidation and Concentration
=============================================================
No surprise here - a review of the hundreds of thousands of comments filed by citizens in the FCC's ongoing media ownership proceeding shows the overwhelming majority oppose any further concentration of ownership of their publicly-owned airwaves.
So, what's an FCC Chairman who wants to allow additional media consolidation and concentration to do?
In 2003, former FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell ignored the nearly three million public comments filed at the FCC, and drastically gutted media ownership limits in a move that would have unleashed a tidal wave of added consolidation and concentration. But Powell's imperious approach to the public's concerns about media concentration backfired disastrously. The Republican-controlled Congress and the Republican President quickly reversed significant elements of Republican Powell's handiwork. In 2004, a federal Appeals Court tossed out the rest. Ultimately, Powell's 2003 media ownership proceeding succeeded only in creating a highly energized media reform movement determined to ensure that the American public had at least some input on the critical question of who owns their valuable airwaves.
Current FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who voted with Powell for the 2003 changes, undoubtedly learned from Powell's history, and is determined not to repeat it. Instead of Powell's "Let Them Eat Cake" strategy in dealing with his opponents, Martin's strategy appears to be "Let Them Talk." Martin's media ownership proceeding is now in its seventh month, with several more public hearings planned, more research reports underway, and no end in sight.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that," as the characters of Seinfeld famously intoned, albeit in a slightly different context. We favor hearings, research, and a thorough record. But we can't help but note that Chairman Martin is an alum of the University of North Carolina, where legendary Tarheel basketball Coach Dean Smith invented the renowned "Four Corners" offense. To those who aren't cognoscenti, in the Four Corners, once Carolina took the lead in a game, the team's players passed, dribbled, and ran all over the court. Yet, they rarely tried to score; indeed, if a player did actually shoot the ball, even if he made the basket, he was often yanked out of the game. Because Coach Smith's goal was not to score points, but to keep the ball away from the opponent, and let the clock tick, tick, tick down until the game was over and the Tarheels were victorious.
Could Ex-Tarheel Martin be adopting his own version of the Four Corners in the media ownership proceeding? With the 2008 presidential campaign already underway, and Martin whispered to have political ambitions of his own in North Carolina, we do wonder how hard he is really trying to bring this media ownership political hot potato proceeding to a conclusion during his tenure as FCC Chair?
At Creative Voices, we're familiar with the Four Corners. Our energetic defense against increased media consolidation and concentration continues. Recently, for example, Creative Voices and other media reform groups urged the FCC to impose a 30 percent limit on the number of America's cable subscribers any single company can control. As Harold Feld of the Media Access Project wrote on the groups' behalf, "When incumbent cable operators can simultaneously announce both record per subscriber profits and a rate increase, 'effective competition' does not exist. When one considers that many of the same large incumbent cable operators consistently rank near the bottom of every customer satisfaction survey, the self-serving assertion of cable operators that 'no real problem exists' and that the Commission therefore 'lacks authority' to impose a 30% limit become laughable."
One small victory in the fight to return independent and diverse voices to America's highly concentrated airwaves should be noted. In the recent FCC settlement of payola allegations with Clear Channel and three other mega-owners of commercial radio stations, the American Association of Independent Music, a group of independent record labels, received a commitment for 8,400 half-hour segments of free airtime for independent record labels and local artists. In addition to airplay, the broadcasters and the independent labels have also negotiated a set of "rules of engagement" that will guide how record company representatives and radio programmers interact. The free airtime would be granted to companies not owned or controlled by one of the nation's four dominant music labels -- Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and EMI Group.
We are exploring whether this could possibly serve as a model for a return of independent producers to broadcast television? For more on why this is an important public policy issue, check out the excellent op-ed that legendary TV producer Chuck Fries, who gave this correspondent one of his first jobs in TV, wrote in his former hometown paper, The Cincinnati Enquirer: "…new rules tilt the balance from the public interest and independent ideas to mass consolidation and corporate control. The independent producer, writer and director have been effectively locked out. The focus has shifted away from local communities and independent voices. The rules that allowed these shifts have helped some very large corporations, but they have hurt creators and communities." Link here.
=============================================================
Please Help!
=============================================================
With the looming government threats to free speech, as well as the ongoing media ownership and net neutrality proceedings, this is an extremely challenging time for Creative Voices. Our resources and capacity are stretched beyond the breaking point, and we need your help. Your contribution to Creative Voices is tax-deductible. Donations can be easily and securely made on our website. Or you can snail mail a check to our address below. Either way, be assured that your contribution will be put to good and careful use. Contributions of $100 or more receive a really cool gift.
And see why the press is writing about our Free Speech Store. Where else can you buy a Woman's Top that warns "Do Not Remove Without Permission of the FCC"? Or a "What the FCC Happened to Free Speech" mouse pad and coffee mug? Or a "Murdoch: It's Australian for Monopoly, Mate!" shirt? Wear your support for free speech and media reform on your sleeve! You can reach the store from our website or blog, or go directly to it at www.cafepress.com/creativevoices
We welcome your comments. And we urge you to pass on this newsletter to others who might be interested in learning more about us. Many thanks for your support.
If you have any questions or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Best, Jon
Jonathan Rintels
Center for Creative Voices in Media
www.creativevoices.us
www.creativevoices.typepad.com (blog)
Center for Creative Voices in Media
1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 100-494
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 747-1712 (voice)
(202) 318-9183 (fax)
jonr@creativevoices.us
Creative Voices' 1Q 2007 Newsletter
