Earlier this week it was announced that Regent Communications, the 11th largest radio conglomerate in the US, has filed for bankruptcy. The Grand Rapids Press reported on Monday that filing for bankruptcy will cause restructuring of the company.
Regent Communications owns five radio stations in the Grand Rapids market – WLHT-FM (95.7), WGRD-FM (97.9), WTRV-FM (100.5), WFGR-FM (98.7) and WNWZ 1410 AM. The Press article stated, “Day-to-day operations will continue without interruption and no changes will be made to senior leadership.” So, senior leadership will not be affected, but what does this restructuring mean for on air staff and other non-management workers?
According to the Future of Music Coalition, there has been a well-documented trend that as media ownership is consolidated and restructured that local radio stations have downsized their staff. The major consolidation in radio ownership began in 1996 after the Federal Communications Commission deregulated media ownership rules with the passing of the Telecom Act. Radio consolidation and restructuring continues to impact the radio broadcasting market, as is evidenced in the 2009 State of the Media report.
Like the Press article’s focus on Regent Communication’s ability to operate is framed as purely as an economic issue, an article on Media Daily News looks primarily at the radio company’s stock value.
Unfortunately, readers of the Grand Rapids Press are not informed about what the bankruptcy of Regent Communications means in terms of radio programming in Grand Rapids. Very little of the programming on Regent’s 5 area radio stations has any local focus. There are no local news programs, but there are syndicated shows like Bob & Tom. This is the failure of the news coverage on this issue in that it does not raise issues about how Regent’s radio stations are serving the public interest of West Michigan.
Michael Moore on the Democrats, Capitalism and Glen Beck
Here is a short video with Michael Moore on The Young Turks political talk show. Moore talks about capitalism, another financial collapse, the Democrats and Glen Beck.
This Story is re-posted from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
By Megan Tady
The real fight to watch isn’t on television—Conan vs. Leno, Olbermann vs. O’Reilly. Rather, it’s about television, and the future of online video—a fight that pits cable and content companies against consumers.
Instead of being glued to our favorite shows, we’d be wise to pay attention to the various battles, mergers and backroom deals happening between big media corporations who are trying desperately to cling to a sinking broadcast media model—and pull the public down with them.
Cable and broadcast companies see the writing on the wall, and it no longer spells “media empire.” Although a majority of Americans are still watching television—clocking in an average of five hours of viewing a day (Nielsen Wire, 5/20/09)—people are increasingly switching off the tube and using their computers and laptops to watch their favorite shows, as well as to find alternative programming. Options like TiVo and DVR have given us the blessed ability to skip over advertisements. And advertising companies are jumping ship, heading over to the Internet or simply not placing ads in a market that can no longer guarantee as many eyeballs.
Thanks to the Internet’s open platform, anyone can create and share video, meaning we’re no longer tethered to traditional media gatekeepers who decide what’s entertaining and who gets the spotlight. We’re also realizing that we can cancel our hefty cable subscriptions and still watch the Daily Show online—for free. It’s a Pandora’s box that media corporations are trying to sit on top of while the public wrenches the lid up from below.
These new trends threaten the old media model, and cable and broadcast companies are hatching various plans to keep their stranglehold on content, control and profit—all to the detriment of consumers. If they get their way, we’ll likely see higher prices, fewer choices, worse programming and a slow stifling of online video innovation.
Here are three developments worth paying attention to:
1. Time Warner Cable vs. Fox/News Corp.
The deal long accepted by the TV broadcasters and their affiliates was that they’d get free use of the public airwaves, and in return they’d give the public free programming—making their money by interspersing the shows with ads. With overall ad spending down in a tight economy, the networks have been looking for a new profit model—and enviously eyeing the cable companies’ ability to get audiences to pay money for the privilege of watching ad-filled TV (New York Times, 2/23/07).
Accordingly, News Corp’s Fox Broadcasting recently demanded that cable company Time Warner Cable (an independent company spun off by Time Warner in 2009) pay $1 per subscriber in exchange for delivering Fox programming to viewers. In response, TWC threatened to stop airing Fox altogether. The squabble erupted into a public showdown, with both sides creating ridiculous websites (KeepFoxOn.com, RollOverGetTough.com) hoping to pull consumers into their camps, and leaving those in TWC markets to wonder if they’d ever see American Idol again (New York Times, 12/29/09). In early January, the two companies came to a quiet agreement, not disclosing the details of the settlement (Boston Globe, 1/2/10).
What does this mean for consumers? Cable providers have long negotiated deals to carry cable channels like ESPN and MTV—largely owned by the same companies that own the broadcast networks—paying monthly fees that are passed on to subscribers in ever-increasing cable bills. As cable companies start to pay for over-the-air channels as well (programming that viewers could get for free just by turning off their cable and hooking up an antenna), don’t expect them to just eat those costs. The same day TWC announced its agreement with Fox, it also announced new rate increases (New York Times, 1/4/10).
With the consumer footing the bill, a natural question arises: Why can’t we just pay for the channels we want, rather than being subjected to these types of shenanigans? An a la carte cable system, where cable networks publish a per-channel rate card, would let subscribers pay only for the channels they choose, rather than being used as pawns in corporate negotiations. But both the networks and the cable companies enjoy the profits from having viewers as a captive audience with take-it-or-leave-it bundled cable packages.
An a la carte system, of course, would not necessarily prevent a similar situation from arising; cable operators would still have to pay broadcasters to carry their channels, and those costs would still get passed onto consumers. However, at least those extra costs would be for channels that consumers actually choose to purchase—not for ones they have had foisted on them whether they want them or not.
2. TV Everywhere
The unrelenting cable bill hikes, of course, only increase the attraction of online video. One way to keep consumers paying for TV content is to put barriers around it—which is exactly what cable, satellite and phone companies are conspiring to do.
They’ve launched a sunny-sounding plan called TV Everywhere, playing up the idea that consumers will get to watch their favorite shows anywhere they choose—that is, if they continue to pay for their expensive cable TV service. Companies like TWC and Comcast are making deals with content companies like TBS and TNT to Rapunzel their programming—locking it behind a paywall that only cable TV subscribers can access. The idea is to force consumers to keep their cable subscriptions if they want to view popular TV programming online (Washington Post, 1/4/10).
This also means that third-party online video companies trying to compete with the cable, satellite and phone monoliths will be unable to provide popular programming. Not just goodbye Hulu—goodbye to all the online video applications and original content we haven’t even imagined yet.
In January, on the heels of a report by the media reform organization I work for, Free Press (1/10), that examined TV Everywhere, consumer groups called on Congress and federal antitrust authorities to investigate the possibly illegal industry collusion happening to make the plan a reality.
Marvin Ammori, an assistant professor of law at the University of Nebraska, a senior adviser to Free Press and author of the report, said in a press statement (OC Watchdog, 1/7/10):
This is a textbook antitrust violation. The old media giants are working together to kill off innovative online competitors and carve up the market for themselves. TV Everywhere is designed to eliminate competition at a pivotal moment in the history of television. The antitrust authorities should not stand by and let the cable cartel crush Internet TV before it gets off the ground.
3. Comcast/NBCU merger
If you can’t beat them, take them over. That seems to be Comcast’s approach as it positions itself to take a controlling stake in NBC Universal, giving the cable company power over a major television network and film studio, while retaining its perch as the nation’s largest cable company and residential Internet service provider (L.A. Times, 1/29/10). NBCU owns NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, Universal Studios, 27 local television stations and a handful of other properties.
This mega media merger would have disastrous repercussions for the public (Consumers Union, 1/7/10), giving one company the ability to determine what we watch and how we watch it. With Comcast reigning supreme, we can expect higher prices for cable and Internet service, fewer program choices and far less innovation. The company will be able to prioritize its own shows, leaving local and independent programs to wither. And if TV Everywhere doesn’t kill online video, this merger sure will; Comcast can force subscribers to pay for cable in order to watch NBC shows online, and withhold popular content from other online video sources and innovators (Connected Planet, 12/4/09).
But before the companies could fully ink out a deal, Congress (Pittsburgh Tribune Review , 12/4/09) and the Justice Department (L.A. Times, 1/7/10) announced plans to investigate the proposed merger, and the Senate and House held initial hearings in early February. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), who chairs the Senate antitrust committee that announced the hearing on the merger, told the press (Wrap, 1/20/10), “This acquisition will create waves throughout the media and entertainment marketplace, and we don’t know where the ripples will end.”
Demanding change
This is not to say that all online TV should be free. Or that cable and content companies shouldn’t be thinking about how to stay in business or change with the times. But all three of these recent developments show a disturbing trend toward stagnation and status quo. Forcing customers to retain their rising cable subscriptions in order to watch online TV, colluding to stifle video competition, and holding tight to old media models in which companies peck at each other for more profit (and pass costs down to consumers) means we’re being stuck with a dying dinosaur of a system, and paying a hefty price for it.
Throughout the 20th century, every democratizing revolution in media was co-opted by corporations that squelched its democratic potential in pursuit of profit. Will the same happen with online video and the Internet? Unfortunately, our media monoliths aren’t ready to evolve, and they’re prepared to sabotage content, creativity and innovation to avoid doing so.
TAKE ACTION
Get more information on these issues and learn how you can take action:
The Obama administration has continued a policy by refusing to sign on to an international treaty that would ban the use of landmines. This is a policy that was begun under Bill Clinton and continued throughout George W. Bush’s two terms.
The treaty current has 156 countries signed on, including Russia, China and India. According to writer Conn Hallinan, “The 1999 treaty bans the stockpiling, production, or transferring of anti-personal mines that caused over 5,000 casualties last year, one third of them children. More than 70 countries are infested with them.”
Hallinan also writes that the Obama administration refuses to endorse the treaty to ban cluster weapons.
“A total of 103 governments worldwide have signed the agreement, but ratification is still working its way through various legislatures and parliaments. Some 30 nations have ratified it, however, elevating the treaty to the level of international law.
The U.S., Russia, and China are the major producers of cluster weapons, and they are stockpiled in at least 77 countries. A number of countries, including Japan and Australia, have destroyed their stocks.
Cluster weapons have a high failure rate—30 percent is not unusual—and the unexploded bomblets lie in wait for unwary civilians. Some 90 million cluster weapons were dropped on tiny Laos during the war in Southeast Asia, and the weapons continue to kill and maim between 100 and 200 people a year.”
According to the US Campaign to ban landmines, “The U.S. has not used antipersonnel landmines since 1991, has not exported them since 1992 and has not produced them since 1997. However, the U.S. currently maintains a stockpile of 10.4 million antipersonnel landmines in U.S. arsenals.
U.S. participation is important to the universalization of the treaty. Even though landmine use has been significantly reduced worldwide, a few countries refuse to join—and even continue to use landmines—under the cover that they will not join if the U.S. has not joined.”
The US Campaign to Ban Landmines is asking people to contact the White House and urge the Obama administration to sign on to the treaty.
Love Your Body Event at GVSU
Last night about 100 students attended an event at the GVSU Allendale campus hosted by the Women’s Center. The event included a screening of the documentary Beauty Mark, followed by a discussion with 3 panelists.
The documentary, produced by the Media Education Foundation, is an investigation of the social construction of the beauty norm in the US. Filmmaker Diane Israel looks at this issue by examining her own personal struggle with not being comfortable with her own body. (The film is available locally at the Bloom Collective)
After the film there was a discussion with Julia Mason with the Women & Gender Studies Department of GVSU and Gail Hall, a local therapist who works with people struggling with eating disorders. GRIID was also invited to sit on the panel and talk about what role the media and popular culture plays in this issue.
There were not a lot of questions from the audience, in part I suspect, because the film challenged all of us to come to terms with the issues around body image. All of us, no matter what our backgrounds are, are confronted with the pressures to not accept our bodies they way they are. The culture projects a desire to achieve physical perfection, quite often a perfection that is very homogenous.
In addition, the mass media perpetuates this quest for perfection by presenting us with socially constructed images of beauty that are literally manufactured. The Dove Foundation’s video entitled Evolution, wonderfully illustrates how beauty is manufactured in today’s media world.
One of the things we discussed last night after the film, were the consequences of the social, cultural and media pressures to look a certain way. One of the main consequences of these pressures is that people develop eating disorders. According to the Eating Disorders Coalition roughly 11 million people in the US suffer from eating disorders and that anorexia is the third most common chronic illness amongst adolescents.
Gail stressed them importance of talking with friends who we suspect have an eating disorder, but to do it with compassion and in a non-judgmental way. “We need to see that over coming eating disorders is not a one time decision, but a process that can takes years.”
In fact, GVSU Women’s Center hosted another session on just this topic, how to approach someone you think has an eating disorder. This session, like the film, was part of a week of activities that the center has organized around the theme of Loving Your Body. The Center also provides online resources and an ongoing opportunity for students and faculty to feel like they have a safe space to come and talk about these issues and get the support they need to become a better person.
This article comes from the Center for Media & Democracy.
The pro-health care reform group Health Care for America Now has released a study that contradicts insurance companies’ claims that their recent, exorbitant rate hikes were driven by increases in the cost of medical care. The study shows that over the last eight years premiums have almost doubled, while medical inflation only increased by 40 percent.
HCAN found that insurance companies are raising their rates more than 20% faster than the amount they are paying out to doctors, and twice as fast as their underlying costs of medical care are rising. In short, insurance companies are hiking premium prices much more quickly than their costs are increasing.
HCAN also found that insurance companies are spending the extra money on perks. For example, Anthem spent $27 million on 103 executive retreats to locations like Hawaii in 2007 and 2008 alone. From 2000 to 2008, insurance companies spent $716.4 billion of their premium dollars on administrative costs, salaries for their CEOs, and investor profit — practically enough to fund the entire health reform bill.
US Militarization of Colombian
It was announced last August that the US government was in negotiations with the government of Colombia to give the US access to several military bases. Now there is information from a variety of sources that the agreement may include another attempt to get Colombia to sign a trade agreement with the US.
The School of the America’s Watch recently posted a story about the current status of this base agreement between the US and Colombia. The article states that with this new base agreement, “The United States thereby increased its ties to the military known for the worst human rights abuses in the Western Hemisphere and is a troubling indication of what can be expected of the Obama Administration and its promise of change.
The Obama Administration’s decision to extend US military muscle to an extent previously unknown threatens to destabilize the entire region. Yes, South American countries have had their border skirmishes and brief armed conflicts, but American bases create a scenario for what could potentially be a major war on the continent. At the same time, the US presence will lead Colombia’s neighbors to respond to this anxiety by buying more weapons and raising more national armies. Colombia, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador, and Peru will spend on their militaries the money that could and should go to improving the quality of life for all their citizens.
The agreement represents more of the inevitable failure that comes from policies that rely on the military paradigm. In Colombia, as in Afghanistan, military might has failed and is destined to fail. In neither country can the military put a dent in drug trafficking. In both countries, a weak central government has little or no presence–except for military presence–in much of the country and fails to provide even basic services. Military action inspires insurgency and resistance, while warlords and corrupt government officials continue to profit from war.”
With all of the attention focus on the Middle East and Central Asia the Obama administration has been able to further militarize this hemisphere without much resistance. For an indepth investigation into what this military agreement between the US and Colombia means, check out this story from Al Jazeera news.
Media Coverage of the 2nd Ward Candidate Interviews
Yesterday, five candidates for the Grand Rapids Second Ward City Commission seat, which was vacated by David LaGrand, had interviews with the Mayor and the other 5 City Commissioners.
Two TV stations were present for the two and one-half hour interview process where each candidate was given 30 minutes to respond to pre-determined questions that the City Commission provided for each of the candidates ahead of time.
WZZM 13 only stated that there were interviews and gave the names of each candidate, but no information about how the interviews went or how candidates responded. WXMI 17 only included the names of the candidates and a comment from Third Ward Commissioner Elias Lumpkins on what he thought about the process. The local Fox affiliate also told viewers that there were other dates set for public hearings on the next step in the process to chose another candidate for the 2nd Ward.
The Grand Rapids Press had the longest story of any local media, with reporter Jim Harger at least providing a short summary of each other five candidate’s interview, but as with the other news agencies you wouldn’t know from reading the Press what kinds of questions were asked of the candidates.
This writer was present for the whole interview process and some of the questions asked of candidates were as follows: What are some of the strengths you would bring to the Commission; What Leadership Style do you possess; What do you consider to be the priorities of the City of Grand Rapids; What would you do to encourage more regional cooperation; How would you deal with the budget deficit; What activity or event have you been involved in that promotes diversity; What would you consider to be a recent success story in Grand Rapids; What assets does the 2nd Ward have; How would you deal with Labor Disputes involving City staff; How would you retain young professionals in the City of Grand Rapids; and how would you resolve a conflict between the city and neighborhood residents over a proposed street widening project?
It seemed to this writer that the questions were pretty typical and framed within the boundaries of the status quo. Therefore, most of the answers were limited and what one might expect with such questions. There were a few exceptions, however.
When asked about priorities for the City, Michael Booker said he would make it a priority to end homelessness in the City, a concern that no one else even addressed in the interview process.
The only other response by a candidate that fell outside of the status quo was when candidate Eric Foster suggested that the City involve residents in the budget process at a deeper level. Foster suggested that the City encourage people to engage in what is called participatory budgeting, a process where citizens take an active role in determining how their community tax dollars are spent. Foster seemed to be quite familiar with this process and cited example of where it is being used across the country right now.
The Mayor and the Commissioners will narrow the field down to three candidates and then hold pubic hearings to get input from residents before hosting a second interview process, wherein they will chose one of the candidates on April 13.
Media Bites – Clean Coal?
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at a recent commercial that is part of a campaign by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy, a coal and energy industry lobby group that is trying to counteract the impact of grassroots organizing against coal mining and coal burning.
New Video on Blackwater in Afghanistan
Last week we posted a story about private mercenary company formerly known as Blackwater basically stealing weapons from a US military depot in Afghanistan. Here is a new video from Rethink Afghanistan that looks at Blackwater’s recent contracts in Afghanistan while they continue to be accused of serious human rights abuses.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 