Daily Digest 7/16/2018 (Fake News and Election Hacks)

Benton Foundation

CPB Board of Directors

Government and Communications

President Trump Calls His Criticism Of British Prime Minister 'Fake News'

President Donald Trump denied criticizing British Prime Minister Theresa May on her home soil July 13, despite being quoted in an interview with a British tabloid saying she had gone "the opposite way" and ignoring advice he gave her regarding Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. President Trump declared as "fake news" his criticism of May in an interview in The Sun, although the tabloid itself released a recording of the session. In the interview, President Trump said he would have done Brexit "much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it, but she didn't agree, she didn't listen to me." Instead, he said, May went "the opposite way" and the results have been "very unfortunate." Standing beside her on July 13, President Trump seemed to go out of his way to lavish praise on the British leader, saying "this incredible woman right here is doing a fantastic job." "She's a total professional," Trump said of May. "I told her, 'I want to apologize, because I said such good things about you.' " Trump said May told him, "don't worry, it's just the press." Trump also labeled CNN as "fake news" and refused to take a question from it's correspondent, calling instead on a reporter from Fox News and saying "let's go to a real network."

President Trump blasted reporting from Puerto Rico as ‘fake news.’ Heeding it might have saved lives.

[Commentary] When Hurricane Maria devastated Puerto Rico last fall, President Donald Trump playfully lobbed rolls of paper towels to those taking shelter. What if the reporting on the ground had been taken seriously — as something to be heeded, and reacted to, instead of summarily dismissed? What if the president had pushed for help from wherever it could be found, including from outside the overstressed federal agency?  Reporting exists for a reason. It can provide direct observation, seek out critical information, amplify the words of credible public officials. The FEMA report talks about the dire results of their own lack of “situational awareness.” The early media reporting in Puerto Rico should have served as a crucial alert. But it was branded fake. Worse than being ignored, it was kissed off as wrong. That was dangerous, and probably deadly. The FEMA report — though its details are stunning — tells us largely what we already knew: that the federal response to Maria was sorely lacking. And it will take more than a few rolls of blithely lobbed paper towels to clean up the results.

[Margaret Sullivan was previously the New York Times public editor]. 

White House Correspondents' Association fires back at President Trump over latest media attacks

Margaret Talev, the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, slammed President Donald Trump after he lashed out at the media during his visit to the United Kingdom. “In response to the President lashing out at NBC, CNN and The Sun: Asking smart, tough questions, whether in a presidential press conference or interview, is central to the role a free press plays in a healthy republic,” Talev said. “Given that the president took a question from a CNN reporter in his NATO news conference just a day earlier, maybe he was letting off steam today rather than expressing an official stance toward a news organization's ability to report, but saying a news organization isn't real doesn't change the facts and won't stop us from doing our jobs,” Talev continued. “We appreciate The Sun for posting the entire audio of their interview so that everyone can hear the president's remarks for themselves.”

Judicial Transparency Group 'Fix the Court' Presses for Kavanaugh Documents

Judicial transparency group Fix the Court continues to try to get info on Brett Kavanaugh's time at the White House and working on the Starr Report. Kavanaugh, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, was nominated this week to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Kennedy is exiting at the end of July. The group filed two lawsuits following unfulfilled FOIA requests for documents and now has followed that up with an appeal of a FOIA decision by the George W. Bush Library and Museum. The museum determined that Fix the Court's request for Kavanuagh's White House counsel and staff secretary files would take 20 years to fulfill and would not include several thousand pages (13,943 to be exact) that were exempt, mostly under the Presidential Records Act. "Given Mr. Kavanaugh’s status as President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, substantial and significant public benefit would result from the timely disclosure of the requested records," Fix the Court wrote in filing its appeal with the library.

Elections

12 Russian Agents Indicted, Accused of Hacking the DNC

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein announced new charges against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton presidential campaign, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Rosenstein said the Russians involved belonged to the military intelligence service GRU. They are accused of a sustained cyberattack against Democratic party targets, including its campaign committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The GRU attackers also targeted state election systems, including both government agencies and their vendors, and stole information about 500,000 American voters. The 11-count indictment includes charges of conspiracy by the Russian intelligence officials against the United States, money laundering and attempts to break into state boards of elections and other government agencies. The indictment is part of the special counsel’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential campaign. So far, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s team has indicted 32 people, including members of a Russian company that blanketed social media with fake news stories and senior members of the Trump campaign.  The announcement came just a few days before President Donald Trump is expected to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland.

Secret money funds more than 40 percent of outside congressional ads

Secret donors financed more than four out of every 10 television ads that outside groups broadcast in 2018 to influence November’s high-stakes congressional elections. Leading the way: organizations affiliated with billionaire industrialist Charles Koch, whose conservative donor network plows hundreds of millions of dollars into politics and policy debates each election cycle. Two Koch-affiliated groups account for more than one-quarter of the House and Senate advertising from groups that don’t disclose their donors, according to a tally of broadcast ads tracked by Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group. Those Koch advocacy groups, Americans for Prosperity and Concerned Veterans for America, have trained their advertising fire on five Democratic senators up for re-election from red and purple states. The spending is about to soar even higher as November’s general election draws closer and the ad war intensifies over President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Brett Kavanaugh. 

Brett Kavanaugh, Who Has Ruled Against Campaign Finance Regulations, Could Bring An Avalanche of Big Money to Elections

DC Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s appellate court decisions and public comments suggest that he will accelerate the trend toward a political system dominated by wealthy elites — often operating in the shadows, without any form of disclosure. At a March 2016 event at the American Enterprise Institute, Kavanaugh was asked point-blank if he believes that “money spent during campaigns does represent speech, and therefore deserves First Amendment protection.” His answer: “Absolutely.” In 2009, Kavanaugh authored an opinion in a case called EMILY’s List v. Federal Election Commission, a decision that paved the way for the unlimited corporate spending in the election system. “The First Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, protects the right of individual citizens to spend unlimited amounts to express their views about policy issues and candidates for public office,” wrote Kavanaugh, overturning a previous district court decision. Across the years on the DC Circuit, there are many cases in which Kavanaugh has used the First Amendment to enshrine the privileges of the powerful.

Ownership

Free Press Debunks Broadcast Industry Claims in New Filing Against Sinclair’s Proposed Mega-Merger

Free Press responded to filings by Sinclair Broadcast Group, Tribune Media, 21st Century Fox and Fox Television Stations, calling on the Federal Communications Commission to reject Sinclair’s proposed takeover of Tribune. In a filing to the FCC, Free Press states that broadcasters continue to rely on thoroughly debunked public interest claims to bolster their weak arguments and misrepresent concerns raised by Free Press and other groups that have petitioned the agency to deny the merger. Sinclair and the other broadcasters have utterly failed to demonstrate any public interest benefits from the transfer of broadcast licenses that is a central component of this deal, Free Press argues.

Why the AT&T and Time Warner merger appeal matters — and why it’s a long shot

The Department of Justice (DOJ) appeal of the AT&T-Time Warner decision doesn’t have any immediate effects on the company's plans since the DOJ didn’t ask for a legal stay while it filed its appeal. But it signals the department’s plans to keep fighting consolidation, which could help shape the landscape for future mergers. If the Department of Justice successfully appeals the decision, it could make many other deals less likely to succeed, setting a precedent for considering vertical mergers potentially as monopolistic as horizontal ones. And just filing the appeal could have a chilling effect on merger bids in the short term. Comcast, for example, is planning to undercut Disney and make a counteroffer to buy 21st Century Fox. But this appeal could make it think twice. Also, Iif the DOJ is successful, AT&T could be forced to split off the renamed Warner Media, which is still being operated as a separate group. But that’s probably not going to happen. Public Knowledge president Gene Kimmelman said that the appeal “signals to the market the government isn’t throwing in the towel, but I think it’s a long shot.” The court could fast-track the case and hear it in a matter of months — because the longer the process takes, the more integrated the companies become. After the DC court decision, either AT&T or the Justice Department could appeal to take the case to the Supreme Court, which would stretch the timeline significantly longer. AT&T is sticking to its original plans while the appeal proceeds, and since the merger closed in June, there aren’t any practical barriers to doing so.

via Vox

The Battle Between Comcast and Disney Has Moved to London. This Rule Is Why.

Twenty-First Century Fox finally got clearance on July 12 from Britain’s culture secretary to pursue its takeover of Sky, after 18 months of trying. The decision came hours after Comcast seized the lead in the bidding for the European satellite broadcaster by offering £14.75 a share. Yet it’s a different British regulator, the country’s Takeover Panel, which may have made Sky — and not Fox itself, which has drawn takeover bids from the Walt Disney Company and Comcast to expand their media empires — the center of the biggest media takeover battle today. But it could also lead to a peaceful compromise. Here’s where Britain’s merger rules come in. A provision known as the “chain principle” essentially says all shareholders in a company must be treated equally. In this case, the concern is that Fox’s shares of Sky would be valued higher than those of other shareholders.  The chain principle first became a factor in April, when the Takeover Panel ruled that if Disney succeeded in buying control of Fox, it would need to buy out the rest of Sky at £10.75 a share — assuming that Comcast didn’t win. Things got more complicated in June when Disney raised its bid for Fox to $71.3 billion, presumably raising the valuation of its stake in Sky as well. The Takeover Panel hasn’t yet decided whether the chain principle means that Disney would need to pay a higher price to buy out the rest of Sky. The chain principle could affect Comcast as well. What the cable giant may be wary of is essentially bidding against itself: Any new bid that it makes for Fox might mean paying more for Sky as well, making the whole effort more expensive.

Ion, Others to FCC: 50% Ownership Cap Solution Is Too Weak

Ion, Trinity and Univision have weighed in at the Federal Communications Commission with supplemental evidence for what they argue is the need to roll back the FCC's 39 percent cap on a TV station group's national audience reach, and preferably all the way rather than raising it once again. That came in a supplemental comment, which featured the economic analysis of Dr. Harold Furchtgott-Roth, an economist, law professor and former Republican FCC commissioner. He was analyzing a BIA report on the state of the marketplace that provided its own analysis for raising it to 50 percent. His take on the marketplace buttresses the broadcasters' claims that the cap is outmoded due to dramatic changes in the marketplace and that 50 percent is not sufficient relief given the competition from cable and over-the-top and satellite providers with no national ownership constraints. Furchtgott-Roth's major points, which were aligned with the BIA report, were that broadcasters have many competitors outside of broadcasting, the cap has been relaxed historically as the industry "growth prospects have diminished", and the cap is focused on small companies that compete with larger ones that have no national cap.

Wireless

5G Compromise Bill Still a Hit to Local Government

A bipartisan Senate bill introduced in late June would expedite placement of 5G infrastructure but limit state and local authority in negotiating application fees with mobile carriers. Already the proposed legislation has earned the praise of the wireless industry, with trade association CTIA stating S. 3157 “will help America win the global 5G race by accelerating deployment of next-generation wireless infrastructure while preserving local authority.” But Christopher Mitchell, director of community broadband networks for the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said the legislation is wrongheaded. He argued timely rollout of 5G, or fifth-generation wireless, technology will happen regardless of federal action, and carriers should agree to a fair price for using public rights of way. “If we don’t immediately steamroll localities’ decision making, then we will miss out on new technology? If China deploys 5G more rapidly than us, then we’re going to lose?” Mitchell said. “China has more roads than us. China has more people than us.” “I don’t see how we lose a single job if China has more 5G than we do,” he continued.

Privacy

How Wireless Carriers Get Permission to Share Your Whereabouts

Cellphone carriers usually ask for their customers’ blessing before listing their phone numbers, sharing their addresses or exposing them to promotional emails. But seeking permission to share one particularly sensitive piece of information—a cellphone’s current location—often falls to one of several dozen third-party companies like Securus Inc. and 3Cinteractive Corp. Carriers rely on those firms to vouch that they obtained users’ consent before handing over the data. The companies that pay to access this information use it for everything from preventing credit-card fraud to providing roadside assistance. That arrangement embarrassed the wireless industry after it was discovered that Securus, a prison phone operator, created a website that let law-enforcement agencies find the location of non-inmates without their permission. Blake Reid, an associate clinical professor at the University of Colorado Law School, said this “chained consent” process likely violates Section 222 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which sets privacy standards for carriers, though there hasn’t been a strong case to test his theory.

5 Ways Companies Use Your Cellphone Location Data

The smartphones at the center of consumers’ lives generate vast streams of data on where they live, work and travel, and how wireless carriers use that personal data and share it with other companies has come under increased scrutiny. The four major U.S. carriers said in June that they would stop selling access to the locations of individual customers to two companies—LocationSmart and Zumigo—following accusations that a LocationSmart customer misused the information. But those two middlemen aren’t the only companies that have had or continue to rely on access to the locations of cellphone users to make money. Here’s a look at five scenarios in which companies or carriers have relied on or considered using cellphone location data: 1) Roadside Assistance, 2) Traveling Abroad, 3) Fraud Protection, 4) City Planning, and 5) Shopping.

Facial recognition technology: The need for public regulation and corporate responsibility

Facial recognition technology raises issues that go to the heart of fundamental human rights protections like privacy and freedom of expression. These issues heighten responsibility for tech companies that create these products. In our view, they also call for thoughtful government regulation and for the development of norms around acceptable uses. In a democratic republic, there is no substitute for decision making by our elected representatives regarding the issues that require the balancing of public safety with the essence of our democratic freedoms. Facial recognition will require the public and private sectors alike to step up – and to act. The only effective way to manage the use of technology by a government is for the government proactively to manage this use itself. And if there are concerns about how a technology will be deployed more broadly across society, the only way to regulate this broad use is for the government to do so. As a general principle, it seems more sensible to ask an elected government to regulate companies than to ask unelected companies to regulate such a government.

[Brad Smith is the president and chief legal officer of Microsoft]. 

Security

Commerce Dept Lifts Ban on US Suppliers Selling to Chinese Firm ZTE

ZTE Corp can resume business with its US suppliers, the Commerce Department said July 13, after the Chinese telecommunications giant met the conditions of a deal President Donald Trump made to save the company. The saga over the fate of the Chinese firm began in April when Commerce banned US companies from selling to ZTE as punishment for its failure to honor an earlier US agreement to resolve its sanctions-busting sales to North Korea and Iran. Because ZTE relies on US suppliers to make its smartphones and to build telecommunications networks, the penalty was effectively a death knell. But in a surprise tweet on May 13, President Trump said that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping were “working together” to find a way to help the company get back into business. The Commerce Department struck a new deal with ZTE on June 7 that required the Chinese firm to put $400 million into an escrow account, pay a $1 billion fine, replace its board of directors and senior leadership, and fund a team of US compliance officers to monitor the company for 10 years.

More questions than answers from DOJ letter about journalist surveillance

[Commentary] Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced last August that his department was pursuing more than three times as many leak investigations as were open at the end of the Obama years, and that he was reviewing the Department of Justice’s policy on obtaining information involving journalists—reportedly to make collecting that information easier. In a recent disclosure to Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR), the DOJ does little to quell fears that this crackdown will damage journalists’ ability to protect their sources and shine a torch on government misconduct. The response letter—dated March 5, 2018, and published earlier the week of July 9—discloses that, while the Justice Department continues to review its policies, “there have been no revisions to the existing policy and procedures.” This suggests that the department still follows the 2015 regulations adopted under former Attorney General Eric Holder, which, while non-binding, offer journalists important protections against subpoenas. However, it says nothing about the future of those protections once the DOJ completes its current review. The DOJ letter also did not say whether it has used National Security Letters (NSLs) to advance leak investigations in the past, or whether it may do so in the future. And it does not say whether it uses, or has used, NSLs to obtain journalists' data outside the context of leak investigations. 

[Ramya Krishnan is a legal fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute.]

Children and Media

FCC wants to relax kids' TV rules for the Netflix era

The Federal Communications Commission has begun the process of loosening requirements for children's TV programming, arguing that the old rules aren't needed in the era of kids-focused apps and streaming services.  When it comes to kids' content, tech companies like Netflix, Amazon and Google have stolen huge market share from traditional media companies. Still, children's advocates say relaxing the rules for broadcasters may make it harder for families without reliable broadband access to find age-appropriate content. Broadcasters have to adhere to a lot of mandates to keep their licenses, while tech companies face no rules. This is an instance of the current FCC deregulating telecom and media entities under the theory that stripping away regulations on traditional companies will help them keep up with their Silicon Valley competitors. Kids' advocates argue that, while many households have access to other content options, chipping away at the rules will hurt vulnerable households who still rely on over-the-air television for children's programming, and those that can't afford broadband, cable or Netflix or Amazon Prime subscriptions. They call the draft proposal a "wish-list for broadcasters, which does nothing to serve the needs of children."

via Axios
Policymakers

Introducing Judge Brett Kavanaugh: Siding with Big Business and Big Brother

On July 9, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. This week, we examine some of Judge Kavanaugh’s decisions on key communications policy issues, like net neutrality, the First Amendment, and surveillance. At 53, Kavanaugh is relatively young, consistent with President Trump's desire to appoint judges who can serve on the High Court for decades. Since 2006, Kavanaugh has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the nation's second-most-powerful court. He was appointed to that post by President George W. Bush, after serving as Bush's White House staff secretary. According to Brookings Institution contributor Stuart Brotman, Kavanaugh "represents, along with Justice Elena Kagan, the strongest combination of tech savviness, administrative law expertise and depth of legal scholarship." Judge Kavanaugh has written more than 300 opinions in the 12 years he has been on the D.C. Circuit -- and some of these have direct implications for the future of communications policy. 

Why Congress Needs to Revive the Office of Technology Assessment

Congress is finally turning its attention to Silicon Valley, but to tackle these issues, congressfolk will first have to understand them. Which means it’s time to reboot the Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA was staffed with several hundred nonpartisan propellerheads who studied emerging science and tech. Every year they’d write numerous clear, detailed reports and they were on call to help any congressperson. It worked admirably. Its reports helped save money and lives. With a budget of only $20 million a year, the little agency had an outsize impact. But in 1995, when Newt Gingrich embarked on his mission of reducing government spending, the low-profile agency got the chop, at precisely the wrong time: Congress defunded its tech adviser just as life was about to be utterly transfigured by the internet, mobile phones, social networking, and AI. Today, Washingtonians of different stripes are calling for a reboot. 

via Wired
More Online

Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) -- we welcome your comments.

(c)Benton Foundation 2018. Redistribution of this email publication -- both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org

Benton experts make knowledge and analysis accessible to include more people in communications policymaking.

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org