February 2010

Media conglomerates hadn't seen revenue growth for at least a year, relying on cost cuts to boost their bottom lines. But the current quarterly earnings season has brought a return to at least slight growth at several sector biggies.

NBC Universal and Viacom are the exceptions so far with 4% and 3% revenue declines, respectively, and Disney already had returned to revenue growth in the third calendar quarter of 2009 and eked out another slight uptick in the fourth. Most have cited better ad momentum in fourth-quarter 2009 as a key reason for the revenue gains, and Time Warner even predicted it would record revenue gains for full-year 2010.

But News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch was the most vocal about touting his conglomerate's quarterly revenue boost that at 10% outperformed the gains of its peers.

White House officials are retooling the administration's communications strategy to produce faster responses to political adversaries, a more disciplined focus on President Obama's call for "change" in Washington and an increasingly selective use of the president's time.

The messaging adjustments are the result of an end-of-the-year analysis in which White House advisers said the president's communications team had not taken the initiative often enough and had allowed drawn-out debates in Congress, and relentless criticism by Republicans, to drown out his message. "It was clear that too often we didn't have the ball -- Congress had the ball in terms of driving the message," communications director Dan Pfeiffer said. "In 2010, the president will constantly be doing high-profile things to be the person driving the narrative." Senior White House aides described the changes as an aggressive response, aimed at producing fresh momentum for the president's faltering agenda and regaining the advantage ahead of the congressional midterm elections in November.

Sarah Palin. Mike Huckabee. Newt Gingrich. Today, that is a list of paid Fox News political analysts. Two years from now, it could be a list of Republican presidential candidates.

A former Fox analyst, Angela McGlowan, entered a House race in Mississippi last week. Over at MSNBC, Harold E. Ford Jr. was on the payroll until a few weeks ago, when he told his boss that he was seriously contemplating a run for the Senate from New York. TV names are also constantly being run through the candidate rumor mill. There is a "Draft Larry Kudlow" movement. There is also talk of a political bid by Lou Dobbs, who left CNN last fall.

"It does seem amazing how many are being either discussed as candidates, rumored as candidates, or are actually doing it," said Phil Griffin, the president of MSNBC.

Television and politics have always been intertwined, but never to this degree, TV executives and journalism professionals say. It would seem that the so-called revolving door for political operatives has been extended to the politicians themselves, at a time when cable news is more politically charged than ever. To viewers, it seems to be an endless televised political campaign, with former, and possibly future, politicians biding their time giving sound-bite versions of stump speeches. (Mr. Huckabee's recap of President Obama's State of the Union: "rudderless confusion." Ms. Palin's perception of Mr. Obama's counterterrorism strategy: "lackadaisical.")

The benefit for the part-time, but highly paid, pundits is clear: it increases their visibility. "It makes sense for candidates to seek out positions in niche cable, because it is a direct pipeline to voters," said Jonathan Wald, a former senior vice president at CNBC and an adjunct professor at Columbia's journalism school. "It's an automatic affinity group." The benefit to the viewers is less clear. Some experts say the arrangements can cloud the objectivity of the news organizations.

[Commentary] As the Federal Communications Commission moves to quickly finalize a National Broadband Plan that many hope will ensure Internet access for all and create opportunity for innovation and economic security, community groups from around the country are hosting delegation visits, direct actions, and community events to ask the same question I am. Namely, why are Telecom companies and their beltway allies asking poor communities and communities of color to choose between fair representation and access to high speed Internet networks? Why can't we have both?

Unfortunately, if the FCC and Congress don't act decisively to protect broadband networks with strong Open Internet rules, the National Broadband Plan may be insufficient to secure the connection, communication, and cultural representation that is the Internet's greatest potential. Let's face it, a broadband plan without open Internet protections is like the constitution without the bill of rights- it's insufficient. It's time for a new generation of civil right leaders to be heard on this issue. We know that digital inclusion and closing the digital divide is only possible with affordable, accessible, and open high speed networks. True representation of people of color and the poor demands that the civil rights community fight for this as vigorously as we fight for equal access in our schools, services, and in the broader society.