January 2012

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission is poised to reform and modernize the Lifeline phone program that was created to help low-income household afford phone service. The reform and modernization is expected to move the program beyond traditional landline service to better accommodate wireless phone service and to set a foundation to move to broadband access for poor people. Yet, the reform could also discriminate against the very people the program was designed to help. How so? The FCC is considering limiting the Lifeline benefit to people with a unique residential street address.

The federal telephone Lifeline program has played a crucial role in keeping tens of millions of low-income households connected to employers, medical personnel, and families by making local phone service more affordable. This has enhanced the value of the phone network as more people are reachable by phone. Instead of tying the Lifeline phone service to a building, the FCC should reform and modernize the program to reflect current lifestyles of people. There is still time to make this needed improvement to the reform. We urge the FCC to make the connection.

[Wein is a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center]

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) announced its intention to restructure U.S. international broadcasting. It will seek legislation that would include establishing a Chief Executive Officer to manage the enterprise. In addition, the Board called for a plan to consolidate the agency’s three non-federal broadcast networks: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

South Carolina is cementing its position as a vital stepping stone to a presidential nomination, with the GOP hopefuls -- and the Super PACS supporting their efforts -- pouring buckets of money into the state's television stations for air time.

As was the case in Iowa earlier this month, the money is coming in fast, furious -- and late. An estimated $11 million will be spent in political advertising on television in the state-not far off the $13.5 million spent in 2008, when both parties had nominations up for grabs. "Two weeks ago, it was probably a million. There's been a lot of activity the last two weeks," says Bob Romine, president and GM of WSPA Greenville-Spartanburg. "We anticipated $4 million, $5 million, maybe $6 million, and it's almost double that." General Managers in the state said Rick Perry, determined to inject vitality into his candidacy after poor showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, spent big on television in December. Everyone else got on board around New Year's. Local TV execs in the state say Mitt Romney's Super PAC may have a slim lead over Ron Paul's camp in terms of spending.

In the New York Times, Public Editor Arthur S. Brisbane has reignited a long-running debate in journalism: When, if ever, should newspaper staff writers challenge rather than merely report the "facts" that are asserted by newsmakers?

His real world example: "On the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches 'apologizing for America,' a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the 'post-truth' stage. As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?" One school of thought is that reporters ought to try, whenever possible, to independently verify claims, and to report that they are true or false if that can be established. This would, of course, stoke controversy about whether certain claims are in fact false, or merely matters about which there is legitimate disagreement. But perhaps the alternative is worse: the status quo is a system that enables folks who manipulate the public. These disingenuous people brazenly feed the press lies knowing that at worst they'll be printed alongside, and given equal billing with, a quotation from "the other side."