April 2012

BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES for FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2012

Some more Headlines from last week http://benton.org/node/119808

CONTENT
   Apple Not Likely to Be a Loser in the E-Book Legal Fight
   DOJ is likely to lose e-book antitrust suit targeting Apple
   An E-Book Argument: Are Fixed Prices Needed to Preserve Publishing? - analysis
   The DOJ E-Book Lawsuit: Is It 1934 All Over Again? - analysis
   Apple Fires Back at the Feds, Amazon
   What the e-book scandal means for Apple - analysis
   E-books price fixing? Book 'em - editorial
   JK Rowling reveals price of next novel [links to web]
   US, China Tout Progress Over IP
   Facebook Offers More Disclosure to Users
   Dodd backtracks, says anti-piracy bill SOPA is 'dead' and 'gone' [links to web]
   California online gambling bill is just another bad bet - editorial [links to web]

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM
   NTIA's Strickling: Looking at All 95 MHz Was Most Responsible Recommendation
   FCC Plans to Defer Co-Primary Designation for Wireless in Broadcast Band
   What controversy? Verizon, Time Warner begin cross-selling services
   Verizon and Cable Cos Keep Playing Games - analysis
   Apple and the Revenge of the Phone Carriers
   Mobile Future: Freeze taxes on wireless bills [links to web]
   Former Rep. Boucher: FCC made ‘wrong decision’ on AT&T merger [links to web]
   Cellphone Unit Sales in First Quarter Were “Weakest in Years” [links to web]
   Smartphone Patents: The Never-Ending War

INTERNET/BROADBAND
   They can’t all be SOPA: Are webizens ready to fight with nuance? - analysis
   Corporate SOPA opponents approve of CISPA
   ICANN delays vanity Web domain deadline [links to web]
   California online gambling bill is just another bad bet - editorial [links to web]

OWNERSHIP
   Google's wacky stock split gives founders more clout
   Smartphone Patents: The Never-Ending War

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA
   US ban on political ads on public TV struck down
   Gingrich Accuses Fox News of Bias
   Firms ask FEC to approve anonymous political giving via text message [links to web]
   Conservative group makes $1 Million high-tech investment to help Tea Party [links to web]

RADIO/TELEVISION
   FCC Updates Low Power FM Channel Finder Tool - public notice
   TV License Renewal Quiz Gets a bit Tougher - analysis

JOURNALISM
   Following Local News Closely, Relying on Newspapers - research
   Charting The Charlotte Observer's Failure To Cover The Fight For Internet Access In North Carolina [links to web]

DIVERSITY
   KFI debuts diversity programming moves

HEALTH
   SpongeBob SquarePants' Last Stand - op-ed

NEWS FROM ABROAD
   News Corp faces hacking lawsuits in US

MORE ONLINE
   What Happens at the President's Innovation Cohort? [links to web]
   FTC Broadens Study of Alcohol Advertising [links to web]
   Canada Seeks to Turn Coins Into Digital Currency [links to web]
   The time Americans devote to technology [links to web]

back to top

CONTENT

APPLE NOT LIKELY TO BE A LOSER
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Nick Wingfield]
If Apple loses the legal case filed against it and book publishers over e-book pricing, will it be deeply wounded in its growing rivalry with Amazon? Not likely, analysts say. The Justice Department’s lawsuit against the company and five publishers, three of which settled the case, paints a vivid picture of Apple’s thinking from several years ago about how it could use its entry into electronic books to hurt Amazon, a growing player in digital media and devices with the Kindle. At the time, Apple saw having a competitive e-book offering as a critical element of its strategy for introducing the iPad. In an e-mail sent by Eddy Cue, the Apple executive in charge of the company’s Internet services, to Steven P. Jobs, then Apple’s chief executive, about a year before Apple introduced the iPad and iBookstore, Mr. Cue said, “It would be very easy for us to compete and I think trounce Amazon by opening up our own ebook store.” Apple eventually cut a deal with publishers that gave them control over pricing of e-books and that forced other retailers, including Amazon, to raise prices, the lawsuit alleges. Apple’s bluster, though, was unfounded. Amazon may have lost some share in e-books, but it still dominates the fast-growing market. At the same time, Apple’s failure to trounce Amazon in e-books did little to diminish the appeal of the iPad, which became a smash hit for other reasons. James McQuivey, an analyst at Forrester Research, said research by his company indicated that games, Web browsing, Facebook and other applications are bigger parts of the appeal of the iPad than e-books.
benton.org/node/119861 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

APPLE LIKELY TO WIN IN COURT?
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Declan McCullagh, Greg Sandoval]
The Justice Department's legal pursuit of Apple for alleged e-book price fixing stretches the boundaries of antitrust law and is likely to end in defeat. That's what happened in 1982, when an embarrassed Justice Department admitted its antitrust lawsuit against IBM was "without merit" and abandoned the case. And in 2001, a federal appeals court nixed the Justice Department's ambitious attempt to rewrite antitrust law by carving Microsoft into two separate companies. "It's a harder case against Apple than the publishers," says Geoffrey Manne, who teaches antitrust law at the Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon and runs the International Center for Law and Economics. One reason lies in the Justice Department's 36-page complaint, which recounts how publishers met over breakfast in a London hotel and dinners at Manhattan's posh Picholine restaurant, which boasts a "Best of Award of Excellence" from Wine Spectator magazine. The key point is that Apple wasn't present. The Department of Justice "has a far better case against the publishers than Apple," says Dominick Armentano, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Hartford and author of Antitrust and Monopoly who's now affiliated with the Independent Institute in Oakland (CA). "If the CEOs of the various publishers got together in hotel rooms to discuss prices, they are sunk" and might as well settle, he says. Richard Epstein, the prolific legal scholar and professor of law at New York University, goes further. Epstein argues in an essay published yesterday that there are "difficulties" with the Justice Department's case against publishers as well: "It will take some time to hear the whole story, but the betting here is that this lawsuit is a mistake."
benton.org/node/119860 | C-Net|News.com
Recommend this Headline
back to top

FIXED E-BOOKS PRICES NEEDED?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: John Paczkowski]
The Department of Justice’s decision to file antitrust charges against Apple and five of the nation’s largest publishers for conspiring to raise e-book prices may do more harm than good if it dissolves the new agency pricing model for books those companies created. At least that’s the case being made by Apple’s defenders. Though it has its problems, they contend, the model adopted by Apple — which requires retailers to charge book prices set by the publisher, while allowing them to keep 30 percent of sales revenue — may actually protect the long-term interests of everyone in the e-book value chain: Author and publisher, retailer and consumer. What Apple has been attempting to do with e-books is pretty much what it did with digital music: Standardize pricing. And while that effort might still irk recording industry executives, it’s near impossible to imagine the industry today without iTunes. And Apple clearly has similar hopes for iBooks and the publishing industry.
benton.org/node/119859 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

1934 ALL OVER AGAIN
[SOURCE: National Public Radio, AUTHOR: Jason Boog]
During the Great Depression, publishers faced off against another seemingly invincible retail juggernaut: Macy's Department Stores. Throughout the Great Depression, department stores like Macy's sold books at a steep discount. The best-selling Gone with the Wind became an early casualty of the 1930s price wars. Department stores priced the new novel at 89 cents (equivalent to $14 in 2011), hoping to lure customers into stores — a loss leader strategy that feels almost like a precursor to Amazon's play. In mid-1934, publishers and booksellers lobbied for federal protection from this kind of predatory pricing. During the early days of President Franklin Roosevelt's administration, the federal government enforced a set of retail codes to prevent predatory pricing and other Depression-era trade practices. The Supreme Court later declared the codes unconstitutional, but publishers fought in courts around the country to keep fair price legislation alive throughout the Great Depression. Thanks to the legislation, Macmillan dramatically raised the price of Gone with the Wind to $3 (equivalent to $47 in 2011). Macy's promptly returned 36,000 copies of the novel to the publisher, hoping to prove that this solution would scuttle sales for the new book. The publisher told the New York Times "we believe ... with the price of Gone with the Wind stabilized, its sale will go right on." Both the publishing industry and Gone with the Wind kept sailing, thanks in part to jury-rigged fixes nobody ever imagined would endure. No matter what the outcome of this mountain of federal and state litigation, the agency model, in its present form, is dead. Within the next month, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple and other e-book retailers will undoubtedly mount a fierce price war for control of this new market. Publishers will bemoan the loss of the tool for preventing predatory pricing, brick-and-mortar booksellers will struggle to compete in the digital marketplace, and cash-strapped book buyers will cheer the competitive prices.
benton.org/node/119858 | National Public Radio
Recommend this Headline
back to top

APPLE FIRES BACK
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Peter Kafka]
Nearly two days after the Department of Justice filed antitrust charges against Apple and major book publishers, Apple responded: “The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore.”
It’s worth noting that Apple’s pricing policy with books and apps differs from the setup it has with the music industry. In that relationship, Apple pays the music labels a wholesale price for their digital assets, and then sets the retail price itself.
benton.org/node/119873 | Wall Street Journal | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WHAT SUIT MEANS FOR APPLE
[SOURCE: The Christian Science Monitor, AUTHOR: Matthew Shaer]
What does the Department of Justice suit mean for Apple? "Apple does hurt itself when it thumbs its nose at the courts, the American system, and that could hurt it," Jeffrey Durgee, a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, told US News and World Reports. Apple's "brand personality," he added is that of "a maverick, but not outside the law." On the other hand, even if the baseline price of an e-book does return to $10 – which is exactly where Amazon wants it, while publishers want a higher price – Apple might not actually sustain any real damage. Writing for The New York Times, Nick Wingfield argued that it was "doubtful" that Apple would try to meet Amazon at the $9.99 price point. "That, in turn, would hurt Apple e-book sales but do very little direct damage to Apple’s overall business," Wingfield added. "In the holiday quarter, Apple reported $2 billion in revenue from Internet services – about 4 percent of total company sales – with an undisclosed, but most likely small, percentage of that coming from e-book sales."
benton.org/node/119872 | Christian Science Monitor, The
Recommend this Headline
back to top

E-BOOK PRICE FIXING
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] When word leaked that the Justice Department was threatening to sue Apple and five major book publishers for allegedly fixing the price of e-books, the opposition from some tech advocates was swift and sharp. The feds were looking at the wrong problem, these critics said. The new pricing model adopted by Apple and the publishers promoted competition in the markets for e-books, e-book readers and hard-copy books that Amazon had come to dominate. Attacking that model might lower the price for some e-books, but it would hurt the rest of the book industry and give Amazon an inside track to a publishing monopoly. That's an interesting argument, but it's irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that companies can't fix prices just because they're worried they can't survive otherwise. If the Justice Department has evidence that Apple and the five publishers — Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, HarperCollins, Hachette and Pearson — colluded on a plan to raise the price of e-books, it's right to seek a remedy.
benton.org/node/119871 | Los Angeles Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

IP PROGRESS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Loretta Chao]
US and Chinese officials touted recent progress in intellectual-property protection in China and called for continued efforts, even as US and Chinese companies engage in high-profile battles over famous names such as iPad and Michael Jordan. US officials continued to complain that high piracy rates in China are cutting into profits for rights owners, despite recent efforts by the Chinese government to crack down on Internet and software piracy. On April 12 the US called for greater cooperation by China with intellectual-property agencies in other countries as well as more consistent enforcement. "China's IP system still makes it difficult for both foreign and Chinese companies to compete on a level playing field," US ambassador to China Gary Locke said at a roundtable in Beijing about intellectual-property protection in China.
benton.org/node/119863 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

FACEBOOK DISCLOSURES
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Kevin O’Brien]
Facebook, seeking to address concerns about the personal information it collects on its users, said that it would provide any user with more about the data it tracks and stores. Facebook said the expanded archive feature would be introduced gradually to its 845 million monthly active users. It goes beyond the first archive made available in 2010, which has been criticized as incomplete by privacy advocates and regulators in Europe. The archive Facebook published two years ago gave users a copy of their photos, posts, messages, list of friends and chat conversations. The new version, Facebook said, includes previous user names, friend requests and the Internet protocol addresses of the computers that users have logged in from. More categories of information will be made available in the future, Facebook said.
“We welcome that Facebook users are now getting more access to their data, but Facebook is still not in line with the European Data Protection Law,” said Max Schrems, a student at the University of Vienna. “With the changes, Facebook will only offer access to 39 data categories, while it is holding at least 84 such data categories about every user.”
benton.org/node/119849 | New York Times | Facebook post | Bloomberg
Recommend this Headline
back to top

WIRELESS/SPECTRUM

STRICKLING ON NTIA SPECTRUM RECOMMENDATION
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Appearing on C-SPAN’s The Communicators, National Telecommunications & Information Administration chief Larry Strickling says that some government users are going to have to remain in the 95 MHz of spectrum NTIA has identified for use by commercial wireless. "We just don't have places to move the federal agencies to any longer," he said, citing the increasing government demands for spectrum as the reason for emphasizing spectrum sharing. He pointed out that federal use is intermittent and sometimes does not involve the entire country. Strickling said that given the opportunity to put 95 MHz of spectrum on the table, it would not have met the administration's goal of trying to free up 500 MHz had it just focused on the lower 25 MHz. The wireless industry and the FCC would probably have preferred it start with that 25 MHz since it is adjacent to a block of available FCC-overseen spectrum it could have been paired with and gotten to market relatively quickly. Strickling said going the 25 MHz route would have been an "irresponsible way to proceed" with federal agencies talking about being willing to accommodate commercial users in all 95 MHz and a goal of 500 MHz. Strickling is predicting that spectrum freed up under the NTIA proposal would be available within five years.
benton.org/node/119856 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CO-PRIMARY DESIGNATION FOR WIRELESS IN BROADCAST BAND
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
According to sources inside and outside the Federal Communications Commission, the commission will not re-designate wireless broadband a co-primary user of broadcast spectrum in its April 27 vote to create the initial framework for channel sharing, part of its move to reclaim broadcast spectrum to for wireless. Broadcasters have argued against the re-designation, particularly early in the process, years before the spectrum is actually reclaimed. "A co-primary designation will devalue local television station before a single wireless license is issued by introducing substantial regulatory uncertainty into the television industry," broadcast groups argued in a filing over a year ago. A more targeted re-designation will likely come further down the line, when it applies only to the channels actually reallocated to wireless rather than the entire band. The FCC voted unanimously back in 2010 to propose making wireless a co-primary user. But delaying that decision is a victory for the National Association of Broadcasters, which two weeks ago made a personal pitch to FCC officials that the decision on the co-primary designation should not be made until after the commission had come up with a plan for the reverse incentive auctions, according to an ex parte filing reported by TV Technology.
benton.org/node/119855 | Broadcasting&Cable
Recommend this Headline
back to top

VERIZON-TIME WARNER CROSS-SELLING
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Kevin Fitchard]
Verizon’s joint marketing pact with the cable providers may be facing some serious scrutiny, but Verizon and its partners don’t seem to have noticed. On April 12, Time Warner Cable blithely announced they would launch bundled mobile and cable services together in five markets. The move is the first Verizon Wireless has made with Time Warner to sell each other’s respective wireless and wire line wares, but Verizon and Comcast have already forged ahead on the west coast, working together in Portland (OR); Seattle and Spokane (WA); and San Francisco (CA). In the Bay Area, Verizon and Comcast struck right in the heart of AT&T’s U-Verse territory, demonstrating just how powerful their tag team arrangement can be. Time Warner and Verizon Wireless are kicking off their partnership in Cincinnati, Columbus and Toledo (OH); Kansas City (KS); and Raleigh (NC), but plan to expand to other Time Warner markets in coming months. As in the Comcast arrangement, customers will be able to purchase a bundle of Time Warner cable TV, broadband and home phone and Verizon mobile services. They’re also sweetening the deal with a $200 prepaid debit card.
benton.org/node/119852 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

VERIZON PLAYING GAMES
[SOURCE: Public Knowledge, AUTHOR: Jodie Griffin]
Verizon and the cable companies filed an objection to try to stop Netflix's outside counsel from reading the companies' license transfer, agency, resale, and Joint Operating Entity agreements. Why? Because Netflix has not filed a petition to deny opposing the deals. Verizon and SpectrumCo are making a pretty technical procedural argument here. They say that only "parties" can sign confidentiality acknowledgements to view confidential information and that Netflix can't be considered a party because it did not file a petition to deny the transactions. So by Verizon and SpectrumCo's logic, companies or organizations only have a right to read the agreements after they've submitted formal filings opposing the agreements. That is ridiculous. As a general rule of thumb, if your interpretation of Federal Communications Commission rules leads you to the conclusion that the FCC is encouraging or requiring entities to oppose a deal before they know what's actually in that deal, you probably went off track. This is also, interestingly, the first time Verizon and SpectrumCo have brought up this argument, even though every single entity that has read the agreements in this proceeding did so before filing a petition to deny. Some never filed petitions to deny at all: for example, the organization TechFreedom obtained access to the agreements only after the petitions to deny had been filed, so it could file reply comments.
benton.org/node/119851 | Public Knowledge
Recommend this Headline
back to top

REVENGE OF THE PHONE CARRIERS
[SOURCE: BusinessWeek, AUTHOR: Roben Farzad]
Is Apple merely mortal? Apple is the largest, most dominant and highly valued company on the planet. It’s measured against entire gross national products. Doubt it at your peril. And yet Apple does not control its own destiny. After all, the company counts on wireless carriers to connect and help market its iPhones. What if the likes of AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and Sprint (combined worth: roughly half of Apple) don’t necessarily like the idea of just getting by financially while the Cha-chinger of Cupertino hordes spectacular profits? What if they wise up and realize they can earn a bigger cut of the recurring windfall every time Apple upgrades its hardware? Or just slow the iPhone’s aggressive upgrade cycle to protect their own profits? It’s a grain of kosher salt being offered by analyst Walter Piecyk of brokerage BTIG, who is sounding a rare cautionary call on Apple (which Wall Street rates with 49 Buys, 7 Holds—including Piecyk—and just 1 Sell). He downgraded the stock to Neutral from Buy on the fear that the carriers will get their act together this year to defend their profitability.
benton.org/node/119838 | BusinessWeek
Recommend this Headline
back to top

INTERNET/BROADBAND

WEBIZENS AND NUANCE
[SOURCE: GigaOm, AUTHOR: Derrick Harris]
[Commentary] It’s hard to be a web user these days, especially since the government has gotten so interested in what we’re doing online. Bills and proposed regulations that target web activity and user data are popping up all the time, and it’s hard to keep track of what any of this actually means. It gets even worse when we can’t figure out who — if anyone — is actually on our side, and when compromise has to take the place of all-out war. Occasionally, things are easy, like SOPA. It was a ridiculous bill for the myriad reasons cited between its rise to prominence in October 2011 and its eventual shelving in January 2012. It would have led to absurd lawsuits and would have proved to be an incredible burden for many web service providers. But that bill clearly targeted web users’ favorite web sites and the users themselves — if you were in one of those two camps, it was easy to pick a side. I admit I have been somewhat taken aback, however, by the outrage over the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA — namely, the allegations that it’s little more than SOPA 2.0. The law isn’t always black and white, and reacting to the words intellectual property within a bill with crazy arm-waving and chants of SOPA 2.0 probably aren’t too effective. We actually need to consider what proposed laws say, how they relate to existing legal doctrine and what are the interests of the parties involved, and then react accordingly.
benton.org/node/119854 | GigaOm
Recommend this Headline
back to top

CORPORATE SUPPORT FOR CISPA
[SOURCE: Fortune, AUTHOR: Dan Mitchell]
Those who believed that the tech industry opposed the now-"dead" anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA purely because they made for bad law might be confused by the industry's backing of a new law, CISPA, that's being called "the new SOPA." It isn't quite that, however. Big Tech is all for it. That's because, unlike SOPA and PIPA, it absolves Internet companies of any responsibility or liability in the battle against Internet "security threats." The problem with CISPA -- the Cyberintelligence Sharing and Protection Act -- is that it could be interpreted in such a way that just about any online activity, including alleged piracy, could be considered a security threat. It must be noted that, unlike under SOPA or PIPA, Internet companies can refuse requests for information -- compliance is voluntary.
benton.org/node/119853 | Fortune
Recommend this Headline
back to top

OWNERSHIP

GOOGLE STOCK SPLIT
[SOURCE: CNNMoney, AUTHOR: David Goldman]
Google is pulling one of the stranger technical maneuvers the stock market has seen for quite some time. The company effectively wants to split its stock, giving current shareholders two shares for every share they own. Here's the twist: The new shares will hold no voting powers, essentially giving the company's founders -- CEO Larry Page, Chairman Eric Schmidt and co-founder Sergey Brin -- more say over time in the company's management decisions. The company already has a dual-class share system, with the founders' stock holding 10 votes per share. That currently gives Google's power trio 66% of the voting power over the company's shares, according to a recent regulatory filing. In a letter to shareholders released April 12, the company's co-founders said they're concerned that day-to-day dilution from stock grants and acquisitions will undermine that structure.
benton.org/node/119850 | CNNMoney
Recommend this Headline
back to top

SMARTPHONE PATENTS
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Ashby Jones, Jessica Vascellaro]
As competition in the more than $200 billion global smartphone industry becomes more cutthroat, Apple and its competitors argue that even the most minor unique features are crucial to getting an edge. They are engaged in a lawsuit-filing frenzy, asserting their rights to dozens of patents to block rival products. Their goal: to find a patent that sticks, and to force competitors to work around it or strike a licensing deal. About five years ago, the computer and mobile-phone industries collided. Technological advances turned phones into minicomputers, complete with email, Web access and other features. Companies from different corners of industry saw opportunity—and pounced. Among them: phone makers like Nokia and Motorola; computer-hardware makers like Apple; software giants such as Google and Microsoft; and others, including South Korean electronics giant Samsung. From the get-go, companies fought fiercely for consumer dollars with huge marketing blitzes. Behind the scenes, another battle was brewing over intellectual property. Almost overnight, every player had developed a gripe. The traditional phone makers claimed, for instance, that Apple was abusing their long-held rights to data-transmission designs. Apple complained others were ripping off its designs.
benton.org/node/119869 | Wall Street Journal | WSJ – USPTO | WSJ – Apple
Recommend this Headline
back to top

ELECTIONS AND MEDIA

POLITICAL ADS OK FOR PUBLIC TV
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Jonathan Stempel, Terry Baynes, Jasmin Melvin]
A divided US appeals court struck down a federal ban on political advertising on public television and radio stations, a decision that could open the public airwaves to a heavy dose of campaign ads leading up to the November elections. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the Federal Communications Commission violated the First Amendment's free speech clause by blocking public broadcasters from running political and public issue ads. The court said the ban was over broad and that lifting it would not threaten to undermine the educational nature of public broadcast stations. It upheld a ban on ads for goods and services on behalf of for-profit companies. "Public issue and political speech in particular is at the very core of the First Amendment's protection," Judge Carlos Bea wrote in the main opinion. "Public issue and political advertisements pose no threat of 'commercialization,'" he continued. "By definition, such advertisements do not encourage viewers to buy commercial goods and services. A ban on such advertising therefore cannot be narrowly tailored to serve the interest of preventing the 'commercialization' of broadcasting." Minority Television Project, a non-profit that runs KMPT-TV in San Francisco, had challenged the FCC after being fined $10,000 for running paid ads from companies such as insurer State Farm and General Motors Co's Chevrolet division.
benton.org/node/119841 | Reuters
Recommend this Headline
back to top

GINGRICH VS FOX NEWS
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Jeremy Peters]
The fight for the Republican nomination is no longer just candidate versus candidate. It’s candidate versus Fox News. Newt Gingrich became the latest Republican candidate to lash out at the cable news network, accusing it of dooming his flagging campaign by slanting its political coverage to Mitt Romney‘s benefit. “I assume it’s because Murdoch at some point said, ‘I want Romney,’ and so ‘fair and balanced’ became ‘Romney,’ ” Gingrich was quoted as saying. “And there’s no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox.” He went on to add: “In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact.” Gingrich quickly found that Fox News’s tenacity is a match for his own. The network shot back, calling the former House speaker bitter. Fox News said that Gingrich appeared to have other motives: “This is nothing more than Newt auditioning for a windfall of a gig at CNN. That’s the kind of man he is. Not to mention, he’s still bitter over the termination of his contributor contract.”
benton.org/node/119866 | New York Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top

RADIO/TELEVISION

LOW POWER FM CHANNEL FINDER
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission, AUTHOR: Public Notice]
The Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau announces that its updated Low Power FM (LPFM) Channel Finder search tool is now available to the public. The LPFM Channel Finder tool provides a simple means to tentatively identify available FM channels at any location. To undertake a search a user enters NAD 27 latitude and longitude coordinates of a potential transmitter site. Coordinates must be determined to the nearest second. The LPFM Channel Finder incorporates changes required by the Local Community Radio Act of 2010, including the elimination of LPFM third-adjacent channel spacing requirements. The FCC is currently considering standards for waiving second-adjacent channel spacing requirements and a proposal to exempt LPFM stations operating at less than 100 watts from intermediate frequency spacing requirements. FCC action on these proposals could affect LPFM channel availability at many locations. Searches can include or exclude either or both of these spacing requirements to help LPFM applicants take into account these potential rule changes.
benton.org/node/119839 | Federal Communications Commission
Recommend this Headline
back to top

TV LICENSE RENEWAL
[SOURCE: TVNewsCheck, AUTHOR: Michael Berg]
[Commentary] For many years the Federal Communications Commission’s television license renewal application has required mainly yes-or-no answers about compliance throughout the license term with various FCC requirements. For the upcoming renewal cycle, the FCC has added a new certification question about non-discriminatory television advertising sales agreements.
benton.org/node/119867 | TVNewsCheck
Recommend this Headline
back to top

JOURNALISM

MOST ADULTS FOLLOW LOCAL NEWS CLOSELY, RELYING ON LOCAL NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER SOURCES
[SOURCE: Pew Research Center, AUTHOR: Carolyn Miller, Kristen Purcell, Tom Rosenstiel]
Nearly three quarters (72%) of adults are quite attached to following local news and information, and local newspapers are by far the source they rely on for much of the local information they need. In fact, local news enthusiasts are substantially more wedded to their local newspapers than others. They are much more likely than others to say that if their local newspaper vanished, it would have a major impact on their ability to get the local information they want. This is especially true of local news followers age 40 and older, who differ from younger local news enthusiasts in some key ways. One-third of local news enthusiasts (32%) say it would have a major impact on them if their local newspaper no longer existed, compared with just 19% of those less interested in local news. Most likely to report a major impact if their newspaper disappeared are local news followers age 40 and older (35%), though even among younger local news followers 26% say losing the local paper would have a major impact on them. In contrast, just 19% of adults who do not follow local news closely say they would feel a major impact and fully half (51%) say they would feel no impact at all from the loss of their local paper. Only 34% of local news enthusiasts feel this way. These local news and information consumers stand out from other adults in several respects related to community attachment, general interest in all types of news, use of sources for local news and information, and the particular topics of interest to them on the local scene. As a whole, local news enthusiasts do not stand out from other adults in their use of technology or in the way they use technology to participate in local affairs, such as sending around links or posting comments on websites. However, among local news enthusiasts there are considerable differences in technology use across generations.
These are among the main findings in a nationally representative phone survey of 2,251 adults by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and Internet & American Life Project, produced in association with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. It focused on the ways people get information and news about 16 different topics, ranging from breaking news to weather to crime to schools information. The survey was administered from January 12-25, 2011 on landline and cell phones. It has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
benton.org/node/119836 | Pew Research Center
Recommend this Headline
back to top

DIVERSITY

KFI DIVERSITY MOVE
[SOURCE: Radio & Television Business Report, AUTHOR: Jack Messmer]
Under fire for the recent comments on the “John & Ken” show, Clear Channel Los Angeles has made the first moves to diversify its on-air lineup. Two new weekend shows have taken to the station’s airwaves, hosted by David Cruz and Mo O’Kelly. The introductions of the new shows are the first fulfillment of the commitment that KFI management made several weeks ago after meeting with LA African-American community leaders. Clear Channel Market Manager Greg Ashlock, KFI Program Director Robin Bertolucci and Marketing Director Neil Saavedra had pledged to audition for a diverse group of local hosts and guests. That has now led to two new shows. This is a rare and laudable initiative by a talk station to diversify its talent roster and its audience. I hope it works!” said a note to RBR-TVBR from David Honig, Executive Director of the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council.
In contrast, National Hispanic Media Coalition President and CEO, Alex Nogales said: "It appears that [Jack Messmer] has failed to contact anyone in the Los Angeles community regarding this Los Angeles station. Instead he relies on David Honig's assessment of the situation. David Honig is a Washington, DC insider -- he is not a member of the Los Angeles community and, in this case, he does not represent our interests. His claim that this move is 'rare and laudable' is fatuous and I've taken David to task over it. Although I am happy to see two more people of color on Los Angeles' airwaves, let's be clear about one thing: adding Cruz and O'Kelly to KFI only on weekends when hot levels (the number of people listening) are immensely small is tokenism, at best. This has been done before and these slots have not led to weekday shows with large audiences and meaningful compensation. Clear Channel's move is cynical and underhanded and does nothing to alleviate KFI and Clear Channel Radio's pattern of hate against people of color, LGBT people, women and others. KFI haters John and Ken, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Handel air every weekday to large audiences, but nobody listens to KFI on the weekends. This in no way makes up for the regular menu of hate that KFI and Clear Channel serve up weekly. KFI is throwing us scraps and expecting us to smile and pat them on the back. But in a community as diverse as Los Angeles, where 2/3 of all residents are people of color, we deserve better. John and Ken must go! And if KFI and Clear Channel are serious about diversity and inclusion, which I suspect they are not, they should feature women and people of color at times when the community is actually listening."
benton.org/node/119833 | Radio & Television Business Report
Recommend this Headline
back to top

HEALTH

OBESITY AND ADVERTISING
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Todd Zywicki]
[Commentary] Child obesity is a big and growing problem that's gaining increasing government attention. Unfortunately, the feds are poised to adopt ill-conceived regulations that won't help but might make the problem worse. Get ready for severe new guidelines on food advertising to children. Last year, an interagency government task force proposed new "voluntary" guidelines on food marketing aimed at kids under 17 that defines prohibited foods so broadly that it would curtail advertising not only of Froot Loops and soda but also of Cheerios and yogurt. The task force acknowledges that "a large percentage of food products currently in the marketplace"—88 of the 100 most-advertised foods and drinks, according to the Association of National Advertisers—"would not meet the [guidelines]." Those guidelines are currently at the White House, where the administration faces heavy pressure from do-gooder types and the public-health lobby to approve them. Restricting food advertising is a flawed approach to childhood obesity. The underlying causes of weight gain in children are the same as in their parents—eating too much and exercising too little. And academic research confirms what we sense from personal experience: Kids eat what their parents eat. If you sit down at the dinner table with a two-liter bottle of Coke, Jimmy won't ask for milk instead. [Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University School of Law]
benton.org/node/119865 | Wall Street Journal
Recommend this Headline
back to top

NEWS FROM ABROAD

NEWS CORP FACES LAWSUITS
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Salamander Davoudi]
News Corp could be exposed to further legal action in the US after Mark Lewis, the lawyer representing dozens of public figures in the UK phone-hacking scandal, said he was planning to file three civil lawsuits in American courts. The move marks the first legal actions in the US in the affair which has engulfed Rupert Murdoch’s media company. News Corp is being investigated by the FBI and the US Department of Justice under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Lewis said the legal actions would be launched by two sports figures and a US citizen. All three individuals allege their voicemails were illegally intercepted when they were on US soil. “I will be having a series of meetings regarding matters relating to phone-hacking claims against the News of the World, which has issues in American jurisdictions,” he said. Lewis is set to meet Norman Siegel, his American partner and former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, to discuss US law and how it applies to phone hacking.
benton.org/node/119868 | Financial Times
Recommend this Headline
back to top