David Sirota

As states move to hide details of government deals with Wall Street and as politicians come up with new arguments to defend secrecy, it was revealed that many government information officers block specific journalists they don't like from accessing information.

The data about public information officers, compiled since 2012 by Kennesaw State University professor Carolyn Carlson, confirms that 4 in 10 public information officers say "there are specific reporters they will not allow their staff to talk to due to problems with their stories in the past."

Four out of five reported that "their interviews must be approved" by government information officers, and "more than half of the reporters said they had actually been prohibited from interviewing [government] employees at least some of the time by public information officers."

Three-quarters of journalists surveyed now agree with the statement that "the public is not getting the information it needs because of barriers agencies are imposing on journalists’ reporting practices."

[Commentary] With Census figures showing more than 1 in 5 Tennessee residents having no Internet connection, Chattanooga (TN) public electric utility EPB is now proposing to offer its ultra-fast services to new communities. But it needs the Federal Communications Commission to preempt the Tennessee statute prohibiting the utility from competing with private telecom companies outside its current market.

For EPB, the good news is that FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has repeatedly pledged that in the name of competition and broadband access, he will support preempting state laws like Tennessee’s. However, in a capital run by money, EPB may still be politically overpowered. After all, as a community-owned utility in a midsized city, EPB does not have the lobbyists and campaign cash to match those of behemoths like Comcast and AT&T.

What the utility does have is a solid track record and a pro-consumer, pro-competition argument. The question is: Will that be enough to prevent Wheeler from backing down or being blocked by Congress? The future of the Internet may be at stake in the answer.

[Commentary] There are plenty of reasons to worry about the proposal to combine Comcast, America’s largest cable and broadband company, with Time Warner Cable, the second-largest cable firm and third-largest broadband provider.

For one, there’s ever more consolidated control over content. There’s also the possibility of certain types of content being given special (or worse) treatment based on the provider’s relationship with Comcast and Time Warner Cable. And there’s the prospect of even higher prices. Indeed a Comcast executive recently admitted that the company will not promise bills “are going to go down or even that they’re going to increase less rapidly.” In the capital of a properly functioning democracy, all of these concerns would prompt the federal government to block the deal. But Washington is an occupied city -- occupied by Comcast’s vast army.

As Time magazine recently reported, “The company has registered at least 76 lobbyists across 24 firms.” Those figures include neither telecommunications lobbyist turned FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler nor Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s chief of staff, who was a Comcast vice president and raked in $1.2 million in Comcast payments since taking his government job.

All of that political power is enhanced by the $9.3 million Comcast, Time Warner Cable and their affiliates have spent on campaign contributions to federal officials in just the last few years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. So, sure, it’s possible that Washington will block the merger, but it seems unlikely in a capital that most often follows the orders of its moneyed overlords.

[Sirota is a staff writer at PandoDaily]

Criticizing “the lack of transparency” at the Public Broadcasting Service, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s ombudsman Joel Kaplan declared that public broadcasting outlets must let the public access details of their financial dealings.

So how’s that new commitment to transparency going? Here’s how: Once again, a PBS flagship station is in the process of negotiating a deal with a politically active mogul. Once again, the deal involves the NewsHour -- the same iconic PBS program that stealthily promoted Arnold’s anti-pension programming. And once again, PBS is refusing to disclose the deal’s financial details to the public.

The major difference this time is that this new story of secrecy isn’t about who funds the journalism on the NewsHour. It is about who actually owns the NewsHour. Most Americans likely assume that the NewsHour (which, after all, is made with support from viewers like you) is actually owned and produced by PBS. However, since 1994, the NewsHour has been produced and primarily owned by the for-profit colossus, Liberty Media. But now that ownership is about to change. According to an internal memo sent to staff by NewsHour’s founders and minority owners Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, ownership of NewsHour will soon be transferred from Liberty Media to Washington, DC’s PBS member station, WETA.

Despite the clear transparency demands from the CPB, neither PBS nor Liberty would disclose any details of the deal. Nor would PBS, MacNeil/Lehrer or WETA spokespeople commit to disclosing any details in future. Even the most basic questions about the current funding and editorial direction of NewsHour were met with vague answers, or no answers at all.

[March 7]