For upcoming media policy events, see http://www.benton.org/calendar.htm
TODAY'S QUESTION: Who's going to write a really good book on the role of=20
television in the 2004 election?
MEDIA & ELECTIONS
Anti-Kerry Film Won't Be Aired
Some Shareholders Slam Sinclair
Sinclair to Air 'A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media'
Candidates Seize Opportunities to Get into Local Media
Study: Evening News Programs Concentrating More on Campaign's=20
Substance
Journalists Not Satisfied With Their Performance in the Campaign
Time for a Digital Fairness Doctrine
'Daily Show' Host Gives Satire a Serious Look
MEDIA POLICY
Violent Television in the Forefront of Public Comments
Dueling Commentary on 'Married by America' Fine
TELECOM POLICY
Powell: Feds Must Use Light Touch On Net
Kerry or Bush, Telecom Lobbyists Won't Go Hungry
MEDIA & ELECTIONS
ANTI-KERRY FILM WON'T BE AIRED
The Post summarizes yesterday's Sinclair developments -- the investor=20
actions, announcement of "A POW Story," and response to that (see stories=20
below). It also includes this twist: The Sinclair announcement came hours=20
after Deborah Rappaport, a major Democratic donor with her husband, Andy, a=
=20
Silicon Valley venture capitalist, said they had offered to buy one hour on=
=20
Sinclair stations. This would finance a 42-minute version of a pro-Kerry=20
documentary, "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry," by George Butler.=
=20
Rappaport said she was "deeply, deeply outraged" by Sinclair's action and=20
was offering $1 million more than the company's usual ad rate in response.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Frank Ahrens and Howard Kurtz]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46338-2004Oct19.html
(requires registration)
Additional coverage --
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109820828319949458,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_marketplace
USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041020/a_sinclair20.art.htm
LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-sinclair20oct20,1,1...
57.story?coll=3Dla-headlines-frontpage
NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/politics/campaign/20sinclair.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/politics/campaign/20film.html
SOME SHAREHOLDERS SLAM SINCLAIR
Wall Street investment firm Glickenhaus & Co sent a letter to Sinclair CEO=
=20
David Smith asking the company to provide "those with views opposed to the=
=20
allegations in the film an equal opportunity to respond." The letter was=20
sent on behalf of Glickenhaus clients holding 6,100 shares of Sinclair=20
stock. It was spearheaded by General partner Jim Glickenhaus, who cited=20
Sinclair's financial obligation to shareholders. Backing the action is=20
Media Matters For America, a liberal online group that monitors its=20
conservative counterparts. The group said that if it did not hear back from=
=20
Smith by close of business Tuesday, it might sue for an injunction to block=
=20
the first scheduled airing of the show Oct. 21.
TVWeek reports that Sinclair shareholders, led by the 1199 SIEU Greater New=
=20
York Pension Fund, are asking the broadcaster's board to launch an=20
independent investigation into whether two executives and a board member=20
engaged in insider trading earlier this year when they sold Sinclair shares=
=20
ahead of news of weakening financials that triggered a slide in the=20
company's stock. The allegations center on stock sales made in late 2003=20
and early 2004 by Sinclair VPs Frederick Smith and J. Duncan Smith and=20
director Robert Smith. Also on Tuesday, New York State Comptroller Alan=20
Hevesi sent a letter to Sinclair challenging the company's plans to air the=
=20
documentary, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," on the grounds it=20
would further erode the value of the New York State pension fund's=20
investment in Sinclair
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA473368?display=3DBreaking+New...
ferral=3DSUPP
(free access for Benton's Headlines subscribers)
See the Media Matters for America release at
http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190004
Sinclair Shareholders Prepare to Sue Officials for Insider Trading
[SOURCE: TVWeek, AUTHOR: Jay Sherman]
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=3D6554
SINCLAIR TO AIR 'A POW STORY: POLITICS, PRESSURE AND THE MEDIA'
Sinclair announced it will air 'A POW Story,' a "news special [that] will=20
focus in part on the use of documentaries and other media to influence=20
voting, which emerged during the 2004 political campaigns, as well as on=20
the content of certain of these documentaries. The program will also=20
examine the role of the media in filtering the information contained in=20
these documentaries, allegations of media bias by media organizations that=
=20
ignore or filter legitimate news and the attempts by candidates and other=20
organizations to influence media coverage." Sinclair said it never=20
announced or even intended to air in full the documentary 'Stolen Honor.'=20
David Smith, CEO of Sinclair, said, "We cannot in a free America yield to=20
the misguided attempts by a small but vocal minority to influence behavior=
=20
and trample on the First Amendment rights of those with whom they might not=
=20
agree. I have been encouraged, however, by the thousands of e-mails and=20
other messages I, and others, received supporting Sinclair's efforts to=20
hold firm to its ideals in the face of a firestorm of controversy which,=20
ironically, was actually based on misinformation. We also took comfort in=
=20
the positions of other media organizations which supported our right to=20
present this story notwithstanding any disagreement they may have with the=
=20
content, as well as in the words of Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC,=20
who refused to block the program, noting that to do so would be=20
'unconstitutional' and 'an absolute disservice to the First Amendment.'"
[SOURCE: Sinclair Broadcasting Press Release]
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=3D109&STORY=3D/www/sto...
0-19-2004/0002288049&EDATE
Media Access Project President Andrew Jay Schwartzman offered this=20
response: "Sinclair has backed down. It seems as if the public pressure=20
was more than it could bear. That is surprising, since, over the years,=20
Sinclair has been remarkably unresponsive to its viewers=92 wishes. Sinclair=
=20
now says that it never intended to broadcast in its entirety the anti-Kerry=
=20
documentary =93Stolen Honor.=94 However, our understanding is that Sinclair=
=20
had originally intended to do just that until the Los Angeles Times broke=20
the story last week. Sinclair then posted an ambiguous statement on its=20
website to give itself cover, and it has now come up with a much less=20
aggressive program format designed to get out from under the Kerry=20
Campaign=92s request for airtime under the FCC=92s =93Zapple Doctrine=94.=
(The=20
Zapple Doctrine provides that when supporters of one candidate receive air=
=20
time, supporters of opposing candidates are entitled to equivalent=20
airtime.) I would stress that Sinclair's irresponsibility lies in giving=20
one candidate special treatment. We would be no less concerned if it was a=
=20
Kerry supporter who received that kind of free airtime from any broadcaster.
Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said, "Thousands of citizens=20
decried Sinclair's actions with phone calls, advertiser boycotts, broadcast=
=20
license challenges, threatened shareholder lawsuits and massive political=20
pressure. Sinclair is feeling the heat, so they're rewriting history to=20
save face.
See Free Presss' Sinclair Watch at http://www.sinclairwatch.org/
CANDIDATES SEIZE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET INTO LOCAL MEDIA
Some $35 million will be spent this week on TV ads in swing states, but the=
=20
campaigns are also focused on their candidates and messages into local news=
=20
outlets. Money and ad time are in short supply -- and all the ads are=20
starting to blur for viewers. Voters get most of their campaign news from=20
their hometown newspapers and local TV stations. The campaigns have=20
aggressive regional press operations at their headquarters and advance=20
teams at campaign events that have made driving local coverage a priority.
[SOURCE: Associated Press]
http://www.ap.org/pages/indnews/index.html#anchor1
STUDY: EVENING NEWS PROGRAMS CONCENTRATING MORE ON CAMPAIGN'S SUBSTANCE
In an about-face from four years ago, network evening news programs are=20
concentrating more on substantive presidential campaign issues than the=20
horse race, the Center for Media and Public Affairs reports. Less than a=20
quarter of the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news stories in September dealt=20
exclusively with political strategies and the polls. In 2000, 62% of the=20
stories were about tactics and the contest. But candidates sound bites=20
average less than 8 seconds each.
See the full report at
http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.19.Findings.pdf
[SOURCE: Associated Press, AUTHOR: David Bauder]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/news/archive/2004/10/1...
tertainment1800EDT0663.DTL&type=3Dtvradio
JOURNALISTS NOT SATISFIED WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE IN THE CAMPAIGN
With Election Day just two weeks away, there are signs that journalists=20
themselves are not happy with campaign coverage. A new survey of members of=
=20
a national journalism organization finds that nearly three quarters of=20
journalists give the press a C, D or F grade for its campaign coverage so=20
far. In the survey, conducted by the Committee of Concerned Journalists of=
=20
its members, only 3% give the press an A grade, while another 27% give the=
=20
news media a B. At the same time, 42% give the coverage a C and 27% say D=20
or F. What are the particular concerns these journalists have? By large=20
majorities they feel the news media has become sidetracked by trivial=20
issues, has been too reactive and has focused too much on the inside=20
baseball that doesn't really matter to voters, according to the survey.=20
They give particularly low grades to television, be it local, cable or=20
network, and much higher grades to newspapers and online coverage.
[SOURCE: Journalism.org]
http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2004/ccjcam...
4/default.asp
TIME FOR A DIGITAL FAIRNESS DOCTRINE
[Commentary] The Sinclair case highlights our need for national safeguards=
=20
to ensure that all digital media have an obligation to provide diverse=20
viewpoints. Until the late '80s, the broadcasting industry was governed by=
=20
a set of rules, better known as the "Fairness Doctrine," which required=20
stations to offer a variety of viewpoints that reflected opposing=20
perspectives, operate in a "fair" manner while doing so, and ensure they=20
would treat a wide variety of politically related speech fairly, including=
=20
ballot initiatives and personal attacks on the character or honesty of an=20
individual and group. The broadcast lobby won repeal of much of the=20
"Fairness Doctrine" during the late '80s. The rise of conservative talk=20
radio is directly linked to the absence of the Fairness Doctrine and media=
=20
ownership concentration has contributed to the problem of "unbalanced"=20
programming. Conglomeration and deregulation has also weakened what little=
=20
capability TV and radio networks possessed to engage in serious news=20
reporting. All of these developments have created a one-sided (and highly=20
crazed) media environment where opinion has replaced journalism, and=20
ideology and ownership shape what audiences see and hear. A new national=20
policy on "fairness" is needed, along with restored rules on media=20
ownership and forward-thinking approaches to reducing the role of money for=
=20
paid electronic advertising.
[SOURCE: AlterNet, AUTHOR: Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy]
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20216/
'DAILY SHOW' HOST GIVES SATIRE A SERIOUS LOOK
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart took a surprisingly aggressive stance Friday=20
on CNN's "Crossfire," telling the hosts that the CNN mainstay basically=20
just brings in a hack from the left, a hack from the right, lets them=20
fight, and calls it a day. "You have a responsibility to the public=20
discourse, and you fail miserably," Stewart said. "Crossfire" co-host=20
Tucker Carlson hit back by citing the comedian's own interview with Sen.=20
John Kerry a couple of weeks ago. Carlson suggested Stewart shouldn't=20
lecture them when he lobs softballs. "You're on CNN. The show that leads=20
into me is puppets making crank phone calls," Stewart replied. Stewart's=20
criticism isn't a new knock against TV journalism. CBS News legend Edward=20
R. Murrow and others have railed against the dangers of dumbing-down=20
political discourse through TV sound bites since before Stewart was born.=20
It's been a long time since journalism has enjoyed an overwhelmingly=20
positive public image. But the past few years, when the New York Times, CBS=
=20
News and USA Today (among others) have been rocked by scandal, the=20
reputation of the news media has taken a serious drubbing. Stewart=20
suggested that the Fox News Channel model could be applied to a new cable=20
news channel that wouldn't be perceived partisan one way or the other. This=
=20
channel, in Stewart's eyes, would be feisty, unwavering and committed to=20
truth. "Why not create a news organization that isn't liberal but=20
credible?" he asked.
[SOURCE: Hollywood Reporter, AUTHOR: Paul J. Gough]
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/apple_corps_display.jsp?vnu...
tent_id=3D1000673766
The show is creating a buzz on the Internet see
http://news.com.com/Jon+Stewart+Crossfire+feud+ignites+Net+frenzy/2100-1...
3-5417676.html?tag=3Dnefd.top
NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/arts/television/20watc.html
MEDIA POLICY
VIOLENT TELEVISION IN THE FOREFRONT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
The American Ad Federation, American Association of Ad Agencies,=20
Association of National Advertisers, Motion Picture Association of=20
America, National Association of Broadcasters and the Satellite=20
Broadcasting & Communications Association teamed up to fight TV violence --=
=20
or, um, well, at least to fight TV violence regulation. In comments filed=20
at the FCC, the group said there's no evidence to suggest a strong link=20
between TV violence and children=92s behavior. Sesame Workshop said=
education=20
was the proper way to teach children about violence, as well as protect=20
them from violent images. "The Commission should strongly encourage=20
broadcasters to produce and air programming that teaches children positive=
=20
strategies for coping with violence, both in the real world and as depicted=
=20
and reported in the media," Sesame said. The National Cable &=20
Telecommunications Association said the vast programming choices and V-chip=
=20
technology helps parents pick the right programming for their children.=20
"And they do so without censoring or restricting the content that adults=20
may choose to watch or allow their children to watch," NCTA wrote, "even if=
=20
other adults choose not to allow such content into their homes. This is=20
critically important, since violent content, notwithstanding its potential=
=20
adverse effects on children, is not always (or even usually) wholly=20
gratuitous and often arises in artistic expression or newsworthy material.=
=20
Prohibiting censorship of such material lies at the core of=20
constitutionally protected speech.=94
[SOURCE: Communications Daily, AUTHOR: Michael Abramowitz]
(Not available online)
DUELING COMMENTARY ON 'MARRIED BY AMERICA' FINE
The USAToday editorial staff ridicules the FCC for fining TV stations for=20
airing programming that went off the air 18 months ago because of viewer=20
disinterest. "All to what end? Anything viewers saw on Married in America=20
is more than matched on cable and satellite TV, which the FCC can't touch=20
because those subscription services make no use of the free public=20
airwaves. Any attempt to regulate them would fail constitutional muster.=20
Besides, all TVs made in recent years are equipped to let parents block any=
=20
program they wish. Small wonder that so few people complained about Married=
=20
by America. Why wait for sluggish, paternal bureaucrats to dictate taste=20
when you can kill a show with disinterest practically overnight?"
Sen Sam Brownback, however, counters that broadcasters go too far in airing=
=20
indecent content. In exchange for forgoing selling spectrum for revenue, he=
=20
points out, taxpayers license the airwaves to broadcasters for free,=20
over-the-air TV and radio programming. As part of that agreement,=20
broadcasters sign a contract not to air indecent content between 6am and=20
10pm when children are likely to be watching. Sen Brownback writes, "The=20
recent crackdown on broadcasters is a direct result of the surge in=20
indecent content on public airwaves. Due to strong competition, many=20
broadcasters are neglecting their public-interest responsibilities and=20
pushing the envelope toward more and more questionable content. Increasing=
=20
numbers of indecency complaints at the FCC demonstrate the public's rising=
=20
concern." He notes that Congress is trying to rewrite indecency rules,=20
increasing fines to match the huge profits broadcasters make off use of=20
taxpayers' airwaves. He concludes: "The hostile response from broadcasters=
=20
is inexcusable. Instead of addressing the problem, media leaders act as=20
though it is their right to air indecent content despite the fact the=20
Supreme Court has upheld the FCC's responsibility to sanction broadcast=20
indecency. Broadcasters must remember that with unique access to the=20
nation's eyes and ears comes a set of moral and legal obligations."
[SOURCE: USAToday, AUTHOR: USAToday Editorial Staff & Sen Sam Brownback=20
(R-KS)]
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041020/edit20.art.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041020/oppose20.art.htm
TELECOM POLICY
POWELL: FEDS MUST USE LIGHT TOUCH ON NET
FCC Chairman Michael Powell, speaking at the Voice on the Net conference in=
=20
Boston, said government must regulate both lightly and carefully to=20
encourage the expansion of broadband infrastructure and applications such=20
as Internet phone service. He said the government should not rush to create=
=20
rules without understanding their long-term effects on new industries. For=
=20
fiber build-outs, Powell warned that there must be a "delicate balance"=20
between sparking competition and creating a monopoly over new access lines.=
=20
He was referring to recent FCC rules that eased the regulations on Baby=20
Bell phone companies offering services on fiber lines versus on their=20
existing copper infrastructure. However, Chairman Powell warned that=20
opening the doors for one industry is dangerous, citing the government's=20
decision at the turn of the last century to let AT&T control all telephone=
=20
lines in exchange for building the network.
Multichannel News focused on the jurisdiction issues of Internet phone=20
service. Chairman Powell said, "We cannot avoid this question any longer.=20
To hold that packets flying across national and, indeed, international=20
digital networks should be subject to state-commission economic-regulatory=
=20
authority is to dumb down the Internet to match the limited vision of=20
government officials. That would be a tragedy." He added, "Many regulators=
=20
have protested change, saying that VoIP is just a different way to make a=20
phone call. But isn't that the point. It is a different way, and it=20
deserves a different regulatory structure that reflects its unique=20
qualities. I guess one could say that the Constitution and the democratic=20
form of government are just another way to run a nation."
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Jim Hu]
http://news.com.com/Powell+Feds+must+use+light+touch+on+Net/2100-7352_3-...
313.html?tag=3Dnefd.top
Powell: States Can't Regulate VoIP
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA473379.html?display=3DBreaking+News
(requires subscription)
For the full text of Chairman Powell's speech see
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-253325A1.doc
The FCC released its Order on deploying fiber optic broadband networks on=20
Monday. It is available at:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-248A1.doc
See also --
LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-voip20oct20,1,2811479...
ry?coll=3Dla-headlines-pe-business
KERRY OR BUSH, TELECOM LOBBYISTS WON'T GO HUNGRY
[Commentary] Are you a telecommunications lobbyist -- or do you care for=20
one? Then don't you fret, there will still be work in 2005. Although top=20
executives in the cable and telephone industries have hinted at a peace,=20
they still don't agree on one big item: whether or not to start a rewrite=20
of US telecommunications laws. The Baby Bells are for a rewrite; cable=20
giants are against it. Congress likely will reopen the Telecom Act next=20
year, unleashing a hurricane whose outcome is impossible to predict. Only=20
two certainties exist: One is a deluge of political giving from the=20
Hollywood-telecom industrial complex, in return for which legislators will=
=20
be lending an ear to all the private agendas of the givers. The other=20
certainty is that the dream of unfettered competition will look quaint and=
=20
na=EFve a year or two from now. The rewrite will include untangling $20=20
billion/year of cross-subsidies that funds the phone network -- funds that=
=20
could disappear as more businesses and consumers switch to Internet-based=20
calling. Politics will make sure some subsidy system remains. "In fact,"=20
Jenkins ends, "an alarming number of senators and congressmen have been=20
quoted recently rubbing their hands over the prospect of a massive telecom=
=20
rewrite, exhibiting a crazy person's urge to try, try, try again to make=20
the artificial schemes of the '96 law somehow work. Lord knows the right=20
kind of rewrite might do wonders for broadband deployment and the digital=20
economy, but this is one case where hope would be wise to defer to the=20
wizened authority of experience. Otherwise we'll be lucky to avoid a replay=
=20
of the $2 trillion bonfire of investor capital that was the most=20
conspicuous product of the '96 law."
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Holman Jenkins]
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109823250628250136,00.html?mod=3Dtoda...
s_opinion
(requires subscription)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Communications-related Headlines is a free online news summary service=20
provided by the Benton Foundation (www.benton.org). Posted Monday through=20
Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments,=20
policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are=20
factually accurate, their often informal tone does not always represent the=
=20
tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang=20
(headlines( at )benton.org) -- we welcome your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------