We WILL Be Seeing You

In today's previous post, we highlighted the growing use of surveillance in our nation as a whole (see below).

The High Country is no different--now Boone wants to apply for a grant to install video surveillance cameras in the downtown area to help deter criminal activity, as the Boone Police Chief told Town Council at their December 20th meeting.

Ironically, the Boone Police Chief told the Town Council that "the Charlotte Police Department reported that surveillance doesn’t act as a considerable deterrent" according to the Watauga Democrat.

Also according to the article in the Democrat, "[t]he cameras are not monitored full-time, but rather are motion-activated. The footage would be viewed from a remote location..."

A few obvious questions seem to have not been asked at the meeting:

1) If this type of surveillance is not effective, then exactly why is the Town of Boone applying for the grant?

2) Who will be monitoring the cameras at these remote locations? What will they do with the footage? How will the footage be stored in order to safeguard privacy rights? Will the individuals monitoring the cameras be sworn police officers--or employees of private contractors who are not bound by privacy laws?

One Council member (Liz Aycock) did ask questions about the impact of these cameras on privacy rights--which was very encouraging.

Here's the whole article, from the Watauga Democrat:

A Boone Police Department grant request broached the topic of civil liberties at the December meeting of the Boone Town Council.

Chief Bill Post presented the request at the Dec. 20 meeting, saying a grant of $16,987.50 through the N.C. Governors Crime Commission with a 25 percent match from the town would fund the purchase of three surveillance cameras and signaling equipment.

Post said the cameras would be mounted in various areas throughout town, initially in the downtown area, in response to increased vandalism, graffiti and car break-ins. An area of particular concern, he said, is the alley behind the Boone Fire Department.

The cameras are not monitored full-time, but rather are motion-activated. The footage would be viewed from a remote location, and Post said he’d ideally like to see camera uplinks to patrol cars, as well.

Council member Janet Pepin noted that most surveillance cameras serve as a deterrent and also as potential evidence for a crime, but Post said otherwise, in that the Charlotte Police Department reported that surveillance doesn’t act as a considerable deterrent.

Mayor pro tem Lynne Mason asked if there were a particular impetus for the request.

“Given the issues downtown and the graffiti downtown … it’s just out of hand,” Post replied, also adding that a recent rash or car break-ins raised concern, though not all occurred in the downtown area.

Liz Aycock, in her first meeting as a Boone Town Council member, asked a string of questions involving crime downtown, first if there had been an increase of crime in the downtown area, to which Post gave a ballpark figure of a 10 percent increase.

Aycock asked what time of day criminal activity is most prevalent downtown, and Post replied that instances increase when the bars let out, usually around 2 a.m.

Aycock asked if there were a police officer on duty downtown at all times, and Post said no, in that hours vary. When the regular beat officer is not present, other patrol officers assume those responsibilities.

Post noted that several months ago, he’d spoken with council members about a request for an undercover police officer that would target hot spots as they arise.

“While I believe the safety of Boone residents is of the utmost importance, I have concerns about the privacy rights of citizens,” Aycock said, before referring to a resolution from May 2004, in which the town council affirmed the “principles and federalism and civil liberties,” in that the town supports protecting such liberties, one being the right to privacy.

While Aycock said she would have no problem with a 24-hour police presence downtown, if necessary, she objected to unnecessary video surveillance.

“In my opinion, video surveillance should only be used when all other law enforcement means have been tried and have failed,” she said. “The benefits must substantially outweigh the reduction of privacy that is at risk when a video surveillance system is in place. The citizens of Boone should have the right to walk around town without being recorded and monitored.”

Aycock observed that the town does not have any policy concerning how and when video surveillance could be used and said a comprehensive policy should be written on the matter.

The citizens of Boone should also have a say in the matter, she continued, requesting that the item be added for discussion at the February 2008 quarterly public hearing.

Post said he shared Aycock’s concerns and that he included in his request a nine-month period to develop a program to purchase the cameras, meaning council approval would only allow him to proceed with the grant requests.

Council member Rennie Brantz moved to approve the request, and Stephen Phillips, also in his first meeting as a Boone Town Council member, seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

Post then presented a second grant request, this for the purchase of “Toughbook” style laptops and mounts to be used in patrol vehicles. The grant would amount to $9,000 plus a 25 percent match from the town.

Aycock moved to approve the request, Mason seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

Got Privacy?

Nope, not in our country. From Privacy International:

Each year since 1997, the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International have undertaken what has now become the most comprehensive survey of global privacy ever published. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of surveillance and privacy protection.
...
In terms of statutory protections and privacy enforcement, the US is the worst ranking country in the democratic world. In terms of overall privacy protection the United States has performed very poorly, being out-ranked by both India and the Philippines and falling into the "black" category, denoting endemic surveillance.
...

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• No right to privacy in constitution, though search and seizure protections exist in 4th Amendment; case law on government searches has considered new technology
• No comprehensive privacy law, many sectoral laws; though tort of privacy
• FTC continues to give inadequate attention to privacy issues, though issued self-regulating privacy guidelines on advertising in 2007
• State-level data breach legislation has proven to be useful in identifying faults in security
• REAL-ID and biometric identification programs continue to spread without adequate oversight, research, and funding structures
• Extensive data-sharing programs across federal government and with private sector
• Spreading use of CCTV
• Congress approved presidential program of spying on foreign communications over U.S. networks, e.g. Gmail, Hotmail, etc.; and now considering immunity for telephone companies, while government claims secrecy, thus barring any legal action
• No data retention law as yet, but equally no data protection law
• World leading in border surveillance, mandating trans-border data flows
• Weak protections of financial and medical privacy; plans spread for 'rings of steel' around cities to monitor movements of individuals
• Democratic safeguards tend to be strong but new Congress and political dynamics show that immigration and terrorism continue to leave politicians scared and without principle
• Lack of action on data breach legislation on the federal level while REAL-ID is still compelled upon states has shown that states can make informed decisions
• Recent news regarding FBI biometric database raises particular concerns as this could lead to the largest database of biometrics around the world that is not protected by strong privacy law

You Must Consume, You MUST CONSUME...

If you're a High Country media titan, one of the best ways to give a little holiday boost to your own profitability is to tell your viewers/listeners to SHOP. It's a nice way to scratch the backs of the companies who advertise on your station, or in your newspaper--send shoppers their way to make sure that they will have enough money to advertise some more!

Better still, write a news story about how everyone is out shopping today--and how you should be out there with 'em (from GoBlueRidge.net):

Shoppers to hit the stores

The day after Thanksgiving may start the holiday shopping season- but that doesn’t mean the day after Christmas won’t pack a punch.
Local retailers hope just as many shoppers will be out today as were in stores on Black Friday. Newspapers on Christmas Day were full of sale ads. Additionally, thanks to post-holiday reductions, today may be a great day to start stocking up on Christmas decorations for next year.

First of all, the headline is just strange--one can't help reading the headline and asking "Says who?", or perhaps imagining a slightly revised headline which reads "Shoppers To Hit The Stores--Or Else!"

We must shop, we are told--MUST!

Secondly, this is not a news story--it is an advertisement, plain and simple.

We suggest a more reality-based news story, not one written to satisfy advertising clients--one which examines actual issues and the impact of these issues on actual local people:

• The local impact of the mortgage lending crisis on local residents--and related impacts on holiday retail spending habits
• The local impact of high gas prices on the ability of local people to commute to work--and related impacts on holiday retail spending habits
• The local impact of changes to bankruptcy laws--and related impacts on holiday retail spending habits.

This article could be used as a starting point:

Holiday Spending Growth at 5 -Year Low
Last-Minute Buys Fail to Turn Tide

By Joseph Galante
Bloomberg News
Wednesday, December 26, 2007; D09

A surge in spending over the weekend may not have been enough to rescue Target, Sears Holdings and Macy's from the slowest holiday spending season in five years.

MasterCard's consulting unit said yesterday that sales from Nov. 23 to Dec. 24 gained 3.6 percent. Spending in the week through Dec. 22 declined 2.2 percent, the fourth week of declines, even after sales increased almost 20 percent over the last weekend before Christmas, Chicago-based ShopperTrak RCT said Monday.

We admit, these suggestions may take a couple of phone calls and use of The Google. Pressing buttons and talking--tough stuff--and way too expensive.

WXIT 1200 AM & WATA 1450 AM

Time for a little New Year's reflection. We can be very thankful that WXIT 1200 AM and WATA 1450 AM air such quality programming--here are just a few of each station's greatest hits:

On the June 18 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz advocated building a "double fence along the Mexican border, and stop the damn invasion." Boortz continued: "I don't care if Mexicans pile up against that fence like tumbleweeds in the Santa Ana winds in Southern California. Let 'em. You know, then just run a couple of taco trucks up and down the line, and somebody's gonna be a millionaire out of that."

On the June 11 edition of his show, a caller asked, "Why can't we just load them on planes and keep on loading them until they're back?" Boortz later responded, "We're not gonna throw these people out of airplanes with taco-shaped parachutes."

During his June 21 show, Boortz offered a suggestion he said he got from a listener's email: "When we defeat this illegal alien amnesty bill, and when we yank out the welcome mat, and they all start going back to Mexico, as a going away gift let's all give them a box of nuclear waste." Boortz continued: "Give 'em all a little nuclear waste and let 'em take it on down there to Mexico. Tell 'em it can -- it'll heat tortillas."

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeatedly used the expression "testicle lockbox," suggesting that Clinton has one.

Discussing Rep. Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) speech following her election as the nation's first female Speaker of the House, Limbaugh noted on the January 5 broadcast of his show that Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) said that, in Limbaugh's words, "his 2-year-old daughter ... is inspired by Nancy Pelosi's ascension to the speakership." Limbaugh then commented, "His 2-year-old can't possibly know who Pelosi is other than as a cartoon figure on television. Maybe Pelosi breastfed him, I don't know, when the kid was pregnant. Who knows? She's capable of doing everything else." Limbaugh later added: "[L]ook at Ms. Pelosi. Why, she can multitask. She can breastfeed, she can clip her toenails, she can direct the House, all while the kids are sitting on her lap at the same time."

Just a few examples of what the world of consolidated media has brought to us all--cheap, irrelevant, hateful, non-local programming.

Full link here.

P.S. Limbaugh airs locally on WXIT 1200 AM at 12 noon--just in time for the kids to tune in. How 'bout them family values.

Weekend Video Salon: The Democracy School

We can't look to the corporate media to inform us about what our rights are--especially if it is a corporation that happens to be violating our rights. Fortunately, there is help--The Democracy School. This video is only 16 minutes long--enjoy!

Darth Vader Did It

The first event that DNHC sponsored in the High Country was a free screening of "Who Killed The Electric Car?" It turned out that at the same time, a group at Critcher's Auto Parts in Boone was very much involved in building a fully functioning electric car. Actually, the group had been involved in the building of the car for quite some time.

Interestingly, the group was (and still is) comprised of a wide-range of individuals with widely varying political beliefs. But the group had one thing in common: the desire to make alternative transportation a reality--on the local level. Everyone in the group recognized the need to develop the electric car, and everyone knew it was possible.

When that many people get together (especially considering that the group was comprised of progressives, activists, conservatives, liberals, and libertarians), you begin to see that most folks recognize that we need to make big changes.

Which is why this development is so concerning:

Before EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson “answered the pleas of industry executives” by announcing his “decision to deny California the right to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles,” auto executives directly appealed to Vice President Cheney. EPA staffers told the LA Times that Johnson “made his decision” only after Cheney met with the executives.

On multiple occasions in October and November, Cheney and White House staff members met with industry executives, including the CEOs of Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler. At the meetings, the executives objected to California’s proposed fuel economy standards:

In meetings in October with Mr. Cheney and sessions with White House staff members, auto executives made clear that they were concerned not just about the fuel economy measures in the bill but also about the California proposal for stricter emissions standards.

Johnson explained his decision to thwart California by saying that the new energy bill, which the auto industry supported and President Bush signed into law on Wednesday, “made the proposed California standards unnecessary.” One EPA staffer says Johnson’s decision was part of Cheney’s deal with the industry execs brokered at the meetings:

“Clearly the White House said, ‘We’re going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we’re done, the deal is done,’” said one staffer.

Since taking office, Cheney has taken “a decisive role to undercut long-standing environmental regulations for the benefit of business” while undermining any real action to combat climate change. For example, he stacked the Committee on Environmental Quality with industry heavyweights, killing Bush’s 2000 campaign promise to place caps on carbon emissions. In 2001, his infamous energy task force also ordered the EPA to “reconsider” a rule requiring stricter pollution controls on power and oil refinery plants.

More recently, since February, Cheney has also quietly maneuvered to exert increased control over environmental policy by federal agencies — particularly the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

We hope the electric car group will take notice of this development. When a group that diverse can get together to solve a common problem, it gives us all hope. But be clear about this: out of a desire for power and control, the leaders of this country--everyday--are doing everything that they can to prevent the electric car group at Critcher's from succeeding.

So--who did kill the electric car?

Full article here.

Our Own Backyard: MAIN

Yesterday's FCC decision to allow "cross-ownership" (i.e. newspaper/TV and/or newspaper/radio mergers) in certain towns and cities was not entirely unexpected. However, there is massive opposition brewing--both in Congress and on the "internets."

It's great to see this kind of activism and opposition to the FCC's long-standing desire to allow more media concentration--which can only lead to a significantly diminished democracy.

But let's also be certain to focus on our own region's effort to expand our own corporate-free, community-based, non-profit media system. We're talking about MAIN, the Mountain Area Information Network. MAIN is recognized nationally by some of our country's most forward-thinking media scholars and activists. People from all over the U.S. are trying to copy MAIN's successful business model--to build their own community media network.

MAIN is leading the charge to help prevent the internet from becoming just another appendage of the corporate media system. You can help them, too. You can be a part of the charge.

Let's do whatever we can to help MAIN--wouldn't it be nice to have something just like MAIN right here in the High Country?

Check it out--and help Save the Internet.

The Colonel's Consolidation: In Context

One side says media consolidation is bad--the other says it's good. When big media does choose to cover this hugely important story (which is almost never), this type of back and forth seems to be all the story is about. Rarely--if ever--is any context provided.

But it turns out that someone--60 years ago--recognized the importance of not allowing newspapers to own radio stations in the same town.

That someone was FDR. He understood just how dangerous to democracy a consolidated media landscape was. And it took a Supreme Court battle to prevent newspapers from owning radio stations in the same town--a decision fought by Col. Robert R. McCormick, owner and publisher of the Chicago Tribune.

See, the good Colonel saw absolutely nothing wrong with owning the Tribune and WGN-AM.

So, how did things play out (from the Center for American Progress)?:

...

“Will you let me know when you propose to have a hearing on newspaper ownership of radio stations,” wrote President Franklin D. Roosevelt to Federal Communications Commission Chairman James Fly. That was 1940, at the end of a second FDR administration when the New Dealers were still battling a conservative print media and a conservative Supreme Court to fix the great debacle of American capitalism—the Great Depression.

FDR’s fireside chats and his ready access to radio allowed him to speak directly to Americans and continue to push a progressive agenda. But FDR was becoming increasingly concerned about the purchase of radio operations by the newspaper publishers.

One of the most vehement Roosevelt-haters was Col. Robert R. McCormick, the longtime editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune. McCormick considered it his duty to remove Roosevelt from office and he used every means at his disposal to further this aim, including radio station WGN(AM), which the Chicago Tribune had been operating since 1924.

...

It would be the Roosevelt Justice Department and the Roosevelt Supreme Court that would generate perhaps the first modern First Amendment decision. It also happened to be an antitrust case.

...

Indeed, as [Supreme Court Justice] Black wrote, the First Amendment “rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free society.”

...

[Today], billionaire real estate mogul Sam Zell is buying the Tribune Corporation. And he wants to keep WGN(AM) and WGN-TV. Instead of ruling that a new owner triggers the removal of the “grandfather” waiver because the Tribune’s ownership of a major radio, television, and newspaper operation in the same market has gone on long enough, the three conservatives at the FCC ruled that the “uniquely long-term symbiotic relationship between the broadcast stations and the newspaper warrants a permanent waiver.”

Yes, a permanent waiver.

Instead of pursuing “the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources” the conservative majority ruled that “forced separation of the Tribune, WGN-TV, and WGN(AM) would diminish the strength of important sources of quality news and public affairs programming in the Chicago market and that any detriment to diversity caused by the common ownership is negligible given the nature of the market.”

Notice the shift of frame from democracy to market.

And notice, too, the cyclical nature of this entire process. It seems as if big media is doing all it can to prevent the free circulation of ideas--quickly--before the next election.

Full article here.

Weekend Video Salon: Want Fries With Your "McNews"?

Here's a funny video with some notable clips from the world of consolidated big media--this is what they feed us now. What ever happened to all of those "synergies" and "efficiencies of scale" that were going to make news so much better?

Weekend Video Salon: Inconvenienced Corporate Media

We heard that the local wealthy representative of Jones Media (the wealthy out-of-state corporation that owns almost all of the newspapers in our area) was inconvenienced by having to follow some government regulations the other day. He felt compelled to write a column about his difficulties--about how government stands in the way of corporate "do-gooders".

His column is a perfect example of how (on so many different levels) big, corporate media must tell its own story--not the stories of the ordinary folks that they claim to serve. According to his column, we should somehow be concerned that a big corporation had to jump through some hoops to do some construction. This is passed off as somehow being relevant to regular folks.

We searched for this weekend's video salon with this column in mind. When big corporate media ponders its own irrelevance (do they ever?) they should do so with this video in mind.

Because this video says everything about the people that have had enough with the self-serving, irrelevant media of today--and what they are doing to take it back.

Looks like they're pretty energetic (not to mentioned having desirable demographics). One would think that big media would want these kinds of folks buying their newspapers--don't hold your breath.

"Mom, Dad--I Got A 'McD' in Nutrition."

You have to admit, it's a little funny to watch the folks who seem to believe that privatization will solve everything--kinda like these guys.

We'll just privatize our educational system--yeah, that's the ticket!

In the meantime, let's check in and see how the progress of privatization in our educational system is going thus far--we can't wait--because the results are going to be GREAT!:

Last week, students in Seminole County, Florida received their report cards in envelopes adorned with Ronald McDonald promising a free Happy Meal to students with good grades, behavior, or attendance. Targeting children directly with the message that doing well in school should be rewarded by a Happy Meal – which can contain as many as 710 calories, 28 grams of fat, or 35 grams of sugar – undermines parents’ efforts to encourage healthy eating.

The promotion highlights McDonald’s duplicity when it comes to marketing to children. The company has received kudos for their pledge to stop advertising in elementary schools, but this promotion violates that pledge. It is targeted to children in kindergarten through fifth grade.

Have any school systems in the High Country been asked by McD's to do the same thing?

Better not call to find out--otherwise McD's might just pull their ads from your station/newspaper. Full article from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood here.

Your Holiday Assignment

Who tells your story? Who tells your family's story? Who will remember your relatives once they pass away?

When it comes to big media the answer is clear: not us.

Big media values one thing only--the profit thingy. And for them, the stories that sell are not the stories of everyday people--those stories just aren't all that important. The stories that sell are the important ones.

Something important has happened. Our own stories have become irrelevant--irrelevant in the face of relentless stories about celebrities, athletes, and the promotion of consumerism.

What if we stopped for a moment to consider the importance of our own stories? What would happen? Our guess is that we would realize that our stories are MORE important than those foisted upon us by big media as somehow being relevant to our lives.

Well, enough already. Let's take some time to listen to our own stories--to listen.

And guess what--a group called StoryCorps can help us do just that (from Democracy Now!):

...radio pioneer Dave Isay, who founded StoryCorps, the largest oral history project in the United States. Isay’s new book is “Listening Is an Act of Love: A Celebration of American Life from the StoryCorps Project.” We play several excerpts of StoryCorps recordings, of ordinary people telling their stories to each other, and we speak with three of the people whose stories are featured in the book. They are among the many thousands who have recorded their memories using StoryCorps since it began in 2003.
...
“StoryCorps is built on a few basic ideas: that our stories—the stories of everyday people—are as interesting and important as the celebrity stories we’re bombarded with by the media every minute of the day. That if we take the time to listen, we’ll find wisdom, wonder and poetry in the lives and stories of the people all around us. That we all want to know our lives have mattered and we won’t ever be forgotten. That listening is an act of love.” Those are the opening lines of Dave Isay’s new book about StoryCorps. The book is called Listening Is an Act of Love. It was published in November.
...

As you know, we built a booth in Grand Central terminal four years ago, where you bring a loved one and you’re met by a facilitator, who serves a one-year tour of duty.

AMY GOODMAN: And this booth?

DAVE ISAY: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: Describe the booth.

DAVE ISAY: Well, it’s a soundproof booth, and the inside of it is kind of this sacred space. When you go inside, you close the door. You’re in Grand Central terminal, and it’s completely silent. The lights are low. And you sit across from, say, your grandmother for forty minutes, and you talk. And most people ask the big life questions, like “What are the most important lessons you’ve learned in life?” or “How do you want to be remembered?” “What did your mom sing to you when you were a kid?”

And then, at the end of forty minutes, two CDs have been burned. One goes home with you, and the other stays with us and goes to the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress to become part of an oral history of America.

So we launched four years ago. I came to see you about two years ago when we became a national project. And right now, we’re one of the fastest-growing non-profits in the country. And, you know, as you said, we’re trying to do a lot with this project, but at its core, I think what StoryCorps says is that every life matters and the importance of listening to loved ones and turning off the TV and the Blackberry and the computer and just looking a loved one in the eye and saying “I care about you,” by listening to what they have to say.
...
DAVE ISAY: And these are stories that are really, as Studs Terkel talks about, bottom-up history. History is so often told from the top down through the voices of statesmen and politicians. But the power and the depth of hearing about history through our own voices and our own hearts, I think, gives whole other perspective and an incredibly deep perspective of life in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Your holiday assignment is to listen to this interview--you'll be touched. And no one will get a cent.

Rule Number One

Never, ever write a story that criticizes your advertisers. Otherwise, they may pull their ads--and we might not make as much money!

How many stories have you seen or heard in the High Country media discussing the local impact of toxic toys, pet food, toothpaste, etc.? Perhaps no one up here bought any of these items from the big box stores that sell them.

There is an interesting radio program out there called "Corporate Watchdog Radio"--unfortunately it is not carried by any High Country radio outlet. In their most recent program (December 4th, 2007), they ask the questions that need to be asked:

2007 could have been called the Year of Shopping Dangerously. First there was the pet food scare, then toxic toothpaste, then a bevy of poisonous toys being recalled, one after another – containing lead, asbestos and other toxic materials. Many of the toxic products came from manufacturing outsourced to China. Do we have to choose between products that are cheap or products that are safe?
...
... our interviewees today probe the deeper issues, and help us understand how much more it will take to end the flood of toxic products.

Take a moment to listen to the show, and to learn about the origins and the scope of the problem facing us. And check out the links on Corporate Watchdog Radio's site.

We do have options--we just have to dig to find them, because no media outlet that values profitability over responsibility will ever let us know that these options actually exist.

Full radio program here.

Weekend Video Salon: Bill McKibben

Some questions are never addressed by big media--like "Is more always better?"

We rely on big media to tell us on a daily basis that the accumulation of more STUFF is good--indeed, it is the key to our happiness--and oh, by the way, it is also the key to their own profitability (through advertising). McKibben also has a new book out called "Deep Economy", which is definitely worth checking out. Enjoy!

Corporate Welfare for Big Media

Imagine this scenario: you buy a new car, and then try to sell it later--but you can't find any buyers. So you call your local congressperson, and have the government reimburse you.

In essence, that is what big media is trying to do by working with the FCC to allow newspapers to own a radio/TV station in any market they choose to do so.

How does big media get away with having their own brand of corporate welfare? Let's have a look, from freepress.net:

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin claims that he is removing the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban to “improve the health of the newspaper industry,” which he claims will “wither and die” without drastic action. But there is simply no good evidence showing the newspaper industry is in such grave danger.
...
It is highly questionable whether the FCC, which has no jurisdiction over newspapers, should be using broadcast regulations to “save” the newspaper industry. If the goal here is to promote media diversity, it’s hard to see how that would be accomplished with fewer newsrooms.
...

Though print circulation of daily newspapers has declined, Martin’s claims that newspapers are an “endangered species” are greatly exaggerated. Consider that:

• Revenue per circulated copy increased from 2005 to 2006 (the last year for which full financial data is available).
• Industry-wide, newspapers still enjoy operating profit margins near or above 20 percent — higher than the S&P 500 average.
• Recent mergers and acquisitions demonstrate that newspapers remain highly valued properties. Prices paid for newspaper companies have been above 10 times cash flow, with average stock prices at eight times cash flow. These values are considered quite healthy by financial industry standards.

• William Dean Singleton, CEO of MediaNews Group (a strong advocate of eliminating the cross-ownership ban) recently characterized the newspaper industry as “very, very, very profitable” and predicted it will continue to be so “for a very long time.”

Bad business bailout?

Moreover, there’s little or no evidence to suggest that cross-ownership will improve the finances of newspaper companies.

Tribune Co. is often cited as one of the most financially troubled newspaper companies. Yet it is by far the largest owner of cross-owned newspaper-TV combinations operating under temporary waivers. If cross-ownership hasn’t helped save Tribune, why will it bring financial benefits to other newspaper companies?

Many TV-owning newspaper companies are selling off their broadcast properties. The New York Times Co. recently sold all of its TV stations, and Belo Corp. has announced a plan to spin its TV stations off separately from its newspaper business.

These trends suggest that newspaper companies will be fine if they focus on their core mission of providing quality journalism and work to attract online readers. Lifting the cross-ownership ban seems designed to benefit certain companies like Tribune, Media General and Gannett, which bet heavily on this specific business model. The public interest is too important to bail out to a few conglomerates that mismanaged their businesses.

So, by the FCC's logic, corporate welfare is a good thing--and should be expanded. Expanded--even to an industry that it is not even responsible for regulating--i.e. newspapers.

By expanding the consolidated big media corporate welfare state, the FCC is giving their stamp of approval on the silencing of diverse, independent viewpoints for the sake of a few mega media conglomerates that bet the wrong way. We'll all pay for that--even here in the High Country.

Full article here.

Non-Story

After extensive DNHC staff review and analysis, we have decided that the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) report on the quality of school lunches must be a non-story (i.e. not covered by any High Country media outlet) because:

1) There are no public schools in the High Country.

2) Since there are no public schools in the High Country, there must not be any kids around here.

3) No one gets hungry around mid-day.

Had this been an actual story, you could have read/heard/seen/in/on the High Country media outlets that:

The quality of school lunches in NC has improved--from a D to a D+ since 2006.

So, what about the quality of school lunches in the High Country? Has any media outlet up here called the local school systems for a reaction? Have any local media outlets taken the initiative to evaluate local school lunch programs?

Whoops, we forgot--this is not a story (from CSPI).

“The majority of states still rely on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s outdated school nutrition standards,” said Wootan. “Those national standards limit only the sale of jelly beans, lollipops, and other so-called ‘foods of minimal nutritional value.’ Those standards don’t address calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium, or other key nutrition concerns for children today.”
...
Over the last 20 years, obesity rates have tripled in children and adolescents, and only 2 percent of children eat a healthy diet, according to key nutrition recommendations by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Despite that, about a third of elementary schools, 71 percent of middle schools, and 89 percent of high schools sell items such as sugary drinks, snack cakes, candy, and chips out of vending machines, school stores, or a la carte lines in the cafeteria, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study.

Full non-story here.

Weekend Video Salon: Jeremy Scahill

Quite a bit has been said lately about Blackwater USA in the mainstream media--but very little of this coverage has concentrated on Blackwater's desire to bring their unique brand of customer service to the lucky citizens of our own country. Jeremy Scahill, in this very short video, ties much of the Blackwater story together.

Weekend Video Salon: Early Edition!

OK, so we're a little early! This is an excellent presentation given by Naomi Wolf, about the state of our democracy--and its apparent slow slide into fascism.

WATA 1450 AM

Consolidated media is all about the cheap. And syndicated, satellite-fed programming like Neil Boortz fits the consolidated media world's business plan like a cheap suit.

Neil Boortz claims to be a "libertarian." You can catch his "educational" program on WATA 1450 AM.

Why would a local media titan pay for local staff to run a local show about local issues if he could save big bucks by airing the beamed-in voice of some distant radio host? It's pure genius--kind like running a radio station on auto-pilot.

Here's Neil helping WATA fulfill their FCC-mandated mission to serve the public interest by addressing an issue that is vital to the survival of our democracy, via Media Matters:

During the November 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Neal Boortz stated that "maybe the reason [Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)] doesn't wear a U.S. flag on his lapel is because the U.S. flag -- regardless of what he thinks -- the flag of this country irritates a lot of Democrat [sic] voters." Boortz was referring to Obama's statement that he had decided to stop wearing a U.S. flag lapel pin during the run-up to the Iraq war because it "became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism."

Full article, transcript, and audio here.

A Little Q & A

Q: If an author wrote a book that was critical of said author's government--and then wound up on that government's terrorist watch list, in which country do you think the author resides?

A: Find out here.

One Cheese Pizza, Hold The Lead

"You can make a pizza so cheap that no one will want to eat it." Gordon Bethune, former CEO of Continental Airlines once uttered these words of wisdom when asked why he decided not to cut costs to the bone during the airline's second trip through bankruptcy reorganization.

Turns out he was on to something.

Take lead for example. We've all seen the stories in the media about poisonous lead in toys, many of which are sold at deep discount stores like Walmart and Target. These stories definitely explain the what, but they decidedly avoid the why--or the "back story" about our recent close encounters with lead.

Indeed, the why part of the story seems to be off limits.

Here's one reason why: we live in a time that values the relentless pursuit of cost reduction--regardless of the impact upon our society. If it's cheaper, it has got to be better. And if something undesirable like lead winds up in our toys, then the invisible hand of the free market will take care of that. Sure, it may take a little time, and some lives may be lost--but that sure beats any type of regulation--especially by big government.

And so we shop--at Walmart, Target--any place that's cheap. Maybe that's because we have less disposable income. Maybe that's because we refuse to pay a tiny bit more for something made locally--even if it would benefit our neighbors, our community. And we read that it is the evil people putting the lead into the toys that are ones to blame. We play no role in this dynamic at all, do we?

But we do play a role--we buy the cheap stuff, sometimes because we have to, sometimes because we save five cents. We're driving the demand for this junk. Can you imagine a local company selling toys containing lead? Poisoned dog food? How long would they stay in business? Could a local business face their neighbors everyday, while still allowing their poisoned products to be sold? We think not.

If our local media highlighted the role we play as consumers in driving the demand for ever-cheaper goods, would Walmart or Target be as eager to put their advertising inserts into our local papers?

You decide.

Sooner or Later, General Will Own YOU

The negative impact of media consolidation is something that we have to deal with on a daily basis here in the High Country. Aisling Broadcasting owns nearly all of the radio stations in the area, and Jones Media owns darn near everything else on the print side of things.

As each entity seeks to cut costs, we suffer the consequences--irrelevant, canned, syndicated radio programming, and newspapers that serve as cheerleaders/megaphones for those in power--rarely questioning the status quo (the powerful folks can afford to buy ads, remember).

Yet media consolidation is all around us, too. Case in point: Media General, owner of the Winston-Salem Journal, the Hickory Daily Record, and many, many other media outlets. You see, Media General is losing money in the newspaper/TV business, and lots of it.

But wait--Media General may have a savior in the FCC. Turns out that Media General is one of the major forces behind the FCC's recent effort to allow even more media consolidation--in the form of radio/TV-newspaper cross-ownership, or what used to be called a monopoly by most folks.

Media General is pushing the FCC to allow them to buy up even more media outlets in a town--to the point where they would own the radio/TV station AND the newspaper--thereby controlling all of the traditional media outlets.

Media General's tactics have nothing to do with journalism, obviously. Their plan is to get the FCC to allow them to operate as a monopoly in as many towns as possible so that they can recoup the money they paid to accumulate all of these media outlets in the first place.

And journalism? Well, who cares if making money and true journalism are incompatible? We can always look forward to more coverage of the Hickory Crawdads--that's cheap!

Weekend Video Salon: Naomi Klein

Naomi speaks about the current obsession with the privatization of the public commons - and provides some great historical context. Enjoy!

Up Is Down

FCC Chairman Martin says the best way to ensure that media diversity remains strong is to allow more media consolidation. Pretty Orwellian.

How great it would be for us in the High Country if all of our media outlets were allowed to consolidate under one owner. Martin's new rules would allow that to happen--maybe we could call our new High Country media Borg the Aisjonescharpress?

That would almost be funny, but what Martin wants to do is sanction media monopolies in nearly every market--all in the name of diversity (and PROFITS!)--by allowing one company to own both broadcast and print media outlets. Because to him, media diversity cannot happen unless it is eliminated.

FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps have this to say about Mr. Martin's big plans:

The [Martin's] proposal could repeal the [cross-ownership] ban in every market in America, not just the top twenty. Any city, no matter how small, could be subjected to newspaper broadcast ownership combinations under a very loose standard.

Under Chairman Martin’s plan, all markets will be open to one company combining broadcast properties with cable, the newspaper (already a monopoly in most places), even the Internet Service Provider. His proposal could propel a frenzy of competition-stifling mergers across the land.
...
Under the Chairman’s timetable, we count 19 working days for public comment. That is grossly insufficient. The American people should have a minimum of 90 days to comment, just as many Members of Congress have requested. More importantly, the Commission has yet to finish its Localism proceeding, teed up four years ago, or to forward comprehensive ideas to increase women and minority ownership of broadcast outlets.
...
There is still time to do this the right way. Congress and the thousands of American citizens we have talked to want a thoughtful and deliberate rulemaking, not an alarming rush to judgment characterized by insultingly short notices for public hearings, inadequate time for public comment, flawed studies and a tainted peer review process – all designed to make sure that the Chairman can deliver a generous gift to Big Media before the holidays. For the rest of us: a lump of coal.

Full article here.

How about Charjoaipress? Any other ideas?

At Home and Invisible

Invisible.

You could be forgiven for thinking that Boone's own 1451st has disappeared--if you listen, read or watch to the High Country media outlets. Yes, the High Country media titans served up the standard coverage of veteran ceremonies and celebrations on Veteran's Day--kudos to the media titans for doing something.

The 1451st went to war and came home--that's it--no issues, no concerns, no nothing. They're back and that's all anyone needs to know.

That's just really hard to believe. Because on a national level, our vets are facing real difficulties. Are we to believe that High Country vets are somehow not facing these very same issues?

Almost 2 million veterans are without health insurance, along with 3.8 million members of their households, a new study finds.

Among the 1.8 million uninsured veterans, 12.7 percent are under 65. In addition, the number of uninsured veterans has increased by 290,000 between 2000 and 2004, according to the report in the Oct. 30 online edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

"The Bush Administration has been sending Americans overseas asking them to fight for their country, and yet, when people come home, they have no guarantee of health care," said study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a member of the advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program. "The most basic human right of health care is being denied to our veterans, along with other Americans -- and that's a disgrace."

...

(CBS) Some of America's 25 million veterans face their biggest fight when they return home from the battlefield -- when they take on mental illness.

And, a CBS News analysis reveals they lose that battle, and take their own lives, at a clip described by various experts as "stunning" and "alarming," according to Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian. One called it a "hidden epidemic."

He says no one had ever counted just how many suicides there are nationwide among those who had served in the military -- until now.

The five-month CBS News probe, based upon a detailed analysis of data obtained from death records from 2004 and 2005, found that veterans were more than twice as likely to commit suicide in 2005 as non-vets.

Full CBS story here.

The Public Airwaves

Did you know that the public can challenge license renewals for radio and TV stations? Yep, you can. In what may be the beginning of a wave of challenges, media activist groups in New Jersey are challenging WWOR-TV's bid to renew their broadcasting license on the grounds that WWOR had "failed to provide a program service and adequately meet the needs of its northern New Jersey viewers.”

The groups are also challenging the waiver that the FCC has granted to WWOR-TV (WWOR-TV is owned Rupert Murdoch's News Corp), over News Corp's cross ownership of both TV and newspaper outlets in the same market (in this case, Northern New Jersey/New York City)--you see, Murdoch also owns the New York Post. Under most scenarios, that is called a monopoly.

What is highly unusual here is that the FCC has allowed a public forum to be held regarding the license renewal challenge. Does this indicate an actual change in FCC direction, or will this be a token showing of concern by the FCC? That remains to be seen.

The takeaway message of this post is that you (yes, you), can file a license renewal challenge too--or send a letter to the local media titans--letters sent to radio and TV stations must be kept on file, for possible FCC review.

Are you tired of the canned, non-public service oriented programming on local High Country airwaves? Options do exist.

Full article here.

Weekend Video Salon: Geena Davis

Here is Geena Davis at the 2007 National Conference for Media Reform. Very refreshing!

The Context of Making Contact

Rarely in the consolidated media world in which we live is an important news story fully placed into context. It just takes too much time. Too expensive. Gotta fit those commercials in.

When it comes to the extreme drought we are experiencing in the High Country, context becomes pretty darn important. So we'll give it a try.

A bill, called the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 has been designed to "provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes."

November 2, 2007: President Bush vetoes the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.
November 6, 2007: The U.S. House of Representatives votes to override the Bush veto. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate, where it remains to be seen if they can muster the votes to override the Bush veto.

Why would Bush veto the bill knowing full well that our area (and most of the rest of the country) is facing severe water supply problems? In a word, PRIVATIZATION.

Our water supply represents one of the last money-making frontiers for supporters of the privatization agenda. Simply put, there's money to be made by getting local governments to sell off their water supplies to private companies--and even bigger money to be made by those private companies when they turn around and start selling that water back to the citizenry. You'll find a way to pay when you are thirsty.

Access to clean water has long been considered a basic human right--a part of the public commons. Well, no more. Right alongside our privatized military (Blackwater USA, Triple Canopy, Halliburton), you can add water. And you can count on big media not to cover the story.

There are some small voices out there covering the important issue of water supply privatization--but you won't hear them on the radio here in the High Country--the High Country media titans must not think this type of programming is profitable. Following their logic, if isn't profitable, then it must not be all that important.

You'll have to go here to tune in to Making Contact. When you listen, ask yourself why we can't have this sort of programming carried on High Country radio. Having local radio offer programming like Making Contact would indeed be "the pause that refreshes."

WXIT 1200 AM

Did you know that the FCC says that the airwaves used by radio and television stations to broadcast their signal actually belong to the public? This is the concept of the "Public Airwaves," and is the reason why radio and television stations are required by the FCC to occasionally do something that benefits the public--like some sort of public service--or maybe children's educational programming.

Say, like--Rush Limbaugh. If you were lucky today, you got to hear Rush relentlessly mocking a 13-year old Inuit girl, as she broke down in tears testifying before Congress about the impact of global warming on her Alaskan community. And you got to listen to it right here on WXIT 1200 AM!

The girl was upset about losing her entire way of life to global warming, she broke down, and Rush just had to make fun of her. Take a listen for yourself, and then give WXIT 1200 AM a call to let then know that you expect them to do more to promote public service--as opposed to airing shows that purposely hurt kids who are genuinely frightened.

NewsTalk 1200 WXIT
738 Blowing Rock Road
Boone, NC 28607
(828) 264-8255 Local
(828) 264-2412 Fax
wxit@newstalk1200.com

70 Percent

Now we have even more proof that the American public believes that Big Media is a Big Problem. A new survey shows that as the American media system has grown ever more consolidated, Americans--regardless of their political affiliation--have gotten more and more concerned.

We all understand in our guts that a healthy democracy cannot sustain itself without a rigorous, diverse, and truly independent media system. The founders of this country understood it, and we still understand it today.

The question is--will Big Media report on the results of this survey? Will the very consolidated radio stations and newspapers in the High Country talk about or discuss this survey? Generally speaking, Big Media would rather not talk about itself--call it a form of modesty.

After all, why would Big Media want to do something that might hurt the bottom line?--or give people proof that their own concerns about media consolidation might in fact be shared by 70 percent of the rest of the U.S. population?

Have a look for yourself, from the Media and Democracy Coalition:

The major findings of the poll include:

· Seventy percent of the poll respondents describe media consolidation as a problem and 42 percent of Americans describe it as a major problem. Democrats, independents and Republicans all consider ownership consolidation to be a problem in nearly equal proportions; seventy-one percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents and 69 percent of Republicans believe increasing ownership consolidation is a problem.

· By a considerable margin of 57 percent to 30 percent, the public favors laws that make it illegal for a corporation to own both a newspaper and a television station in the same city or media market. Similar levels of support exist among political liberals (59 percent favor), moderates (58 percent favor), and conservatives (56 percent favor). Likewise, the poll finds support among both older and younger Americans (58 and 55 percent, respectively), white Americans and people of color (59 and 50 percent), and union and non-union households (59 and 56 percent).

“The quality of our country's media is not a partisan issue. This poll is proof that Americans of all political stripes are concerned about increasing media consolidation, which limits consumer choice in local markets. This is particularly true regarding cross-ownership. An overwhelming majority is opposed to one company owning both newspapers and television stations in the localities where citizen voices should matter the most," commented Joel Kelsey, Grassroots Coordinator for Consumers Union, a member of the Media and Democracy Coalition.

Big Media: Kids Aren't Profitable--So Why Bother?

"Synergies" generate higher profits we are told, over and over again--and that's great for everybody! Because when you combine companies (or TV, radio, and newspaper outlets for that matter) you can eliminate those awful inefficiencies--and serve the public an even better product!

Except for those darn pesky kids. Turns out TV programming for kids just doesn't generate enough revenue--so when two or more TV stations come under the ownership of a single company, they drop the amount of kids TV programming dramatically.

Children Now recently completed an analysis of the effects on the availability of children's TV programming in "duopoly" markets (i.e. when media companies are allowed to own multiple TV stations in a single market). And wouldn't ya know it, the results aren't pretty:

The research provides compelling evidence that, as media companies grow bigger through consolidation, the amount of programming provided for children decreases dramatically. This finding is especially important because the quantity of children's educational programming is one of only a handful of ways that citizens can measure broadcasters' efforts to serve the public interest, which they are required to do in exchange for free use of the publicly-owned airwaves.

Broadcasters have claimed that duopolies are necessary to "preserve and enhance" their ability to serve the public interest. The study, Big Media, Little Kids 2: Examining the Influence of Duopolies on Children's Television Programming, finds quite the opposite is true when it comes to children's television. For example:

• Across markets, duopoly stations decreased both their total weekly hours of children's programming and number of children's series an average of four to five times more than did non-duopoly stations.
• Duopoly stations made significantly greater reductions to their educational program offerings, cutting two and a half times more educational programming than did non-duopoly stations.
• By 2006 there was no difference in the quantity of children’s program offerings on duopoly and non-duopoly stations. The one exception was the number of educational series offered, in which duopoly stations offered significantly fewer programs than did non-duopoly stations.
• Children are not receiving the benefits of local programming, as only 1% of children's programs in 1998 and 2006 were locally-produced. Seven of the eleven locally-produced children's shows in the sample were from just one market: Chicago.

...

"This study makes it very clear that when big media win, kids lose," said Christy Glaubke, director of Children Now's Children & the Media program and author of the study. "Broadcasters have an obligation to serve the public interest, and the needs of children must not be sacrificed for broadcasters' financial gain. We hope the FCC will consider the effects of media consolidation on children as they make their ruling."

Ouch. Full report here.

Weekend Video Salon: Bill Moyers

Enjoy Part 2 of Bill Moyer's speech on media reform at the 2007 National Conference on Media Reform. A great motivator!

Foxx, FEMA, and Filtering

Perhaps using FEMA as a role model, U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx recently held a "telephone town hall meeting" to chat with her constituents. You may recall that FEMA recently held a "news conference"--but the "reporters" asking the questions at the FEMA presser turned out to be FEMA staffers only, asking softball questions designed to make FEMA look good. Actual reporters could call in on the phone to "listen only"--the real reporters were not allowed to ask questions of FEMA.

Foxx's telephone town hall was billed as an opportunity for constituents to “participate in her candid conversation on the important issues facing Congress.” Curiously (and very much like the recent FEMA "news conference"), only one caller to the Foxx event asked a tough question--the rest of the callers were highly complimentary of Foxx's record.

How very FEMA-like.

Here are some highlights from the High Country Press coverage of the Foxx/FEMA event:

Dick Sloop of Wilkes County said, “I definitely feel that I was filtered. I dialed into the town hall and listened for a half hour. I got tired of the softball questions and the feel-good commentary, so I dialed *3 [the procedure for joining the queue] and 15 minutes later I was asked for my name, county of record and the content of my question.”

Sloop said he wanted to ask Foxx, in light of her Christian values, if she considers water boarding torture.

“I held for about 30 minutes and then Foxx said, ‘Let’s go to Dick Sloop in Wilkes.’ I’m the only person she identified by my full name and then my phone went dead and she said, ‘Let’s go to Walt in Sparta.’ I wanted my question answered in public, and I’m reasonably sure I was filtered.”

Clear Channel: Radio Nowhere

Bruce Springsteen's new album, Magic, may just be a little too progressive for our friends at Clear Channel Communications. According to FOX, and order has been sent down by Clear Channel corporate not to play The Boss on their "Classic Rock" stations--because he's too old. Yep, that's right--too old--to be played on a "Classic Rock" station?!

Are any radio stations in the High Country censoring The Boss too?

Here's the full article about The Boss & Clear Channel from FOX:

Bruce Springsteen should be very happy. He has the No. 1 album, a possible Grammy for Best Album of the Year for "Magic," an album full of singles and a sold-out concert tour.

Alas, there’s a hitch: Radio will not play "Magic." In fact, sources tell me that Clear Channel has sent an edict to its classic rock stations not to play tracks from "Magic." But it’s OK to play old Springsteen tracks such as "Dancing in the Dark," "Born to Run" and "Born in the USA."

Just no new songs by Springsteen, even though it’s likely many radio listeners already own the album and would like to hear it mixed in with the junk offered on radio.

Why? One theory, says a longtime rock insider, "is that the audience knows those songs. Of course, they’ll never know these songs if no one plays them."

"Magic," by the way, has sold more than 500,000 copies since its release on Oct. 2 and likely will hit the million mark. That’s not a small achievement these days, and one that should be embraced by Clear Channel.

But what a situation: The No. 1 album is not being played on any radio stations, according to Radio & Records, which monitors such things. Nothing. The rock songs aren’t on rock radio, and the two standout "mellow" tracks — "Magic" and "Devil’s Arcade" — aren’t even on "lite" stations.

The singles-kinda hits, "Radio Nowhere" and "Living in the Future" — which would have been hits no questions asked in the '70s, '80s and maybe even the '90s, also are absent from Top 40.

What to do? Columbia Records is said to be readying a remixed version of "The Girls in their Summer Clothes," a poppy Beach Boys-type track that has such a catchy hook fans were singing along to it at live shows before they had the album. Bruce insiders are hopeful that with a push from Sony, "Girls" will triumph.

I’m not so sure.

Clear Channel seems to have sent a clear message to other radio outlets that at age 58, Springsteen simply is too old to be played on rock stations. This completely absurd notion is one of many ways Clear Channel has done more to destroy the music business than downloading over the last 10 years. It’s certainly what’s helped create satellite radio, where Springsteen is a staple and even has his own channel on Sirius.

It’s not just Springsteen. There is no sign at major radio stations of new albums by John Fogerty or Annie Lennox, either. The same stations that should be playing Santana’s new singles with Chad Kroeger or Tina Turner are avoiding them, too.

Like Springsteen, these "older" artists have been relegated to something called Triple A format stations — i.e. either college radio or small artsy stations such as WFUV in the Bronx, N.Y., which are immune from the Clear Channel virus of pre-programming and where the number of plays per song is a fraction of what it is on commercial radio.

Could it be that Clear Channel is a little miffed at these lyrics (see below)--which are clearly speaking out against radio consolidation? Do the lyrics raise the hackles of local High Country radio titans? Maybe its because they hit a little too close to the bottom line:

I was tryin' to find my way home
But all I heard was a drone
Bouncing off a satellite
Crushin' the last lone American night
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?

I was spinnin' 'round a dead dial
Just another lost number in a file
Dancin' down a dark hole
Just searchin' for a world with some soul

This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
Is there anybody alive out there?

I just want to hear some rhythm
I just want to hear some rhythm
I just want to hear some rhythm
I just want to hear some rhythm

I want a thousand guitars
I want pounding drums
I want a million different voices speaking in tongues

This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
Is there anybody alive out there?

I was driving through the misty rain
Searchin' for a mystery train
Boppin' through the wild blue
Tryin' to make a connection to you

This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
This is radio nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?
Is there anybody alive out there?

I just want to feel some rhythm
I just want to feel some rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm
I just want to feel your rhythm


Copyright © 2007 Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)

FCC Commissioner Copps

We just had a great chat with FCC Commissioner Copps. The discussion has concluded, but we were delighted when Commissioner Copps responded to our question--not once, but twice.

P.S. LPFM means low-power FM radio, and the question we posed to Mr. Copps refers to this type of non-profit, non-commercial FM radio station--as well as other issues.

Here's our Q&A--also take a moment to visit freepress.net, the host for the discussion--just to see some of the other questions, and the extent to which other Americans are concerned about media consolidation in their own communities:

Media Monopolies and Community Radio

Submitted on October 29, 2007 - 6:56pm.

Mr. Copps: Thanks so much for your media reform efforts, we are deeply appreciative. Your efforts inspire us to continue our own local efforts to establish media accessibility and diversity.

We are in the mountains of North Carolina, in a town called Boone (pop. 14,000--28,000 when Appalachian State University is in session).

Even here, the negative impact of media consolidation is a stark reality: All 6 radio radio stations are owned by the same company, and almost all of the newspapers (5 out of 6) are owned by a single, out of state corporation.

Simply put, we need help. This kind of consolidation is clearly hurting our local community--for example, we never hear independent music on local radio (and there is so much in this community!!), nor do we hear the voices of local artists, environmentalists, authors--in short, any group that is not identified as being profitable enough for big media.

Will the FCC take any action to break up these local monopolies? If not, can we expect more movement on the LPFM front? What is big media doing to try to block the community radio/LPFM effort? How will the FCC respond to big media's effort to squelch local voices again?

Thank you so much for your efforts--keep up the faith, and we will too.

Democracy Now of the NC High Country: www.dnhc.blogspot.com

»

As a one-time Tar Heel

Submitted by Commissioner Copps on October 29, 2007 - 8:10pm.

As a one-time Tar Heel (although once Heel, always a Heel) I hear your plea for community radio. That's why I noted earlier the need for a real commitment to LPFM here at the FCC. We could take a few fairly easy steps and I think add 400 or 500 stations real quickly.

»

The FCC has done just about

Submitted by Commissioner Copps on October 29, 2007 - 7:05pm.

The FCC has done just about nothing to encourage LPFM after the first application window was opewned in 2000. LPFM is more important than ever in an age when so few companies are controlling so much media. We need to find ways--and there are several--to help LPFM. First we must make a genuine commitment that we want to help. I do.

Weekend Video Salon: Bill Moyers

Here's Bill Moyers at the 2007 National Conference for Media Reform. Enjoy!

Monday: Live Chat With FCC Commissioner Copps

Here in the High Country, you can listen to Rush, Hannity, Dobson, and Boortz on the radio. The first three are all solidly on the right. Boortz is a "libertarian." Are we somehow to believe that these shows present the full range of competing viewpoints which are so essential to a functioning democracy? All of the radio stations in the Boone/Blowing Rock/Banner Elk/Newland/and Jefferson are owned by the same company.

Similarly, you can read the Watauga Democrat, Blowing Rocket, Mountain Times (Watauga & Ashe Counties), Avery Journal, and All About Women--all of which are owned by the same company.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Local media consolidation has resulted in watered-down journalism, and less inclusion of diverse points of view. Voices and issues that need to be heard are shut out--not because they are unimportant to the community--but because they are not profitable enough. Because they are not profitable enough, they are assumed to be irrevelant.

If you are concerned about the state of local media in the High Country, and about the FCC's new effort to allow still more media consolidation, you can discuss your concerns LIVE with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps during an on-line chat this coming Monday at 7:00 p.m. Take a moment to check it out. Here are the details, from freepress.net:

What: Live Chat with Commissioner Copps
Date: Monday, Oct. 29
Time: 7:00 p.m. ET / 4:00 p.m. PT
Location: www.freepress.net/action

Privatization Solves EVERYTHING

For years those in power have repeated over and over again that the root of all of our societal problems stems from big government. And the only way to save ourselves is to sell off everything--in a word, PRIVATIZE! The free market will solve everything.

But we keep seeing example after example of the failure of privatization. Need we mention our friends at Blackwater USA? Halliburton?

When it comes to having a functional democracy, the biggest failure of privatization is clear--the privatization of the public airwaves. Tune around the airwaves in the High Country, and what you get is plain-vanilla corporate TV and radio. You see and hear what sells the best--not what will challenge you, educate you, or inspire you. Even WASU-FM, the broadcast arm of Appalachian State University (and therefore a state-funded operation), is getting into the world of corporate-sponsorship. Gotta make sure we start 'em young, right?

So, what does the privatization record look like?

The magic bullet goes by many names — privatization, public-private partnerships, competitive outsourcing, creative financing solutions — but the basic idea is to allow the power of competition, set free in an unregulated market, to provide the public with the best services at the lowest cost.

...

"The public has been schooled to think that government is the problem, not the solution," Elliott Sclar, professor of economics at Columbia University, told us. In his 2000 book on privatization, You Don't Always Get What You Pay For: The Economics of Privatization (Cornell University), he writes, "American folk wisdom holds that, by and large, public service is uncaring, unbending, bureaucratic, and expensive, whereas competitively supplied private services such as FedEx are efficient and responsive."

...

But this country has a lot of experience with privatization, and the record isn't good.

One hundred years ago private companies did a lot of what we now call government work. "Contracting out was the way American cities carried out their governmental business ever since they grew beyond their small village beginnings," writes Moshe Adler, a Columbia professor of economics, in his 1999 paper The Origins of Governmental Production: Cleaning the Streets of New York by Contract During the 19th Century. At one time private companies provided firefighting, trash collection, and water supplies, to name just a few essential services.

But according to Adler, "By the end of the 19th century contracting out was a mature system that was already as good as it could possibly be. And it was precisely then that governmental production came to America. The realization that every possible improvement to contracting out had been tried led city after city to declare its failure."

For example, the 1906 earthquake and subsequent fires in San Francisco were what prodded the city to municipalize water service after the company charged with the task, Spring Valley Water, failed to deliver while the fires raged.

In Philadelphia as well as San Francisco, the business of firefighting was once very lucrative — for both the firefighting companies and the arsonists who were paid to set fires for the former to fight. And corruption was rampant. "Large amounts of public contracting out historically created lots of opportunities for fraud and nepotism," Jacobs said.

So public agencies stepped in to provide basic services as cheaply and uniformly as possible. Towns and cities took on the tasks of security with police and firefighting, education with schools and libraries, and sanitation with trash collection and wastewater treatment. Nationally, the federal government improved roads and transit, enacted Social Security benefits, and established a National Park System, among many other things.

And then, about 30 years ago, the pendulum started to swing the other way. Driven by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, enacted in a massive policy shift by Ronald Reagan, proliferated by Grover Norquist and the neocon agenda, and fully appreciated by corporations and private companies, privatization came back.

...

To field-test the primacy of privatization, the Reagan administration sponsored a transportation experiment in the early '80s: Miami's Metro-Dade Transit Agency got to compete against Greyhound. The two providers were each given five comparable transit routes to manage over three years, and 80 new buses were bought with a $7.5 million grant from the federal government.

After 18 months 30 of the Greyhound buses were so badly damaged that they had to be permanently pulled from service. Passenger complaints on the Greyhound line were up 100 percent, and ridership was down 31 percent over the course of a year.

Why? There was no incentive in Greyhound's contract to maintain the equipment or retain riders. The company's only goal was to deliver the cheapest service possible.

The Miami transit contract could have contained clauses calling for regular inspections or guaranteed ridership, but that would have significantly increased the cost of the work — perhaps to the point where it would have been competitive with what the city provided.

That's an important lesson in privatization politics: when you add the cost of adequately protecting the public's interest and monitoring contract compliance, the private sector doesn't look so efficient.

...

Full article here.

Weekend Video Salon

Here's Amy Goodman speaking at the National Conference for Media Reform 2007. Enjoy!

Our Company Media Town

Looks like we may have to hold off on that contest to name the new media empire in the High Country--for now (see prior post below).

The FCC may be forced by an upcoming bill to actually listen to public opinion about the wisdom of allowing still more media consolidation--instead of sneakily trying to slip a new set of rules through because they want to "wrap things up."

Localism is a very important issue--it has everything to do with the access that the public is given to the public airwaves, as well as the extent of local ownership (or lack thereof) of the radio, tv, and newspaper outlets in a particular city or town. Significantly, the bill being drafted is bipartisan, something that indicates how vital the issue of media consolidation has become to the American public:

Media-consolidation critic Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) is working quickly with other like-minded legislators, likely including Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), on a bill dealing with media-ownership rules the Federal Communications Commission is currently reviewing.

...

The bill's likely goal would be to delay that process until the FCC came up with separate proposals and sought sufficient public comment on issues including the effect of consolidation on broadcast localism...

...

On learning of Martin's plan, Dorgan, who has long pushed the commission to deal with localism as a separate issue, said Wednesday that if that were the case, there would be a "firestorm of protest, and I will be carrying the wood." Apparently, that wood is the "big stick" of legislation.

Full article here.