OK, so apologies for the fact that my first post here is both kind of boring and somewhat contrarian. I’ll try not to let the former happen again.
I was also at the FCC hearing last night, and beyond Goldy’s (and Andrew’s) posts below, and Frank the Dog-Shooter’s self-aggrandizing introductory remarks, I came away with another take.
I remember having come out of the March 2003 FCC hearing on ownership deregulation, held at UW’s HUB Ballroom, feeling euphoric. A huge crowd showed up to give the FCC an earful on its destructive rulemaking proposal to allow greater deregulation of media ownership, specifically, crossownership in the same city of radio/TV stations and newspaper and cable companies.
After an unexpected sea of public comment and Congressional criticism, the inevitable decision by the Commission’s Republican majority was overturned in federal appeals court. And, so, last night, the FCC was back in town, for a virtually identical hearing on a virtually identical rulemaking proposal. So either I’ve changed a lot politically in three years (which I doubt), or the expectations that now come with a new and remarkably powerful media democracy movement are vastly higher, which I think is more the case. Because even as 400 plus people braved a frigid, slushy night to turn out and give the FCC another earful, I came away this time with a slightly sour taste.
Despite the turnout, and the overwhelming opposition to media deregulation by the crowd, progressives reading themselves into the public record did themselves few favors last night. The two most compelling speakers on the night, IMO, were John Carlson (KVI talk show host and the night’s sole self-identified Republican), who made the conservative case for regulating media ownership, and UW President Mark Emmert, who made an educator’s pitch for media diversity as necessary for fostering critical thinking skills in a democracy. In a sea of progressives, the standout critics were a conservative talk show host and (essentially) the CEO of one of the region’s biggest employers.
Granted, Carlson and Emmert are both polished public speakers, and both are familiar with how to couch arguments that make sense to lawmakers and regulators. But that’s just the point: with few exceptions, the several dozen mostly left-leaning public speakers that followed in testimony weren’t. Many were lost in a sea of abstract theory; a number made the repetitive case that concentrated media ownership is bad – completely true, but also tangential and in important ways irrelevant to the proceeding, since that question was settled (for the FCC’s purposes) by Congress with the abysmal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Remarkably few progressives specifically addressed the actual issue at hand: whether having different big corporations owning your newspapers and your radio/TV outlets is better than having the same corporate monolith owning both. Only one speaker addressed that issue head-on in those terms, and several compelling progressive arguments against cross-ownership went entirely unmentioned. (For example, addressing the pro-business argument that Internet diversity makes distinctions between regulated broadcast stations and unregulated newspapers irrelevant — an argument Carlson skewered — by noting either that many Americans still don’t have home Internet access, let alone broadband, or that while diverse information is widely available on the Internet, citizens must seek it out — through search engines, links, or URLs — whereas turning a dial, flipping through a remote, or dropping quarters in a box gets you radio, TV, and newspapers, a far more general mass audience.) While these arguments and others went asking, two speakers somehow felt that it would be helpful to do satirical presentations in a federal hearing, as though it were yet another Seattle School Board hearing. Another plugged her socialist newspaper (sigh…) as running the sorts of stories corporate media ought to but won’t.
At least nobody sang.
In other words, it was a few former professional journalists and current media management types (a working journalist would never testify at such a hearing), plus a fairly representative cross-section of our region’s progressive Left, flakes included. The two FCC Commissioners who came to Seattle and who are holding these hearings around the country must have the patience of saints.
The flakes worry me less than the relative absence of compelling and on-point testimony from progressives – and I say this as someone who founded a broadcast trade company whose bread and butter was covering FCC rulemaking proposals. (The company is now owned by Clear Channel. Big sigh.) Few speakers were polished. Few dressed nicely — a detail that doesn’t matter much in a Seattle public hearing, but very much does in D.C.
Few seemed to understand what sorts of testimony might move the FCC, particularly (as Carlson grasped) how to frame issues in a way that would speak to at least one of the three Republican commissioners not present. (After all, the point is to win, not just to ratify the views of the two Democratic commissioners on hand.) Failing debate tactics, few even spoke from the heart as to what media diversity meant to them. And on a related note, excepting Jan Strout of NOW, the only speakers who addressed how lack of diverse ownership affects minority ownership were non-whites.
The FCC hearing was a microcosm of a larger problem. Progressives have been out of power so routinely that when we do have power, far too often we have no idea how to use it. The media democracy movement now has power; anyone doubting it should consider that despite a $200 million lobbying campaign by big telecommunications firms, that movement stopped Congress this session from ending net neutrality. That’s power. But in this case, when local grass roots progressives had the opportunity to publicly put their views on federal record, by and large they whiffed.
Something to ponder now that, at both the state legislative and congressional levels, progressives now have unprecedented power.
How about a post title Geov?
Ah, now I see it. Welcome to HA!
Geov, obviously new to this….logical text and not foul.
thanks
Geov,
So… are you implying that John Carlson is not a “working journalist”…?
The righties better be careful what they wish for.
Consider the case of criminal, coward and Bush co-hort Tommy BUGMAN DeLay. DeLay pulled off a stunt where he got the republican Governor of Texas to allow an unusual redistricting proposal – in an attempt to make it impossible for fair elections in Texas. Of course, Tommy broke some laws along the way and will be sucking dick in a federal penn soon, but I digress. The right wing controlled US Supreme Court okayed this scam and said it was essentially up to the Governors of the states to decide this stuff.
Fast forward to 11/06 when we get a net gain of six Dem governorships, giving us a majority of governors. Now, thanks to Tommy and his right wing pals on the Supreme Court, we can redistrict to our heart’s content and make it impossible for the rethugs to retake office.
How does this apply? Well if the righties try to keep their hold on radio and it backfires, as it appears it might, then Dems may end up the victor AGAIN!
See righties, if you’d just learn to play fair in the first place, none of this would happen. In the meantime, bend over and take it like a bitch, bitch.
OK, let’s keep in mind that this WASN’T a true “FCC hearing”…it was the two remaining Democrat-appointed commissioners appearing at an independently sponsored event. No doubt they participated, listened attentively and collected numerous talking points to take back to Washington with them.
But bear in mind, none of this is going to keep Kevin Martin from doing whaever the hell he wants.
Geov
I didn’t come away with the negative view that you did. Regardless of the merits of the presentation style, I thought there were a very large number of detail points that were made by many speakers. Individually, they may not have been that impressive. But when woven together, I felt that a rather compelling set of data was presented.
I guess someone could have sat down at wrote a compelling essay on the issue. But keep in mind, each speaker was allotted only 2 minutes. Can you make a complelling argument that encompasses all progressive issues in relation to media consolidation in 2 minutes? I don’t think so.
Sometimes the messenger may be more important than the message. I think many of us know what a large part of the message is. But at some point, it also becomes important that a very wide cross section of people from many differnt backgrounds is personalizing portions of the message from their own perspective. It seems that in your view, some uber-progresssive could be the single speaker and present for all of us; I don’t think thats the point.
Pete @ CoolAqua
4: No, Goldy, Carlson is not a working journalist. He’s a talk show host paid to give his opinion (or, in Fisher’s parlance, a “Commentator”). He does more actual reporting than most talk show hosts, but still, that’s his role, just as it’s yours on KIRO. Moreover, he’s also a former Republican nominee for governor (and a successful initiative sponsor), so he has political credentials as well. Lastly, even with all that, he almost certainly cleared his appearance before the FCC with Fisher. In fact, as with Blethen, he painted his own company as a victim, using the Fisher/Entercom dispute over Rush Limbaugh as an example of the dangers of ownership by big corporations that make decisions in one market based solely on factors in another part of the country.
6: The point wasn’t the two Democratic commissioners present. It was that all testimony is recorded and becomes public comment. It goes on the record and in theory (if they care) will be reviewed by the other three commissioners. That’s why the fact that the hearing was held at all was so important.
7: Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I was glad for the turnout, I was glad for the cross-section. But my expectations are higher than they were in 2003. Then, it was exciting just that so many people cared. Now, we know that; the next step is to win. I didn’t think it was a bad hearing, but it wasn’t what it could be because we need to get collectively smarter about what arguments win. That’s all.
Where this may actually help is to keep the public in general aware of this issue, and perhaps persuade some of us to put it on our list of things to keep our Democrat Senators’ and Representatives’ feet to the fire about. Otherwise all they’re likely to hear about it will be from industry lobbyists.
Generally, I found your article to be quite articulate and well though out. You did express some of the same frustrations I have felt in public debate on a variety of issues.
Example: a downtown Seattle protest rally before the first Gulf War began. A speaker is introduced as a soldier who is unwilling to go to war because it is immoral. She begins her speech by saying that she joined the Army to get an education, not to kill people.
That’s when I quit listening. And so did anybody else who might have potentially been persuaded that the war should not have been fought. There were quite a lot of good reasons for not going to war, as were articulated in the Congressional debates before they authorized the war. But when somebody joins a volunteer army and then refuses to go to war because they didn’t want to participate in killing, then they had better come up with a very good reason for a remarkable conversion of conscious, other than that they wanted to go to school on the government’s dime.
The organizers should have been smarter than to allow somebody like that to speak. Of course, that little comment turned up on the local news sound bites, and it drowned out the reasoned discussion regarding the war. We’ve got to be smarter than that, people.
Thanks rhp for explaining Geov’s commentary because frankly, I wasn’t sure what he was getting at.
If I understand correctly, people addressed sort of irrelevant issues or issues that emphasized personal desires/turfs over the need for an open, competitive and diverse media to maintain a vibrant and informed democracy?
If so, that’s too bad. But, I think it reflects on the increasing inability of Americans to objectify and target what is best for all of us as opposed to some of us or “me.”
geov,
remember this was a hearing for public comment. we’re not supposed to be slick just honest. the hearing served it’s purpose, the FCC now has evidence that a majority of concerned seattle citizens are opposed to the consolidation rules under consideration.
i do share your concern though. we do need leaders who can be our slick spokespersons for our progressive views. and they seem to be lacking, or not interested in trying to champion our progressive values.
i don’t know how many resolutions i have fought for inside the dem party that make sound progressive sense that our leaders like pelz and co. dodge like live grenades rather than try to sell and champion because they are afraid of the reaction.
So how does a really progressive wing of the Democratic Party in WA State get heard? I’ve heard similar concerns from others who try to make changes int he party. And Pelz is a snake from my point of view. His treatment of Hong Tran was abominable. He doesn’t represent me.
“Here’s a summary of the speakers and the points they made:
* Todd Boyle: Antiwar activists ran up against a brick wall in 2003 because the traditional media was largely uninterested in viewpoints contrary to the Bush administration
* Andrew Skotdal: Locally owned broadcast outlets are disappearing, even though they produce programming that the American people want.
* Emily Horswill: Thanks to the Reagan administration in the 1980s, alternative voices became scarcer and harder to find.
* Kathy Schrier: A multitude of viewpoints are needed for a free society. Good journalism and good education go hand in hand.
* Bill Wippel: Keep the rules against broadcast cross ownership in place. It is a shame that media conglomerates are doing little to serve the public interest.
* Leigh Robartes: Lower power and community FM stations could be shafted under new rules proposed by conglomerates such as Clear Channel.
* Dennis Lane: Broadcasting is of a higher quality when it is produced locally.
* Sylvia Haven: Wars like the preemptive invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if the traditional media had not shirked its duty to practice responsible journalism in the months preceding March 2003.
* Suzette West (Representing Legend Heart Records): Independent music labels are discriminated against because the corporate radio business demands an artist affiliate with an RIAA member before their music can be played on the public airwaves. This barrier must be taken down.
* Jeff Hoyt: Independent community such as Voice of Vashon (an internet radio operation) have long struggled to gain access to the public airwaves.
* Rebecca Campbell: Spoke satirically as “Maximilian Bucks” in support of corporate media
* Monica Hill: Jurassic sized monopolies dominate our politics and culture. They cannot be allowed to get even bigger. More alternative media is needed.
* Bill Schrier (Chief Technology Officer, City of Seattle): Public broadcasting and municipal government programming is valuable and useful. But it struggles for attention in an advertising-saturated environment.
* Liz Brown (Pacific NW Newspapers Guild): Competition is healthy. Media centralization and concentration is a threat to competition.
* Bryan Johnson, activist: More rules are needed to restrict media ownership. The evidence is in and media consolidation is clearly harmful.
We are in the last half hour of the hearing now.” Northwest Progressive Institute
“Here’s a summary of the speakers and the points they made:
* Todd Boyle: Antiwar activists ran up against a brick wall in 2003 because the traditional media was largely uninterested in viewpoints contrary to the Bush administration
* Andrew Skotdal: Locally owned broadcast outlets are disappearing, even though they produce programming that the American people want.
* Emily Horswill: Thanks to the Reagan administration in the 1980s, alternative voices became scarcer and harder to find.
* Kathy Schrier: A multitude of viewpoints are needed for a free society. Good journalism and good education go hand in hand.
* Bill Wippel: Keep the rules against broadcast cross ownership in place. It is a shame that media conglomerates are doing little to serve the public interest.
* Leigh Robartes: Lower power and community FM stations could be shafted under new rules proposed by conglomerates such as Clear Channel.
* Dennis Lane: Broadcasting is of a higher quality when it is produced locally.
* Sylvia Haven: Wars like the preemptive invasion of Iraq could have been avoided if the traditional media had not shirked its duty to practice responsible journalism in the months preceding March 2003.
* Suzette West (Representing Legend Heart Records): Independent music labels are discriminated against because the corporate radio business demands an artist affiliate with an RIAA member before their music can be played on the public airwaves. This barrier must be taken down.
* Jeff Hoyt: Independent community such as Voice of Vashon (an internet radio operation) have long struggled to gain access to the public airwaves.
* Rebecca Campbell: Spoke satirically as “Maximilian Bucks” in support of corporate media
* Monica Hill: Jurassic sized monopolies dominate our politics and culture. They cannot be allowed to get even bigger. More alternative media is needed.
* Bill Schrier (Chief Technology Officer, City of Seattle): Public broadcasting and municipal government programming is valuable and useful. But it struggles for attention in an advertising-saturated environment.
* Liz Brown (Pacific NW Newspapers Guild): Competition is healthy. Media centralization and concentration is a threat to competition.
* Bryan Johnson, activist: More rules are needed to restrict media ownership. The evidence is in and media consolidation is clearly harmful.
We are in the last half hour of the hearing now.” Northwest Progressive Institute
Good to see you in blog land. Was wondering when you’d end up here.
BTW, I pretty much agree with the above.