mac

Local Community Radio Act will increase voices, choices

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Local Community Radio Act will increase local voices, choices

by Jonathan Lawson
special to The Times

This fall, Congress has the opportunity to expand local radio choices for people in cities and towns across America by passing a single, bipartisan piece of legislation. The Local Community Radio Act will allow hundreds more small noncommercial stations to fill vacant spaces on the radio dial — increasing local voices and music choices.

Folks in Opelousas, La., have a particularly strong understanding of the value of local community radio. When the Federal Communications Commission granted permission for a Low-Power FM (LPFM) community radio station in 2002, it was a point of pride for locals because the station would air zydeco music.

Despite its deep cultural roots in the community, zydeco could no longer be heard on the big commercial stations. And while the new station KOCZ didn't have the reach of the area's commercial stations — many of which are owned by conglomerates based in Las Vegas and Cincinnati — it served its listeners well with local church services, community forums and, of course, zydeco.

But when Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana in 2006, the small local station rose to the occasion. Staying on the air throughout the storm and its aftermath, the community-based station was uniquely situated to provide essential public-safety information. KOCZ broadcasts helped coordinate grassroots-led aid efforts, providing information for evacuees seeking shelter and services.

Most Americans haven't had a chance to hear one of these hyperlocal, noncommercial stations run by community organizations, churches, temples or schools. For communities lucky enough to have them, LPFM stations provide what is in many cases the only outlet for vibrant regional music scenes or cultural groups that have been pushed out of one-size-fits-all commercial radio. A shining example in the northwest is KPCN in Woodburn, Ore. — that state's only Latino-run radio station, broadcasting to the area's large immigrant population in Spanish and other Central American languages.

The FCC began licensing LPFM stations in 2002, after widespread consolidation of radio ownership had seriously reduced the amount of local in local radio. Local newsrooms and local DJs were giving way to cheaper, but blander, networkwide programming; minority-owned stations became endangered.

LPFM was intended to help correct these problems by providing an affordable way for diverse local churches and community groups to access a slice of the public airwaves.

LPFM was nearly stopped before it got started.

Big-radio owners didn't want to share the air with these new neighbors — especially if the new stations could provide authentically local services that had been cut back at many commercial stations. An army of industry lobbyists descended upon Congress to oppose LPFM, arguing that the tiny new stations would cause "interference" with much-larger existing stations.

That argument doesn't pass the smell test — it's like saying an iPod would cause interference with a bank of air-raid sirens.

Nevertheless, the lobbyists' deceptive tactics (including a studio-produced CD "demonstration" of radio interference) convinced lawmakers to scale back plans for democratizing the airwaves. Congress allowed only a limited number of LPFM stations to launch experimentally, while the FCC was told to study the interference issue again.

When the FCC invited initial applications for the new community stations, organizations across the country responded enthusiastically. In Washington state alone, 69 churches, community groups and schools applied for the coveted licenses. Most applications were rejected, as there were only a limited number of slots available.

Luckier applicants are now providing local, noncommercial programming to communities across the state, including Spokane, Olympia, Fall City, Lopez Island and several coastal towns.

The FCC went back to the drawing table as instructed, and hired independent researchers to re-examine the interference issue. Not surprisingly, the results of that 2006 study showed that LPFM poses no threat to existing radio stations.

The time is overdue for Congress to right its earlier wrong — and to pass an uncontroversial new law expanding LPFM across the country. The Local Community Radio Act already enjoys bipartisan support. Senate backers include Maria Cantwell and John McCain. In the House of Representatives, the bill is supported by Washington Democrat Jay Inslee and by Washington Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

However, the bill won't become law without more House support — and without a vote. Congressman Inslee should use his position on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to make sure the Local Community Radio Act doesn't get left behind this year.

Jonathan Lawson is Executive Director of Reclaim the Media, and an organizer of the Northwest Community Radio Network.

Jonathan Lawson
Executive Director

Local Community Radio Act will increase voices, choices

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Jonathan Lawson
Executive Director

FCC Ruling Strip-Mines the Requirements of Data Collection on AT&T, Verizon and Qwest.

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Teletruth News Alert: September 10th, 2008

FCC Ruling Strip-Mines the Requirements of Data Collection on AT&T, Verizon and Qwest.

Bad Data Creates Bad Public Policies - Decision Being Made Using 6 Year-Old Data.

Harms to Small Competitors: FCC "Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action."

We all know the consequence of bad data - Entering Iraq and the missing weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle should be an indicator just how bad it gets when data is flawed, intentionally misleading or missing.

While Congress and others have been holding meetings about the paucity of the FCC's data on broadband, on Monday, September 8th, the FCC decided to erase your ability to know the truth about AT&T, Verizon and Qwest's behavior and acts on multiple topics pertaining to America's telecom and broadband future. It is a slap to the face of everyone reading this. Now, even the analysts will not be given enough data to see just how badly we've been hosed.

The FCC today essentially granted "forbearance" meaning, AT&T, Verizon and Qwest no longer have to collect data on say, quality of service, the build out of the infrastructure, or other important issues.

"In this Order, we grant significant forbearance from carriers' obligation to file Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS) Reports 43-05, 43-06, 43-07, and 43-08 (collectively, the "ARMIS service quality and infrastructure reports"). In particular, with certain limited exceptions, we find that the section 10 criteria are met for the ARMIS service quality and infrastructure reports, subject to certain conditions." -

To read the document

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-203A1.doc

"ARMIS reports" are the basic data the phone companies should be supplying to the FCC; now strip-mined to nothing useful.

Dissenting in part, FCC Commissioner Copps wrote:

"The collection and analysis of solid communications-related data is a linchpin in the Commission's ability to make sound decisions and provide useful guidance and assistance to consumers, states, industry-participants and other stakeholders. That is why it has been so troubling to see in to many instances the Commission headed down the road of collecting less data."

Commissioner Adelstein wrote:

"I have long believed that the Commission has a responsibility to collect accurate and reliable data in order to develop effective policies and fulfill Congress's goals for the evolving telecommunications marketplace. Just as an airplane pilot would not land a plane with eyes closed and instruments off, the Commission must ensure that its decision-making is guided by sufficient data."

Eyes Wide Shut - The FCC's Data - Bad Data Continues to Make Bad Policies.

OK, the FCC's data is currently atrocious on almost all levels. We can substantiate this as Teletruth and New Networks Institute have filed multiple 'Data Quality Act' complaints outlining how the FCC doesn't really care about their "truth in billing" laws, their broadband information or even the actual cost of service, much less competition.

Here are some of our previous Data Quality Act Complaints, FIOAs and other attempts to warn the FCC that bad data was creating bad policies.

http://www.newnetworks.com/Teletruthdataqualityfilings.htm

The current data the FCC used in this current forbearance document is no different. It is a legal-action-waiting-to-happen against the agency as it gives a totally distorted picture of the telecom and broadband marketplace.

How bad is it? This next excerpt is from the FCC's Sept. 8th, 2008 announcement. It discusses the number of Internet Providers in the year 2002 -data that is over 6 years old. It is the FCC's most current information on this subject and it is being used to say - We don't need data on AT&T, Verizon and Qwest.

"Internet Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs "provide clients access to the Internet and generally provide related services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or software consulting related to Internet connectivity." Under the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average annual receipts of $23 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. "

But the kicker-the FCC actually writes

"Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that may be affected by our action."

It knows it is harming 'small entities', but is not going to do anything about it.

Using data from the year 2002 is, well, absurd. Legacy-AT&T and MCI, the 2 largest competitors, were still competing, and the FCC hadn't ruled on removing independent ISPs from the networks (though they were not enforcing the law or previous merger conditions to defend competitors from predatory pricing and sub-standard services.).

Had the FCC examined the data, as we did, in a timely fashion, the FCC would have realized that 7000 independent Internet Providers were put out of business since 2000. Ironically, by 2005, the FCC created a series of bad decisions based on bad data. It removed the independent ISP's right to compete using the incumbents' DSL, cable modem and even new fiber optic services. (These changes in regulations were based on data from 1997!)

http://www.newnetworks.com/parttwofcckills7000isps.htm

Net Neutrality concerns also were created by using inaccurate data. Had these independent, competitive companies created by the Telecom Act of 1996 been allowed to use the PSTN - the 'Public Switched Telephone Networks' ---as the law allows, then if a company, blocks, degrades, filters or even taps your phone or harms your internet, you simply change companies. With the total consolidation of the market, there are no choices and the companies control not only the pipe, but the internet services using the pipe.

How bad is it today?

The FCC didn't notice when the AT&T and MCI customers got hit with price increases and now can cost $.50-$1.00 a minute. The FCC doesn't track low volume users, who get harmed by excessive plan fees.
http://www.newnetworks.com/dataqualityharvest.htm
The FCC didn't notice that the 98 million homes that should have been rewired with fiber optic services by 2009 with speeds of 45mbps in both directions. The FCC's 200K speed-bump definition for broadband ignored the Telecom Act's definition of "high-quality video in both directions".
The FCC didn't notice that America is slipped to 15th in the world in broadband on their watch -- We were Number 1 when the Internet hit.
The FCC didn't notice that there is little wireline competition today and that Verizon and AT&T are able to continually raise rates in virtually every state.
The FCC didn't notice that every merger condition by AT&T-SBC-BellSouth-Verizon-GTE was never met and all that happened was to consolidate the market. AT&T now controls 22 states for local, long distance, DSL and the ISP service.

Yet, Chairman Martin wrote:

"Today, we take another step to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensure a regulatory level playing field. We eliminate outdated reporting requirements that applied to a small class of carriers, retaining only those requirements that still serve a useful regulatory purpose. …And if the Commission does believe specific information is needed in today's competitive marketplace, then we should collect that information from all industry players rather than a handful of carriers."

The FCC does claim it is starting a new rulemaking on the topic, to provide "how the Commission should collect such data on an industry-wide basis." What a joke. There is a monopoly on wireline service, Duh, so what the FCC wants to do is to be able to fudge basic numbers for their political games. If AT&T controls 22 states, and Verizon controls 10+ states and what's left of the GTE's 28 territories, and Qwest controls the other states then industry-wide means - "let's not hold the utilities accountable for anything". (Cable has about 15% of the residential local and long distance market - and much less in the small business market. Most other competitors were put out of business.)

Tom Allibone of Teletruth believes that since the FCC knows its information is so bad, that it has concluded "why bother with collecting anything". I concur.

Let us hope that the next President requires accurate data and removes this chairman who will be known in history as the friend of AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, not the public interest. And in the meantime, Congress should step in and reverse this perverse decision to strip-mine the public's right for an accurate accounting and essential data required for sound public policies.

Bruce Kushnick, Chairman, Teletruth

Executive Director, New Networks Institute

bruce@newnetworks.com

Tom Allibone, Director of Audits, Teletruth

President, LTC Consulting LLP

tom@teletruth.org

Invasion of the Policy Pushers: Interest Groups Spin Ballot Process

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Invasion of the Policy Pushers / Interest Groups Spin SF Ballot Arguments

By Matthew Hirsch, Newsdesk.org/The Public Press

• First in a series fact-checking 2008 election ads in San Francisco
• Sidebar: "Swaying Voters at $2 a Word"

For the November 4 election, San Francisco's voter-information booklet will be packed with dozens of paid arguments around hot-button topics such as housing and public power.

Many of these ballot ads are signed by community and small-business leaders and appear to reflect widespread participation in the public debate.

Yet the people who sign the paid arguments don't always pay for or submit the ads themselves.

San Francisco legislators changed the election rules in 1997 so voters could find out who was footing the bills. But most voters don't know that paid arguments are often bundled by professional campaign consultants whose aim is to manufacture a showing of broad support for certain ballot issues, and who sometimes have their own, undisclosed interests.

ORGANIZING TURNOUT

Whitehurst Campaigns, a local consulting firm, handed in 37 of the 39 paid, signed arguments in favor of Measure A, which would fund construction and renovations at San Francisco General Hospital.

U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dianne Feinstein, along with local medical workers and even hospital patients, were among the people who signed.

All but one of those 39 ads were paid for by the Committee to Rebuild General Hospital, which in turn receives funding from the San Francisco General Hospital Foundation and two unions that represent local health care workers.

Those details will appear in the voter guide, but not the names of campaign consultants who submit paid arguments. And John Whitehurst, who runs Whitehurst Campaigns, says disclosing the consultant's role isn't necessary.

"I'm not sure how that helps the public. I think the important piece is who wrote [the paid argument], who paid for it, and who signed it," Whitehurst said.

In some cases, though, the campaign organizer's role might be significant for voters.

Storefront Political Media, another consulting firm, submitted 14 of 17 paid arguments in favor of Measure L, which would help establish a special court to handle petty crimes in the Tenderloin and other central city neighborhoods.

The founder of Storefront Political Media, Eric Jaye, is an adviser to the mayor, and placed Measure L on the ballot.

Jaye said he generally has no problem with publicly disclosing campaign work, though he thinks it is unnecessary and might be distracting to voters.

He also said that if campaign organizing is disclosed, the rules should apply equally so they can't be used to benefit one political group over another.

"It speaks to the unfortunate level of poison in our political culture that we're even having this conversation," he said.

Of course, many different groups are already using the ballot booklet for political gain.

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. used it in opposition to Measure H, a campaign to promote public power and alternative energy, by funding a group called the Committee to Stop the Blank Check that paid for 22 of 30 arguments against Measure H.

And the San Francisco Tenants Union turned in 9 of 12 paid arguments in favor of Measure M, which is meant to crack down on harassment by landlords.

BY THE BOOK

No other county in California puts paid arguments in local voter guides, but San Franciscans have been doing so for more than 80 years -- and local campaigners have learned how to take advantage of that.

"San Francisco Bay Area politics has been traditionally well organized through associations and candidate machines, whether it's the old Phil Burton machine or people aligned with Willie Brown," said Richard Walker, chair of the California Studies Center at U.C. Berkeley.

Placing the arguments costs money, currently $200, plus $2 per word. The fee doesn't nearly cover the cost of producing the election pamphlet, but it's not intended to.

It's capped to fit almost any voter's budget, suggesting an even playing field for public debate -- and for response to the official ballot arguments, which are written mostly by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and members of the Board of Supervisors.

John Arntz, the director of San Francisco's Department of Elections says the voter guide places a heavy burden on his department's budget, at a cost of roughly $1,500 per page, but he's never found support for eliminating the paid arguments.

"People like the idea of having a chance to share their thoughts on the local measures with all the voters in San Francisco," Arntz said.

Arntz, for one, says the elections department does plenty to make paid arguments accessible to voters by including information in the voter guide about placing paid arguments in future elections.

The department also runs a newspaper ad before the deadline for submitting paid arguments. No other outreach is done and, Arntz says, no more outreach is needed.

But organized campaigns can make one side of the debate appear strongest before voters even begin to weigh the arguments themselves. While the process is open to public scrutiny, greater disclosure of who's orchestrating the arguments does not appear to be a priority.

"What's in the local elections code is what we follow," he said. "The code gives people the opportunity to submit arguments, but there's no policy saying the reason these arguments are in the voter guide is to initiate a vigorous policy discussion."

FOR MORE INFORMATION

San Francisco Department of Elections

San Francisco Public Library's Online Archive of Voter Pamphlets

The San Francisco 2008 Election Truthiness Report is co-produced byNewsdesk.org and The Public Press, and funded through small donations using the Spot.Us "crowdfunding" Web site. Tune in to KALW 91.7 FM at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 9, for additional conversation with reporter Matthew Hirsch.

St. Paul in Hot Seat over Journalist Arrests

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

St. Paul in the Hot Seat Over Journalist Arrests

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/st-paul-authorities-get-t_b_124293.html

Journalists and St. Paul citizens assembled outside St. Paul City Hall today to deliver more than 60,000 letters to Mayor Chris Coleman and prosecuting attorneys demanding that they immediately drop charges against all journalists arrested this week as they covered the Republican National Convention

By Friday morning dozens of journalists, photographers, bloggers and videomakers had been booked by the Ramsey County Sheriff's office in what appears to have been an orchestrated round-up of media makers covering protests during the convention.

"From the pre-convention raids to the ongoing harassment and arrests of journalists, these have been dark days for press freedom in the United States," said Nancy Doyle Brown of the Twin Cities Media Alliance, who delivered the letters on behalf of the nonpartisan media reform group Free Press.

Stories That Will Never Be Told

She was joined by a crowd of local activists and journalists, including Amy Goodman and Nicole Salazar of Democracy Now!, KFAI-FM radio host Andy Driscoll and Mike Bucsko, executive director of the Minnesota Newspaper Guild.

"Tragically there are stories that the world needed to hear this week that will never be told," Brown said. "They won't be told because reporters working on them were sitting in the back of squad cars, were stripped of their cameras, or were face down on the pavement with there hands cuffed behind their backs."

On Thursday, the final night of the convention, it appears that authorities ratcheted up their attacks on both protesters and credentialed journalists, lobbing tear gas and percussion grenades into crowds and arresting student journalists, local TV photographers, Associated Press reporters, and two MyFox journalists, among others.

Other journalists have also been pepper-sprayed, and reporters with I-Witness were held at gunpoint during a "pre-emptive" raid aimed at disrupting protesters last weekend.

Mayor Chris Coleman has refused to reply to my repeated calls and e-mails asking for his response to allegations that journalists were specifically targeted by authorities.

Post Mortem on the Abuse

A crowd of journalists -- many of whom were arrested earlier in the week -- entered City Hall and delivered the letters into the hands of St. Paul Deputy Mayor Ann Mulholland and City Attorney John Choi, who briefly told them that the legal system will sort out their concerns.

"The mayor and public officials "need to do a post mortem to examine the circumstances" of these arrests, said Bucsko, who represents reporters at the Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press. "I hate to think that journalist were being targeted," adding that it appeared that "there was discrimination based upon their jobs."

The signatures were collected in less than 72 hours as people nationwide expressed their outrage over St. Paul's attempts to stifle the many journalists documenting events surrounding the tightly scripted spectacle in the city's Xcel Center.

Wellstone's Worst Nightmare

Groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, The Newspaper Guild, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporters Without Borders, the Society for Professional Journalists and the Writers Guild of America, East have also sounded the alarm over the unusually harsh treatment by city authorities.

"The city of St Paul has a black eye right now, and I must say that Paul Wellstone would be rolling in his Grave," said Denis Moynihan of Free Speech TV, who spoke outside City Hall today.

"Mayor Coleman must salvage the damaged reputation of the state and the city by dropping charges against all journalists immediately."

cc-mediareform | Archives | Modify Your Subscription

Delivery of 50,000 Signatures Demanding St. Paul Drop Charges Against Journalists

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

September 4, 2008

For Immediate Release

Contact:
Nancy Doyle Brown, Twin Cities Media Alliance, (612) 374-9380
Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490, x22 or (703) 517-6273

FRIDAY: Delivery of 50,000 Letters Demanding St. Paul Drop Charges Against Journalists

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- On Friday morning, local advocates and independent journalists will deliver more that 50,000 petitions to St. Paul City Hall calling on Mayor Chris Coleman and local law enforcement officials to drop all charges against journalists arrested while covering protests outside the Republican National Convention.

WHAT: Delivery of 50,000 letters demanding charges against journalists be dropped
WHEN: Sept. 5, 10 a.m. CT
WHERE: St. Paul City Hall, 15 Kellogg Blvd.
WHO: Local advocates and independent journalists from KFAI Community Radio, National Lawyers Guild, Twin Cities Daily Planet, Twin Cities IndyMedia, Twin Cities Media Alliance and The Uptake.

On Monday, local law enforcement officials arrested Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and two producers from her show, Associated Press photographer Matt Rourke and several independent videographers while they were covering protests outside the Republican National Convention. Other independent journalists have also been pepper-sprayed and even held at gunpoint during "pre-emptive" raids aimed at disrupting protesters.

"The targeting and harassment of journalists that we've seen during the RNC sends the message that the Twin Cities don't value the essential role that journalists play in a democracy," said Nancy Doyle Brown of Twin Cities Media Alliance. "From the pre-convention raids to the ongoing harassment and arrests of journalists, these have been dark days for press freedom in the United States. We're bringing Mayor Coleman more than 50,000 letters from people across the nation demanding that all charges pending against these journalists be dropped."

Following the arrests, Free Press, the national media reform organization, circulated a petition demanding that Mayor Coleman and local authorities immediately "free all detained journalists and drop all charges against them" -- garnering more than 50,000 signatures nationwide in less than two days. Their call has been echoed by groups including the Society for Professional Journalists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Reporters Without Borders and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

Watch the video of Goodman's arrest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjyvkR0bGQ

Watch other journalists being arrested, as recorded by The UpTake: http://theuptake.org/

###

Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net

CA Groups Say Freedom of the Press Should Mean "Free the Press" at RNC

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Download audio

Print this article

Email This article

September 3, 2008

St. Paul, MN - Freedom of the press - means never having to ask the authorities to "free the press." That's what members of the news media are saying about the treatment of journalists and others by police, as protests and arrests continue outside the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.

An Associated Press photographer and Amy Goodman - cohost of the nationally syndicated radio news program "Democracy Now!" - were among those swept up in arrests during clashes between protesters and law enforcement officers that began on Monday.

Karlos Gauna Schmieder, media strategist for the Center for Media Justice in Oakland, says jailing journalists is not only unacceptable - it makes a mockery of our democratic process.

"Democracy truly requires a free flow of ideas, there's no doubt. Without that, the Declaration of Independence truly isn't worth the paper it's written on.

In Minnesota, attorney Gena Berglund, with the state chapter of the National Lawyers Guild agrees that targeting journalists doesn't look good for police.

"What is so harmful about somebody using a camera to document police activity? If the police are behaving appropriately, they shouldn't be afraid of anything."

In Bergland's view, police have been overstepping their authority all week in St. Paul, beginning with weekend preemptive raids on homes in which visiting demonstrators and journalists were staying.

"Why is the Constitution being treated like a doormat, instead of the basis on which we build our system of governing and our system of democracy here in the United States?"

Thousands demonstrated in St. Paul on Monday and Tuesday. Nearly 300 people, including reporters and photographers, were arrested after a group of protesters splintered off and began smashing windows. Eyewitnesses say many of those arrested were merely caught up in the chaos.

As St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington put it, police "won the day" against those who intended to disrupt the convention through violence and vandalism. Follow details of the convention-related arrests online, at www.centerformediajustice.org.

**Karlos Says:

Unfortunately, they didn't use the part of my quote that i'd wished.

What I continued to say was:

If we want to call ourselves a shining beacon of democracy, basic freedoms must be in place. Every human rights document around the world begins with freedom of speech, expression and the press - and it's this freedom upon which all others are based...

Amy Goodman Arrested

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Dear Malkia,
Police in St. Paul arrested several journalists yesterday, includingDemocracy Now! host Amy Goodman.
Stand Up for Independent Journalism

Yesterday, police in St. Paul arrested several journalists, including Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and an AP photographer as they were covering protests of the Republican National Convention.
Amy Goodman and others were released last night, but the story is not over.
We need you to cosign our public letter demanding that press intimidation cease immediately, and that all charges be dropped. It will be delivered immediately to St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, the RNC Host Committee and the local prosecuting attorneys. We need 10,000 signatures in the next 24 hours, so please take action now:
Sign the Letter: Drop All Charges Against Journalists
In addition to these arrests, police with firearms drawn raided a meeting of the video journalists' group I-Witness and arrested independent media, bloggers and videomakers. We’re also receiving late-breaking reports of other arrests.
By signing this letter, you’re sending a powerful message: Officials must rein in aggressive and violent tactics by local law enforcement, stop the targeting of journalists and immediately drop all charges against them.
Reporting by independent journalists is vital to a functioning democracy. Americans must have access to diverse sources of information to hold their leaders accountable. Journalists must be free to do their jobs without intimidation.
Please Take Action by Signing this Letter
Don’t wait. We need a free press now more than ever. Tell your friends and take action now!
Thank you,
Josh Silver
Executive Director
Free Press
www.freepress.net
1. Watch the video of Goodman's arrest.
2. See other journalists being arrested as reported by UpTake.
3. News of the AP arrest.
4. Learn more about the arrest of an ABC News producer during the Democratic Convention in Denver.
5. Watch the video of the police raid of I-Witness journalists (Caution: strong language).

Take action on this important campaign at:
https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?id=281
Tell your friends about this campaign at: http://free.convio.net/site/Ecard?ecard_id=1361

Note: Free Press is a national nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not endorse or oppose any candidate for public office.
OUR OTHER CAMPAIGNS:
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Learn more at www.freepress.net

Radio host drops lawsuit

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:00:00 GMT

Friday, August 15, 2008

(08-14) 18:29 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Conservative talk show host Michael Savage has changed his mind and is reluctantly dropping his lawsuit against an Islamic rights group that launched an advertisers' boycott after he attacked Islam and the Quran on the air, his lawyer said Thursday.

A San Francisco federal judge threw out Savage's earlier copyright and racketeering suit against the Council on American-Islamic Relations last month but gave him a chance to file an amended suit by today. In an unusual court filing, attorney Daniel Horowitz, who had earlier promised a new suit that would pass legal muster, said Thursday that Savage has a legitimate case but has decided not to pursue it.

Insisting that Savage can prove the Islamic organization engaged in a conspiracy that harmed him financially, Horowitz said the talk show host is reluctantly dismissing the suit because of "factors arising out of this litigation," which he did not specify.

Later Thursday, Horowitz said he feared his client would be in danger if he continued the case. The attorney said he has no evidence that CAIR commits violent acts but alleged that the Islamic group is out to silence Savage and conducts campaigns that may stir up violence by others.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said Savage was "cutting his losses" by dropping the suit.

"They realized they had no case whatsoever but wanted to get one more smear in before they headed for the bushes," Hooper said.

Savage, who has about 8 million listeners a week on 400 stations for his syndicated "Savage Nation" talk-radio program, said in a broadcast last Oct. 29 that Muslims were "screaming for the blood of Christians or Jews or anyone they hate." He called the Quran a "hateful little book" and a "document of slavery."

CAIR, based in Washington, D.C., posted four minutes of excerpts from the broadcast on its Web site and called for an advertiser boycott. The group says Savage has since lost $1 million in advertising.

Savage's lawsuit, filed in September, accused CAIR of copyright infringement, saying the group had misappropriated his words and used them for fund-raising. He also claimed the group was engaged in racketeering, describing it as a "mouthpiece of international terror" that had helped to finance the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. CAIR called those allegations preposterous and denied any connection to terrorism.

In a July 25 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said anyone who listens to a public broadcast is entitled to take excerpts and use them for purposes of comment and criticism without violating copyright.

In dismissing the racketeering claim, Illston said that even if Savage could prove CAIR was part of a worldwide terrorist conspiracy, he hadn't shown how it affected him or his broadcast. She noted that his allegations were largely focused on activities - such as lawsuits, boycotts and criticism of his broadcasts - that are protected by free speech, but said he could try to rewrite the claim to cure its legal defects.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/BAPR12BDPO.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Journalists Must Speak Up

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 07:00:00 GMT

One of the highlights of the fourth annual UNITY: Journalists of Color convention last month in Chicago should have been the appearance of Sen. Barack Obama at perhaps the largest gathering of journalists in U.S. history.

The chance to see — and question — the presumptive Democratic nominee (his opponent didn’t make it to the Windy City) was the highlight of the event.

Watching someone who could be the nation’s first black president had to be inspiring for a room filled with journalists who spent their careers overcoming the toughest of barriers — a reminder it’s still possible to tear down the most improbable of walls.

But even Obama’s appearance couldn’t remove the shadow hanging over this gathering. I spoke with dozens of veteran and young journalists in Chicago and was surprised by the level of despair about the journalism profession, as well as their own job status. There was little hope of overcoming the obstacles being placed before them.

Most media companies, including newspapers, still make plenty of money. But Wall Street has placed unreasonable demands on companies to increase their profit margins. To accomplish this, news organizations have targeted the newsroom, cutting budgets, closing bureaus, and laying off thousands and thousands of journalists in just the past few years.

Minority journalists have been hit particularly hard. The American Society of Newspaper Editors reported in April that, for only the second time in 20 years, the number of minority journalists leaving the daily newspaper profession last year outnumbered minority journalists landing their first jobs.

The journalists I spoke with did not know how to fight back against this current onslaught; neither did they understand how the battles in Washington over media policy have impacted their profession.

Many journalists are unaware that their bosses have gone to Washington claiming — despite all evidence to the contrary — that greater media consolidation will save newsroom jobs and improve their news operations. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin cited this argument when the commission voted to lift the longstanding newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule — which prevents one company from owning a paper and TV station in the same market — last December.

Runaway media consolidation is the story behind the attack on quality journalism and the clear-cutting of our newsrooms. But you rarely read — and then, only inside the business pages — about media policymaking in the newspaper or hear about it on TV. You might read about jousting among competing media moguls. Maybe there’s a small story about layoffs. Very rarely does anyone connect the two.

In recent years, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the National Association of Black Journalists — despite receiving financial support from corporate media companies — have made the connection and spoken out against media consolidation (as has the Newspaper Guild). They must continue to keep up this fight and expand their efforts. But other journalist groups, like the Society of Professional Journalists, have not taken a stand.

Journalists and journalism groups must add their voices to the media ownership debate, just as they have spoken out strongly in favor of free speech issues and a shield law. Both issues impact the practice of journalism. If journalists do not speak out, their corporate bosses will be more than happy to fill that void.
It is also critical that journalists inform the public about the fight going on in Washington over media ownership rules. The public is too often excluded from participating in this debate even though they are the major stakeholder. Where would journalists of color be if it weren’t for the people of color who took to the streets to fight for racial equality during the civil rights movement?

If the public knew more about why the media is struggling, why they’re not represented equally, why the serious news they need is disappearing - perhaps they would demand that Congress and the FCC pass policies that support journalism institutions and independent news voices instead of weakening them

It is hard for journalists to imagine that the current crisis in the media industry is not a new one. Throughout our nation’s history, the emergence of new technology has always disrupted the traditional media system and the marketplace that supports journalism. It happened with the creation of the telegraph, radio, TV, cable and now with the Internet.

During the previous battles, the government always adopted policies that favored corporate interests over the public interest.

It doesn’t have to be that way this time. And if journalists join in the debate, we can build a media system that supports good journalism. That good journalism — holding our corporate and government leaders accountable — is what we need to nurture our democracy.

Journalists and journalism groups have to start fighting back if they want to once again feel hopeful about the future of their profession. This is not the time for journalists to hang their heads or flee the profession. Now is the time to fight back.

Government Relations Manager Joe Torres works closely with the policy and research staff to create Free Press‘ legislative agenda, lobby in Washington, D.C. and in the states, and build new coalitions that broaden the base of the media reform movement. Before joining Free Press, Joe worked as deputy director of communications and media policy at the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and was a journalist for eight years.