ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO (reposted from Quote Unquote)
On Monday, November 28th two local TV news operations, Channel 4 KOB and Channel 7 KOAT reported that a City employee had unintentionally given out confidential documents related to the procurement process for the public access channels in Albuquerque. The news broadcasts added that this employee has suffered a reprisal from City administrators as a result. Why was this woman put on leave for giving out public information?
By Craig Aaron of Free Press/ Reposted from Huffington Post
As a senator, Barack Obama fought to prevent greater media consolidation.
In 2007, he opposed a vote by the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission to lift the ban on allowing one company to own a daily newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market.
"We must ensure that we have an open media market that represents all of the voices in our diverse nation and allows them to be heard," the future president said before the FCC's vote.
Why then is the Obama FCC reportedly pushing for nearly the same rule changes the Republicans failed to carry out in the Bush years? And why -- when those efforts to further weaken media ownership limits were rejected by the public, the courts and congressional leaders -- would the FCC expect a different response this time? Just because a Democrat is now in charge?
To his credit, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has demonstrated a newfound willingness to stand up to the biggest corporations. He deserves accolades for showing why the AT&T/T-Mobile merger is not in the public interest. But that just makes his rumored moves on the traditional media front all the more baffling.
99% Against Big Media
So far Genachowski has spent little time in office focusing on media ownership. But there are few media policy issues that have galvanized as much widespread public opposition as runaway media consolidation. Millions of people have spoken out over the past decade against allowing big media corporations to swallow up more local media outlets. They understand the harm caused when companies like News Corp., Tribune and Sinclair place profits over investing in newsrooms and the information needs of the audiences they serve.
When the FCC tried to gut its ownership rules in 2003 and again in 2007, the public was outraged. They filled hearings to the rafters, and 99 percent of the public comments received by the agency opposed greater media concentration.
The courts have been no more welcoming of the FCC's attempts to do big media's bidding. In 2004, a federal appeals court rejected the rules pushed through by then-Chairman Michael Powell. And just last summer, the same court threw out ex-Chair Kevin Martin's loophole-ridden rules that undermined the longstanding ban on newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership. The court castigated the FCC for failing to listen to public input.
Obama wasn't alone in his opposition to greater media concentration. He was joined by, among others, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. And in 2008, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to overturn the FCC's weakened cross-ownership rule.
Just last year, Sens. Maria Cantwell and Olympia Snowe, joined by then-Sen. Byron Dorgan, sent a letter reminding the FCC "of the Senate's interest in public interest limits for media ownership and that the current Commission is under no obligation to follow the footsteps of its predecessors" who sought to get rid of the ownership rules.
The Truth About Media Consolidation
Of course, big media companies have not given up pressuring the FCC and Congress to twist the rules to their liking. They claim that the Internet has changed everything and they need more consolidation to compete.
In truth, incumbent media dominate online as well. An FCC-commissioned study released earlier this year found that "online local news markets resemble downsized versions of traditional media news markets, with the same news stories produced by the same newspapers and television stations."
There's no doubt that the Internet has disrupted the sky-high monopoly profits newspapers once enjoyed, though most are still profitable. Many media companies are struggling financially largely due to self-inflicted wounds: They got too big too fast and now aren't able to service all the debt they took on trying to please insatiable Wall Street investors.
If consolidation has been bad for business, it has been far worse for journalism. Tens of thousands of journalists have lost their jobs in recent years, and many foreign and statehouse bureaus have been shuttered. More consolidation will mean even fewer reporters on the beat finding out what's happening in local communities.
The FCC Fails to Deal with Diversity
Media consolidation has also hindered the ability of people of color and women to become broadcast station owners. People of color own just 3 percent of all full-power TV stations and 7 percent of radio stations; women own just 6 percent of all broadcast outlets.
Even though the recent federal court ruling rejecting the FCC's rules took the agency to task for failing to address minority and female ownership, the Obama FCC appears determined to pursue the same failed policies as its predecessors.
What happened to the Obama who, as a candidate, called out the FCC for promoting "the concept of consolidation over diversity" and promised to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media"?
Last month, a coalition of civil rights groups wrote a letter to the FCC lamenting that the agency "has no meaningful policies to address racial and gender inequities in media ownership and has ignored the impact of its media ownership rules on those inequities."
"As media consolidation grows, people of color and women become less significant players in the media ecosystem," concluded the groups, which included the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the ACLU, NOW and the NAACP. "The Commission must acknowledge that fact and take action to remedy it."
Fifty more media, women's and social justice organizations (including Free Press) weighed in today with another letter to the agency, warning, "the continued absence of FCC action in the face of deep and intractable ownership disparities is unacceptable."
The signers asked the FCC to evaluate the impact of its media ownership rules on ownership opportunities for women and people of color; take proactive measures to promote ownership of broadcast stations by under-represented groups; and guard against further erosion of media ownership among these groups by maintaining existing media ownership limits.
Now Is the Time to Make Your Voice Heard
On Thursday night, FCC Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps will be in Atlanta for a hearing on media ownership issues at Georgia Tech. This event will be a chance to remind the agency how destructive media consolidation is for local communities.
But even if you're not in Atlanta, you can still tell the FCC what you think. If this talk of going back to Bush's ownership rules is just a trial balloon, now is the time to pop it.
What we need isn't more disastrous media consolidation. We need media that truly represent, as Barack Obama himself said not long ago, "all of the voices in our diverse nation."
We won't get there if we fall back on the failed policies of the past.
Co-authored with Joseph Torres.
Follow Craig Aaron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/notaaroncraig
By Favianna Rodriguez/ Reposted from Favianna.com
The imagery and posters of the Occupy movement are gaining more and more visibility in magazines, blogs, and design journals. I recently ran across an article in ImprintMagazine.com that highlighted the Occupy Wall Street Journal posters issue, a project that was facilitated by my artist friends Jessy Goldstein, Josh MacPhee and Molly Fair of JustSeeds.org.
Political posters are what most has defined my art making career. I was in my teens in the late 90's when I was started perusing through the political posters that had helped define the 60's and 70's. The demands on many of these posters still spoke to me as a young woman of color, even though they were almost 30 years old. I saw posters about labor rights, about corporate greed, about housing, about women and revolution, and about the right for everyone to participate in a democracy.
I was a young, student activist - daughter of immigrants - who had much to say about the world around me. And political posters became my medium of choice because they contained strong imagery, bold messages, and they could exist at many places in one time (street corners, bus stops, community centers).
Now, we are witnessing a renewed interest in political posters and that's thanks to Occupy and the identity of the 99%. The wave of graphics, imagery, and signage emerging from this movement are demonstrating the powerful role that culture plays in political change, political posters in particular.
History shows us that when social movements grow to national and international levels, they also are accompanied by a culture of resistance. In the case of Occupy, we are seeing the same concepts of collaboration and decentralization in the way that art is being produced. For example, free downloads of posters, and the use of Creative Commons. This is precisely the space in which political posters thrive, and that's why I love to make them!
Carol Wells, one of the most impactful mentors in my art-making, explains, "Protest posters flaunt their politics to generate controversy. Raw and aggressive or polished and sophisticated...Produced in multiples, often with urgency and any means available—offset, lithograph, silkscreen, linocut, stencil, woodcut, photocopy, or laser—few copies survive. Slapped on walls surreptitiously, often at great risk, by collectives and anonymous individuals or carefully fashioned by recognized artists in well-equipped studios, protest posters communicate instantly and directly."
I've put together A list of reasons why political posters are vital tools in social movements. Many of these bullets apply to culture overall, including music, the written word, comics, public theater, and more. It's my hope that this will inspire you to make your own poster.
Posters create a compelling vision of the society that we desire to live in: They challenge the status quo, and are often able to draw comparisons between the society we DO and DON'T want.
Posters are Fast: Posters should be read in about 5 seconds. They are designed for someone walking down the street, or for a teacher who wants to put it up in her classroom, or for a quick share online. Text on posters is common and perfectly acceptable, and therefore posters can share a demand, or a call to action. Posters are usually done pretty fast. There's not the same attachment one has to a painting, for example. They key is to get out there!
Posters are Simple: Posters are meant to be bold, clear and to the point. That's how we can measure their effectiveness. Posters need to be framed in simple terms - less is more. I usually shoot for 10 words or less. Posters can explain complex ideas and policies and make them clear and accessible to everyday people.
Posters are Versatile: Posters can inspire a person to action, or make someone cry, or make someone laugh. They can encourage a viewer to mobilize, or to take an action, or to contemplate an idea, or even to get angry.
Posters Encourage Participation: Posters are meant for mass audiences. Their messages often are a a call for a collective identity, whether its around a shared worker identity, a shared Black identity, or in this case, a shared identity around the stories, demands and desires of the 99%.
Posters can exist in many places at once: This is true whether its printed, or only exists onlne, or both. A poster is something meant to be shared, pasted on a wall, used as a picket sign, or even a Facebook profile. For many other works of art, the mass distribution of the piece in its original form would likely lessen its value, but not for posters. You want that image to "go viral."
If this is inspiring, you can click here to download out this step-by-step guide that Josh MacPhee and I wrote called Design for Social Change, originally published in the book Reproduce & Revolt.
You can also visit Occupy Design to browse some Design Guidelines by clicking here.
- - -
Credits for Images in this Blog
World Vs. 1% is by Favianna Rodriguez (me), and can be downloaded here.
Foreclose on the 1% is by Melanie Cervantes & Jesus Barraza of Dignidad Rebelde, and can be downloaded here.
We Are Many is by Ruben Ochoa in Mexico, and can be downloaded here.
By Mandy Hubbard of Reel Grrls / November 16, 2011
Comcast Hosts Generation of Consolidation On Demand
SEATTLE, WA - Reel Grrls, a nonprofit organization that teaches filmmaking and media literacy to young women ages 9-21, announces the release of a DVD compilation of youth-made media justice videos entitled “Generation of Consolidation.” The videos are a direct response to the organization’s clash with media giant Comcast, who pulled funding from the Reel Grrls summer program following a tweet about Comcast’s hire of then-FCC Commissioner Meredith Atwell Baker on the heels of the company’s merger with NBC-Universal.
On Tuesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski released a draft order recommending AT&T and T-Mobile appear at a hearing in front of an administrative judge before the $39 billion deal between the two corporate giants goes through. An FCC agency analysis has lead the Commission to the same conclusion the Department of Justice reached this past August - the proposed AT&T-T-Mobile "merger" does not serve the public's interest.
By David Kravets / Reposted from Wired.com
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) promised Monday to filibuster a controversial Senate proposal that greatly expands the government’s ability to shutter and disrupt websites “dedicated to infringing activities.”
Josh Stearns, November 18, 2011
This was a bad week for press freedom in America. Thirteen journalists covering Occupy Wall Street have been arrested in New York City and numerous others were roughed up, blocked from accessing the protests or threatened by police. Reports suggest that police have used strobe lights to blind cameras, and demanded to have local TV news helicopters grounded during raids on Occupy Wall Street.
By Josh Levy / Reposted from SavetheInternet.com
If a new bill gets through Congress, marketing robots will invade your cellphone. The bill, called the “Mobile Informational Call Act of 2011” (H.R. 3035), would amend the Communications Act of 1934 to allow marketers and bill collectors to make endless calls to your mobile phone — just like they currently can on your landline, but this time using minutes that you are paying for.
By Jamilah King / Reposted from Colorlines.com
On Thursday, the Senate voted against a resolution to do away with federal net neutrality rules that work to maintain openness on the Internet. The vote was just the latest episode in a long saga in which lawmakers, consumer advocates, and telecommunications companies position themselves to influence how communication will happen in the 21st century. And it’s a battle with particular relevance to communities of color, many of which are simultaneously helping to drive broadband use despite often being among those most effected by its slow expansion.
Official Press Release – The Media Action Grassroots Network (MAG-Net) is pleased the Senate voted (46-52) to reject a resolution (S.J. Res. 6) to repeal the net neutrality rules put in place earlier this year by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). DeAnne Cuellar, Executive Director of the Media Justice League calls the partisan resolution “a sneak attack on Internet freedoms sponsored by Sen. Kay Hutchison , and spearheaded by industry-funded members of Congress.” If passed, the resolution, would’ve handed corporations like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon unrestricted power and control over the Internet.