:: The Boys Weekend Journal ::

Article: Media Regulation

Relating to our frequent discussions of media regulations, there's transcript available of an interview of media mogul Barry Diller by Bill Moyers on his show last week.

:: Joe 8:37 AM [+] ::
...

Article: There's No Business Like Show Business

This article, which oddly was on BBC last night, but was pulled by this morning, and has now reappeared on The Guardian discusses the selling of the Jessica Lynch story. The most interesting part is where they mention that the idea of embedded reporters came from discussions with the evilest man in Hollywood, Jerry Bruckheimer. I should have known it... I wonder if this story was too racy for the BBC.

:: Joe 2:45 PM [+] ::
...

Op-Ed: On FCC Rule and Order Regarding Concentration

Here is what one consumers' rights organization has to say about today's decision by the FCC. The FCC summarizes its position briefly, in this public notice, and in a little more detail here.

Reuters describes the likely legal challenges that will follow the FCC's decision in this article.

:: Barry 7:15 PM [+] ::
...

Article: The Lost Art of Journalism

There's a well written piece from Brent Cunningham, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review, describing the history of "objective" journalism and how things got to the sorry state they're now in. He does a very nice job of analyzing a number of historical trends that have led up to the gutless press-release journalism popular now.

:: Joe 3:49 PM [+] ::
...

::Where's the Beef?::

In my opinion, Daniel Schorr's piece does not lend any meat to the debate. If anything, such a cursory evaluation of a very thorny subject only adds to confusion on this topic. While I recognize that my posting is subject to the same criticism, there are a few reasons why I believe it is wrongheaded to either fully embrace or flatly denounce the deregulation of complex industries.

First, deregulators fall prey to what is often referred to as the "nirvana fallacy"--comparing the actual world with an unobtainable ideal--when the argument is framed as choosing between government playing an active role or keep its hands to itself. Federal and state governments are so intimately involved at all stages of our economy that deregulation proponents are simply wrong when they claim that the government can now (or could ever) play the role of passive observer. Removing or loosening regulatory oversight does not return the markets to some pre-regulatory world any more than removing a dam would return a river to its natural state--once the government becomes involved, it cannot extricate itself without consequence.

Those favoring regulation are equally guilty of this fallacy when they argue that there are market failures that can only be corrected by government regulation. Economist Harold Demsetz put the problem this way: "Those who adopt the nirvana viewpoint seek to discover discrepancies between the ideal and the real and if discrepancies are found, they deduce the real is inefficient." (Harold Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," 12 Journal of Law and Economics 1-22 (1969)).

Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase similarly commented, "until we realize we are choosing between social arrangements that are more or less all failures, we are not likely to make much headway." (Ronald H. Coase, "The Regulated Industries: Discussion," 62(4) American Economic Review 777-795 (1964)).

Second, I do not buy into the idea (implicit in many of the arguments favoring regulation) that the government knows better than the marketplace. Legislators or administrative officials are, as a general rule, more clueless than industry players. Of course, industry players are not likely to show self-restraint. Therein lies the crux of the problem as I see it. Those in the best (only?) position to adequately diagnose problems within a particular marketplace are those who have the most to lose by sharing that information.

Third, examples of deregulatory failures don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that all deregulatory efforts are destined to receive the same fate. History is just as riddled with regulatory failures (see Communism).

If we are to explore this issue further, I suggest we focus on one industry example to avoid getting overwhelmed. Media concentration seems to present an ideal study for our purposes, all things considered... To keep things fun, I suggest this article by the Cato Institute, entitled "The Big Media Boogeyman."

:: Barry 4:35 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: The Big Media Boogyman::

It's my 3rd post today, but I'm stoked about our upcoming Boys' Weekend and can't hold back =). (BTW, what are we cooking?)

I thought I'd offer a response to the article Barry pointed out on deregulation: The Big Media Boogyman. Thierer and Crews are attempting to show that there is a much more diverse marketplace today than 30 years ago, prior to deregulation. In doing so they state that today there are 500 TV channels, compared 5-6 in 1973. Today there are 13,000 radio stations compared to 7000 in 1970. They neglect to mention that the majority of these 500 TV channels and 13,000 radio stations, not to mention most of the record companies, movie studios, newspapers, and magazines in the country are owned by a mere 8 or 10 companies (and do click on the "Research Behind the Chart" link). Of course there are more options, the technology and the market have expanded tremendously since 1970. But all of those options are now under the control of a small number of people, people who now effectively can dominate the discourse of our deliberative democracy. Local outlets have by and large been eliminated.

They also offer access to information via the internet as an example of the explosion of new options for consumers. This is hardly a credit to the deregulated market. The internet would have arrived regardless of the regulations on TV and radio.

They claim that the regulations do not keep up with the evolving marketplace. Why, they ask, "should media companies be forced to play by a distinct set of random ownership rules that we impose on no other industry"? Perhaps they haven't contemplated the role that open discussion serves in our form of government? Or that the airwaves are a public resource, to be doled out in a manner most benefiting the public? To understand the danger of allowing unfettered private control of the media, one need only observe the lunatic who leveraged his media empire to supreme power in Italy (and believe me, I could come up with another 20 links just like these on request, the guy's a fruitcake). Why should we subject the media to special rules? Because the very existence of government depends on it.

The simplest argument I can make on this case is to simply look at Clear Channel and how they do business. What they do is buy out independent radio stations, clear out all of their staff and run them from regional studios, where they can broadcast the same content to numerous stations in different markets. This is very profitable for them. Even if some fraction of their listeners decide that the new format is crap and tune out, the cost savings is so great that it still generates significant profits. Particularly when they own all, or nearly all of the stations in town, which is not uncommon. End result is that there are fewer voices, few sources of content. When they make political decisions, which they do, regularly, there is now one corporate headquarters making the decision for thousands of stations, rather than each station deciding for themselves. With each station consumed by the mega-media conglomerates the deliberative discourse in our country grows smaller, tighter, less diverse.

I suppose it is worth noting that Thierer and Crews co-authored a book called "What's Yours Is Mine: Open Access and the Rise of Infrastructure Socialism". I don't know if I even need to describe the book, with a title like that. Basically they're arguing that allowing the government to regulate such things as requiring open access to telecommunications infrastructure (phone lines, cable networks) or disclosure of file formats or network protocols equates to socialism and is therefore Eeevil. This is a wee bit over the top and goes against most of the areas of agreement we've found with respect to deregulation, ie that each market should be scrutinized in depth to find which elements of that business should be exposed to the open market (and which parts should not) in order to promote competition that will truly benefit consumers.

:: Joe 8:48 PM [+] ::
...

::Media Concentration study::

I have been scouring the net for information to prepare for our conference on media concentration in search of a real debate on the issue, but admittedly, it is hard to find real arguments favoring the FCC's position allowing media concentration. The best debate I was able to find was on Open Democracy, between Media Reform representative Robert McChesney and Benjamine Compaine. McChesney's piece may be found here (anti-concentration, of course) and Compaine's piece may be found here. James Curran continues the debate here, and David Elstein attacks McChesney's position here.

The Nation has an interesting article about media concentration and describing the "big ten" media corporations, which may be found here.

:: Barry 12:29 AM [+] ::
...

::Gearing Up for Media Reform::

I was wondering whether any of you care to share your thoughts on the best funding approach for the news media. In America, the default developed pretty much shortly after the development of radio that the airwaves belonged to the public and yet licenses are granted to allow private control over the flow of information. The US government gives paltry sums to PBC (through the CPB) and NPR, but the amount is truly negligible. This is contrasted with the BBC model, where until recently the government had direct control over content and, I would suspect, subsidized the production of this content heavily (although admittedly I do not know whether and how much of BBC's funding is derived from commercial sources).

Some people would argue that government funding or too much participation by the government raises serious constitutional (First Amendment) concerns. Even if the government did not directly act as a censor, this would be the inevitable result every time the funding were debated in Congress. But all the same, I think it is indispensible that there is at least one reliable and independent source of news (and I do credit PBS/NPR as that source now) and it should be entirely funded by our tax dollars. Surely this is not a panacea, but one source that has adequate funding to investigate and report on tough issues is a good place to start. Do you agree?

:: Barry 2:21 PM [+] ::
...

::Media Reform Thoughts::

My long post again got deleted by this @$#@$#! website, so here's the short short version:

Media control is important because it shapes attitudes.

Wholly state-controlled or wholly corporate-controlled media is very bad because it presents an unreal rosy picture of its sponsor and allows the sponsor to get away with murder (literally) in both cases.

The solutions are:

1. Have a BBC-style government-funded network with the same resources as and competing with the corporate ones. Each will expose the other's biases and the other's sponsor's screwups and malfeasance.

2. Have accuracy laws modeled on (and stricter than) truth in advertising laws for the news media. Thus, when Fox News reports that "we have now found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," their asses get sued. I haven't decided the best way to work the enforcement of such laws and welcome thoughts. If it is left up to the FCC, industry capture renders the laws meaningless; if private lawsuits are allowed on the public's behalf, a glut of political lawsuits chills investigative journalism. One potential solution would be to allow private suits but make the loser pay all the costs of the suit.

3. Have laws insulating the news people from the owners and advertisers, whether corporate or government. This is probably the most controversial of the proposals, and probably unworkable. If it can be done, it protects the integrity of the news media.

P.S. I need to remind myself to go easy on Fox News, as they seem to be out of control with the lawsuits:

:: David 1:46 PM [+] ::
...

::Here's the link::

I think I screwed up posting the link again, since I don't see it. If so, here it is.

:: David 1:48 PM [+] ::
...

::What's At Stake::

There's an interesting report here studying the impact of various news sources on their audiences. Needless to say, Fox does not come highly recommended.

:: Joe 4:20 PM [+] ::
...

::Part of the Problem::

You'd think that such a report on members of the mass media giving misinformation would be featured prominently. Unfortunately, that relies on members of the mass media sharing the results...

:: David 2:02 PM [+] ::
...

::Media Reform Thoughts::

I agree with Barry and Dave that a publicly funded media source is absolutely necessary in the current climate. It should be better funded (perhaps like the BBC as Dave suggests). As Robert McChesney points out and echoing Cass Sunstein in Republic.com, there seems to be a greater and greater tendency for the big media companies to simply deliver what the consumers want instead of challenging them with truthful, thorough, and wide reporting of news events. We have seen the trends with both the explosion of Fox News as well as the example in the Radio industry, where many consumers have been sucked in by Clear Channel cookie cutter programs. As Joe points out in "What's At Stake" (10-31-03), these trends do not bode well for our democracy. An ill-informed public is perhaps the worst things that could happen to our democracy/republic, and this issue needs to be addressed.

How to address it has been a difficult issue for me. One can certainly place more restrictions on commerical media ownership and practices. One can also enhance support for public, independent media. Yet the core problem seems to remain: the laziness of the American citizen. Why do so many individuals fail to seek out multiple news sources and different viewpoints? What has happened to the discussion of substantive issues that affect our democracy and nation such as media reform, campaign reform, international trade and foreign policy? Perhaps it is the citizen that needs to be held more accountable instead of blaming big media or the government, as is so easy to do. As is pointed out in "Nationalism In Schools" (11-4-03), education may the place to start, and never too early.

:: Ryan 8:57 PM [+] ::
...

::At Least We Agree on Something...::

It turns out that conservative Republicans agree with me: the American public is ill-informed and lazy. Realizing this, they have put considerable pressure on CBS to cancel "The Reagans", fearing it was not an accurate representation of Ronald & company and that Americans would not be able to sort this out for themselves. Thank goodness they came to the rescue of us ignoramuses.

:: Ryan 12:57 PM [+] ::
...

::Transcript of Franken suit::

Here is the transcript of the hearing Franken talked about--it is a good read (and Franken was accurate in his description of the events, as best I can tell).

:: Barry 2:30 PM [+] ::
...

::Always At War With Eastasia::

In an event frighteningly relevant to our recent conference, slashdot pointed out a story on The Memory Hole (very interesting web site, BTW) documenting Time Magazine's effort to make one of their columns dissappear. Coincidentally the column is by George Bush Sr. and Brent Scowcroft explaining in detail why they did not attempt to invade Iraq, their reasoning still being quite relevant and valid in present contexts. I can understand why the administration might want this to go away, although how you get from that desire to AOL/TW actually erasing the article would be an interesting thing to know..

:: Joe 3:00 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Always at War With Eastasia::

I became immediately concerned about this so I called Time magazine's archives department, who said that it is generally their policy to delete articles over five years. I also spoke with someone in Time's PR department, who said she did not want to provide her name, that stated the publisher of the book from which the article was excerpted (Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., according to the article) only extended Time a limited right to publish the article online and that time expired. She stated that Time has received a high volume of calls regarding this topic and they are considering publishing a comment in an upcoming issue.

The link where the story used to be listed provides an explanation similar to the one I received on the phone. I asked why the article was not specifically listed in the table of contents for that issue and she said she would get back to me on that one.

:: Barry 4:34 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Always at War With Eastasia::

Great investigative journalism, Barry! That's almost worthy of a Chew-litzer prize! You may even rival Geraldo someday if you stick with it. Did you tell them you were a (Boys' Weekend) journalist?

:: Joe 5:06 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Always at War With Eastasia::

Indeed I did. Make room for BWJ in the press corps.

:: Barry 5:09 PM [+] ::
...

::Update: Always at War With Eurasia::

Time Magazine's director of public affairs emailed me to let me know that she has forwarded to Time's editor my suggestion that the table of contents online reflects this story . She is also sending websites posting information about this missing article the following email:

TIME has no rights to re-publish the book excerpt which first appeared in TIME's March 2, 1998 issue (and online that week). The book, "A World Transformed," by George H.W. Bush (Sr.) and Brent Scowcroft, was published by Alfred A. Knopf Inc., which holds the rights. The headline on the excerpt in TIME was "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam."

A notice was posted to the TIME.com website on Nov. 11, 2003, to clarify why this excerpt is not available through TIME Archives:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clintons_29.html
"The page you've requested is an excerpt from a book by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush titled A World Transformed, which appeared in the March 2, 1998, issue of TIME magazine under the title "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam". It has been removed from our site because the publisher did not grant us rights to sell the piece online through the TIME archive."

:: Barry 6:42 PM [+] ::
...

::Sometimes Satire Isn't Even Necessary::

Today's poll on Fox News: On Guard. Question: "Are you taking a 'business as usual approach' now that the nation is on high alert?" Answers: "Yes, otherwise the terrorists would win", "No, I'm altering my plans", "I'm not sure". Results: 96% yes, 3% no, 1% not sure. You may have to scroll down past the ad for the George W. Bush Top Gun action figure to see the poll. You can't make this shit up...

:: Joe 10:15 AM [+] ::
...

::CBS Refuses to Show MoveOn Ad During Super Bowl::

See here (Wired.com) and here (Reuters) for coverage.

:: Barry 3:38 PM [+] ::
...