BlueWaveNJ Media Watch

National Conference for Media Reform

2006-12-22T06:39:00.000-12:00

FreePress is sponsoring a national conference this coming January 12-14, in Memphis. There will be dozens of exciting guest speakers (Amy Goodman, Bernie Sanders, Helen Thomas, ...) and hundreds of workshops on how to regain our strong progressive voice in the old and new media. Thinking of going? Post a comment here and we'll all meet up at the regional breakout session! One goal of that session will be to discuss what we can do at the state and local levels to create a free, diverse media ecology -- a media Garden, if you will.

Easy way to reach the FCC on media consolidation

2006-09-23T01:47:00.000-12:00

If you want to tell the FCC not to allow even more big media monopolization, they have made it really easy for you! Just go to their Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) page on that topic, and make your views known.

The ECFS home page gives you a chance to comment on other issues as well, such as Low Power FM.

This Guy Heads the Commerce Committee

2006-07-08T05:32:00.000-12:00

Ted Stevens (R-AK) is the head of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Stevens was made famous last year for refusing to make oil executives testifying before the committee to take the customary oath that all congressional witnesses take. Now Stevens has made the Op-Ed page of the New York Times once again with a great quote about Net Neutrality.

"Just the other day, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially."

Senator Stevens is openly opposed to net neutrality.

Ferguson's Record On Net Neutrality

2006-06-30T15:59:00.000-12:00

Here's a great post from Dump Mike, the best site dedicated to Representative Michael Ferguson (R-NJ), about Ferguson's record on Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality Bill Ready for Mark-Up's

2006-06-27T05:22:00.000-12:00

Here's an interesting post from MyDD about the upcoming manipulation of the Net Neutrality bill.

Kentucky Governor Blocks Political Blogs

2006-06-22T07:14:00.000-12:00

Via Political Wire:

Political bloggers "have joined pornographers, casinos and hate groups" on Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher's (R) "list of Web sites that state employees are blocked from visiting," the Louisville Courier-Journal reports.

Libertarian Republicans better start looking for a new candidate to head their state.

Jarvis on Net Neutrality

2006-06-21T14:43:00.000-12:00

Jeff Jarvis gives personal accounts of the spin campaign that has taken control of the Net Neutrality issue in Washington D.C. here.

I saw one commercial urging a vote against neutrality ending with this punchline: “They call it net neutrality. We call it sticking it to the consumer.” This from the folks who know all about sticking it to the consumer: phone companies (and their friends).

Ignorance on Net Neutrality Rampant Within Party

2006-06-18T10:13:00.000-12:00

Congressman Bill Pascrell (NJ-8) has disillusioned many net neutrality advocates with his support of H.R. 5252, The Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006. While many of the bill's supporters alleged that the bill increases competition in cyberspace, those in favor of complete net neutrality, including the House's sole libertarian, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) opposed the bill.

In response to an inquiry from the BlueWaveNJ Media Reform Committee, Rep. Pascrell's office sent a letter outlining the congressman's position on net neutrality:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the future of the internet. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome this opportunity to respond.

I strongly support efforts to promote network neutrality and ensure a free exchange of ideas, goods and services over the internet. The rise of the internet has irrevocably altered our way of life, and is now an integral part of society. During recent discussion of new, comprehensive telecommunications reform legislation, the issue of network neutrality was brought forward, stemming from concerns that internet service providers, such as cable or phone companies, might begin to charge web content providers to allow subscribers speedier access to preferred websites.

The internet has provided an open forum for the exchange of ideas and for selling goods and services, with equal opportunity for entrepreneurial startups and large, established firms. The greatest corporate success stories of the last two decades were begun by entrepreneurial internet start-up companies. In their infancy, companies such a Google, Ebay and Yahoo! could not have afforded extra fees to entice customers, and by eliminating network neutrality, we make it more difficult for the next great entrepreneur to be successful.

I am not aware of any instance where network neutrality is currently being violated, and have reservations regulating a problem that does not already exist. However, I do believe that the internet should remain the most open avenue of information in our society. In order to protect this important medium, I voted in favor of a strong network neutrality amendment during floor consideration of H.R. 5252, the "Communication Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act," a bill designed to increase competition in the cable marketplace and expand our broadband infrastructure.

The net neutrality amendment, offered by colleague Rep. Ed Markey (MA), would have ensured that internet providers treat every website equally, and would not use their networks to direct traffic on the information superhighway. Unfortunately, this provision failed by a vote of 152-269. Be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues to provide the internet with the strong neutrality protections it needs as H.R. 5252 moves through the legislative process.

Spin Mania

2006-06-13T16:03:00.000-12:00

These are the opening lines of two articles on the same topic, the first from the Associated Press, and the second from the New York Times Business Section.

Monopolies in many cable TV markets could end under House-passed legislation that supporters said would increase competition and drive down prices.

The House of Representatives approved the most extensive telecommunications legislation in a decade on Thursday, largely ratifying the policy agenda of the nation's largest telephone companies.

Considering the consistent stance this Congress has taken against consumers, it's easy to see which sentence is true.

GOP Internet Bill Passes House

2006-06-09T15:42:00.000-12:00

The Republican sponsored Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act passed the House of Representatives yesterday 321-101. 92 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted against the bill that will, according to the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, John Dingell, give internet providers a blank check in dealing with consumers. Here is a link to the vote.

Dingle Speaks Out For Net Neutrality

2006-06-09T15:28:00.000-12:00

Congressman John Dingle (D-MI), the longest serving member of congress (elected in 1954) spoke out against a Republican sponsored internet bill that would serve as a "giveaway to the special interests."

Dingle blasted the legislation for allowing internet providers to discriminate against cheaper websites and sparsely populated areas with poorer service.

Dingell stressed an important point: the GOP bill would have put all internet restrictions under the supervision of the FCC, the most overwhelmed and unorganized agency in Washington.

Optimistic for Net Neutrality

2006-06-02T15:04:00.000-12:00

It looks as if net neutrality is not only being embraced by media watchdogs, but by some of the most powerful guys on Capitol Hill as well. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the powerful chairman of the Judiciary Committee, is lauded as a "Net Hero" at Save the Internet, as he recently guided the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006 through his committee. Chances are that he had a very direct role in securing Republican votes for the legislation that would prevent large internet providers from giving better service to companies that pay more.

Net Neutrality

2006-06-01T04:33:00.000-12:00

Adam Cohen had an interesting article on net neutrality the other day.

He described the efforts of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the World Wide Web, to keep the internet neutral. What the article sums up the idea that the web is not merely another means of communication for the media. The internet has a unique role in the global community as a platform for literally everyone, with or without access to a computer.

However, this is threatened by discriminatory practices by the same corporations that currently run the mainstream media.

Internet Freedom Bill Passes House Judiciary Committee

2006-05-27T10:31:00.000-12:00

The House Judiciary Committee reported the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act favorably to the full House the other day.

The bill seeks to prohibit broadband providers from discriminating against customers, areas, and applications, to withhold information about the network, or to refuse to interconnect with other broadband providers. It also forces providers who prioritize one type of traffic to give all other traffic of that same type the same privilege, at no additional cost.

This bill is an important step towards equality online, however, much of the wording is ambiguous, and is sure to create plenty of situations that must be settled at a judge's discretion.

GOP Negatives Mean Something This Year

2006-05-25T15:58:00.000-12:00

Jeffrey Goldberg, of the New Yorker, speculates on the Democrat's chances of regaining power in all three branches of government in the coming years. Goldberg believes that, despite more than a 99% retention rate for congressmen in the last election, Democrats can win back the House, simply by running campaigns based on Republican incompetence and corruption. Nevertheless, he reiterates the point many analysts make when he says that GOP failures will not beat a McCain or even a more mainstream Republican in 2008.

Speaker Under Investigation

2006-05-24T17:30:00.000-12:00

Via Political Wire:

According to ABC News, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is under investigation by the FBI for possible participation in an ongoing corruption case being waged against Jack Abramoff's allies on Capitol Hill. Hastert wrote a letter three years ago urging the Secretary of the Interior to disallow the construction of a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with casinos run by tribes represented by Abramoff.

Hastert's office shot back immediately, saying that the ABC story was untrue; that the speaker was under no investigation.

Interestingly, the New York Times front page article today was about a separate congressional investigation concerning William Jefferson (D-LA), who was videotaped stashing $100,000 in a freezer at his home. Hopefully the man with the gavel will get the same attention from newspapers all over the nation.

Verizon Cable Tax Controversy Continues

2006-05-22T13:13:00.000-12:00

PoliticsNJ reports on the Cable Competition Crisis in New Jersey.

Two Republican assemblymen spoke out against the Democratic sponsored tax that targets competition in the cable industry.

The two lawmakers, Guy Gregg and Richard Merkt, described the cable competitiveness bill that passed the assembly 61-13 as another opportunity for hidden taxes.

However, most of New Jersey has welcomed the small increase as a way to break the growing possibility of a Verizon cable monopoly. The bill also stipulated that cable companies such as Verizon would be required to provide service to all towns with a certain population density, thus ending the practice of ignoring poor urban areas.

Weinberg Wants More Transparency In Government

2006-05-22T02:56:00.000-12:00

Jay Lassite Reports:

State Senator Loretta Weinberg (D-Ber), has called for more transparency in the state government. Weinberg has sponsored a bill that will make legislator's voting records more accessible to constituents, who are often oblivious to what goes on in Trenton because of the lack of resources on the web. The Philadelphia Enquirer reports that the only way someone can find out how their representative voted on a bill is to call the lawmaker's office. This is not standard for the 21st century. The United States Senate and House of Representatives have every roll call vote since 1989 and 1990 respectively.

President Bush's Entrepreneurs

2006-05-22T02:37:00.000-12:00

Entrepreneurs are risk takers and dreamers and doers. Entrepreneurs and small businesses play a crucial role in the U.S. economy.
- President George W. Bush

Stephen Baker, from Blogspotting, has an interesting take on this statement. His "small business," Stephen Baker Media Ltd., has no employees, generates no money, but receives plenty of tax benefits. It makes us wonder how many small businesses nationwide exist only so one individual can have lower taxes.

The Religious Left

2006-05-21T09:20:00.000-12:00

Sharon, from Center of NJ Life, has an excellent post that describes how the media has played into the hands of the Republican Party in its search to define itself as the party of moral values.

Conservatives nationwide have proudly claimed the rights to the "values voters," voters who choose candidates based on values, rather than....??

Yes, it is rediculous that the party of big business and war has run away with the Values title, however, what is even more curious is how Democrats and liberals nationwide have done very little to repudiate the claim. Democrats haven't communicated the idea that their policies reflect values. Values that say that government should help the poor before the wealthy, the uninsured before the pharmaceutical companies, and the worker before the CEO.

Even if "values" is a word only being used to describe religion, it is apparent that the media doesn't take the religious left seriously. Although preachers all over the nation have opposed the reactionary policies of the Bush administration, it is too common that the media brands "values voters," or "people of faith" as property of the right.

Senate Oligarchy Reminiscent of Old Days

2006-05-21T06:26:00.000-12:00

When Lyndon Johnson was made the Senate Democratic Leader in 1953 he had one important task that he knew needed to be done in order to make the senate an effective legislative body: he had to put committee chairmen in their place. For the best part of two centuries, the seniority system in the senate had prevented virtually everybody except the oldest members of the majority party, who were the committee chairmen, from doing anything at all. The chairman ruled his committee in anyway he liked, controlled the flow of bills at any pace, and was the only person the president could go to see on issues of that committee.

50 years later, the most secretive presidential administration in modern history seeks to recreate that system. The only members of the senate who were aware of the president's spy program were Sen. Pat Robertson (R-KS), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), the ranking member of that committee.

In the first Judiciary Committee hearing on the matter, it was embarassing, not only for senators, but for the administration as well, that the national legislature was not aware of the domestic spy program that was very possibly infringing upon the rights of millions of Americans.

Republican Insurgents Turn to TV

2006-05-21T06:02:00.000-12:00

Bergen County Clerk Kathleen Donavon has begun to run 30 second ads on cable networks, vowing to prove the myth that Republicans can't win in Bergen County false, as she runs for a 7th consecutive term (Via PoliticsNJ).

Donavon is in charge of an entire slate of rebel Bergen Republicans, including candidates for freeholder positions and the county surrogate. Together they have raised over $144,000, which crushes the measly $26,000 inside the warchest of the Bergen County Republican Organization, which has repeatedly criticized Donavon's team as "Whitman Republicans," who are appeasing the Democrats on the local and state level.

Nevertheless, it looks as if Donovan's wing of the GOP is going to take charge in Bergen County, largely due to the superior funding and increased access to cable media outlets. Those who don't underestimate the value of money in national politics should look to local campaigns, which are oftentimes even more heavily affected by the wealth of the candidates. A candidate with $10,000 to spare is a heavy favorite against one who doesn't.

Any candidate who has access to media is likely to crush one who doesn't have any. Press Releases, such as this one, are not available to the poorer candidates.

Good Reporting Gets Kean

2006-05-21T05:45:00.000-12:00

State Senator Tom Kean Jr. might face trouble in the fall on the issue of immigration. Although he previously was quoted as having a relatively liberal stance, Kean, when prodded on the issue at a press conference, expressed support for the deportation of approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants nationwide.

Now, is Kean flip-flopping on this issue, or has he always been a hardliner? The Bergen Record quoted him endorsing "not deportation, but a $2,000 fine for violating U.S. law, paying back taxes, and going to the back of the line to obtain legal status."

It is because of articles like this by the Bergen Record that politicians are forced to form solid positions on issues.

Justice O'Connor Speaks Out Against Republicans Who Criticize the Courts

2006-03-13T02:27:00.000-12:00

You can hear the whole transcript of Nina Totenberg's report on Justice O'Connors recent speech at Georgetown University, at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5255712

The most compelling part of the transcript follows.

Justice O'Connor said, "I am against judicial reform driven by nakedly partisan reasoning." Pointing to the experiences of developing countries and former communist countries where interference with an independent judiciary has allowed dictatorship to flourish, O'Connor said that we must be ever vigilent against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. "It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings!"

The Right's Man

2006-03-13T02:00:00.000-12:00

OK this isn't a media post... or is it. I had thought John McCain too moderate to be the Republican nominee and I guess the compelling media question is, why would I think such a thing. But regardless of where this notion comes from, it is patently false. I can't tell you how many people have said to me, "well, at least he isn't a real right winger". Well, think again.

March 13, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Right's Man

By PAUL KRUGMAN
It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be.

Mr. McCain's reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us."

But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of "rogue state rollback," anticipating the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain's aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

Would Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, have found some pretext for invading Iraq? We'll never know. But Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. "If success requires an increase in American troop levels in 2006," he wrote last year, "then we must increase our numbers there." He didn't explain where the overstretched U.S. military is supposed to find these troops.

When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance," met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law.

The spokesperson went on to say that the senator would have taken "the appropriate steps under state law" to ensure that cases of rape and incest were excluded. But that attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.

The bottom line is that Mr. McCain isn't a moderate; he's a man of the hard right. How far right? A statistical analysis of Mr. McCain's recent voting record, available at www.voteview.com, ranks him as the Senate's third most conservative member.

What about Mr. McCain's reputation as a maverick? This comes from the fact that every now and then he seems to declare his independence from the Bush administration, as he did in pushing through his anti-torture bill.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Guantánamo. President Bush, when signing the bill, appended a statement that in effect said that he was free to disregard the law whenever he chose. Mr. McCain protested, but there are apparently no hard feelings: at the recent Southern Republican Leadership Conference he effusively praised Mr. Bush.

And I'm sorry to say that this is typical of Mr. McCain. Every once in a while he makes headlines by apparently defying Mr. Bush, but he always returns to the fold, even if the abuses he railed against continue unabated.

So here's what you need to know about John McCain.

He isn't a straight talker. His flip-flopping on tax cuts, his call to send troops we don't have to Iraq and his endorsement of the South Dakota anti-abortion legislation even while claiming that he would find a way around that legislation's central provision show that he's a politician as slippery and evasive as, well, George W. Bush.

He isn't a moderate. Mr. McCain's policy positions and Senate votes don't just place him at the right end of America's political spectrum; they place him in the right wing of the Republican Party.

And he isn't a maverick, at least not when it counts. When the cameras are rolling, Mr. McCain can sometimes be seen striking a brave pose of opposition to the White House. But when it matters, when the Bush administration's ability to do whatever it wants is at stake, Mr. McCain always toes the party line.

It's worth recalling that during the 2000 election campaign George W. Bush was widely portrayed by the news media both as a moderate and as a straight-shooter. As Mr. Bush has said, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Plan for Fees on Some E-Mail Spurs Protest

2006-02-28T03:00:00.000-12:00

February 28, 2006
Plan for Fees on Some E-Mail Spurs Protest
By SAUL HANSELL
A group of nonprofit and public interest groups is beginning a campaign today to protest plans by America Online and Yahoo, which each offer e-mail services, to charge high-volume senders of e-mail fees to guarantee preferred delivery of their messages.
AOL and Yahoo are working with Goodmail, a Silicon Valley company, which plans to charge between a quarter-cent and a cent for each message. The two Internet companies will get the bulk of the fees that Goodmail collects.
Richard Gingras, chief executive of Goodmail, said the company planned to offer unspecified discounts to nonprofit senders of e-mail. AOL will start using the Goodmail system within a month. Yahoo will begin testing the service several months later and will charge fees only to deliver messages related to purchases or financial transactions.
The campaign is being organized by MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that uses its list of three million e-mail addresses to influence public opinion and raise money, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet civil liberties group. They have enlisted about 50 other supporters including the Gun Owners of America, the Democratic National Committee and the National Humane Society.
The groups have set up a Web site (www.dearaol.com) which will have an online petition users can sign asking AOL to change its policy.
The fee will be a disadvantage to "charities, small businesses and even families with mailing lists that will have no guarantee their e-mail will be delivered," said Adam Green, a spokesman for MoveOn.org Civic Action, the group's nonpolitical arm. "The magic of the Internet is that it is free and open to everybody so small ideas can become big ideas."
Nicholas Graham, a spokesman for AOL, said the company would continue to deliver mail from political and charitable groups as it has in the past, using technology and people to sort legitimate mail from unwanted junk mail.
Messages from senders in the paid Goodmail program will be highlighted as "AOL Certified" and will display images and links to Web sites automatically. Messages from most other senders, who do not pay the fee, are delivered in a such a way that the recipient cannot immediately see the images or click on the links. Users will always receive messages from senders listed in their address books.
Gilles Frydman, the president of the Association of Cancer Online Resources, a group that sends 1.5 million e-mail messages a month to cancer patients, said he was joining the protest because he did not believe that AOL and Yahoo would continue to deliver his group's messages without requiring payment.
"Have you ever seen a company that offers two services, one free and the other paid, provide as good a service to the free one?" he asked. "It is guaranteed that the quality of service for those who do not pay will go down."
Mr. Graham said AOL had no incentive to degrade the regular e-mail service it provided to users. In any case, he said, the company stands to earn only about "as much of a revenue stream as setting up a lemonade stand on the corner" from the Goodmail fees.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Home
Privacy Policy
Search
Corrections
XML
Help
Contact Us
Work for Us
Site Map
Back to Top
')
//-->
=0)document.write(unescape('%3C')+'\!-'+'-')
//-->

Verizon campaign raises questions

2006-02-26T04:47:00.000-12:00

Verizon campaign raises questions
Tuesday, January 24, 2006

By JEFF PILLETS
TRENTON BUREAU

Edward J. McKenna Jr., mayor of Red Bank for the past 16 years, thought he had seen just about everything.

But that was before the unsigned letters started pouring into his office last fall.

"All unsigned, all from the same fax machine, all supporting more competition in cable television," McKenna said. "It was very suspicious, so I decided to check them out.''

McKenna found out that more than 100 of some 200 letters he received were sent from non-existent Red Bank addresses. When he called about a dozen people whose names were on the letters, about half told him they had never heard of the campaign for cable choice and had never sent him a letter.

"I was stunned,'' McKenna said. "Who would be irresponsible enough to send out letters in someone's name without their permission?''

Officials at Verizon, the telephone company behind the statewide letter-writing effort, are now asking the same question as one lawmaker calls for a probe and evidence mounts that the phone company's "grass-roots" campaign for cable franchise reform is not exactly what it appears.

Verizon spokesman Richard Young said the company is undertaking an "internal investigation" to find out how so many bugs apparently invaded its computer-driven media campaign. He said company records show only 27 official e-mails were sent to Red Bank from a Web site set up by Verizon, TVChoiceNJ.com.

"Our records show only a few dozen letters going to the mayor of Red Bank," Young said. "If he says he got 200, something is wrong somewhere and we're going to find out where.''

Earlier this month, The Record reported the stories of several people who said they were stunned to find themselves unwitting recruits in Verizon's drive to change New Jersey's 30-year-old cable television laws. Cynthia Santomauro of North Caldwell said Verizon had even fabricated phony stationery to make it appear her letter to local officials was a personalized note.

Since then, a handful of others have come forward to say that Verizon has sent letters in their name without their permission. The Record has also found other holes in Verizon's "grass-roots" campaign:

In October, a "news flash'' on Verizon's TVChoice Web site claimed that the Bergen County town of Westwood had approved a resolution supporting more cable competition.
Borough Clerk Eileen Sarubbi said Westwood had actually passed a resolution supporting the old cable laws. Verizon said the news flash was an error that was corrected within 48 hours.

A group that calls itself "New Jersey Consumers for Cable Choice" would not exist if it were not for continued cash infusions from Verizon. The group's executive director, Rachel Holland, a self-described Democratic operative and former aide to Gov. James E. McGreevey, said in an interview last week that the group "probably couldn't survive" without Verizon.
Young, the Verizon spokesman, said he would not discuss how much beyond an initial $75,000 in "seed money" that Verizon had given to the New Jersey group and its parent organization.

Verizon's media campaign in New Jersey was designed, in part, by a onetime aide to then-Gov. Richard Codey. The aide played a key role in yet another deceptive public relations campaign last spring.
Mark Matzen, a former deputy chief of staff for Codey, designed and commissioned a March 2005 poll by the Civil Society Institute of Massachusetts showing that most New Jerseyans supported Codey's plan to finance stem-cell research. The poll was published without saying that it had been paid for by money from a special fund controlled by the Governor's Office.

Pete Cammarano, a former top aide to Codey, said last week that neither he nor Codey were aware the special fund was used to finance the poll. Codey, he said, was upset when he found out.

"Obviously the fund was not designed to be used like that, although it was not illegal,'' Cammarano said. "If the governor had known, it would have been disclosed.''

Matzen, in an interview Monday, said he was hired by Verizon at the request of its chief lobbyist, Harold Hodes, to offer strategic advice about the media campaign. He said he told the company to target municipal officials who would play a large part in deciding the fate of Verizon's proposals.

Matzen said he was not aware of any deliberate attempts to fabricate letters. He added, however, that the campaign had "something screwy" in its Web site that probably resulted in many errors. He also said workers at a Verizon information booth in Atlantic City were beset by computer problems and were responsible for "improperly signing people up" for the campaign.

"Things were very screwed up, but I can't say there was any purposeful deception,'' he said.

Matzen acknowledged making "a personal faux pas" in the stem-cell poll. He said that he had contacted the Massachusetts polling group in an attempt to "get some traction" for Codey's stem cell initiative, and requested money from the fund to pay "to find out what New Jersey's value are on stem cells.''

He said he did not tell Cammarano or Codey that the public money would be used for a poll.

"That should have been disclosed, and that is my fault,'' said Matzen, who left Verizon several weeks ago and is now employed by MWW, the politically connected public relations firm in Secaucus.

Verizon is in the midst of a multimillion dollar effort to build a fiber-optic network throughout the state. Lines have been built in a number of communities. Last fall, the company advanced legislation that would essentially grant it a statewide franchise to bring cable television and other fiber optic services to scores of cities and towns across New Jersey.

But firms such as Comcast and Cablevision, which together control 92 percent of the state's cable market, say such a law upends the state's 30-year tradition of local control over cable television. They say Verizon is free to compete for contracts town by town just as they have over the years.

Verizon officials suggest that questions about the phone company's media campaign are being fueled by frustrated cable executives who know their New Jersey monopoly is ending. They point out that the cable companies and their lobbyists are also spending millions on their own media campaign, polling and grass-roots advocacy.

"This is all about the cable industry running scared,'' said Young. "They know that there is enormous public support for ending their monopoly. People in New Jersey want choice and they know it, so they are doing anything they can to stop what's coming.''

Assemblyman John Rooney, a Republican, calls himself an avowed "enemy of Comcast" and says he is the biggest supporter of cable choice in New Jersey. But he says that his office has also been beset by the Verizon media campaign.

"Many of the letters received in my office were known to me either as current or retired Verizon employees and certainly were not from 'unbiased sources,'Ÿ" said Rooney, who is also the mayor of Northvale.

Rooney, who said he is especially troubled by reports that Verizon used people's names without their permission, plans to introduce a resolution calling for the state attorney general to investigate.

"Has Verizon committed mail fraud?" Rooney said. "Is Verizon secretly ... funneling money through a front group? Has New Jersey Consumers for Cable Choice violated state law by failing to disclose their funding?

"These are the crucial questions for which we must demand answers.''

Copyright © 2006 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
Copyright Infringement Notice User Agreement & Privacy Policy

Senator Ron Wydem's comments on Net Neutrality

2006-02-21T10:04:00.000-12:00

WYDEN TESTIFIES ON NET NEUTRALITY AT COMMERCE COMMITTEE HEARING
February 7, 2006
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of Congress’ leading advocates of responsible and consumer-friendly technology growth, today testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation about on the issue of internet neutrality.
Senator Wyden’s prepared testimony follows:
U.S. Senator Ron WydenPrepared Testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and TransportationHearing on Net Neutrality
Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago in this room a bipartisan group of Senators decided that while we had not invented the Internet we wanted to help it prosper.
Our bipartisan group determined that the Internet was being subjected to discriminatory taxation, and we wrote the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which really should have been called the Internet Nondiscrimination Act. The principle behind the bill was technological neutrality – you shouldn’t tax the online world differently that the off-line world.
The law has been a success, and in my view a significant catalyst for the Net’s growth.
Now there is another challenge facing the Net that also needs to be tackled in a bipartisan way. Powerful interests who own the pipes and access to the Internet are trying to break the Net. These special interests want to expand their control over Internet access to the limitless world of content, where consumers play online games, watch online tv and enjoy video.
At present, consumers use the high speed access to the Net that they have paid for to visit whatever content they want, whenever they want without having to worry about having a cable company or a phone company interfering with their use of the Net.
Some of these cable and phone companies are trying to discriminate in the delivery of content. They are saying that instead of making available to everyone the same content at the same price, they want to set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites.
This is a fundamental shift in the way the Internet works. Small start up companies and scores of others have been able to start small and dream big because every user has had equal access to all websites.
I want to keep it that way. I will shortly introduce legislation that will make sure all information is made available on the same terms so that no bit is better than another one. First, it will assure that information from a company like J. Crew is not treated worse than information from a company like LL Bean. Second, it will assure that a company like Comcast that offers Internet access does not give preferential treatment to its own information bits compared to information bits from another company, like Yahoo. Third, broadband service providers should not be able to create private networks that are superior to the Internet access they offer consumers generally. These principles would prevent Internet access providers from tipping the competitive advantage toward their own services, such as phone calls over the Internet (Voip) or television over the Internet.
Consumer groups and the technology community are four-square behind the notion that neutrality is the best policy when it comes to the Internet, and I will continue to work closely with them on this legislation. I also look forward to working with the members of this Committee to make sure there is no discrimination against consumers on the network.

Today's observation and some questions re Net Neutrality

2006-02-21T03:51:00.000-12:00

We at BlueWave have been looking at our media for about a year now and one thing is clear. There is no absolute repository of truth- some outlets are better than others. In order to come up with the truth, one has to be willing to look at a lot of sources. For all of the damage that has been done by the 1996 Telecommunications Act (where one player can now own so much more - controling or distorting information) and the the demise of the Fairness Doctrine (where opposing viewpoints were required) we have consoled ourselves with the emergence of differing voices on the web. Well fasten your seatbelts because the free exchange of information is in serious danger. Please read the following editorial from the times yesterday and you begin to understand. I have a question, can someone find out what the legislation is that Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden (see article below) is intending to introduce to protect Net neutrality and is there anything like it in the works in NJ.

Some of you may notice addition links to the right - if you have favorites that you would like to see posted, please send them to me.

Also, does anyone know of any journalists for the Ledger or any other Jersey paper who might be covering the emerging cable issue in our state?

send info to susank@bluewavenj.org

Thx

Tollbooths on the Internet Highway

2006-02-21T03:29:00.000-12:00

February 20, 2006
Editorial
Tollbooths on the Internet Highway

When you use the Internet today, your browser glides from one Web site to another, accessing all destinations with equal ease. That could change dramatically, however, if Internet service providers are allowed to tilt the playing field, giving preference to sites that pay them extra and penalizing those that don't.

The Senate held hearings last week on "network neutrality," the principle that I.S.P.'s — the businesses like Verizon or Roadrunner that deliver the Internet to your computer — should not be able to stack the deck in this way. If the Internet is to remain free, and freely evolving, it is important that neutrality legislation be passed.

In its current form, Internet service operates in the same nondiscriminatory way as phone service. When someone calls your home, the telephone company puts through the call without regard to who is calling. In the same way, Internet service providers let Web sites operated by eBay, CNN or any other company send information to you on an equal footing. But perhaps not for long. It has occurred to the service providers that the Web sites their users visit could be a rich new revenue source. Why not charge eBay a fee for using the Internet connection to conduct its commerce, or ask Google to pay when customers download a video? A Verizon Communications executive recently sent a scare through cyberspace when he said at a telecommunications conference, as The Washington Post reported, that Google "is enjoying a free lunch" that ought to be going to providers like Verizon.

The solution, as far as the I.S.P.'s are concerned, could be what some critics are calling "access tiering," different levels of access for different sites, based on ability and willingness to pay. Giants like Walmart.com could get very fast connections, while little-guy sites might have to settle for the information superhighway equivalent of a one-lane, pothole-strewn road. Since many companies that own I.S.P.'s, like Time Warner, are also in the business of selling online content, they could give themselves an unfair advantage over their competition.

If access tiering takes hold, the Internet providers, rather than consumers, could become the driving force in how the Internet evolves. Those corporations' profit-driven choices, rather than users' choices, would determine which sites and methodologies succeed and fail. They also might be able to stifle promising innovations, like Internet telephony, that compete with their own business interests.

Most Americans have little or no choice of broadband I.S.P.'s, so they would have few options if those providers shifted away from neutrality. Congress should protect access to the Internet in its current form. Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, says he intends to introduce an Internet neutrality bill, which would prohibit I.S.P.'s from favoring content providers that paid them fees, or from giving priority to their own content.

Some I.S.P.'s are phone and cable companies that make large campaign contributions, and are used to getting their way in Washington. But Americans feel strongly about an open and free Internet. Net neutrality is an issue where the public interest can and should trump the special interests.

Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

A False Balance

2006-01-30T03:16:00.000-12:00

January 30, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
A False Balance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
"How does one report the facts," asked Rob Corddry on "The Daily Show," "when the facts themselves are biased?" He explained to Jon Stewart, who played straight man, that "facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda," and therefore can't be reported.
Mr. Corddry's parody of journalists who believe they must be "balanced" even when the truth isn't balanced continues, alas, to ring true. The most recent example is the peculiar determination of some news organizations to cast the scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as "bipartisan."
Let's review who Mr. Abramoff is and what he did.
Here's how a 2004 Washington Post article described Mr. Abramoff's background: "Abramoff's conservative-movement credentials date back more than two decades to his days as a national leader of the College Republicans." In the 1990's, reports the article, he found his "niche" as a lobbyist "with entree to the conservatives who were taking control of Congress. He enjoys a close bond with [Tom] DeLay."
Mr. Abramoff hit the jackpot after Republicans took control of the White House as well as Congress. He persuaded several Indian tribes with gambling interests that they needed to pay vast sums for his services and those of Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay aide. From the same Washington Post article: "Under Abramoff's guidance, the four tribes ... have also become major political donors. They have loosened their traditional ties to the Democratic Party, giving Republicans two-thirds of the $2.9 million they have donated to federal candidates since 2001, records show."
So Mr. Abramoff is a movement conservative whose lobbying career was based on his connections with other movement conservatives. His big coup was persuading gullible Indian tribes to hire him as an adviser; his advice was to give less money to Democrats and more to Republicans. There's nothing bipartisan about this tale, which is all about the use and abuse of Republican connections.
Yet over the past few weeks a number of journalists, ranging from The Washington Post's ombudsman to the "Today" show's Katie Couric, have declared that Mr. Abramoff gave money to both parties. In each case the journalists or their news organization, when challenged, grudgingly conceded that Mr. Abramoff himself hasn't given a penny to Democrats. But in each case they claimed that this is only a technical point, because Mr. Abramoff's clients — those Indian tribes — gave money to Democrats as well as Republicans, money the news organizations say he "directed" to Democrats.
But the tribes were already giving money to Democrats before Mr. Abramoff entered the picture; he persuaded them to reduce those Democratic donations, while giving much more money to Republicans. A study commissioned by The American Prospect shows that the tribes' donations to Democrats fell by 9 percent after they hired Mr. Abramoff, while their contributions to Republicans more than doubled. So in any normal sense of the word "directed," Mr. Abramoff directed funds away from Democrats, not toward them.
True, some Democrats who received tribal donations before Mr. Abramoff's entrance continued to receive donations after his arrival. How, exactly, does this implicate them in Mr. Abramoff's machinations? Bear in mind that no Democrat has been indicted or is rumored to be facing indictment in the Abramoff scandal, nor has any Democrat been credibly accused of doing Mr. Abramoff questionable favors.
There have been both bipartisan and purely Democratic scandals in the past. Based on everything we know so far, however, the Abramoff affair is a purely Republican scandal.
Why does the insistence of some journalists on calling this one-party scandal bipartisan matter? For one thing, the public is led to believe that the Abramoff affair is just Washington business as usual, which it isn't. The scale of the scandals now coming to light, of which the Abramoff affair is just a part, dwarfs anything in living memory.
More important, this kind of misreporting makes the public feel helpless. Voters who are told, falsely, that both parties were drawn into Mr. Abramoff's web are likely to become passive and shrug their shoulders instead of demanding reform.
So the reluctance of some journalists to report facts that, in this case, happen to have an anti-Republican agenda is a serious matter. It's not a stretch to say that these journalists are acting as enablers for the rampant corruption that has emerged in Washington over the last decade.

WIFI on NPR

2005-12-15T01:22:00.000-12:00

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5053488

Technology
Widening the Internet Highway to Rural America
by Melissa Block

All Things Considered, December 14, 2005 · More and more Americans take high-speed Internet service for granted. But for rural America, getting broadband access can be a major challenge. Cable and phone companies often won't provide it: it would be a huge investment with minimal return. So some communities are figuring out solutions for themselves.
About two years ago, Mike Chapman decided to help bring wireless Internet to the community where he grew up in Braxton County, W.Va. Chapman put on a climbing harness, shook back his aversion to heights and scaled a tower on a hill at the geographic center of the state to put a microwave dish on top. The dish receives a wireless signal from another tower 10 miles away and redistributes it to the homes nearby.
Chapman, 24, is co-founder of West Virginia Broadband, a nonprofit volunteer-run organization that provides Internet service to residents and businesses who were trapped in the slow-moving world of dialup.
One of those customers is Covey Engineering in the town of Gassaway. Office manager Brenda Naye had to log off her dialup connection whenever she wanted to send a fax, and sending big e-mail attachments was painfully slow.
Chapman and a few fellow volunteers started their network with about $10,000. It costs very little to keep it running. West Virginia Broadband leases dish space on most of the seven towers it uses for $1 a year. They buy their bandwidth -- the wireless signal -- from a wholesaler for about $600 a month, and buy surplus equipment on eBay.
The voluntary donations from the 100 or so people who use the wireless service more than cover the expenses. Members are asked to contribute whatever they feel it's worth.
High-speed DSL service is available through Verizon, but only to those who live close to town. Chapman says it might offer advantages over the volunteer service -- the phone company has round-the-clock customer service.
Mark Polen of the West Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association doesn't see the community wireless network as a threat. He says it may be "quite some time" before it's feasible for commercial providers to enter sparsely populated areas like this one.
Chapman feels a commitment to rural areas that get left behind, like this one in West Virginia. Ask him about the satisfaction of setting up the community wireless network and he'll mention two women who are attending online universities -- or grandparents easily e-mailing their grandchildren far away.
"When you have a community effort like this, the members of the community feel a sense of ownership," Chapman says. "We may operate [the network], but it's held in the trust of citizens of the community. It's for the public benefit and for the public good."

Related NPR Stories
Sep. 6, 2005
May 16, 2005
April 25, 2005
Oct. 17, 2005
Nov. 29, 2004

This is a Test

2005-10-18T03:35:00.000-12:00

I hope this works.
Robin

2005-10-17T07:12:00.000-12:00

Publish

Window of media justice starting to slip away in wake hurricane Katrina and moving back to business as usual…

2005-09-21T11:15:00.000-12:00

We have to do what we can to keep media focused on what our government is doing, the below is scary.
A.R.

THE MEDIA SHIFT
MediaChannel anticipated a media shift in the Katrina story and called on readers to sign a petition to press the press and move the media to "Keep the Light on Injustice." We were not naïve. Nikki Finke reports in the LA Weekly that that shift is underway:

They Shoot News Anchors, Don’t They?Media moguls, not looters, killed Katrina’s truth tellers

For the first 120 hours after Hurricane Katrina, TV journalists were let off their leashes by their mogul owners, the result of a rare conjoining of flawless timing (summer’s biggest vacation week) and foulest tragedy (America's worst natural disaster). All of a sudden, broadcasters narrated disturbing images of the poor, the minority, the aged, the sick and the dead, and discussed complex issues like poverty, race, class, infirmity and ecology that never make it on the air in this swift-boat/anti-gay-marriage/Michael Jackson media-sideshow era. So began a perfect storm of controversy.
Contrary to the scripture so often quoted in these areas of Louisiana and Mississippi, the TV newscasters knew the truth, but the truth did not set them free. Because once the crisis point had passed, most TV journalists went back to business-as-usual, their choke chains yanked by no-longer-inattentive parent-company bosses who, fearful of fallout from fingering Dubya for the FEMA fuckups, decided yet again to sacrifice community need for corporate greed. Too quickly, Katrina’s wake was spun into a web of deceit by the Bush administration, then disseminated by the Big Media boys? club. (Karl Rove spent the post-hurricane weekend conjuring up ways to shift blame.)
If big media look like they’re propping up W’s presidency, they are. Because doing so is good for corporate coffers in the form of government contracts, billion-dollar tax breaks, regulatory relaxations and security favors. At least that wily old codger Sumner Redstone, head of Viacom, parent company of CBS, has admitted what everyone already knows is true: that, while he personally may be a Democrat, “It happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one...
(Soon)…The black guys were gone, and the lying white guys were back, hogging all the TV airtime. So many congressional Republicans were lined up on air to denounce the “blame-Bush game? “ all the while decrying the Louisiana Democrats-in-charge ? that it could have been conga night at the Chevy Chase Country Club...
...the real test of pathos vs. profit is still before us: whether the TV newscasters will spend the fresh reservoir of trust earned with the public to not only rattle Bush’s cage but also battle their own bosses. If not, it won’t be long before TV truth telling will be muzzled permanently.

Mediachannel.org Article + Katrina's window of opportunity on Media Reform

2005-09-13T04:58:00.000-12:00

I am writing in a rage and I hope this is somewhat comprehensible. If not please immediately skip to the Mediachannel's piece on Brian Williams New Orleans, Katrina + the Media below my bit.

This article "NBC's Williams: Journalists' Gloves Off” illustrates plainly what is going on in our media: It is a big wake up call to what our collective inattention is doing to our country and the world.

While we are in a semi conscious haze thinking about lost white women and should we teach intelligent design as well as evolution, real important things are going on and setting us up for various catastrophes. We could have more riveting and interesting news. I am sure that our talented media could produce compelling reports on what is going on with our government with regards to how it effects our lives. One story could start with the population of the United States: If we elect people that we want to have a beer with how will they run the government and staff their cabinet; Home land security? Department of the treasury? Corporation for Public Broadcasting? and all the rest. This is scary to the point of science fiction. I am sure a very interesting news bit could be worked up regarding this topic that would make for interesting reading, listening and viewing.

We need smart government.
In fact it is probably smart government or die, as we have been seeing from Iraq, now more clearly than ever we are seeing form the Katrina hurricane disaster. We need a government that is accountable. Without proper accountability the hiring of cronies; large campaign donors or somebody's old college roommate will go unchecked and we will not have people experienced for the positions that they fill. And we have suffered from this and we can still suffer more if we do not put a stop to it. This is to our peril, this gets personal, it is not a dry boring story. It is information that we desperately need. This is our welfare at stake. As the media has been pointing out the failing of our government while it is happening in Mississippi and Louisiana it is making for riveting news, they have our nation's attention. The challenge of the media will be to point out the short comings before the actual disaster. And the challenge for us will be to pay attention and act.

We need effective and reality based government.
Again hiring your best friends or those who are most loyal to you is to live in your own fantasy. A responsible leader should appoint capable people who can perform. Our nation has become an international embarrassment with the handling of Katrina. It is unimaginable to the international community that we could have let our own citizens beg for help for days with out rescuing them. It is unimaginable to international community that we would have such poor planning with for a foreseeable storm. And it is unimaginable to international community that we are not seriously considering the consequences of global warming.

Just close your eyes and think: what if we had a bad government and they were ruining all our international relationships? What if we had a government that initiated war with another country and mismanaged the war so badly that we left the country in ruins? We would need a strong and independent press to fully reflect this reality to make what is going on in the world and our nation accessible and clear so that people could act in an educated fashion. And as Brian Williams points out that is what we have been missing for the last four years.
A.R

from: Mediachannel.org NBC's Williams: Journalists' Gloves Off
Submitted by editor5 on September 12, 2005 - 1:50pm.
By David Bauder
Source: Free Press
NBC’s Brian Williams says the lasting legacy of Hurricane Katrina for journalists may be the end of an unusual four-year period of deference to people in power.
There were so many angry, even incredulous, questions put to Bush administration officials about the response to Katrina that the Salon Web site compiled a “Reporters Gone Wild” video clip. Tim Russert, Anderson Cooper, Ted Koppel and Shepard Smith were among the stars.
The mute button seemingly in place since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks has been turned off.
“By dint of the fact that our country was hit we’ve offered a preponderance of the benefit of the doubt over the past couple of years,” the “Nightly News” anchorman said. “Perhaps we’ve taken something off our fastball and perhaps this is the story that brings a healthy amount of cynicism back to a news media known for it.”
Williams spent much of the past two weeks in New Orleans, huddling in the Superdome with suffering residents and giving one of the first warnings on the “Today” show that the levees had been breached.
Hundreds of reporters, in all media, did heroic work on the Gulf Coast in the deadly storm’s aftermath. None arguably was as financially and symbolically important to his company as the job turned in by Williams.
It could solidify his spot as network news’ top anchor. He was NBC News’ point person at a time its rivals had none, since replacements haven’t been named for the late Peter Jennings at ABC News or Dan Rather at CBS.
“Nightly News” viewership the week after the storm jumped 2.5 million from the week before, its lead over second-place ABC increasing to 1.1 million from 300,000, according to Nielsen Media Research. A Williams-anchored “Dateline NBC” special about Katrina was the most-watched program all week.
When ABC and CBS settle on succession plans, they’ll be playing catch-up.
Williams increased the value of his stock by aggressively seizing an opportunity, said Jeff Alan, author of “Anchoring America: The Changing Face of Network News.”
“Brian handled this as professionally as any of the reporters down there and maybe more so,” Alan said. “Brian knew how much was at stake here. Brian took his anchor hat off and put his human being hat on in a lot of the broadcasts that I saw.”
Williams said he’s focused on a story that will preoccupy the country for many months and probably play a key role in deciding the nation’s next president.
“I have not seen an inch of my own coverage,” he said. “I have very little sense of it and I’m probably the last judge of my own work. I tried to call them as I saw them. And if I let my emotion or anger get the better of me, what some would have called a failing of a journalist I think should be taken the other way around on this story.”
Pointed criticism of the government response has been posted on his daily Web log, particularly on Labor Day when he wrote about food and water being dropped to survivors: “There was water, there was food, and there were choppers to drop both. Why no one was able to combine them in an air drop is a cruel and criminal mystery of this dark chapter in our recent history. The words `failure of imagination’ come to mind.”
His blog also reprinted in full a National Weather Service bulletin from the morning before the storm struck that gave a prescient road map to the destruction, including power outages and water shortages that “will make human suffering incredible by modern standards.”
Williams said he sensed trouble brewing already that Sunday, Aug. 28. At the Superdome, he saw National Guardsman barking orders at people seeking shelter, and patting down small children and the elderly for weapons. The crowd was angry about being forced to stand in line in the rain even though there was a large overhang a few yards away, he said.
“I went back to my hotel to get a few hours of sleep before they sealed the Dome at 6 the next morning thinking, `This is not good,’” he said.
He was one of a few reporters stationed at the dome as it degenerated into a house of horrors, and used his cell phone to snap a picture of its damaged roof that was widely circulated on NBC and MSNBC.
“I can’t shake the belief that I got to know people who aren’t with us anymore,” he said.
One imaginative piece was produced simply by using a camcorder at the Baton Rouge airport on Labor Day when Williams and a crew returned, illustrating how the airport itself was filled with hundreds of compelling human stories.
About the only blemish on Williams’ record was NBC’s failure to lead its Aug. 30 “Nightly News” with the levees breaking in New Orleans, said Andrew Tyndall, a consultant who studies news content. NBC says that criticism is unfair, since the levee breaches were one of several angles Williams touched upon at the opening of that newscast.
Williams has had a hellish travelogue the past year, including Banda Aceh after the tsunami and a battleground in Mosul, Iraq, filled with the dead and dying. He never thought he’d see such suffering in his own country.
“I measure my words very carefully,” he said. “I guard my opinions very carefully. To me, this was life and death.
“I refuse to believe that anyone I met at the dome has lesser value than anybody in my family that I go home to. I don’t believe that about this country. I don’t want that to be the lesson in this. I was angry. People were going without and dying in the wealthiest country the world has ever known.”

C-SPAN networks in jeopardy

2005-09-04T06:01:00.000-12:00

Current Status

MUST-CARRY DEBATE MOVES TO CONGRESS

Earlier this year in February the Federal Communications Commission decisively rejected the so-called "dual must-carry" proposal. This proposal would have required cable operators to give every local broadcaster a second channel on their systems during the perhaps years-long transition from analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting.

The FCC also rejected the "multi-cast, must-carry" proposal. If approved, this proposal would have forced cable operators to give broadcasters enough space on their systems to deliver several broadcast signals instead of just one.

C-SPAN had opposed both proposals because we believe the government should not give preferential treatment to broadcast stations over cable programmers as both seek access to the limited channel capacity of cable systems. Had the proposals become effective, the C-SPAN Networks would have had fewer opportunities to expand the availability of our public service programming to cable television subscribers.

However, the must-carry debate is not over. The debate has moved to the Congress where legislation to govern the upcoming transition from analog television to digital television is pending. There continue to be efforts on Capitol Hill to resuscitate variations of the must-carry rule and enact them into law.

C-SPAN remains opposed to any form of the must-carry rule, whether it applies to analog or digital television. The rule and its variations infringe on C-SPAN's First Amendment free speech rights, and, it is unfair. We will keep you informed of the progress of the must-carry debate in Congress on this page.

{more}
http://www.mustcarry.org/

Cable companies looking to shake off their public access obligations

2005-08-16T07:54:00.000-12:00

Alliance for Community Media is watchdog organization that keeps an eye on all those recent Republican congressional activities on behalf of their cable company clients. It seems these cable companies minions have really mobilized now to push through their agenda, emboldened by passage of all those other outrageous corporate bills, and probably seeing it as a window of opportunity that may close with the next Congress. The Alliance's spokesperson, Anthony Riddle, was on Counterspin last week (it's on WBAI, Fridays at 10 am) talking to Janine Jackson about what's going on. Really worth a listen.

Here's a blip from CounterSpin and links to the audio files.

Anthony Riddle on Public Access

Counterspin (8/12/05-8/18/05)

This week on CounterSpin: if you're only looking at the country's major media, you likely know nothing at all about bills currently before Congress that would allow cable companies to offload those pesky public access requirements that are supposed to [be] part of their lucrative franchise agreements. We'll hear more about this latest attempt by corporate media to profit from the public while shutting them out from Anthony Riddle, executive director of the Alliance for Community Media.

Listen: MP3 or RealAudio (it's towards the end of the program)

Comcast is censoring 'after Downing Street' emails

2005-07-24T01:40:00.000-12:00

Here are links to some stories that convincingly allege right-wing political censorship of email by Comcast, one of the largest cable ISPs in the US and a monopoly where it exists (like here in Bloomfield NJ).

"COMCAST KILLS EMAIL FROM 'AFTERDOWNINGSTREET' COALITION!", at

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001602.htm

"How Comcast Censors Political Email", at

http://www.opednews.com/articles
/opedne_david_sw_050716_how_comcast_censors_.htm

We should let our friends know about this, starting with BWNJ friends and members.

Sincerely,

Grover Furr

Speaker

2005-07-19T02:02:00.000-12:00

Hi Media Reform Group, Just watched a "Now" Program with David Broncatcio (spelling?) from July 1, which I had tivo'd. He interviewed Milton Glaser a well known graphic designer. He has put together a book of images called "Design of Dissent" and he talked about images being used in politics today and the lack of dissent apparent in our Media. Just like the verbal framing we have been working on the visual is every bit as important. He speaks to our group in everything he says and some of the images were amazing. Are we interested? I still have it on tivo, but I do not know how to tape from there. I could order a dvd of the program. What does everyone think.

Our Own Framing Language

2005-07-18T22:06:00.000-12:00

Have you been wondering how best to make your progressive viewpoint concise, compelling? The framing subcommittee of the BlueWave NJ media reform group has worked to bring you over-riding progressive themes (based on those posted on Daily Kos) and have staked out positions on our values that break down using these headings. Before we take our language "on the road", we want our group to weigh in with comments. A word of congratulations for a job well done, wouldn't hurt either.

DEMOCRATIC/PROGRESSIVE CORE VALUES, THEMES AND FRAMES
THAT DEFINE WHO WE ARE

CORE VALUE: SMART GOVERNMENT
—Therefore we believe that:
• Taxes are an investment in our future. Patriotic Americans pay their fair share.
• Government should be accountable. Government should be responsive, transparent and fiscally responsible.
• There must be electoral reform.
• Government must be effective. It’s important to have a government that does a good job and looks out for its citizens.

CORE VALUE: OPPORTUNITY
—Therefore we believe in:
• Broad prosperity: The American Dream should be accessible to everyone, not just the wealthy. There should be a level playing field for all.
• Quality, affordable healthcare should be the right of all Americans.
• Hard-working Americans should be able to count on a retirement safety net of Social Security.
• Education, from Pre-K through college, as a great leveler.
• Tort laws to protect the little guys from Big Corporations.
• Non-regressive tax laws

CORE VALUE: PRIVACY
—Therefore we believe that:
• People should have the freedom to marry. The state shouldn’t be in the business of telling people who they can and can’t love.
• Family values means being caring, responsible and strong for each other.
• There should be freedom of—and from—religion, and private adult consensual behavior shouldn’t be regulated.
• Decisions about when to have children, the right to die, access to contraceptives and other personal decisions should be made by citizens, their doctors and loved ones, and not the government.

CORE VALUE: US LEADERSHIP
—Therefore we believe in:
• A stronger America that provides leadership on Global issues (terrorism, landmines, global warming etc.)
• Americans should be able to count on their president to present the truth.
• Preserving American liberties, building economic strength and international alliances while providing security for all Americans.
• Americans should be a champion of human rights, here and abroad.
• Leadership in science and technology (e.g. stem cells, alternative energy, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels)
• A strong United Nations/Internationalism

CORE VALUE: CONSERVATION
—Therefore we believe that:
• Americans should protect the environment for future generations through responsible stewardship. Environmental protection is good for the economy.

April Film Festival

2005-07-13T15:01:00.000-12:00

We are in the planning stages of a progressive film festival that we hope will take place at the end of April. Our thought is that it will be a one day event organized around a theme of some sort. The films must be compelling and there must be an end of day treat, like a great speaker. We have some ideas about this but not at all adverse to considering others. Please feel free to talk to us here!!

July Meeting Minutes

2005-07-13T14:56:00.000-12:00

1. Introductions of new members.

2. Sometime we worry about “talking to ourselves”. Not a problem, we need to activate our base

3) Please note that BlueWave web site has changed to a .org. New url is
http://www/bluewavenj.org

4) Subcommittee Reports:

1. Framing: Cindy Handler and Joann Zippel report on the compilation of “shared values framing that framing group has created. This is a great piece of work and will be distributed to media reform group for comments. We will then post on web and distribute to all of Blue Wave membership. We will post on blog by the end of the week.

We will share this language with George Lakoff’s Rockridge institute as well

2. Speakers: Robin reported on film festival at Wellmont, probably Saturday April 29/06. Possibly Robert Greenwald films. Early planning stage – contact Robin to help. We will be taking your suggestions for film series on the blog. Post will be there by the end of the week.

Robin put 5 ideas of “what is media reform” together in a good handout. Robing will be accepting “5 most important Media Reform Factoids” for another week. You can send them to rseidon@earthlink.net. Remember, if you only had 3 minutes to communicate the most important issues involving media reform, what would these be? Try to remain non-partisan, This issue effects everyone

3. Legislative: Rich and Ann: the Internet is important and will become more so. Wireless internet holds the best promise for internet, phone, radio and television service in the future. It is cost effective and the free flow of information would thrive taking away the gate-keeper of big business. There is a strong movement by big business to outlaw this technology at the community level. Rich’s idea is to spur legislation that would protect our right to use this technology down the road. National legislation has been proposed by McCain/Feingold. We will try and do something preemptive in NJ. Rich has written a letter to Nia Gil. We look forward to her response.

5) Group requested that I send out new blog invitations. I will do so.

6) Group requested e-mail addresses of all present be circulated among this group, will do that.

7) Keep an eye out for International World Television (find this on Google) – global independent news enterprise

8) Because framing group has completed their job for the most part, we will have to re-configure ourselves to that our new language and media factoids forward. There are several ways of doing this. At the next meeting be prepared to take action. Here are some possible ways to become involved:

Editorial Writing -organizing around a topic. Use framing language, organize editorial writing campaign – e.g. Robert Novak issue. Suzy post “ tips on letter writing for print publications.”

Work to get Democracy Now! on NJ-PBS. There are other NJ groups that may want to join the effort. Can also work to get this on Cable Access. 3 of us from group have volunteed to work on committee in Montclair, Robin Seidon is spearheading effort here. Amy Goodman will help. Free Speech TV.

Outreach/education – camera around town interviewing people about whether media is “serving the public interest”. If yes, how so. If no, why not. Then give out media fact sheet complete with important urls and url to our framing language. If appropriate, encourage them to join us

License Renewal for Comcast comes up in 2008. Is Comcast “serveing the public interest’? Is it fulfilling the obligations of it’s contract? To find out, we must have access to their contract and must become familiar with their local programming here.

The Elections of 2006 are key to turning our careening country around. Let’s come up with a platform for what is realistic and what we would like to see in terms of legislation. We must be concrete and communicate these priorities to candidates.

Newsletter? Possibly, for outreach.

Organize a boycott?

Volunteers to monitor
Legislation – Guy is going to give this a shot

Welcomers – make new folks feel welcome and bring them up to speed on info and current activities. Nancy, Carrie, Ann

Blogger – TBD

FCC – monitor still needed

Local cable monitor – still needed

New Technology Monitor - still needed

Next Media Reform Comm. Meeting: Tuesday, August 30 at 7:30-
will send contact info in e-mail

Tips for writing letters to editors of print publications

2005-07-13T11:48:00.000-12:00

Unlike letters sent to television stations, letters sent to newspapers and magazines are frequently published. In addition to holding the publication accountable, letters to the editor offer you the potential opportunity to voice your opinion directly to their readership. With a few exceptions ñ such as advice columnists and popular opinion columnists ñ most journalists receive very few letters. If you write a good letter to a local publication, your odds of getting it published are high, and even letters to national publications stand a fair chance of getting published.

With the exception of some major national publications, most newspapers and magazines have a much smaller audience than television news. However, people who read newspapers are disproportionately more likely to vote (around the 80% range), and lawmakers pay careful attention to what is written in the local press.

Why might you write a letter to the editor?
To correct a factual error.
To provide important information that was omitted from the original story.
To criticize a bias or poor analysis.
To offer an alternative analysis or interpretation of the facts presented in the story.
To comment on an issue raised by a story (not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the reporter).

Here's how to write an effective letter to the editor:

1) Make one and only one focused point.

2) Keep it short. No more than 200 words, and try for about 150.

3) Reference the article to which you are responding.

4) Reveal a personal connection. Editors love authentic, even eccentric stories (as long as you keep it brief). Personal details also help readers see you as a person, not just a partisan.

5) Do not reveal an organizational or professional connection.The opinions of individuals are more likely to be read as authentic opinions. (Exception: If your organization or profession will establish you as an expert on a matter directly and essentially relevant to your point, then include it. e.g. A civil rights lawyer commenting on a reporter's interpretation of a recent Supreme Court decision.)

6) Cite facts relevant to your point. Don't just assert your position; back it up with evidence. Quote from authoritative sources and cite trustworthy statistics.

7) Match your voice to the publication. Mainstream daily newspapers usually prefer straightforward, respectful writing. Alternative publications often prefer a more controversial, even aggressive approach. Know the publication and write accordingly.

8) Use original and clever language. Editors appreciate writing that uses language in unexpected ways. Boring: "I was outraged by Connie Serve's offensive portrayal of progressives in..." Interesting: "Connie Serve may never have met a progressive she didn't loathe, but quite frankly we don't think much of her either. (And she's never once RSVPed for one of our leftist liberal lunatic parties.)"

9) E-mail or fax your note. In order to be published, letters to the editor generally must be received in a timely fashion: the same day for dailies and within 2-3 days for weeklies. Snail mail letters won't arrive on time, and phone calls don't automatically generate a paper trail. Send your letters to the reporter, the reporter's direct editor, and to whatever address the publication lists for letters to the editor. (Some publications offer online forms for letters to the editor. If you use these, you should still try to send a copy of your note to the reporter and editor.)

10) Remember to write letters praising good stories. It's easy to remember to write a letter when you disagree with a story, but positive letters also make a difference. (And most journalists receive very few positive letters.) Reporters who take noble but unpopular stands in their stories ñ perhaps angering some readers, editors or publishers ñ will have an easier time taking those stands in the future if they can point to letters praising them for their work.

11) Be careful of tangents. Letters to the editor don't have to respond only to what was written in a story. You can use the story as an opportunity to talk more broadly about a related issue not directly addressed by the reporter. Such letters are sometimes printed, but the side issue you raise must be compelling. Otherwise, the letter is unlikely to be published.
Include your full name and contact information. Editors may want to verify or clarify information in your letter. Because they may be doing this on a tight production schedule, make it easy for them to find you: Home phone, work phone, mobile phone, pager, e-mail... whatever you can give them.

12) And a special letter-writing campaign tip:
Don't give a sample letter to the people whom you are encouraging to write. Imperfect but original and authentic letters will mean more than a carefully crafted letter copied a thousand times with minor alterations. Remember that you are sending these to professional writers; they are more likely than most to recognize a form letter campaign. Give your volunteers good information and basic advice on writing a good letter, then let them write in their own words.

What It Means to be a Democrat

2005-07-13T09:50:00.000-12:00

By Michael Merrifield, Colorado State Representative

A lady I know, a Republican – a life long Republican - will not be voting for Bush again in 2004.
“The Clean Air Act is not clean,” she says. “The conservatism is not compassionate, the Patriot Act is non-patriotic, No Child Left Behind leaves public school children behind with its dedication to vouchers and tests, and Healthy Forests is a euphemism for ‘healthy profits’ for the mining and timber industries.”
“The Republican Party,” she observes, “has been shanghaied by the zealots of the right.”
I agree. While we Democrats are not without our shortcomings, at least we attempt to recognize them and to stay true to our mainstream principals. We believe, as FDR said, that “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”
We abide by Andrew Jackson’s creed of “equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none.” We believe that public education is the cornerstone of the American dream. We share LBJ’s commitment to civil rights and Jimmy Carter’s devotion to human rights. We believe that government programs should be grounded in the values most Americans share: Family, work, personal responsibility, individual liberty, faith, tolerance, diversity, cooperation and inclusion. We support a woman’s right to choose in matters of her reproductive health. We believe in an ethic of mutual responsibility in which government has an obligation to create opportunity for all citizens, but citizens have an obligation to give something back to the community. We believe in being wise caretakers of the planet on which we live.
I also believe that there are many Republicans – such as the friend I just mentioned – who share these beliefs. Sadly, and frighteningly, their party has been taken over by the zealotry of the radical right.
It takes very little thought to be a zealot. In fact, thinking is anathema to zealotry. Zealots replace reason with self-righteousness. They make extremely effective campaigners and advocates and difficult opponents. How do you debate those who are convinced that God is on their side, that they have the one and only answer, and that they have the inside track to God himself (and certainly not herself!)? This zealotry is what has brought forth legislation in the Colorado General Assembly such as the “In God We Trust” bill, the Pledge of Allegiance requirement, the denial of emergency contraception information for rape victims and next year’s debate over whether to create a quota system for conservative professors at our public universities. It was also behind the Republican efforts in Texas and Colorado to redraw congressional boundaries…a zealous attempt to stifle debate and dissent. It is certainly behind Representative Davie Schultheis’ demand that all legislators sign his so-called “Defense of Marriage Pledge.”
What has happened to the Republican party nationally, and even more frighteningly, in El Paso County, reminds me of an old, but pertinent Saturday Evening Post article by Vance Bourjaily in which he states: “Disapprove of me as you will, but to try to give your disapproval the force of law is a crime against freedom.”
That’s the danger of zealotry: it jeopardizes, rather than protects, freedom. It’s a harder task by far to hold firm against the wave of zealotry than to catch the wave and ride it to political power. Democrats, progressives, and yes, thinking Republicans such as my friend, must have the courage to fight the tide until it turns. We must be passionate, not zealous….patriotic, not jingoistic….spiritual, not dogmatic.
As Democrats, we believe that NO party has a monopoly on virtue, righteousness, truth or wisdom. That recognition and the doubts that come with it are the price we pay for our ability to reason and our willingness to do so.

How to use the Blog

2005-03-27T13:09:00.000-12:00

We now have a blog

The blog is comparable to a bulletin board. It allows group members to post their issues of importance without being filtered by me. Also saves you all from getting too many e-mail communications. This way you can tune in when you choose. I will still be sending group e-mails (FYI's and alerts as ususal). Please note: if you post an article give author and source.

As the admin of the blog, I can control who can post and clean blog out from time to time. Also can lock someone out if we get hacked. Please be considerate and judicious with what you upload. Give it a try and have fun!

I have set-up blog for BlueWave Media Reform group. In order to interact (post or comment) you must do the following

1) Respond to invitation sent to you from "Blogger" (I sent these out some time ago, if you need again, contact me).

2) You click on link in invitation and it takes you to a page where you can join.

3) Once you've joined, you will go to a "dashboard" page and click "new post" - add your copy and click publish

4) All can view blog at
http://www.bluewavemediareform.blogspot.com/

5) the next time you want to post, you must go to
htttp://www.blogger.com
set-up username and passcode if not already done.

If you are new to BlueWave Media Reform Group

2005-03-27T12:49:00.000-12:00

If you are just joining BlueWave Media Reform Group, I Welcome You!

To get up and running, there are a few things you should do

1) back-up reading is important. You can get some of this at
http://www.freepress.net/action/tools/
You will want to download Media Policy 101 and Media Reform Action Guide

2) you will want to join Freepress' e-activist list
http://www.freepress.net/action/signup.php

3) Grab the book "Never Think of an Elephant" by George Lakoff and read it carefully!

4) You will want to put together your "10 Friends E-mail Alert List". You get 10 friends to agree to take some small action every week. When you receive action, you send to your 10 friends. Hopefully, over time, they will solicit 10 friends and so on. Here is a great letter composed by Joann Zippel. Make sure the letter is sent to them personlly or they will delete as just another piece of spam

Dear ____________________, ( this initial letter should be personalized if you are only sending it to 10 people-it might be more effective)

I recently became part of a newly formed progressive group called BluewaveNJ. It is an all volunteer grassroots organization that was formed by a number of concerned progressives who had been volunteers for the Kerry campaign last Fall. Our goal is to continue taking action and mobilizing forces to move the progressive agenda forward and defeat the increasingly right wing initiatives of the Bush Admistration and the Republican dominated Congress.

Among the many areas of concern that we are addressing is Media Reform. To that end I am part of smaller group that will be focusing on developing strategies and tactics to effect change on this issue.

One of these tactics is the effective use of email petitions and letters of support. I am inviting you to become a part of a regular email group that we can count on when, from time to time, an issue arises to which an immediate email response is required. For example, there is currently an inititative by NY congresswoman Louise Slaughter to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine--a law that was repealed during the Reagan years which requires media outlets to give equal time to different sides of an issue.

Each action literally takes seconds--basically the click of a link that will be provided in the email.

If this is not something you feel you can do, please let me know as we really need a chain that we can count on.

If you feel you would like join me in taking action, I am asking that you to build on this chain, send this letter to 10 of your likeminded colleagues and friends and build your own email group.

I hope we can count on you for this small but important action.

Many thanks,

5) You will decide what you want to do to move this issue forward. You can participate in the following ways

Education
work on our speaker series
work on framing the issues (this involves explanation so it is important to attend meetings)
put together actions for 10 friends initiative
Letter to the edior blitz

Legislation
must follow what is currently under consideration
liscenses that are up for renewal
compose wish list/platform for upcoming midterm candidates

6) Get involved. The meetings are important and the people are so great! I can't say enough about them!

"10 Friends Initiative" expanded

2005-03-14T02:03:00.000-12:00

I've recruited about 10 BlueWave members from the Electoral Reform sub-group to be on my "10 Friends Initiative" email action alert for Media Reform. I will send them the intro letter and first request to sign the Fairness Doctrine petition.

Welcome to our new BlueWaveMediaReform Blog

2005-03-05T22:10:00.000-12:00

Time to step into the future (I am talking to myself here). If "Blog" was the most important word in 2004, there must be a reason. In the previous weeks, I have seen that all of you have a lot to share. I feel that as keeper of the media reform member list (for the present), I have a responsibility not to overwhelm people, however, there is so much important information that I feel we need a forum to share and chat. I hope that this will be it and that we will be the richer for it!

cheers all!

suzy