Google WiFi

Google.net may be coming to a neighborhood near you. According to a recent press reports the world's leading search engine may change its game to offer broadband access nationwide. One catch, they would have to build a broadband network massive enough to rival even the country's biggest Internet service providers.

READ THE UPDATE:
Big Broadband Shudders at Google's Plans for Free Wifi

They plan to map the elusive final mile, however, using municipal WiFi systems, a move that could leapfrog lumbering cable and DSL providers into American homes.

Google's plans could tie into municipal efforts to expand Wi-Fi. Dozens of municipalities of all sizes are looking to install citywide Wi-Fi access as a way to get broadband to more people. To learn more about a municipal broadband service near you visit Free Press.

Business 2.0 reports that Google is already building the fiber backbone for such a system: "For the past year, it has quietly been shopping for miles and miles of 'dark,' or unused, fiber-optic cable across the country from wholesalers such as New York’s AboveNet. It's also acquiring superfast connections from Cogent Communications and WilTel, among others, between East Coast cities including Atlanta, Miami, and New York."

That's a lot of fiber, especially for an Internet company that has no experience or means to maintain hardware stretched over thousands of miles.

Essentially, Google is several smart engineers and marketing people sitting on massive warehouse of web servers. Transitioning from that to an ISP with nationally distributed hardware and customer service infrastructure will require billions of dollars in startup -- and a complete overhaul of corporate culture.

Google has made bold moves in the past, but none has so significantly changed their way of doing business -- with an emphasis shift from clicks to mortar.

They can save some related costs, however, with WiFi into homes and businesses. And according to a report in Investor's Business Daily, that's exactly what they're doing: "Its latest project: security software for accessing the Internet wirelessly via the popular Wi-Fi standard. The new software works with Google's limited free Wi-Fi service."

A source inside Google says they're looking more intently at, first, building localized networks in major metropolitan areas. They have already created a hot spot service that is limited to parts of the San Francisco Bay Area but have proposed a free service for the whole city.

"All you would need would be a Wi-Fi-equipped laptop and, boom, you're on the Internet for free," Greg Sterling, an analyst with the research firm Kelsey Group, told the Investor's Daily. "Think about the brand Microsoft has built being on every desktop, and Google doing the same by providing free Internet access. It could become a next-generation service provider."

With Google in the market, the broadband dynamic could change once more. The cable/telecom duopoly would become more vulnerable with each passing week.

Either way, high-speed Internet service is gearing up to become corporate battle royale. Get off the sidelines and stake your claim to affordable and ubiquitous broadband.

SEPT 19 REPORT: Google Plans National Optical Fiber Network

Google is reviewing bids from tech vendors to build a nationwide optical DWDM network, which means that the cash-flush web giant could soon have a communications network that few can rival. The vendors who have seen Google’s fiber network RFP say that the nature of the network can really only mean that Google ultimately hopes to push massive amounts of voice, video and data close to the end user. The perennial problem is that close is not enough — to reach the end user, Google has to have access to the last mile. WiFi would be the answer.

Verizon's Back Yard Sermon

I delivered this speech across the street from Verizon Communications headquarters near Times Square. The event was part of Andrew Rasiej's campaign for New York City Public Advocate. It was a joy to stand beside Andrew, in the shadow of Verizon's glass and steel monolith, and sling a couple of stones:

Thank you . . .

High-speed Internet service is no longer a luxury. As it becomes a necessity for all Americans, control of this vital service has fallen into the hands of fewer and fewer corporations.

This consolidation of broadband power is not through the natural ebb and flow of the free market, but through political influence-peddling by corporations who seek to monopolize the multibillion-dollar industry.

Today, we stand before the headquarters of one of the biggest influence-peddlers of them all.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Verizon Communications, Inc. has spent more than $12 million on political candidates and party committees since 1998. Add to this the more than $82 million Verizon spent on political lobbyists.

For New Yorkers, Verizon’s million-dollar shopping spree means fewer choices, higher costs and slower speeds.

It’s the same across the country. Over the past two years, this company has bought up politicians in statehouses, Congress and the FCC to support Verizon-friendly policies that eliminate ISP competitors, squashes local broadband alternatives and bar towns and cities across the country from providing citizens their own high-speed Internet services.

In the past three years, American broadband prices have not declined and speeds have not increased. That’s unheard of in a technology market unless it’s monopoly controlled.

Over the same time, America has dropped to 16th in the world in broadband penetration, falling behind countries such as South Korea, Canada and Japan – nations that have drafted national broadband policies, which involve strong public-private sector initiatives, open access and healthy competition.

“Broadband Reality Check” – a report just released by Free Press, The Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America and available at http://www.freepress.net/ – reveals that the cost of broadband in other countries has dropped dramatically while speeds have increased. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.

The fallout of Internet price gouging is a growing digital divide in cities like New York and across the country. Today, 200 million Americans are without high-speed Internet services. More than five million of those without broadband are New Yorkers.

The growing digital divide is the direct result of Verizon-purchased policies that stifle competition in the name of deregulation. But there’s no deregulation going on. Instead, the future of communications is being regulated on behalf of telecom and cable giants like Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and SBC.

These are policies that we’re bought and paid for by companies that have only one interest in mind.

You see, Verizon is not in the business of “working for you” as their ads claim.

Verizon is in the business of selling out customers to line their pockets.

And it’s beginning to show.

The rising cost of broadband combined with spotty services for urban and rural communities has resulted in declining customer faith in broadband companies like Verizon and Comcast. These companies, now rate at the bottom of this year’s American Consumer Satisfaction Index. The problem for frustrated customers is they have few other choices for broadband. For New Yorkers wanting DSL, indeed, it’s Verizon or the highway.

As Verizon buys up politicians to loosen oversight and deregulate the broadband industry, costs escalate, the digital divide widens and customer service declines.

That’s why hundreds of communities, towns, and neighborhoods across the country are building their own broadband networks, scrapping the shoddy service and high prices of the telecom and cable companies.

These “Community Internet” projects are being developed from Philadelphia to Portland, San Francisco to Chicago. They're good for local economies. They’re already up and running in small towns like Scottsburg, Indiana and Chaska, Minnesota.

But why not in New York?

Fortunately, we have a committed community leader in Andrew Rasiej -- a man who is determined to provide New Yorkers with a broadband alternative.

Andrew’s plan for citywide wireless service recognizes that New Yorkers need more broadband choices. He understands that we need to break down price gouging monopolies and build up a low-cost wireless Internet system for all New Yorkers.

Rasiej's plan for WiFi New York is based on the experiences of Philadelphia and other municipalities that developed unique public private partnerships that bridge the digital divide. A similar network here in New York would provide basic broadband service for $20 a month, with discounts for low-income residents and students.

The only way this situation is going to change is with leaders who understand that technology is critical to communities and enact policies that get everyone connected in the Information Age.

It's time New Yorkers had the courage to stand up against Big Telecom and fight for our right to get connected. Supporting community internet projects like WiFi New York is one way we can win.

The Death of a Politician

Frank Rich's column in the Sunday New York Times is burning up the blogosphere. It's a concise and powerful statement of what many of us -- on both the right and left -- have known for some time: The war has become a quagmire of Bush's creation; the president (by failing to acknowledge his mistakes) has lost all moral authority.

The country is turning against Bush and the political fallout is beginning to spread. An Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults found approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent in early August. More than 55 percent said they disapproved of his overall performance as president.

Rich's strength is in distilling the American cultural landscape into a written certainty:

Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America . . . What lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam . . .

The sputtering of the right's message machine is itself a testament to Rich's dead aim. The right blogosphere can only point fingers, wave the flag and blame the messenger. Their A-list of on-air bloviators can turn up their spittle and volume but none can challenge Rich on the facts. At last, history is catching up with histrionics.

They know as well as any political observer that the president's second term is on life support. No combination of spin from O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity or Limbaugh can put Bush II back together again. Americans are already looking elsewhere for leaders who can re-assess our fight against terrorism and restore faith in our intentions. This message of popular discontent with Bush is piercing the mainstream media "filter" and seeping through the cracks in the right establishment.

With mid-term elections looming, the president could become a liability for Republicans seeking office in '06.

I had been thinking about the predicament LBJ faced in 1968 -- the escalation of an un-winnable war in Vietnam -- which forced him not to seek nor accept the nomination for re-election. LBJ understood what GWB cannot -- that there comes a time when a leader has to put the best interests of the country before politics, remove himself from the political process and own up to his own failures.

Bush, however, is entirely a political creation. You separate the politics from his DNA and he evaporates like a Texas mirage. There's no man behind the façade -- no human capacity to make a decision that isn't calculated to benefit those few who propped him up as a leader. Admitting his mistakes, would be political suicide. If you kill the politician, you're left with a hollow shell.

Bush has no option but to ride his ship of state to the bottom. But how many more of us -- Americans, Iraqis and others -- is he going to sacrifice before his dismal turn at the wheel is up?

Rich's indictment is helping right what's been wrong with the White House for too long. His column is going viral (according to technorati and the Times' own email counter) adding weight to the evidence -- real, anecdotal and editorial -- that's tipping history's ballast against a politician who isn't man enough to face the facts.

Broadband Through a Rose-Tinted Lens

New report disputes FCC claim that
U.S. "leads the world" in broadband,
calls for universal and affordable access

Despite the rosy picture painted by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, access to affordable, high-speed Internet in America lags far behind the rest of the digital world. A new report released today at Free Press shows that Martin's glowing appraisal of broadband in America glossed over the serious problem of our ever-widening digital divide.

In a "wildly optimistic" July 7 Wall Street Journal editorial, Chairman Martin claims, "the dramatic growth in broadband services . . . proves that we are well on our way to accomplishing the president’s goal of universal, affordable access to broadband by 2007.”

By overstating broadband availability, Martin is trying to erect a façade of success that maintain the status quo -- a broadband service sector dominated by predatory cable and telecom giants -- at the expense of American consumers.

If the president’s goal of universal, affordable high-speed Internet access is to be achieved in two years, policymakers in Washington must change course. And Chairman Martin tops the list of those in need of a reality check.

The new report authored by Free Press research fellow S. Derek Turner, depicts a more accurate state of the broadband union:

• The FCC overstates broadband penetration rates. The FCC report considers a ZIP code covered by broadband service if just one person subscribes. No consideration is given to price, speed or availability of that connection throughout the area.
  
  
• The FCC misrepresents exactly how many connections are “high-speed.” The FCC defines “high-speed” as 200 kilobits per second, barely enough to receive low-quality streaming video and far below what other countries consider to be a high-speed connection.
  
  
• The United States remains 16th in the world in broadband penetration per capita. The United States also ranks 16th in terms of broadband growth rates, suggesting our world ranking won’t improve any time soon.
  
  
• Despite FCC claims, digital divide persists and is growing wider. Nearly 60 percent of households with incomes over $150,000 annually have broadband access, compared to just 10 percent of households with incomes below $25,000. In addition, broadband penetration in urban and suburban in areas is double that of rural areas.
  
  
• Reports of a broadband “price war” are bogus. Analysis of “low-priced” introductory offers by companies like SBC and Comcast reveal them to be little more than bait-and-switch gimmicks. On a per megabit basis, U.S. consumers pay 10 to 25 times more than broadband users in Japan.
  
  
• The FCC ignores the lack of competition in the broadband market. Cable and DSL providers control almost 98 percent of the residential and small-business broadband market. Yet the FCC recently eliminated “open access” requirements for DSL that represented the only true competition in the broadband market.

FCC is trying to put the best face on these problems it can. Its new chairman, like his predecessor Michael Powell, seems all too eager to please powerful media giants -- such as Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and SBC -- who routinely strong arm regulators to pass policies that eliminate local choices and competition for Internet services. It's an insider's game of corporate and political influence peddling that leaves consumers paying more for less.

As my colleagues Craig Aaron and Ben Scott wrote at TomPaine.com last month:

Powell may be gone, but the FCC still doesn’t get it. Their answer to anti-competitive practices -- which have left two-thirds of American households without broadband connections -- is to reward the cable and telephone industry dinosaurs with sweetheart policies that make a mockery of the free market and undercut any serious commitment to solving our technology woes.

The Free Press report exposes the Chairman's misleading rhetoric for what it is: an attempt to hand over control of last mile of the Internet -- and the hundreds of billions of dollars in annual service revenues that go with it -- to an oligopoly of media companies.

But fudging the facts won’t provide high-speed Internet access to those who need it most. With 200 million Americans still without broadband access, the FCC needs to open up more broadcast spectrum to wireless internet applications and remove restrictions from public entities that seek to offer broadband services to their citizens.

If the FCC is content to let cable and phone companies control the broadband market, then consumers need more options. Wireless broadband, which is less expensive and doesn’t depend on DSL or cable modems, offers one best way to close the digital divide.

Another prospect is broadband over power lines, still under development in a number of pilot locations.

Novak Walks the Walk

Robert Novak can flee from the cameras, but where can he hide? Many, in and out of the blogosphere, report that the embattled right-wing columnist has few options left.

In an appearance on CNN's Inside Politics on Thursday, Novak stormed off the set after cursing Democratic strategist James Carville.

It's clear that Carville had little to do with Novak's departure. The Democratic strategist had described Novak's as trying to "show these right-wingers that he's got backbone, you know. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is watching you. Show 'em you're tough."

Novak responded, "I think that's bullshit, and I hate that," and exited stage right.

Bloggers from left to right, however, judge the Carville prodding as typical partisan banter for a show of this sort. Other factors must have caused this cable pundit to come unhinged.

Host Ed Henry had planned to end the segment by asking Novak about his role in the Plame leak investigation. "Hopefully, we'll be able to ask him about that in the future," Henry explained to his viewing audience after Novak's exit.

Jay Rosen of Press Think speculates:

Novak "was in an impossible position every time he went on the air to talk politics. If he met his duty to himself (by not speaking up while the Plame case was open) then he could not meet his duty to his peers and his profession. . . Novak knew that dodging his colleague Ed Henry was no longer going to work. He solved a problem for himself, and for CNN with his theatre of phony rage.

Indeed, Novak, as someone who claims to be a journalist, had painted himself into a corner. But he has been taking heat from other quarters as well.

On Thursday, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania publicly blasted Novak for "falsely and maliciously" libeling staffer Bettilou Taylor after Novak wrote a column that critiqued Specter's performance during a Senate hearing.

The hard right's disdain for Specter is well known – making Novak's ascerbic column less than unusual -- but the GOP's anti-Novak club doesn't end with the Senator. The columnist is being pilloried by right establishment figures including strategists within the White House sausage factory. According to a source in the DC press corps, Bush's communications office sees Novak as a walking time bomb set to explode when least convenient to their boss. They would much rather see Novak disappear quietly beneath the toxic sludge of the Potomac.

If this is true, it would appear that the right have begun to eat their own -- and that Novak is now among the hunted.

And only yesterday the Plame-Rove-Novak case was slipping towards the back pages. Thanks to Novak, it's now burning up the blogosphere -- a fire that threatens to jump lines to the mainstream.

For its part CNN called his behavior "inexcusable and unacceptable" and asked Novak "to take some time off."

SIDEBAR: Jon Stewart puts it all in perspective. B&C gives a historical rundown of famous on-air meltdowns but forgets to mention personal favorite Brigitte Quinn.

Sony Fakes It, Again

Sony can't seem to handle the truth. Instead of offering legitimate fare the media giant is paying off broadcasters and fabricating reviews to tart up their media products and push them on an unsuspecting public.

Late last month, Sony agreed to pay $10 million for payola improprieties after they were found to have funneled millions to radio broadcasters who bumped Sony artists to the top of playlists. If you were surprised that your local station exhumed Celine Dion from pop obscurity in 2003 -- following five years without a hit -- wonder no further. Sony had bribed radio stations with money and prizes in exchange for frequent airplay of two tracks from Dion's latest.

And the hits keep on coming. This week, Sony agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the studio of citing a fake movie critic in ads for several films.

In 2001, Sony's faux reviewer of choice, a David Manning of the Ridgefield Press, heaped praise atop their cinematic stinkers, including Hollow Man, which he declared had "the summer's best special effects!" The Animal starring Saturday Night Live castaway Rob Schneider was "another winner" as seen through Manning's benevolent lens. More than 700 viewers at Yahoo!'s news group graded this "winner" with a less favorable C+. Manning was one of very few critics to reserve kind words for 2000's Vertical Limit, a movie that I saw in theaters (true confession) and liked. In an ad for A Knight's Tale, Manning was quoted calling actor Heath Ledger ''this year's hottest new star!''

The Ridgefield Press, a small weekly newspaper in Connecticut, has never had a movie critic named David Manning. No matter for Sony. The company's brilliant legal team attempted to cloak Sony's misleading practices in the First Amendment, citing the media giant's Constitutional right to lie to consumers. A California court of appeal threw out this feeble defense, ruling that faux reviews counted as commercial speech and were, therefore, not protected by the Amendment.

Indeed. It's called "truth in advertising" and it's enshrined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which states:

• advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
• advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
• advertisements cannot be unfair.

In the fallout since the Manning farce came to light in 2001, the fictional critic has launched his own blog where you can read reviews.

Posters over at the Onion's "AV Club" eulogized Manning today, speculating what the ghost of this fake critic would have to say about more recent Hollywood flops.

Duped audiences who paid for Manning's top picks during their original theater runs can now file a claim for a $5 per ticket reimbursement, according to the lawyer who brought the suit against the studio.

Bush Losing the War against Time

Bush is losing the war of public opinion, according to a new poll by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The timing couldn't be worse for the White House. With mid-term elections looming, the president could become a liability for Republicans seeking office in '06. If opinion continues to plummet -- as more Americans see Iraq for the quagmire it's become -- Bush Republicans' prospects for 2008 are also at risk. A McCain who distances himself from this administration may prove the GOP antidote to Bushitis.

Snippets from the Ipsos poll (1,000 adults conducted Aug. 1-3):

1. Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent.

2. Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving.

3. The portion of people who consider Bush honest has dropped slightly from January, with 48 percent saying he's honest and 50 percent saying he's not. The drop in the number of people who see Bush as honest was strongest among middle-aged Americans as well as suburban women, a key voting group in the 2004 election.

4. The portion of people who view his confidence as arrogance has increased from 49 percent in January to 56 percent now.

5. Six in 10 said they think the country is headed down the wrong track, despite some encouraging economic news in recent weeks.

The wheels of history continue to pull this administration under.

Ann Coulter 'Has the Media'

Big media's favorite "public intellectual," turns on her kind to admit that their "liberal media" mantra is nothing more than right-wing lip service.

During Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday, Coulter explained to neo-nanny Brent Bozell that President Bush should have turned further right than Roberts in his choice for the Supreme Court. The right would win this appointment because “we have the media now,” Coulter explains to a nodding Sean Hannity (What better confirmation). Hannity's own version of "objectivity and balance" is to pit Coulter against Bozell, giving his lucky listeners a broad sampling of political views in this debate.

Thanks Ann, Brent and Sean, I couldn't have said it more succinctly myself.

Audio courtesy of Oliver W.

Find the Flak

The following story appeared in the Albany Times Union in June. Lurking midst the report is a paid flak for the military. Mssgr O'Brien failed to let his readers in on this little secret. Can you spot the interloper? For the answer, read "Media No Longer Taking Flak?"

= = = = =
Members of a division in mourning
return for a break from Iraq

By TIM O'BRIEN
Staff Writer Albany Times Union
Tuesday, June 21, 2005

TROY - Members of the 42nd Infantry Division say they hope the murder of two commanders, allegedly by one of their own, will not overshadow the hard work they are doing in Iraq.

Staff Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez, 37, of Schaghticoke, is charged with two counts of premeditated murder in the deaths of Capt. Phillip T. Esposito and 1st Lt. Louis E. Allen. Martinez is accused of using an explosive to kill the two leaders, then trying to make it look like an attack by insurgents.

On Monday, a few members of the 4,000-person 42nd Infantry Division returned from Iraq for two weeks of rest and relaxation. They arrived at noon at Albany International Airport to the welcoming arms of friends and family.

Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo, a 24-year Guard veteran, said she had met Martinez but was limited in her freedom to discuss him. "Other than hard-working, there is nothing I can say," she said.

"I can see where it's going to be a topic of conversation and interest. Personally, I just hope it doesn't taint the accomplishments the 42nd has made."

She described Esposito as a commander who cared for those he led. "Eight of 10 conversations I had with him were conversations about bringing his soldiers home safely," she said.

The infantry division is overseeing a force of 23,000 soldiers in an area the size of West Virginia. They have been working to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure, "everything from transportation to the power stations to rebuilding oil pipelines."

"A great deal of what we're doing is training the Iraqi forces so they can take over the mission," she said.

"Unfortunately, it seems the more efforts the coalition forces and the Iraqi forces do, we're still fighting terrorists that are causing problems."

Capt. Robert Giordano of Niskayuna said he too knew Martinez but could not discuss the case. "Obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Capt. Esposito and Lt. Allen," he said.

"We have a mission to do, and we're proud of what we're doing. I've seen news reports that say morale is low. It's garbage. Morale is doing well. I liked Sgt. Martinez. I can't talk about it. It's still under investigation."

Martinez is accused of using an explosive device to kill Esposito and Allen, then allegedly trying to camouflage the murders as an attack by insurgents. Martinez also has been accused of trying to cover up for a crime in a lawsuit he filed against an insurance company over a December 2002 fire that destroyed his home in Cohoes.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company contended the fire was arson, made to look like an electrical fire. Court papers show Martinez's co-workers at Watervliet Arsenal claimed he had said he might burn his home down if he could not sell it.

He also doubled the insurance policy coverage on the house, a move that took effect seven weeks before the fire, the court records show. The defense in the case, which is scheduled for trial in September, focuses on Martinez's financial troubles.

He had not paid his mortgage in four months, attorney Thomas O'Connor said in the documents. "Mr. Martinez was having difficulty making ends meet and, in fact, his gas and electricity service had been frequently terminated for nonpayment," he wrote.

During his stay home, Giordano said he planned to spend time with his family. It was his first visit home since being deployed in November. Lombardo, a Scotia resident, said she is grateful for the support she has received.

But she said she was especially happy to be home now, to celebrate both her wedding anniversary and her daughter's 12th birthday. And despite all the 42nd Infantry is enduring, Lombardo signed up for another six years the day before she left Iraq - two days after the charges against Martinez were announced.

"I enjoy what I'm doing over there and enjoy getting to know the Iraqi people," she said. "The support of my family has been tremendous."

Tim O'Brien can be reached at 454-5096 or tobrien@timesunion.com.

That Great Sucking Sound

That great sucking sound coming from your radio and TV is the deflation of American trust in the Fourth Estate. Increasingly obsessed with celebrity sensationalism and crime driven news, the mainstream media have created a vacuum into which is being dragged the credibility of the few remaining responsive and aggressive journalists -- people who provide the type of hard-hitting coverage this country desperately needs.

The Pew Research Center's latest survey on people and the press reveals a yawning gap between news credibility and its favorability, as growing numbers question the accuracy of the news they read, listen to and watch. These sentiments are echoed in the Project for Excellence in Journalism's annual report, "The State of the News Media."

"Credibility ratings for most major news outlets had reached a low ebb," the Pew reported in June 2004 (see News Audiences Increasingly Politicized). The latest survey adds to the decline and concludes that there is "a startling rise in the politicization of opinions on several measures" in the United States. The State of the News Media Report found that, from 1985 to 2002, the number of Americans who thought news organizations were highly professional declined from 72% to 49%.

Left in the lurch of media's downward turn is the hard-hitting news and investigative journalism that Americans need to shake up the powerful and challenge the status quo.

In a society where corporate and government priorities combine to control the political agenda, a forthright media is meant to serve as provocateur -- advocating for truth, speaking on behalf of disenfranchised, and using facts to shake undeserving elites from their higher perch.

Journalists who work on behalf of the public good, and against the blindly pro-corporate and government agenda of mainstream media, are being dragged down by a media system that has sold out good journalism to serve its bottom line.

Tom Fenton, in his 2005 book Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News and the Danger to Us All, reports that the news industry – and in particular the networks – were once thought of as a public service.

Commercial news media have been commandeered by their corporate parents as a cash cow, argues Fenton. “None of the networks is talking about providing more international news, more context, or serving the American public better,” he writes. “Their vision is focused as always on the bottom line.”

This brand of news programming -- exemplified most recently by the proliferation of corporate- and government funded VNRs and “payola pundits” -- sends a message that the people who control the airwaves simply no longer understand their roles, not to mention their duty to the public.

Pew's report confirms the resulting public cynicism.

Karl Rove is chalking up another victory in the concerted campaign to dismantle and discredit dissenting views. The key to our response is to be both critical of the corporate news industry -- which has become a convenient if not undeserving target in the failure of public trust -- while fostering an empowered and independent news system to flush out Rove and his fellow rats, once and for all.

Propagandists Overrun Public Broadcasting

Listen to Democracy Now this morning. I'll be live at 8:15 with Amy Goodman to discuss the recent coronation of White House propagandist Patricia Harrison as president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

For those of you who don't know Ms. Harrison here's a primer: She presently serves as the State Department's Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs where her primary duties were to create media materials or "good news" that would help the Arab world better understand that the Iraqi occupation was in their own best interests.

Describing her role to the House International Relations Committee in August, Harrison said, "We are helping Arab and Muslim journalists produce balanced reports and documentaries on topics from policy to culture" as well as "'good news' stories on reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan that American and foreign news editors have incorporated in their programs."

These "balanced reports" are better known as "video news releases" or government propaganda dressed up as news in order to be covertly slipped into newscasts to help sway public opinion. You can learn more about this, "payola pundits" and other propaganda at my Free Press pages devoted to fighting fake news.

Together with CPB chair Kenneth Tomlinson, Harrison forms a formidable front in the ideological campaign to both gag and starve public broadcasting. They claim that their working to correct the perception of liberal bias at PBS, NPR and other public media. They want to help America by restoring "objectivity and balance" to our noncommercial media system.

Don't believe it. Tomlinson and Harrison use "objectivity and balance" in the same way that their counterparts at Fox News Channel use "fair and balanced." It's meant more as a provocation than statement of fact. It cloaks a real intention, which is to transform our Fourth Estate into the public relations wing of the White House. They have already coopted (or "embedded") many in commercial news media , now it's public broadcasting's turn.

You can help put a stop to Tomlinson, Harrison and their fellow propagandists by joining nearly 100,000 others who have signed Free Press' petition calling for his immediate resignation.

The fight for more independent, democratic and accountable media is fight is far from lost.

UPDATE: Watch the streaming video of the interview.

Deus Ex Machina

The formidable right-wing message machine is churning away on PBS.

There's a consistent tone to the talking points emanating from their chief bloviators. They figure that screaming "liberal bias" repeatedly and at volume will make it true. Unfortunately, mainstream media's echo chamber seems helpless to debunk their fact-challenged claims.

Dumb: Timothy Graham

[PBS wants] to create an empire that does not have to answer to the Congress or the people . . .Conservatives do not want to give more tax dollars to television stations that attack their ideas.

Dumber: Cliff Kincaid

[Moyers] had a show on PBS for three years. . . He is an admitted liberal partisan. Who did PBS have to balance him? Nobody. . . Tomlinson is coming under fire by the liberal elites who run PBS and NPR simply because he's trying to document the bias and do something about it.

Dumbest: George Neumayer

I do. I see a pervasive bias. PBS looks like a liberal monopoly to me, and Bill Moyers is Exhibit A of that very strident left-wing bias. . . . So I think the problem of bias is quite deep, and I applaud Ken Tomlinson for making an attempt to correct it.

These spin doctors, however, fail to muster an intelligent response to polls -- including those commissioned and conducted by Republicans -- that find an overwhelming majority (80%) of Americans believe PBS to be "fair and balanced".

Hey, don't let those facts get in the way of an effective barrage.

Greedy Congressman Goes for the Gold

With More Than $500,000 in SBC Stock Options,
Pete Sessions Gets in Bed with the Telcos to Stifle
Efforts to Bring the Internet to More Americans

US Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) -- a 16-year Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (SBC) executive and sponsor of a bill that would eliminate communities' ability to deliver low-cost, high-speed internet to their citizens – still owns more than half a million dollars worth of stock options in SBC. If passed, Session’s proposed legislation would provide a windfall for his former employer and other major cable and telephone companies, giving them veto power over locally supported efforts to provide internet at a cost more Americans can afford.

Sessions stands to gain as well. According to his "Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2003," the former SBC executive owns $500,000 in SBC stock options and recieved more than $75,000 from SBC and it’s employees. It's no wonder he would sponsor legislation that is supported by nobody in this country except for the telecom and cable giants that punch his ticket.

SBC is the most active telecommunications company in the states by far. In just one two-year period—2003-2004—the former "Baby Bell" spent a minimum of $16.3 million to lobby state governments. And it spent another $10.1 million on contributions to state political parties and candidates' campaigns from 1999 to 2004.

By legislating to line his pockets, Sessions is rapidly joining the ranks of fellow Texas lawmaker Tom Delay as Capitol Hill's most corrupt.

The legislation in question, ironically called "Preserving Innovation in Telecom Act of 2005" (HR 2726), would "prohibit municipal governments from offering telecommunications, information, or cable services." States, counties, cities, and towns looking to provide broadband services could not do so if they are anywhere within the same geographic area as a private company that has "substantially similar service. "

This isn’t about "preserving innovation" but about protecting Big Media's market fiefdoms. The major telephone and communications companies are scrambling to maintain their stranglehold over the future of communications in America.

Soon, nearly all information – TV, radio, telephone and the web will be delivered via high speed broadband. Locally supported internet projects provide access to broadband at $10 a month instead of the $30 to $50 rate levied by the communications companies. Community Internet connects rural communities, attracts new businesses, serves schools, libraries and public safety sectors. It will make access to the information superhighway affordable and accessible to everyone.

These telephone and cable companies will stop at nothing to stifle local efforts to bridge the digital divide. Why compete when you can pay off corrupt politicians to legislate away all other Internet options?

According to his 2003 filing, Sessions also holds considerable stock in other communications companies – including Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South -- that stand to gain considerably from limiting local efforts to provide cheap internet access to more Americans. The filing also lists his wife, Juanita, as collecting a salary from Southwestern Bell Internet Services, a subsidiary of SBC (See Schedule I). Sessions doesn't indicate how much Juanita makes from this arrangement.

Today's Dallas Morning News reports that Mr. Sessions' 2004 financial disclosure forms show that his wife's SBC stock options exceeded $1 million five years ago, when the stock was trading at $48 – roughly twice its current price.

It's not clear, however, from the Congressman's internal public relations and related press that his wife actually holds a nine-to-five job at SBC; in his election propaganda she's presented as a homemaker taking care of their two children. This begs the obvious question: "What does Juanita actually do to earn income from SBC?"

Backroom dealing between telcos and greedy elected officials has become the modus operandi of corporations seeking to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives. They've devoted millions of dollars -- to pay off politicians, think tanks and provide misinformation to the media -- to paint Community Internet as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise.

Nothing could be further from the truth. These ISPs are loath to loosen their stranglehold on a market that, according to the Telecommunications Industry Association, could yield $212.5 billion in revenues by 2008. With so much at stake, they have opted to smother innovative local efforts to provide high-speed internet to more Americans. Legislators like Sessions have their hands out, ready to to introduce anti-access legislation, such as HR 2726, dictated to them word for word by their corporate masters.

Free Press has called on Sessions retract HR 2776 and come clean about a conflict of interest that impugns his integrity as a public servant.

On Friday, June 10, We also launched a petition asking members of Congress to not stand in the way of local governments serving the needs of local citizens. The petition is available at:

http://www.freepress.net/action/sessionsbill

Big Bird Goes Under the Knife

The House Appropriations subcommittee voted on Thursday to slash more than $100 million in funding for public broadcasting, which if passed by the full Congress would gut programming on NPR, PBS and other public media. The cuts could deprive millions of American children of educational programming that helps keep popular shows such as “Sesame Street,” “Clifford the Big Red Dog” and “Arthur” on the air.

The vote is part of a concerted campaign, involving GOP House representatives and partisan board members at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), to both gag and starve public media in America. Instead of representing their constituents, politicians are acting as partisan operatives seeking to dismantle media -- even children's programming -- that doesn't follow the one-party line.

The subcommittee voted to sharply reduce support for popular children's educational programs such as "Sesame Street" and "Postcards from Buster" in addition to educational resources provided by hundreds of local stations as part of the "Ready to Learn" program. The legislators also moved to eliminate all federal money for CPB within two years, starting with a $100 million reduction in the budget for 2006.

The action is in direct opposition to American opinion on public broadcasting. Research shows strong support for public broadcasting's programs and for continued public financial support. A 2003 poll by the Tarrance Group, for example, found that more than 75 percent of those surveyed said "it is important for the federal government to support [PBS and NPR] financially."

Despite the widespread public opposition to efforts to change PBS and NPR, CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson continues to stack the CPB board and executive offices with ideological cronies. Recent news reports suggest the leading candidate to fill the vacant post of CPB president is Patricia Harrison, former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

More than 85,000 concerned citizens have signed a Free Press petition calling for Tomlinson to resign, following his much-publicized efforts to meddle with PBS and NPR programming that doesn't adhere to his personal notion of "objectivity and balance." Free Press will deliver the petitions to Tomlinson when he convenes the CPB's board of directors meeting in Washington on June 20.

Big Media a Trojan Horse for Racism?

UCLA law professor Jerry Kang draws an interesting links between media consolidation and racial biases. In his fascinating recent report, Trojan Horses of Race, he focuses on the "if it bleeds, it leads" nature of local news.

He states that the FCC's public interest obligations need to be infused with more meaningful qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) standards for local reporting. As the obligations stand, they provide no clarity, leaving broadcasters free to meet FCC regs by filling their news hole with local crime stories often featuring minority suspects. This tendency feeds common misconceptions about race.

Kang's research might prove useful in efforts to organize new communities around the pending ownership fight. Check out the interview in which he states:

Crime stories have always been popular with local news and average approximately 25 percent of the minutes broadcast. More local news means more crime stories shown. This emphasis on local programming [as the FCC's measure of fulfilling the public-interest obligations of a broadcaster] also creates incentives to produce more local news with an eye toward subsequent waves of deregulation . . .

On the basis of this evidence, I believe that being inundated with crime stories, disproportionately featuring racial minorities, is likely to increase implicit bias. That is a hidden downside to local news, a sort of Trojan Horse virus that infects our brains

Kang critiques FCC's public interest obligations for calling for a quantity of local news without defining qualitative standards. The end product is commercial broadcasters' obsession with the cheap-to-produce police blotter stories that typically lead newscasts in every market.

Rush to Judgment

Limbaugh leads the echo
chamber’s attack on Bill Moyers

By Craig Aaron and Timothy Karr

Bill Moyers gave an historic speech last Sunday in St. Louis, a clarion defense of quality journalism and public broadcasting from the partisan attacks of the White House and its minions at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

“CPB was established almost 40 years ago to set broad policy for public broadcasting and to be a firewall between political influence and program content,” Moyers told a packed house at the National Conference for Media Reform, lambasting CPB Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson’s personal crusade against “liberal advocacy” journalism at PBS. “We’re seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable.”

The speech is ricocheting around the Internet and has been broadcast nationwide on TV and radio. The right-wing responded by going into attack mode. On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh went apoplectic, unleashing an on-air tirade against Moyers. Limbaugh had taken a break from his golf game to watch a few minutes of the hour-long speech on C-SPAN2 because he’d heard “my name was taken in vain so often.” (And Limbaugh accuses Moyers of having a God complex.)

Moyers’ speech didn’t mention Limbaugh once. But Rush may have recognized himself in a few of Moyers’ pronouncements. For instance: “The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets. That’s because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned as a liberal is to tell the truth.”

Unable to impugn Moyers credentials -- after all, he’s a former White House staffer with three decades in the television news business and countless Emmy awards -- Rush questioned his sanity. In less than 30 seconds, he dismissed media reformers and Moyers as “unhinged,” “literally insane” and “off their rockers.”

Incapable of winning this debate based on the facts, the best the right-wing media can do is trot out their A-list of bloviators, engage in fact-challenged character assassination, and hope that’s enough to fire up the right-wing echo chamber. (They’re using the same tactics to try to take down Newspaper Guild chief Linda Foley for daring to question why so many journalists are being killed by U.S. forces in Iraq.) When reason fails, they always have volume.

Over at the CPB, Tomlinson relies on the same tactics of innuendo. But when it comes to the facts, he’s far less forthcoming. He paid a consultant $10,000 to monitor Moyers’ program for signs of “liberal bias.” (Moyers left “NOW” at the end of last year.) The guest list of Moyers program includes characters from across the political spectrum, including conservative movement leaders Grover Norquist, Ralph Reed and Richard Viquerie.

This wasn’t good enough for Tomlinson. His decision to pay someone to monitor “liberal bias” at “NOW” has prompted Reps. John Dingell (D-MICH.) and David Obey (D-WIS.) to request an investigation by the CPB's inspector general into charges “of political interference into public broadcasting.”

Tomlinson refuses to release the results of this spying, claiming that they might “damage public broadcasting’s image with controversy.” But it seems far more likely that he just didn’t like the conclusions.

After all, this is the CPB chairman who buried a survey commissioned by his own agency when its results confirmed that “the majority of the U.S. adult population does not believe that the news and information programming on public broadcasting is biased.” In that same survey, 80 percent of Americans agreed that PBS is “fair and balanced,” and more than 50 percent found PBS news programming to be more trustworthy than network television or the cable networks.

Moyers has challenged Tomlinson to join him for an hour on PBS to discuss these facts and the current controversy. Thus far, Tomlinson has declined, preferring to spend his time writing columns for the Washington Times and fielding softball questions on Fox News. (Tomlinson told Bill O’Reilly: “We love your show.”)

Even when he ventured onto NPR, Tomlinson showed he still doesn’t get it. When his description of Moyers’ show was challenged by WAMU’s Diane Rehm, he quipped: “Am I gonna have to go back and hire another consultant and demonstrate this is incorrect?"

Now, the public is telling Tomlinson what it really thinks of his efforts to remake public broadcasting as a mouthpiece for right-wing views. More than 75,000 concerned citizens already have signed a petition calling for Tomlinson’s resignation (add your name here) and supporting the creation of nationwide town hall meetings on the future of public broadcasting.

These public hearings -- which have been endorsed by Moyers -- would give average people the chance to meet face-to-face with station managers, elected officials and federal regulators to express what they want and expect from their public broadcasting system. It’s the first step in putting the public back in PBS.

We suspect public hearings will show, once and for all, that public broadcasting isn’t a left-right, liberal-or-conservative issue. Listening to the public will make it clear that millions of Americans across the political spectrum are outraged by ongoing government efforts to manipulate the media and public opinion.

Americans don’t need more shouting heads and partisan posturing. They want quality journalism, diversity of views and reliable information.

Apparently, these are ideas that make Tomlinson and Limbaugh squirm.

Moyers Fights for the Soul of PBS

Yesterday, Free Press posted the audio and video files of Bill Moyers’ electric speech at the close of the National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis. Today we're calling on 100,000 people to sign our petition for the ouster of Kenneth Tomlinson of the Coporation of Public Broadcasting.

So many people went to the Free Press site to hear Bill Moyers' speech that our web server slowed to a crawl. As a result, many couldn’t download the speech. Last night, Moyers people sent me the full transcript:

http://www.freepress.net/news/8120

It's an important speech that cuts to the core of the problems of American media. I was there in the front row and am making it now available to you.

In his speech, Moyers blasted Tomlinson for hijacking public broadcasting to serve a partisan agenda. This staunch Republican has launched a personal crusade aimed at "eliminating the perception of political bias" in PBS programs. Tomlinson has covertly promoted right-wing programming and tried to install his political allies to CPB's board and executive offices. He even contracted an outside consultant to monitor Moyers' weekly PBS news program, "NOW with Bill Moyers," for signs of liberal bias.

"I always knew Nixon would be back," Moyers said. "I just didn’t know this time he would be the chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting."

On several occasons the former anchor of "Now" ripped into Tomlinson for crossing the line "from resisting White House pressure to carrying it out for the White House."

Moyers also exposed several right wing and government attempts to muzzle quality journalism, independent viewpoints and dissenting voices.

"The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party gets," Moyers said. "That's because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth."

"An unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda, is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical," Moyers said. "And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too."

Read Moyers' historic speech and then take action to save public broadcasting. Thus far, more than 50,000 Free Press activists joined signed a petition for Tomlinson's resignation. But before we deliver petitions to Tomlinson's desk, we need 50,000 more to join the call.

If you haven't taken action on this already, sign the petition at:

http://www.freepress.net/action/pbs

Then tell more people to join the call for Tomlinson's to step down. Forward the URL to all your friends and colleagues and help us protect our public broadcasting from partisan tampering. With your help we can turn the tide against corporate and government efforts to muzzle the dissenting voice of our free press.

100,000 Person March to End Tomlinson's Reign

Free Press posted the audio and video files of Bill Moyers’ speech at the close of the National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis. So many people went to the Free Press site to hear Bill Moyers' speech that our web server slowed to a crawl. As a result, many couldn’t download the speech. It's an important speech that cuts to the core of the problems of American media. I was there in the front row and am making it now available to you. To learn more, follow this link:

Moyers Fights for the Soul of PBS

And take action at Free Press to end Kenneth Tomlinson's partisan reign.

Conference Bound

I'm off to Champaign Urbana for a preliminary event to this weekend's National Conference for Media Reform in St. Louis, where I'll be hosting a lunch on public broadcasting, another lunch on propaganda and then moderating two panels: one on outreach to new constituencies for media reform and the second on new tools for online organizing. It will be a busy but very important three days. I will try to steal moments here and there to update you via mediacitizen.

The Corporate Broadband Bottleneck

Jim Baller, a leading voice on the municipal broadband issue, shares this quick review of Tom Friedman’s latest tome, The World Is Flat. While Friedman tends to paint the world in broad strokes, his critique of America’s broadband deployment is on target.

Baller writes to recommend Friedman's book along with China, Inc., Ted Fishman's book on China's surging economy, Thomas Bleha's article in Foreign Affairs on the impact of America's drop in global broadband stature and The United States of Europe, The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy, by T. R. Reid. Baller writes:

Friedman, Fishman, and Bleha are all saying much the same thing: America has got to wake up and get moving quickly on broadband deployment, or we're going to be in much more serious trouble than most Americans realize. As Bleha trenchantly notes: "Once a leader in Internet innovation, the United States has fallen far behind Japan and other Asian states in deploying broadband and the latest mobile-phone technology. This lag will cost it dearly. By outdoing the United States, Japan and its neighbors are positioning themselves to be the first states to reap the benefits of the broadband era: economic growth, increased productivity, and a better quality of life."

Under the corporate friendly Bush Administration, America has gone from 4th to 16th in the world in per capita broadband deployment. And, as Baller points out, we're rapidly losing ground to others in access to high-bandwith capacity and cost per unit of bandwidth.

Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, lobbyists and pliant legislators to protect their Internet fiefdoms from locally supported broadband initiatives. They're helped in this pursuit by lazy journalists who regurgitate fact-challenged talking points -- painting public broadband as an affront to American free enterprise -- without revealing the duplicity of their sources.

Their weapon of choice is industry-crafted legislation that restricts local governments from offering public service Internet access at reasonable rates. Laws are already on the books in a dozen states. This year alone, 10 states are considering similar bills to block public broadband or to strengthen existing restrictions.

Baller adds:

With municipalities across the United States ready, willing, and able to step forward to do their part to help America reverse these trends, it is ridiculous beyond belief for us to be wasting our time fighting over state barriers to public involvement. Instead, we should doing everything possible to remove barriers to collaboration between our public and private sectors. [his emphasis]

It would be none too soon. Spinning broadband as theirs alone to provide, ISPs have chalked up some early victories—including a draconian law now on the books in Pennsylvania, which strips local governments of the right to choose their own homegrown broadband solutions without the prior approval of a monopoly phone company.

In late 2004, Verizon dictated the law word-for-word to local legislators, who then quietly slipped it into the middle of a 72-page bill that appeared to call for improved communications infrastructure for all Pennsylvanians.

It will have the opposite effect.

Forcing public broadband networks to ask permission from Verizon before offering services is akin to forcing a city to seek permission from Barnes & Noble before building a library.

The municipal broadband issue is not about creeping socialism, as the telecom firms would want you to think, but about their meddling with citizens' right to chose their own broadband destiny. As long as these corporations hold sway over our political process and media, America will continue its path towards becoming a broadband backwater.

Friedman put it well in his April 15 Times column:

"Economics is not like war. It can be win-win. But you need to be at a certain level to be able to claim your share of a global pie that is both expanding and becoming more complex. Tax cuts can't solve every problem. This administration -- which often seems more interested in indulging creationism than spurring creativity -- is doing a very poor job of preparing the country for that next level."

Friedman stopped short of a rationale for the White House's footdragging on broadband. But reading between the lines you come to one inevitable conclusion: Bush owes too many favors to the media and telcom corporations who helped put him into office to loosen their stranglehold on Internet service and open broadband access to better, more local providers.

POST SCRIPT: Listen to Bleha on "On the Media;" Read Drew Clark's story in the National Journal.