---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:10:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Robert L Snyder <email@example.com>
Subject: Stop Media Monopoly
Dear MoveOn member,
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission is planning on
authorizing sweeping changes to the American news media. The rule
changes could allow your local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations,
and cable provider to all be owned by one company. NBC, ABC, CBS and
Fox could have the same corporate parent. The resulting concentration
of ownership could be deeply destructive to our democracy.
When we talk to Congresspeople about this issue, their response is
usually the same: "We only hear from media lobbyists on this. It
seems like my constituents aren't very concerned with this issue." A
few thousand emails could permanently change that perception. Please
join us in asking Congress and the FCC to fight media deregulation at:
The radio landscape makes clear that concentration will hurt the
media. After the FCC and Congress relaxed radio ownership rules,
corporate giant Clear Channel Communications swept in and bought
hundreds of stations. Clear Channel has used its might to support
pro-war political rallies and conservative talk shows, keep anti-war
songs off its stations, coerce musicians into playing free promotional
concerts, and bully them into performing at its music venues. In many
towns that used to have a diverse array of radio options, Clear
Channel is now the only thing on the dial.
Monopoly power is a dangerous thing, and Congress is supposed to guard
against it. But the upcoming rule change could change the landscape
for all media and usher in an era in which a few corporations control
your access to news and entertainment. Please tell Congress and the
FCC to support a diverse, competitive media landscape by going to:
You can also automatically have your comments publicly filed at the
Democracy is built on the idea that the views and beliefs of an
informed citizenry are the best basis for political decision-making.
Without access to fair and balanced news, the system simply doesn't
work. And media corporations can't be trusted to balance themselves:
news corporations have shown again and again that they're willing to
sacrifice journalism to improve the bottom line. That's why we need
many media entities -- to keep each other honest, and to provide the
information and ideas that make democracy happen.
Please join this critical campaign, and let Congress know you care.
1. Eli Pariser: Why Worry About Who Owns the Media?
2. Jeff Chester: Showdown at the FCC
3. Neil Hickey: The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership
4. Bill Moyers: Barry Diller Takes On Media Deregulation
5. Danny Schechter: The Media, the War, and Our Right to Know
6. Eric Boehlert: Clear Channel's Big Stinking Deregulation Mess
7. Paul Schmelzer: The Death of Local News
8. Caryl Rivers: Where Have All the Women Gone?
9. About the Bulletin
WHY WORRY ABOUT WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?
MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed
by Eli Pariser
It's like something out of a nightmare, but it really happened: At
1:30 on a cold January night, a train containing hundreds of thousands
of gallons of toxic ammonia derails in Minot, North Dakota. Town
officials try to sound the emergency alert system, but it isn't
working. Desperate to warn townspeople about the poisonous white cloud
bearing down on them, the officials call their local radio stations.
But no one answers any of the phones for an hour and a half.
According to the New York Times, three hundred people are
hospitalized, some are partially blinded, and pets and livestock are
Where were Minot's DJs on January 18th, 2002? Where was the late
night station crew? As it turns out, six of the seven local radio
stations had recently been purchased by Clear Channel Communications,
a radio giant with over 1,200 stations nationwide. Economies of scale
dictated that most of the local staff be cut: Minot stations ran more
or less on auto pilot, the programming largely dictated from further
up the Clear Channel food chain. No one answered the phone because
hardly anyone worked at the stations any more; the songs played in
Minot were the same as those played on Clear Channel stations across
Companies like Clear Channel argue that economies of scale allow them
to cut costs while continuing to provide quality programming. But
they do so at the expense of local coverage. It's not just about
emergency warnings: media mergers are decreasing coverage of local
political races, local small businesses, and local events. There are
only a third as many owners of newspapers and TV stations as there
were in the 1970s (about 600 now; over 1,500 then). It's harder and
harder for Americans to find out what's going on in their own back
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering
relaxing or getting rid of rules to allow much more media
concentration. While the actual rule changes are under wraps, they
could allow enormous changes in the American media environment. For
example, one company could be allowed to own ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Almost certainly, media companies will be allowed to own newspapers
and TV stations in the same town. We could be entering a new era of
Do you want one or two big companies acting as gatekeepers and
controlling your access to news and entertainment? Most of us don't.
And the airwaves explicitly belong to us -- the American people. We
allow media companies to use them in exchange for their assurance that
they're serving the public interest, and it's the FCC's job to make
sure that's so. For the future of American journalism, and for the
preservation of a diverse and local media, we have the hold the FCC to
its mission. Otherwise, Minot's nightmare may become our national
Interested in taking on the FCC and other media-related concerns?
Join the MoveOn Media Corps, a group of over 29,000 committed
Americans working for a fair and balanced media. You can sign up
SHOWDOWN AT THE FCC
Jeffrey Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet
Despite wide protests and the Clear Channel debacle, the FCC is about
to award the nation's biggest media conglomerates a new give-away that
will further concentrate media ownership in fewer hands. The impact on
the American media landscape could be disastrous. Recent TV coverage
of the Iraq war already illustrates that US media companies aren't
interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate. This
overview describes what's at stake and offers an introduction to the
THE GATHERING STORM OVER MEDIA OWNERSHIP
Neil Hickey, Columbia Journalism Review
CJR's editor-at-large explains just what is at stake in this fight
over media ownership. He provides an in-depth look at the issues, and
major players in a battle that is pitting journalists against their
bosses, breaking up old alliances, and gathering momentum as the day
of reckoning draws near. He traces the snowballing trend of media
consolidation and its implications for the future, revealing just how
the drive for profit is eroding diversity, local control, and more
importantly giving a few mega-corporations a monopoly over the
dissemination of news.
BARRY DILLER TAKES ON MEDIA DEREGULATION
Bill Moyers, Now with Bill Moyers
The founder of Fox Broadcasting and present CEO of USA Networks is an
unlikely but passionate opponent of plans to loosen media ownership
rules. In an interview with Bill Moyers, the media mogul explains how
deregulation creates corporations with "such overwhelming power in the
marketplace that everyone has to do essentially what they say."
Diller argues that government regulation is essential to prevent media
companies from controlling everything we see, read, and hear. As he
puts it, "Who else is gonna do it for us?"
THE MEDIA, THE WAR, AND OUR RIGHT TO KNOW
Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org
Why did the media do such a poor job of reporting on the Iraq war? The
boosterism of news anchors, the suppression of antiwar views, and the
sanitized images of war that defined television coverage are not a
simple matter of bias or ineptitude, says media analyst Danny
Schechter. He draws attention to the connection between the decisions
made by journalists and the lobbying efforts of owners who will
profit immensely from the upcoming FCC decision in June.
CLEAR CHANNEL'S BIG STINKING DEREGULATION MESS
Eric Boehlert, Salon
Clear Channel, the radio and concert conglomerate, has been the
greatest beneficiary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which
stripped all ownership limits in the radio industry. The rapacious
company, led by Bush supporter Lowry Mays, has grown from 40 stations
to 1,225 since then, and now uses its power to routinely bully
advertisers and record companies, and more recently censor antiwar
artists. However, as Eric Boehlert points out, its "success" may be
the most powerful weapon in the arsenal of media activists. Clear
Channel's stranglehold on the radio industry is the best and clearest
example of the effects of rampant deregulation.
THE DEATH OF LOCAL NEWS
Paul Schmelzer, AlterNet
Meet the Sinclair Broadcast Group, the "Clear Channel of local news."
Since 1991, the company has managed to acquire 62 television stations
or 24 percent of the national TV audience. The company's modus
operandi is the centralized production of homogenized, repackaged faux
"local" news. Its success offers an alarming glimpse of the
post-deregulation world in which all news may be produced in one giant
newsroom and from a single viewpoint -- which in Sinclair's case is
WHERE HAVE ALL THE WOMEN GONE?
Caryl Rivers, Women's Enews
Once the war on Iraq took center-stage in the headlines of newspapers
and magazines across the country, women writers became increasingly
rare in the media. In their place are mostly white men who write on a
narrow band of foreign policy issues, mostly recycling their views
over and over again. From the all-male line-ups in the op-ed pages of
the Washington Post and the New York Times to the dwindling female
bylines in the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly, women's voices have
been caught in a "spiral of silence" that is unprecedented since the
pre-women's movement days.
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues. The
full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/; you can subscribe to it at that
address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their lives.
MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public
awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy
campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can help decide the
direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the discussion forum at: