When we consider the theory of media consolidation, it is easy for most of us to say, “Yeah, that’s right. One company shouldn’t own all of the media outlets in any one market. Some channels should remain clear.” Most of us can embrace the theory that locally owned stations are more likely to carry local content. A documentary like Orwell Rolls in His Grave is enough to scare us stupid.

The intended and unintended consequences of the 1996 Telecommunications Act have been investigated and discussed by those interested in media reform. In 2003, Federal Communications Commission revisions brought related issues into the news again–for a few months. Last Fall, a 2004 FCC report was ordered destroyed. The report found that “localism was beneficial to the public,” according to Sen. Barbara Boxer. That got a minute of attention. The National Conference for Media Reform this month had plenty of alternative media coverage. An article in the current issue of The Nation tells us this is “Media Reform’s Moment.”

What does it take to get people moving? I’m going to venture back to the idea that we learn and pass on knowledge through story and say that we need a good story that tells us exactly what can happen when, for example, one media giant owns all local radio stations with no live operator, just a national feed. To get average American people fighting media consolidation, it takes a good story.

We have that story in Eric Klinenberg’s new book, Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media.

Five years ago this week a train derailed in Minot, North Dakota leaking thousands of gallons of toxic chemicals into the air. One person died and hundreds were treated for immediate health problems. The city’s six non-religious commercial radio stations – all owned by Clear Channel – never aired warnings for local residents.

I haven’t read the book. I can’t quite imagine that the words on page could be as powerful as the tapes of 911 calls from frantic Minot residents.

The most moving story I’ve heard yet on the consequences of media consolidation is told on yesterday’s Democracy Now interview with the author, where you can hear the story of what happened in Minot when Clear Channel was nowhere to be found.

Who is following the implications of media consolidation?

• Common Cause
• The Media Access Project
• Sen. Bernie Sanders (though you may want to hear him speak on Democracy Now since his formerly rich House site is now gone)

read comments (1)

With the focus on lies and misrepresentations from the State of the Union last night, don’t forget to keep your eye on Dick Cheney. He may not be around much in the near future.

The trial of Cheney’s former Chief of Staff Scooter Libby began yesterday with opening statements. Mainstream media is providing basic coverage, but the best stuff is coming from bloggers who have media credentials for the trial. What I want to hear more about is the prosecutor’s assertions that Cheney was more deeply involved in the leak and coverup than previously revealed. “Blockbuster developments,” MSNBC called them.

Try:

• “Can You Trust Cheney?” David Corn at The Nation.
• The Next Hurrah.
• “Trial of Cheney’s #2 Begins,” Rory O’Connor at Alternet.
• “The Libby Circus Is in Town,” at Wonkette.

.
Then, just for a view from outside, try:

• “Cheney aide tells trial he is fallguy for Rove,” at the Guardian UK.

read comments (0)

I just want to say, Wow, was that ever fun.  Think Progress posted the embargoed text of the State of the Union speech before broadcast saying, “We’ll start respecting White House embargoes when they start telling the truth.“  It was great to be able to follow along, check what he just said, reread, then check the Speech vs. Fact as he spoke.  They’ve done this for the past two years.  They set out the terms they are willing to meet: respect for truth.

read comments (0)

Are you going to a party tonight to listen to the empty ritual of State of the Union speech? Me? No. I’ll be watching or listening, whatever I think I can handle in a given moment. I’ll be trying to avoid shallow, inane commentary. I can’t guarantee the following won’t be shallow or inane, but I’m fairly sure they won’t be part of the confused 33% (or 28%, depends who you read).

I’ll be at home, grumbling, and choosing from among these possibilities.

• Think Progress blog “will respond in real-time to the President’s speech. They will fact-check the Presidentís statements and provide sharp, detailed analysis of the facts behind the rhetoric.”
• Mic Check Radio, the American Progress “Action Fund’s daily online tear-sheet for radio hosts and producers, goes live from our own radio studio, broadcasting a Progressive Talk Radio Special. Christy Harvey, a frequent Al Franken show contributor and founder of MicCheck, will host the program, offering insight, analysis and humor.”

Tomorrow, among the thousands of radio signals, you will find the following.

• John Podesta will be on the Diane Rehm show. Listen on NPR or online.
• George Lakoff will be on the Brian Lehrer show on New York Public Radio. You can listen from their website if you aren’t in NYC.

The Center for American Progress has published a series of in-depth stories and talking points on the topics likely to be covered in the speech.

• State of National Security.
• State of Health Care.
• State of the Economy.
• State of Energy and the Environment.
• Then finally, today, a summary of all four areas letting us know what Bush will say and what we need to know. This one in particular provides great crib notes for the evening.

At least by listening, watching, and typing with Progressives during the speechifying, you might be able to convince yourself that it isn’t your fault that so much of the world thinks so little of the U.S. You know it is the unstable George Bush who continues to unite the world, against him. Even he seems to smirk less and acknowledge more lately, even while he has yet to acknowledge the deteriorating state he has caused within our union.

read comments (0)

The White House and Congress have been heavily lobbied by evangelical Christians seeking Armageddon. They know the (temporarily) all-powerful George Bush will help. He wants nuclear war with Iran as much as they do. He likes their vocabulary (though maybe not Stephen Colbert’s). He likes their pro-Zionist stance, and he loves anyone who will continue to attack Jimmy Carter for speaking truth to lobby.

I don’t want to participate in empty fear mongering that plays into the hands of the Armageddonites. Still, when the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists is concerned enough to move the Doomsday clock to five minutes to midnight, I am concerned. I want to stop them.

We have to believe that the Democratic Congress can stop the madman willing to jump into another war. We have to tell our Senators and Representatives that we do not want to see war with Iran, that we want to see diplomacy —as well as investigation of why previous opportunities for diplomacy were ignored. Use our democratic tools to push the Christofascists back. We need to expose these people for the baseless frauds they are.

read comments (0)