[IP] Safire on Kevin Martin, Media Consolidation
------ Forwarded Message
From: Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: Real Measures
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:29:08 -0500
To: <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jays@xxxxxxxxx>, <wynkoop@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: <rms@xxxxxxx>, <dpreed@xxxxxxxx>, <fred@xxxxxxx>, <bartow@xxxxxxxxxx>,
<ian.peter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <nb@xxxxxxxxx>, <dave3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<jchester@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <markcooper@xxxxxxx>,
<hfeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <phyland@xxxxxxxx>, <sethf@xxxxxxxxx>,
<rmfxixB1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <sgannes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <lgonze@xxxxxxxxx>,
<robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ehensal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <hoofnagle@xxxxxxxx>,
<jkohlenberger@xxxxxxx>, <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <love@xxxxxxxxxx>,
<amccann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <mcgarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<mitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <odlyzko@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<npavlos1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <barlow@xxxxxxx>, <pozar@xxxxxxx>,
<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>, <racine@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <manon.ress@xxxxxxxxxx>,
<pshapiro@xxxxxxx>, <daniel.sieberg@xxxxxxxxxx>, <dtype@xxxxxxxxx>,
<fred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <dyfet@xxxxxxx>, <petri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<av@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <serge@xxxxxxx>,
<nancy.kranich@xxxxxxx>, <tompoe@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gbsohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<mnemonic@xxxxxxxx>, <tomsong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <leflaw@xxxxxxxxxx>,
<isen@xxxxxxxx>, <compustretch@xxxxxxxxxx>, <heyjoe@xxxxxxxx>,
<Thor@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <calabrese@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Safire on Kevin Martin, Media Consolidation
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [IP] Kevin Martin to be next FCC Chair according
toreports
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0500
From: "Dave Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________ Original message _______________
Subject: Re: [IP] Kevin Martin to be next FCC Chair according to
reports
Author: Charles Andres <Charles.Andres@xxxxxxx>
Date: 16th March 2005 12:7:28 PM
William Safire on Kevin Martin
The Great Media Gulp from the New York Times 5/23/2003
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON -- The future formation of American public opinion has
fallen into the lap of an ambitious 36-year-old lawyer whose name
you never heard. On June 2, after deliberations conducted behind
closed doors, he will decide the fate of media large and small,
print and broadcast. No other decision made in Washington will
more directly affect how you will be informed, persuaded and
entertained.
His name is Kevin Martin. He and his wife, Catherine, now Vice
President Dick Cheney's public affairs adviser, are the most
puissant young "power couple" in the capital. He is one of three
Republican members of the five-person Federal Communications
Commission, and because he recently broke ranks with his
chairman, Michael Powell (Colin's son), on a telecom controversy,
this engaging North Carolinian has become the swing vote on the
power play that has media moguls salivating.
The F.C.C. proposal remains officially secret to avoid public
comment but was forced into the open by the two commission
Democrats. It would end the ban in most cities of cross-ownership
of television stations and newspapers, allowing such companies as
The New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune to gobble
up ever more electronic outlets. It would permit Viacom, Disney
and AOL Time Warner to control TV stations with nearly half the
national audience. In the largest cities, it would allow owners
of "only" two TV stations to buy a third.
We've already seen what happened when the F.C.C. allowed the
monopolization of local radio: today three companies own half the
stations in America, delivering a homogenized product that
neglects local news coverage and dictates music sales.
And the F.C.C. has abdicated enforcement of the "public interest"
requirement in issuing licenses. Time was, broadcasters had to
regularly reapply and show public-interest programming to earn
continuance; now they mail the F.C.C. a postcard every eight
years that nobody reads. Ah, but aren't viewers and readers now
blessed with a whole new world of hot competition through cable
and the Internet? That's the shucks-we're-no-monopolists line
that Rupert Murdoch will take today in testimony before the
pussycats of John McCain's Senate Commerce Committee.
The answer is no. Many artists, consumers, musicians and
journalists know that such protestations of cable and Internet
competition by the huge dominators of content and communication
are malarkey. The overwhelming amount of news and entertainment
comes via broadcast and print. Putting those outlets in fewer and
bigger hands profits the few at the cost of the many.
Does that sound un-conservative? Not to me. The concentration of
power -- political, corporate, media, cultural -- should be
anathema to conservatives. The diffusion of power through local
control, thereby encouraging individual participation, is the
essence of federalism and the greatest expression of democracy.
Why do we have more channels but fewer real choices today?
Because the ownership of our means of communication is shrinking.
Moguls glory in amalgamation, but more individuals than they
realize resent the loss of local control and community identity.
We opponents of megamergers and cross-ownership are afflicted
with what sociologists call "pluralistic ignorance." Libertarians
pop off from what we assume to be the fringes of the left and
right wings, but do not yet realize that we outnumber the
exponents of the new collectivist efficiency.
That's why I march uncomfortably alongside CodePink Women for
Peace and the National Rifle Association, between liberal Olympia
Snowe and conservative Ted Stevens under the banner of "localism,
competition and diversity of views." That's why, too, we resent
the conflicted refusal of most networks, stations and their
putative purchasers to report fully and in prime time on their
owners' power grab scheduled for June 2.
Must broadcasters of news act only on behalf of the powerful
broadcast lobby? Are they not obligated, in the long-forgotten
"public interest," to call to the attention of viewers and
readers the arrogance of a regulatory commission that will not
hold extended public hearings on the most controversial decision
in its history?
So much of our lives should not be in the hands of one swing-vote
commissioner. Let's debate this out in the open, take polls, get
the president on the record and turn up the heat.
David Farber wrote:
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Robert Cannon <rcannon100@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:51:31 -0800 (PST)
> To: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Kevin Martin to be next FCC Chair according to reports
>
> Source: Bush to Elevate FCC's Martin to Chairman
>
> Reuters
>
> Mar 16, 2005 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush
> plans to elevate Kevin Martin to head the U.S. Federal
> Communications Commission, a congressional source said
> on Wednesday.
>
> Martin was appointed as a FCC commissioner in 2001 and
> would replace outgoing Chairman Michael Powell who
> plans to leave the agency on Thursday.
>
> An announcement is expected later on Wednesday, said
> the source, who asked not to be named.
>
>
>
> =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
> Cybertelecom :: An educational non profit dedicated to raising awareness of
> and participation in federal initiatives that impact the Internet.
> www.cybertelecom.org cannon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
------------------------------------------------
Charles Andres
Market Development Engineering
Sun Microsystems
charles.andres@xxxxxxx
Voice: (781) 442 0823
Fax: (781) 442 1520
------ End of Forwarded Message
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/