This is an issue that is vital to the health of our democracy yet because we have allowed big media and politics to become so entwined and media companies to exert so much control, they now determine the very information we receive. They in effect have the ability, for a great number in our society, to say what is the truth. As a society we have allowed ourselves to become disenfranchised from the truth, giving this responsibility over to corporations whose number one goal is to make money. In this case, the truth is, corporate profits over democracy, civil rights, and the vote.

Media Blackout on Election Fraud by Media News Group This includes Denver Post and 85+ Newspapers, Radio Stations, TV Stations Corporate Profits vs Civil Rights, and the Vote by Kali Autumn Lynn To those of us on the inside of this issue, it seems inconceivable that our local newspapers would offer a front page story on election fraud in Ukraine while ignoring stories of the same right here at home in the United States. But to most of America, it is just the opposite. We trust our local papers to report honestly and fairly. But what many of us don't realize is that our local newspapers are not so local after all. This all started when a few people in Denver Colorado went down to the Denver Post to protest what they saw as a media blackout on coverage of the issue of election fraud. They tried to see someone, anyone at the Denver Post but where turned away at security, then again at another security checkpoint located at the elevators, blocking the entrance to the Denver Post offices. They where given a phone number so an appointment could be made in the future. This group from the Mercury Coalition for Honest Elections then left a small petition urging coverage of the election fraud issue with the security person. That was as far as they could get. So question number one come to mind. If the Denver Post is our local paper, why where they so insistent that the public not be able to see them. After all isn't "news" something timely? Aren't they a "news" paper? Why the security? Is there something bigger going on here. I looked at the Denver Post Web Site and found nothing to indicate anything but a local newspaper. Then I searched further, and found that they are in fact owned by William Dean Singleton and Media News Group, Inc.(by the way, if you go to their web site, the list of properties they hold is woefully out of date - I'm pretty sure my list is only partial). Media News Group is located in the Denver Post Building and is owner of at least the following properties: California The Daily Democrat - Woodland, CA The Daily Review - Hayward, CA Enterprise Record - Chico, CA Times Standard - Eureka, CA Alameda Times-Star - Alameda, CA Argus - Fremont, CA Daily Review - Hayward, CA Daily Democrat - Woodland, CA Chico Enterprise Record - Chico, CA Ft. Bragg Advocate-News - Fort Bragg, CA Lake County Record Bee - Lakeport, CA Marin Independent Journal - Marin, CA Mendocino Beacon - Mendocino, CA Milpitas Post - Milpitas, CA The Oakland Tribune - Oakland, CA Pacifica Tribune- Pacifica, CA Paradise Post - Paradise, CA Oroville Mercury Registry - Oroville, CA Red Bluff Daily News - Red Bluff, CA The Reporter - Vacaville, CA San Mateo County Times - San Mateo, CA Times-Herald - Vallejo, CA Tri-Valley Herald - Pleasanton, CA Ukiah Daily Journal - Ukiah, CA Willits News - Willits, CA Los Angeles Daily News - Los Angeles, CA LA.com - Los Angeles, CA LA Daily News - Los Angeles, CA Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - Ontario, CA Long Beach Press Telegram - Long Beach, CA San Gabriel Valley Tribune - San Gabriel Valley, CA Pasadena Star-News - Pasadena, CA Whittier Daily News - Whittier, CA The Sun - San Bernardino - San Bernardino, CA Redlands Daily Facts - Redlands, CA Entertainment - Los Angeles, CA Daily News - Los Angeles, CA Daily Bulletin - Ontario, CA SGV Tribune - San Gabriel Valley, CA Pasadena Star News - Pasadena, CA Whittier Daily News - Whittier, CA The Sun - San Bernardino - San Bernadino, CA Redlands Daily Facts - Redlands, CA Press Telegram - Long Beach, CA Texas The Graham Leader - Graham, TX Breckenridge American - Breckenridge The Graham Leader - Graham Jacksboro Gazette-News - Jacksboro The Jack County Herald - Jacksboro Lake Country Sun - Possum Kingdom Lake Lake Country Senior Times - Graham Lake Country Shopper - Graham The Olney Enterprise - Olney KLXK-FM - Breckenridge KROO-AM - Breckenridge KWKQ-FM - Graham KSWA-AM - Graham Massachusetts Devens Commerce - Devens, MA Berkshire Eagle - Berkshire, MA Lowell Sun - Lowell, MA Sentinel & Enterprise - Fitchburg, MA Groton Landmark - Groton, MA Harvard Hillside - Groton, MA North Adams Transcript - North Adams, MA Public Spirit - Pepperell, MA Shirley Oracle - Fitchburg, MA Townsend Times - West Townsend, MA Pepperell Free Press - Pepperell, MA Colorado THE DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY - Denver, CO The Denver Post - Denver, CO Fort Morgan Times - Fort Morgan, CO BrushNewsTribune - Fort Morgan, CO The Journal Advocate - Sterling, CO Lamar Daily News - Lamar, CO Connecticut Connecticut Post - Bridgeport, CT Darien News - Darien, CT Fairfield Citizen - Fairfield, CT Greenwich Citizen-News - Greenwich, CT New Canaan News-Review - New Canaan, CT Norwalk Citizen - Norwalk, CT Westport News - Westport, CT Woman Magazine - Norwalk, CT Alaska KTVA & Radio KBYR - Anchorage, AK Fairbanks Daily News Miner - Fairbanks, AK Kodiak Daily News - Kodiak, AK KTVA - Anchorage, AK Pennsylvania The Evening Sun - Hanover, PA Lebanon Daily News - Lebanon, PA THE YORK NEWSPAPER COMPANY The York Dispatch - York, PA York Sunday News - York, PA Utah Salt Lake Tribune - Salt Lake City, UT Park Record - Park City, UT West Virginia Charleston Daily Mail - Charleston, WV Sunday Gazette-Mail - Charleston, WV Vermont Bennington Banner - Bennington, VT Brattleboro Reformer - Brattleboro, VT Wow, That's quite a list of properties. But what about television stations? Media News Group was working on the purchase of KTVA in Anchorage Alaska as early as May of 2000, according to the Peninsula Clarion (see http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/052300/ala_052300ala0pm060001.shtml). This was in "In anticipation of changes in the regulations governing the ownership of newspapers, radio and television," according to the MediaNewsGroup Web Site (c)2000. Now, I ask you this, how can the purchase of a single television station be in anticipation of a change in FCC law? In 2002, KTVA, merged with the local fox affiliate KTBY and began selling joint advertising (see their own press release http://www.medianewsgroup.com/CompanyNews/2002/121002.pdf. This was only one in a landslide of mergers and acquisitions that led to the empire you see today. At some point Media News Group stopped listing all of their holdings in one place. At least they stopped listing multiple holdings in the same market in one place. The lists I've compiled above come from two web sites. Notice KTBY didn't appear on either of them. In fact their corporate site is four years old! In Denver, Colorado, The Denver Post and The Rocky Mountain news began publishing joint weekend editions, but claim to be seperate entities. I attempted to determine whether or not this was true. In Colorado, they formed the Denver Newspaper Agency. I tried to determine whether or not The Denver Newspaper Agency actually OWNS the Rocky Mountain News outright or not. They do publish a joint weekend edition... What I did find was an odd paper trail. The Denver Publishing Company, owner of The Rocky Mountain News, used to list all officers and directors of the Corporation in their corporate reports. Since formation of The Denver Newspaper Agency (1/22/2001), all such information is completely blacked out on all reports from The Rocky Mountain News. You can verify this at the Colorado Secretary of State's web site. http://www.sos.state.co.us. Curiously, The Denver Newspaper Agency blacks out this information in the same way. Hmmmmm.... gives new meaning to the term media blackout.... I also found that Mile High Collection Agency seems to have been transferred from The Denver Publishing Company (prior owner of the Rocky Mountain News) to The Denver Newspaper Agency... that's enough for me. Oh and by the way, Media News Group doesn't have to black out their reports as they are incorporated in the state of Delaware. So, it seems we've established that Media News Group like secrecy, doesn't really want us to know how big they are getting or that they are buying multiple properties in the same markets. But do they really plan to control multiple media in the same markets as a rule? This is taken Directly from the US Senates Web Site. It is William Dean Singleton, of Media News Group's testimony in which he explains why he should be allowed to merge merge merge........ to verify: http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/singleton051303.pdf TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM DEAN SINGLETON VICE CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MEDIANEWS GROUP, INC. IMMEDIATE PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA Before the SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE May 13, 2003 1 Good morning. I am Dean Singleton, vice chairman and chief executive officer of MediaNews Group Inc., a private company that publishes 50 daily newspapers—including The Denver Post, the Los Angeles Daily News and The Salt Lake Tribune—as well as 121 non-daily newspapers. I am also the immediate past chairman of the Board of the Newspaper Association of America. I am very pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss the compelling reasons for eliminating the FCC’s long outdated and counterproductive ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. The newspaper ban is the last vestige of a series of “one outlet per customer” local media ownership restrictions adopted by the FCC in the 1960s and 1970s. Of these limitations, only the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule has remained completely unchanged over the past three decades, with only four permanent waivers of the rule granted by the FCC over the last 28 years. All of the Commission’s other restrictions on broadcast ownership have been either eliminated or significantly relaxed over the years. Aside from these four situations and the newspaper/broadcast combinations that were “grandfathered” when the rule was originally adopted, newspaper publishers—alone among local media outlets—have been completely barred from participating in the broadcast markets of their local communities. This inaction on the part of the Commission is not for a lack of evidence. To the contrary, over the past few years, the agency has accumulated a mountain of evidence supporting the repeal of the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban. Recognizing the need to review the crossownership restriction in light of the explosive growth among media outlets that has occurred in 2 the years since the ban was first adopted, the FCC has initiated no fewer than four proceedings over the past seven years to reconsider the ban. In a scaled-back version of the promise it made to the Court of Appeals to review the rule in its entirety during its consideration of the ABC/Cap Cities merger, the FCC in 1996 launched an inquiry regarding its waiver policy for newspaper/radio combinations. Two years later, the Commission sought public comment on the rule as well as other media ownership regulations in its first biennial review proceeding. In 2001, the agency again gathered evidence by initiating a broad notice and comment rulemaking proceeding specifically on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. Just over a year later, that rulemaking proceeding was rolled into the FCC’s current omnibus proceeding on media ownership, giving interested parties a third opportunity in four years to submit evidence on the rule. Each of these proceedings has produced a wealth of record evidence regarding the extensive public interest benefits—as well as the lack of public interest harms—that would result from repealing the ban. There is no substantial evidence or data in the record supporting the ban. In particular, the evidence concerning the operations of the 40 or so grandfathered newspaper/broadcast combinations has essentially taken the guesswork out of eliminating the ban. These combinations have provided the Commission with illustrative case studies of the substantial public interest benefits that will result from repeal. Indeed, the extensive record before the FCC is replete with evidence of the clear public interest benefits offered by newspaper-affiliated broadcast stations. Representing the full gamut of market sizes, these coowned facilities consistently have provided their home communities with unmatched levels of service. 3 At the same time, there is simply no evidence that the existing combinations have threatened competition in their local markets. To the contrary, there is substantial record evidence before the FCC showing that even the smallest markets containing newspaper/broadcast combinations remain vibrantly diverse and competitive. The evidence offered by existing combinations further shows that co-owned outlets generally present diverse perspectives on news and informational issues. Jointly-owned newspapers and broadcast stations have strong economic and professional incentives to, and do in practice, avoid coordinating their viewpoints. It is important to note that, especially with newspaper ownership of broadcast stations, viewpoint diversity does not require ownership diversity. Local autonomy and editorial freedom is the tradition of newspapers, and the same principles apply to the operation of local stations by newspapers. The evidence presented by newspaper publishers and other parties has been confirmed by several recent studies on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership. A study commissioned by the FCC in connection with its omnibus media ownership proceeding specifically found that “[a]ffiliates coowned with newspapers experience noticeably greater success under our measures of quality and quantity of local news programming than other network affiliates.” That conclusion was true even where the newspaper and TV station were located in different markets, and the results were even greater for combinations in the same markets. The results of a five-year study recently released by the Project for Excellence in Journalism at Columbia University echoes these findings. That study concluded that “stations in cross-ownership situations were more than twice as likely to receive an ‘A’ grade than were other stations” and that, on the whole, these stations “were more likely to do stories that focused on important community issues, more likely to provide a wide mix of opinions, and less likely to do celebrity human-interest features.” In 4 addition, dispelling any concern that newspaper/broadcast combinations will simply represent single, monolithic viewpoints, the FCC-commissioned studies also confirmed the extensive evidence already on the record that existing newspaper/broadcast combinations do not demonstrate a pattern of coordinating viewpoints on important political issues. Those who oppose relaxation of the antiquated newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule usually predict that mass, national consolidation of the newspaper and broadcast industries will happen if the rule is changed. I believe those predictions are unfounded. Instead, relaxation of the rules will result in dramatically improved information flow in each local market—market by market. Let me give you some examples close to home in my newspaper markets. • Fairbanks, Alaska, is perhaps the most remote, isolated community in America. There are four commercial television stations in the market. All struggle financially. One station covers news with a staff of eight, another has six, the third has two and the fourth has no local news gathering capacity. My newspaper employs 31 in the news department. Under today’s rules, my newspaper thrives with an award-winning news presentation, while the television stations struggle to broadcast even a small amount of local news. There are no commercial news radio stations. In central and northern Alaska, many communities cannot get my newspaper delivered, but they can get television. Imagine how their lives could be improved if I could put my 31 newsroom personnel behind television coverage. 5 • In Eureka, California, in another remote section of the country on the North Coast of California, there are four commercial television stations. The strongest station has a news staff of 11, and the other three don’t produce substantive local news. My newspaper devotes 23 people to local news coverage. Imagine the community service we could provide by putting these news resources behind television and radio news, especially if we purchase a station that produces no news today. • I own a newspaper in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, which covers the western quadrant of Massachusetts. There is no television station there and never has been. But there is a license allocated to the market. But with 51 newsroom employees at my newspaper, I could serve this community with television news for the first time ever. The current restraints, however, do not allow that to happen. • And let me talk about a larger market…Denver, Colorado. There are at least three radio stations that call themselves news stations, but they’re really not news stations at all. They are talk stations. The largest two have news-gathering staffs of about six, and the other has five. Not much news-gathering resources. But the two newspapers managed by the Denver Newspaper Agency have combined news resources of almost 500. Imagine the public service we could provide by putting our news assets behind a real, full-time news station. 6 There are similar stories to be told in almost every American market. Newspapers will add new resources to struggling television and radio enterprises, and those broadcast outlets will strengthen newspapers as the number of media choices continue to explode in a changing media environment. The fact is that the communications world—and the media alternatives available to our citizens—has undergone a vast transformation since the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban was adopted over a quarter of a century ago. Back in 1975, the FCC was concerned that daily newspapers might dominate the still-fledging television broadcast industry. Whatever merits that concern may have had nearly three decades ago, it simply has no place in today’s media environment. For example, there are now 70 percent more radio outlets and 50 percent more television stations than there were in the 1970s. Now omnipresent cable and satellite television services were still in their infancy in 1975, and the Internet—with its vast potential for delivering news and information—was non-existent when the newspaper/broadcast rule was adopted. Traditional media thus have been bombarded with a host of new, multi-media rivals in recent years. In this vastly diverse, competitive, and ever-growing environment, the ban on cross-ownership of daily newspapers and broadcast outlets plainly is not needed. Quite to the contrary, the extensive record before the agency demonstrates beyond question that the prohibition frustrates the achievement of significant and vitally needed operating efficiencies and, most importantly, deprives the public of enhanced local news and other new and innovative informational services. 7 Based on that record evidence, the FCC is required by the terms of Congress’ Biennial Review mandate to eliminate the archaic and wholly unnecessary cross-ownership prohibition. Thank you. I would be pleased to attempt to answer your questions. // end of testimony So, we've established two things. Mr. Singleton wants something from the government. Permission to MERGE MERGE MERGE. And that he doesn't want us to know what he's doing anymore now that the company has gotten so big. Just when it looked like he would get permission to have everything he wanted from guess who, Republican FCC Chairman Michael Powell, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's son, who led the effort to revise the ownership regulations, democrats and an odd alliance of organizations managed to put a halt on the process. See the report by the Associated Press: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/24-06242004-321843.html. But he still got most of what he wanted, for now. In their 2-to-1 decision, the judges threw out rules that would have allowed greater ownership of television and radio stations in the same market. However, they also found that the FCC was within its rights to repeal a blanket prohibition on companies owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same city. Current polls indicate that as the public becomes more aware of this issue they are against loosening of the restrictions on media cross ownership. See study by the PEW research center http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=188. So what do we have so far? merge merge merge, secrecy, and thank you to the son of the Secretary of State of the Bush Administration. Then along came Kerry... Kerry was an idiot in this case. What one thing could he possibly do to make all of our major media hate him? Even if he was right? John Kerry, ""I'm against the ongoing push for reducing restrictions on media concentration," Kerry said on August 6, 2004, echoing the question by Forbes senior editor Brett Pulley. "It's contrary to the greater goals of democracy for the country." see: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/media/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000600685. Now how could every major media outlet in the world not read that as I will limit your profit potential? Corporations exist to make money for their shareholders and themselves, not to make the world a better place. Maybe for some of them that is someplace in the list but number one is MAKE MONEY. That is why the stock market works, that is why it is called capitalism. So what conclusions can we draw? I've laid out the facts. Decide for yourself. It seems pretty obvious to me that: Media News Group wants to merge merge merge. So much so that they started buying up properties before the laws changed because they were so sure they would change... hmmmmm. They have shown a tendency to buy up multiple properties in the same market and have also shown a growing tendency towards secrecy in their holdings. Media News Group attempts to influence legislation so that they can continue to merge and acquire and has the son of the Bush Administration's former Secretary of State to thank for changes in laws that allow them to do so. Continued mergers and acquisitions give Media News Group control over advertising rates and public opinion/dissemination of information in major markets. Media News Group supported George W. Bush for President. Media news group has initiated a near total blackout on coverage of the election fraud issue, an issue that could potentially remove the republicans from office, thereby resulting in the election of a government less friendly to loosening of FCC cross ownership law, severely hampering their ability to merge. This could force them to divest themselves of properties, limit their ability to control advertising rates and information, destroy their growth potential. That is, if fraud where proven and the elections invalidated. Even if coverage of the fraud issue didn't result in removal from office of any elected officials, it could severely piss them off, lessening the likelihood that Media News Group would be received favorably when they ask the FCC for permission to acquire additional properties or merge with properties in markets in which they already have a presence. Make no mistake, the stakes for them are high. According to Media News Group's latest financial report, their total assets are $1,334,844,000.00. For reference see http://www.medianewsgroup.com/financialinformation/2004/10Q09312004.pdf. This is an issue that is vital to the health of our democracy yet because we have allowed big media and politics to become so entwined and media companies to exert so much control, they now determine the very information we receive. They in effect have the ability, for a great number in our society, to say what is the truth. As a society we have allowed ourselves to become disenfranchised from the truth, giving this responsibility over to corporations whose number one goal is to make money. In this case, the truth is, corporate profits over democracy, civil rights, and the vote.

[article.email.prefix]: kali@denvervoice.org [article.homepage.prefix]: http://denvervoice.org

ajouter un commentaire À cet article