Friday, August 17, 2018
Headlines Daily Digest
Senate resolution: "the press is not the enemy of the people"
Don't Miss:
Communications & Democracy
- President Trump accuses Boston Globe of 'collusion with other papers' amid coordinated pushback to his rhetoric | Hill, The
- President Trump jokes about ‘freedom of the press’ after slamming ‘collusion’ by papers | Hill, The
- Editorial: Journalists Are Not The Enemy | Boston Globe
- Editorial: The Freedom of the Press Is Yours | Atlantic, The
- Editorial: How we restore faith in journalism | San Diego Union-Tribune
- Editorial: A Free Press Works for All of Us | ProPublica
- Editorial: The Free Press, It Doesn't Come For Free | MediaPost
- Editorial: Center for Public Integrity Board of Directors condemns President Trump’s attacks on the press | Center for Public Integrity
- Editorial -- The Guardian view on the press and President Trump: speaking truth to power | Guardian, The
- Why the San Francisco Chronicle isn’t joining the editorial crowd on President Trump | San Francisco Chronicle
Broadband/Internet
Wireless/Spectrum/Mobile
Platforms/Content
Elections
Advertising
Privacy
Transportation
Government & Communication
Government Performance
Communications & Democracy
President Donald Trump lashed out at the press, deriding it as the "opposition party" and "very bad" for the country, as scores of newspapers published editorials denouncing the president's attacks on journalists.
"THE FAKE NEWS MEDIA IS THE OPPOSITION PARTY," he tweeted. "It is very bad for our Great Country....BUT WE ARE WINNING!" Trump's use of the term "opposition party" echoes a label for the media frequently deployed by his former chief strategist, Stephen Bannon.
The Senate unanimously passed a resolution affirming that "the press is not the enemy of the people":
"Resolved, that the Senate affirms that the press is not the enemy of the people; reaffirms the vital and indispensable role that the free press serves to inform the electorate, uncover the truth, act as a check on the inherent power of the government, further national discourse and debate, and otherwise advance the most basic and cherished democratic norms and freedoms of the United States; and condemns the attacks on the institution of the free press and views efforts to systematically undermine the credibility of the press as an attack on the democratic institutions of the United States...."
Some play down the threats to journalists and press freedom. Here’s part of a brief fact list from the nonpartisan Committee to Protect Journalists:
-
Four journalists and one media worker have been murdered (at the Capital Gazette)
-
Another journalist, Zack Stoner, was killed in Chicago, but CPJ is still investigating whether the motive is related to his journalism.
-
This is the deadliest year for journalists in the United States since CPJ began keeping records in 1992. At this point in 2018, the United States is the third deadliest country globally after Afghanistan and Syria.
And according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker:
-
In 2018, at least 24 journalists faced physical attacks (ranging from being shoved or having their equipment damaged, to more serious physical assaults). In 2017, at least 45 journalists were physically attacked.
-
In 2018, at least three journalists have been arrested in the United States in the course of their work. In 2017, at least 34 journalists were arrested. Most of the arrests took place during protests in St. Louis, North Dakota, and Washington, D.C.
-
Since the beginning of 2017, the Department of Justice has issued indictments in at least four leak prosecutions. In at least one case, they subpoenaed the records of a journalist.
National advocacy groups including the ACLU, CREDO Action, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future and Free Press Action Fund are sending a questionnaire to 38 members of Congress — and those challenging them in the upcoming midterm elections — about the vote to restore net neutrality via the Congressional Review Act in the House, which needs a simple majority to pass. For incumbents: “Have you signed, or do you firmly commit within the next 30 calendar days to sign, the discharge petition for the House net neutrality CRA, and will you vote in favor of the net neutrality CRA if it comes up for a vote?” To challengers: “If you were a current member of the House of Representatives, would you have signed the discharge petition for the House net neutrality CRA, and would you vote in favor of the net neutrality CRA if it came up for a vote?” They’re asking for an answer by Sept. 4.
"This questionnaire will put key House members on the record before November, letting their constituents know once and for all whether their elected officials are standing with the people in defense of an open internet or with Big Cable against it,” said Free Press Action Fund campaign manager Adam Maxwell.
Broadband providers have spent years lobbying against utility-style regulations that protect consumers from high prices and bad service. But now, broadband lobby groups are arguing that Internet service is similar to utilities such as electricity, gas distribution, roads, and water and sewer networks. In the providers' view, the essential nature of broadband doesn't require more regulation to protect consumers. Instead, they argue that broadband's utility-like status is the reason for the government to give Internet service providers more money.
That's the argument made by trade groups USTelecom and NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association. USTelecom represents telcos including AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink, while NTCA represents nearly 850 small ISPs. "Like electricity, broadband is essential to every American," USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter and NTCA CEO Shirley Bloomfield wrote Monday in an op-ed for The Topeka Capital-Journal. "Yet US broadband infrastructure has been financed largely by the private sector without assurance that such costs can be recovered through increased consumer rates." While ISPs want the benefits of being treated like utilities—such as pole attachment rights and access to public rights-of-way—they oppose traditional utility-style obligations such as regulated prices and deployment to all Americans.
CTIA and T-Mobile are repeating their calls for larger licensed areas and 10-year spectrum license terms. T-Mobile and CTIA representatives met with Federal Communications Commissioner Michael O’Rielly Legal Advisor Erin McGrath to discuss the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Services (CBRS) proceeding. In 2017, both filed petitions with the FCC requesting that it revisit the 3.5 GHz rules that were originally passed in 2015. Their meetings with O’Rielly’s team are notable given that he’s been leading the charge to revise the rules and has made recommendations to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. It’s still not clear when the full commission will vote on revisions, but progress continues to be made toward commercial deployments using the spectrum.
Facebook has made a mint by enabling advertisers to identify and reach the very people most likely to react to their messages. Ad buyers can select audiences based on details like a user’s location, political leanings and interests. And they can aim their ads at as few as 20 of the 1.5 billion daily users of the social network. Brands love it. So do political campaigns. But microtargeting, as the technique is called, is coming under increased scrutiny in the United States and Europe. Some government officials, researchers and advertising executives warn that it can be exploited to polarize and manipulate voters. And they are calling for restrictions on its use in politics, even after Facebook, in response to criticism, recently limited some of the targeting categories available to advertisers.
Facebook is just one player among tech giants like Google and Twitter that also offer data-mining services to try to influence consumer and voter behavior. But Facebook’s gargantuan reach, vast holdings of user data and easy-to-use self-service advertising system have made it a lightning rod for political microtargeting.
It is time for the technology industry to compromise on regulations — specifically around privacy, competition, and operational openness. Responsible corporate action must now extend beyond the voluntary commitments that have governed the first decades of the digital era. Since the earliest days of the internet, policymakers have been afraid to touch it, subscribing to the mythology that somehow they could break the magic. But the effects of digital dominance on privacy, competition, and openness are now clear for all the see. The alternative is that state legislatures will pass their own rules and international regulators who are more wary of Silicon Valley's power will continue to pursue aggressive limits on the industry, as just occurred with the EU's General Data Protection Regulation.
To understand how digital technologies went from instruments for spreading democracy to weapons for attacking it, you have to look beyond the technologies themselves.
[Zeynep Tufekci is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina and a contributing opinion writer at theNew York Times]
Hundreds of Google employees, upset at the company’s decision to secretly build a censored version of its search engine for China, have signed a letter demanding more transparency to understand the ethical consequences of their work. In the letter, employees wrote that the project and Google’s apparent willingness to abide by China’s censorship requirements “raise urgent moral and ethical issues.” They added, “Currently we do not have the information required to make ethically-informed decisions about our work, our projects, and our employment.” The letter is circulating on Google’s internal communication systems and is signed by about 1,000 employees.
The Senate Commerce Committee held an oversight hearing of the Federal Communications Commission on August 16. When he announced the hearing, Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) said, “From efforts to better utilize spectrum powering our wireless economy to expanding rural broadband access, combatting robocalls, and reviewing the media landscape, the FCC and its operations are critically important. This hearing will offer Senators the opportunity to ask commissioners questions about topics of critical importance to their states and constituents.” And the Senators did just that. The hearing was slightly less partisan than the House oversight hearing on July 25. (Well, except for when all those relatable politicians started talkin’ football teams. But that's for another post.) While big-picture issues followed traditional partisan and ideological splits, most senators were focused on asking questions that related to policies that had an impact on their constituencies. Still, in light of 24 million Americans lacking broadband, a controversial net neutrality proceeding, and a President unabashedly attacking the press, one was left wondering how much of the hearing was oversight, and how much was overlook.
Benton (www.benton.org) provides the only free, reliable, and non-partisan daily digest that curates and distributes news related to universal broadband, while connecting communications, democracy, and public interest issues. Posted Monday through Friday, this service provides updates on important industry developments, policy issues, and other related news events. While the summaries are factually accurate, their sometimes informal tone may not always represent the tone of the original articles. Headlines are compiled by Kevin Taglang (headlines AT benton DOT org) and Robbie McBeath (rmcbeath AT benton DOT org) — we welcome your comments.
© Benton Foundation 2018. Redistribution of this email publication — both internally and externally — is encouraged if it includes this message. For subscribe/unsubscribe info email: headlines AT benton DOT org
Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Foundation
727 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, IL 60202
847-328-3049
headlines AT benton DOT org
The Benton Foundation All Rights Reserved © 2018