September 2008

To those who express doubts about his economic acumen, Sen John McCain has a simple answer: "I was chairman of the Commerce Committee, which oversights all of the commercial aspects of America's economy," he said in a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday. It's a bit of an exaggeration — the Senate Commerce Committee doesn't have primary jurisdiction over the financial services industry, which is at the heart of today's economic crisis — and it's also a more complicated story than McCain's declaration might suggest. Sen McCain wielded the gavel at the Commerce Committee from 1997 to 2001 and again from 2005 to 2007. Supporters credit him with being open-minded and say he ran the committee with a steady, moderate hand during his stints in the chair. But critics who worked with the committee at the time contend that McCain avoided policy debates and sometimes seemed apathetic — and that his staff was too cozy with lobbyists. Experts who have worked with the committee or follow its deliberations paint a picture of McCain's tenure as unremarkable and sometimes contradictory — and often (but not always) fueled by a deregulatory bent.

[Commentary] If you feel that pigs with lipstick and Paris Hilton have hijacked our political discourse this election season, you're not alone. Mainstream news shows have devoted too much attention to trivia, and too little to information that voters say matter most. This Friday's presidential debate with Jim Lehrer of PBS moderating may be a chance to get the media back on track. But if past is prologue, we can expect another parade of the petty. Media Matters analyzed the 2,304 questions asked during the 31 primary debates. Of these, only 9 percent of the questions addressed the economy, counted by Americans as the most important issue today -- followed by the war, healthcare, energy policy and jobs. Meanwhile, debate moderators piled on the fluff, asking questions about personality and other "non-substantive" matters more than 30 percent of the time. Before Americans close the curtains on this election, we deserve real political discourse from our media. If the news organizations aren't up to the task, it's up to us to hold our media -- and through them, our leaders -- accountable.

Journalists, start your skepticism. In covering the proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street don't repeat the failed lapdog practices that so damaged our reputations in the rush to war in Iraq and the adoption of the Patriot Act. Don't assume that Congress must act instantly, as so many news stories state as if it was an immutable fact. Don't assume there is a case just because officials say there is. The coverage of the Paulson plan focuses on the edges, on the details. The focus should be on the premise. And be skeptical of what gullible Congressional leaders, most of them up before the voters in a few weeks, say after being given a closed-door meeting on supposed horrors. The Administration has scared the markets and some key legislative leaders, but it has not laid out a coherent, specific and compelling need for this enormous proposal, which is the equivalent of a one-time 55 percent income tax surcharge. (Instead the money will be borrowed, so ask from whom and how this much can be raised so quickly if the credit markets are nearly seized up with fear.) Ask this question -- are the credit markets really about to seize up? If the problem is toxic mortgages then how come they are still being offered all over the Internet? How does the proposal help Joe and Mary Sixpack who can afford their current monthly payment, but not the increased interest rate that has been or soon will take effect? How will adding $700 billion to the national debt ease strains on the credit markets?

Every city in the country -- even New York City -- has a host of unused TV channels. Opening up that fertile field of spectrum to the seeds of innovation is a worthy-sounding goal that everyone can agree to in principle, but when it comes down to making the rules that govern access, and to certifying the devices that can operate, the debate hops on the express train to Nastytown. How did a campaign to allow unlicensed access to TV "white spaces" turn into a "campaign of fear," a "political proceeding," and a series of "ridiculous assertions"? Because of what's at stake.

Google cofounder Larry Page blasted as unfair recent interference tests of prototype devices that would deliver wireless broadband on unused television spectrum. The tests, conducted by the Federal Communications Commission, measured interference with the wrong signals, Page said Wednesday. The tests attempted to measure interference with wireless microphones during a professional football game in Maryland, but those microphones were operating on spectrum also occupied by much stronger TV signals, said Page, speaking at a rally to promote the use of so-called white spaces spectrum. The protocol devices would be designed to operate in the white spaces, spectrum designated for television stations but unused. It would be "impossible" for the white spaces prototype to detect the weak signal that a wireless microphone puts out when a much more powerful TV station is using the same spectrum, Page said. "There's no way to do that," he said. "You're going to detect the television station, not the wireless microphone. What I'm telling you is, the test was rigged."

Reps. Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) were quick to respond Wednesday to a Capitol Hill event backed by Google promoting the use of the so-called white spaces between digital-TV channels for unlicensed wireless devices. They say they remain unconvinced by Federal Communications Commission testing of the devices. The fact that the two reps are from New York and Tennessee is no coincidence. Representatives of Broadway and the Grand Ole Opry have both expressed concerns about unlicensed white-spaces devices -- a point the pair acknowledged in their release.