Benton RSS Feed

FCC RELEASES TELEPHONE PENETRATION BY INCOME REPORT
[SOURCE: Federal Communications Commission]
The Federal Communications Commission released a report presenting data on telephone penetration levels on a state-by-state basis for various income categories. The report presents penetration statistics based on individual household data from the Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau in March 2006. The report is designed to track the effects of federal and state Universal Service Fund Lifeline and Linkup support mechanisms that defray the cost of telephone service for low-income consumers. Some highlights: 1) In March 2006, penetration among low-income households (under $10,000 annual income in 1984 dollars) nationwide was 86.3%. This contrasts with an overall nationwide penetration rate of 92.9% in March 2006. 2) Since 1985, when the Federal Communications Commission first established Lifeline to help low-income households afford the monthly cost of telephone service, penetration rates among low-income households have grown from 80.0% to 86.3%. 3) States that have provided a high level of lifeline support for telephone service for low-income consumers experienced an average growth in penetration for low-income households from March 1997 to March 2006. In contrast, states that provided a low level of lifeline support experienced an average decline in telephone penetration rates for low-income households between March 1997 and March 2006. 4) Penetration rates among low-income households ranged from a high of 96.1% in New Hampshire to a low of 77.3% in Alabama in March 2006.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272905A1.doc

* See report online
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-272906A1.pdf

MCSLARROW FIRES BACK AT FCC'S MARTIN
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Responding to cable-hostile regulatory stances of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, National Cable & Telecommunications Association president Kyle McSlarrow said Tuesday that government intervention in the video-programming market -- including a la carte mandates Chairman Martin wants -- is unnecessary because the pay TV market is a hotly competitive business. "If one assumes that the video marketplace is one of intense competition, then the only sensible policy outcome is one where the government gets out of the way and lets the free market flourish," McSlarrow said in a Cable Show ‘07 speech here. "I think that marketplace is competitive and every cable operator knows that [it is] in a competitive firefight with satellite distributors and, now, telephone companies."
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6440328.html

THE MURDOCH STREET JOURNAL
[SOURCE: Slate, AUTHOR: Jack Shafer]
[Commentary] If you take him at his word, Rupert Murdoch will make no colossal editorial changes at the Wall Street Journal if he acquires its parent company, Dow Jones. Of course, nobody should take Murdoch at his word. Whatever soothing music he sings about no meddling by the CEO and maintaining high editorial standards, he'll quickly identify enemies in the Journal's newsroom and show them the door. Many of the Journal's 600 news-gatherers won't need an escort: They'll quit in protest, just as 60 Chicago Sun-Times reporters and editors did in the opening weeks of Murdoch's ownership of that paper in 1984.
http://www.slate.com/id/2165749/?nav=fix

* Steiger sat on what?!
[SOURCE: CJRDaily, AUTHOR: Dean Starkman]
Well, we can stop wondering whether The Wall Street Journal would allow Rupert Murdoch to screw up its editorial judgment. That already happened.
http://www.cjrdaily.org/the_audit/post_34.php

THERE'S MORE TO LIFE THAN FLUFF, HYPE AND HORSE RACES
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 5/7, AUTHOR: Robert W. McChesney, University of Illinois]
[Commentary] Effective democratic journalism means a news system that: is a rigorous watchdog over people in power and people who want to be in power, in both the public and private sector; provides a wide range of informed opinion on the important issues of the day, and provides an early warning system for issues on the horizon;
ferrets out over time truth from lies so liars cannot operate with impunity. By these standards we should have grave concerns about our journalism, and yes, it is getting worse. Doing quality journalism no longer makes business sense for the handful of firms that dominate the news business.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup7may07,0,6735373.story?c...
(requires registration)
* Empowering us with our own spare time
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 5/7, AUTHOR: Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennessee]
[Commentary]
To secure its future, Big Media is going to have to try something it hasn't excelled at in recent years: Producing a quality product. Will it manage? Not, I suspect, under current management.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup7may07,0,6735373.story?p...

CAN YOU TEACH AN OLD MEDIA NEW TRICKS
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 5/8, AUTHOR: Glenn Harlan Reynolds, University of Tennessee]
[Commentary] Quality matters, and today's news media aren't delivering. There are a lot of reasons, but the most important, I fear, is that most of the people running newspapers and television networks are, to put it kindly, clueless. Hard-news reporting—actual facts, not opinion—remains the "killer app" for Big Media. But they're not making proper use of their structural advantages there, and those advantages are likely to weaken over time. Right now, traditional media organizations are still in a much better position overall to cover actual news than citizen journalists. They've got the infrastructure, the training, and the experience. But those advantages are eroding daily as technology shifts in favor of smaller operations, and as citizen journalists gain experience and audience. Will Big Media change in time? They will if they're smart—which is to say, probably not.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup8may08,0,7194127.story?c...
(requires registration)
* Create a better media world
[Commentary] Do we define traditional media as institutions the produce journalism or do we define traditional media as old technologies, like television and newsprint? If it is the former, the answer is an emphatic yes, we need traditional media, even in the digital era; if it is the latter, the answer is less clear and debatable. Likewise, do we define citizen journalists as people conducting journalism in their spare time with no institutional support or do we define citizen journalists as full-time journalists who may not have traditional training and who are building new institutions that produce journalism? If it is the former, the answer is yes, we need traditional media; if it is the latter, the answer is less clear and debatable. I tend to define both traditional media and citizen journalists in the former sense, so my answer to the question tends to be a resounding yes.
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times 5/7, AUTHOR: Robert W. McChesney, University of Illinois]
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup8may08,0,7194127.story?c...