Benton RSS Feed

TV TO US GOVT: HANDS OFF VIOLENT PROGRAMS
[SOURCE: Reuters, AUTHOR: Rachelle Younglai]
U.S. television programmers said on Thursday that the government had no business telling them what to air and criticized a Federal Communications Commission report saying Congress could regulate violent content. CBS Corp., News Corp. and the cable industry said such regulation would be an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights and face high legal hurdles. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said he is reviewing the FCC report and will include some of the recommendations in a bill. In 2005, Rockefeller tried to move similar legislation to protect children from violence, but it failed to advance. Television violence is one of the biggest complaints heard from parents, an aide to Rockefeller said. "They are just flipping through the channels and you can't help but see it and you can't flip fast enough or shield your kids' eyes fast enough," the aide said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSN2622914020070426

* Second look: Inside the FCC's "Report on Violent Programming and Its Impact on Children"
While the Report on Violent Programming and Its Impact on Children presents a disturbing overview of the TV viewing habits of toddlers, its fine print is far more tentative. A second reading suggests that the document, released this week, hedges on firm analytical conclusions about the problem.
http://www.lasarletter.net/drupal/node/394

LET PARENTS HANDLE TV VIOLENCE
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] The FCC's recommendation that Congress limit kids' exposure to violent TV programming via broadcast and pay TV is "an unjustifiable government intrusion into the creation and consumption of television. And even if the restrictions were upheld by the courts, they would likely make little difference." It would be hard to regulate "excessive violence" in a way that doesn't trample on the Constitution. The bigger issue, though, is that few parents bother using blocking tools. The ultimate filter is the on/off switch, which not only shields children from violent programming but tells networks and advertisers to offer different fare. If the report's findings about the effects of TV violence on children are true, then the biggest wake-up call should be to parents, not regulators.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-ed-fcc27apr27,1,305...
(requires registration)

GROUPS WEIGH IN ON FCC VIOLENCE REPORT
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
Reaction continues to pour in in the wake of the FCC's violence report to Congress. The Parents Television Council and Common Sense Media are both applauding, while the Media Coalition gives it a thumbs down.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6437124.html

* PTC Applauds FCC’s Report on Violent Television
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/release/2007/0426.asp

* Common Sense Media CEO Says FCC TV Violence Report is a 'Bold Step on Behalf of Kids and Families'
http://www.commonsensemedia.org/news/press-releases.php?id=66

* Media Coalition
"The FCC is broadcasting the wrong signal,” says David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition. “The courts have consistently found restricting violent content is contrary to the First Amendment. Contrary to what the FCC has implied in this report, the Supreme Court has made clear that speech is presumed to be protected by the First Amendment unless it falls into one of a few very narrow categories: defamation, incitement, obscenity, and pornography produced with children. Media with violent themes or depictions, on TV or otherwise, does not fall into any of these categories.”

* ACLU Calls FCC Television Violence Recommendations Unworkable
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/29496prs20070426.html?s_src=RSS

* Center for Creative Voices response:
"Giving the Federal Communications Commission the power to regulate ‘violent’ and ‘graphic’ television content will stifle free expression, threaten quality programming, and ultimately harm America’s children, just as its regulation of ‘indecency’ has done."
http://www.creativevoices.us/php-bin/news/showArticle.php?id=184

* The FCC Is Not Listening: 74% of Americans Say Parents, Not Government, Should Decide What Their Kids Watch on TV
[SOURCE: TVWatch press release]
http://televisionwatch.org/NewsPolls/PressReleases/PR018.html

* Television Violence: Coalition of Leading Women's Organizations Call for Congressional Hearings; Urge Parental Action Now
http://www.tickertech.com/cgi/?a=news&ticker=a&w=&story=2007042007042615...

* Children Now's Statement on FCC Report on TV Violence
“Children Now hopes that the FCC’s report will motivate the television industry to act on their responsibility to help parents protect their children from harmful programming by providing them with accurate, reliable and consistent ratings information.”
http://www.childrennow.org/newsroom/press_releases/pr_070425.html

LET CONSUMERS, NOT GOVERNMENT, DEFINE TV VIOLENCE
[SOURCE: Miami Herald, AUTHOR: Cal Thomas, Tribune Media Services]
[Commentary] Anyone concerned about the preservation of the First Amendment and the rights it guarantees to free speech and free expression should be worried about this latest assault on the Constitution, the FCC's recommendation that Congress legislate violent TV programming. Conservatives who oppose regulation of talk radio, which most of them like, must be consistent and oppose the over-regulation of TV content they don't like. Increasingly, I meet parents of young children who have decided not to have a TV in the house. Having grown up with TV, they say they experience a period of ''withdrawal,'' similar to that of breaking free of nicotine or other addictions. Soon, however, they are communicating more with their children, reading books to them and enjoying time together. Their lives are better. A conservative would call that a market decision. People decide not to consume a product that is bad for them. When people have had their fill of really bad television, it will no longer be ''must-see TV,'' but ''must-leave TV,'' and I'll bet the industry will clean up its act in response or face additional losses in ratings and revenue. That's better than the government trying to define violence and police-program content, and it will give conservatives more leverage, should a Democrat win the White House next year, to oppose any regulation of talk radio.
http://www.miamiherald.com/851/story/86873.html

LAWMAKERS PROPOSE REVERSAL OF NET RADIO FEE HIKES
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Anne Broache]
A bill introduced in Congress Thursday aims to overturn a controversial royalty fee hike that Internet radio advocates say threatens to cripple their services. The "Internet Radio Equality Act," introduced by Reps. Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Don Manzullo (R-IL), would invalidate a March 2 decision by the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board that calls for hiking royalty rates paid by Net radio operators. "You can't put an economic chokehold on this emerging force of democracy," Inslee said in a statement e-mailed by a spokeswoman. "There has to be a business model that allows creative Webcasters to thrive and the existing rule removes all the oxygen from this space." The bill's introduction comes less than two weeks after the CRB declined to reconsider most of its decision. Small Webcasters, National Public Radio, Clear Channel Communications and others had filed petitions for a rehearing. Some have indicated they are considering filing an appeal of the rules in court. If it were to stand, the CRB's existing ruling would result in fee increases on Internet radio operators ranging from 300 to 1200 percent between 2006 and 2012, according to a group called SaveNetRadio, which has been lobbying Congress for relief. In addition to repealing that regime, the new House bill offers a compromise: It would set the rate at 7.5 percent of the Webcaster's revenue "directly related to" its transmission of sound recordings, or 33 cents per hour of sound recordings transmitted to a single listener. It would be up to the Webcaster to decide which model to use. That's comparable to what is currently required of satellite radio operators. The bill also calls for public radio broadcasters to submit a report to Congress on how to determine rates for their class of services
http://news.com.com/Lawmakers++propose+reversal+of+Net+radio+fee+hikes/2...

CHRISTIAN COALITION CALLS NET NEUTRALITY A 'FAMILY ISSUE'
[SOURCE: InformationWeek, AUTHOR: KC Jones]
Net neutrality could become the next family value if the Christian Coalition of America gets its way. In a teleconference marking the one-year anniversary of the SaveTheInternet campaign to keep the Internet content-neutral, the Christian Coalition's Michele Combs said Wednesday network neutrality is a "family issue" that should become part of the national presidential debate among Republicans and Democrats. Combs was one of several people who said they will continue to push for net neutrality legislation, which would prevent telecommunications and cable companies from prioritizing Internet traffic based on content or source. Proponents of the legislation argue they want to guarantee individuals and small companies the same access and delivery speeds as larger companies, rather than allowing telecommunications and cable providers to charge larger companies higher rates for faster speed.
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=1992018...

* One Year Older and Fighting Strong for a Better Internet
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/04/26/one-year-old-and-fighting...

* "Hands Off" Statement on SaveTheInternet" Lobbying Call
http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/news/pr_042607.shtml

TRIBUNE OFFERS BIG PAYDAY OR MAYDAY
[SOURCE: Chicago Tribune, AUTHOR: Michael Oneal mdoneal@tribune.com]
The significant risks and potential rewards facing Tribune Co. as a highly leveraged concern became clear this week when the company launched the first step in an audacious $8.2 billion gambit to take itself private. Documents filed with a tender offer for roughly half its outstanding shares disclosed for the first time the financial assumptions Tribune and its advisers used in assessing the company's various options during its six-month auction process. The documents also contain "pro forma" data showing what could happen to Tribune's financial picture when the company increases its debt to more than $13 billion after transferring ownership to an employee stock ownership plan and Chicago billionaire Sam Zell. The welter of charts, text and tables paints a vivid picture of the rich upside and chilling downside presented by the leveraged ESOP structure. For employees, who will end up owning 60 percent of the new Tribune, the potential returns could be staggering -- better than those of either Zell, who will control 40 percent, or management, which will receive phantom stock equivalent to 8 percent of the company. But if Tribune falters, as it did in the first quarter, those returns could evaporate quickly. And even if the company does just a little worse over the next five years, it could easily find itself rubbing up against debt covenants that could trigger a default.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0704270058apr27,0,5435767.sto...