Benton RSS Feed
FINES FATE UP TO BUSH
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Fueled by public outrage over Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl halftime breast flash on live national television in 2004, the House passed and sent President Bush a bill last Wednesday that would raise maximum radio- and TV-indecency fines tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000 per offense under a $3 million cap for any single act. The House voted 379-35 to approve a bill (S. 173) that originated in the Senate and passed that body May 18 by unanimous consent. “This is a victory for children and families,†Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), sponsor of the Senate bill, said after the House vote. “Raising the fines for abusing the public airwaves will hold broadcasters accountable for the content and consequences of their media.†Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin welcomed the bill as a way to clean up the airwaves, but he repeated his interest in seeing that consumers gain access to programming from cable and satellite companies on an a la carte basis. “I believe concerns regarding content should be addressed in a comprehensive fashion by empowering parents to choose the programming that comes into their homes,†Chairman Martin said. The White House -- which typically enunciates its position on legislation through the Office of Management and Budget -- did not issue a statement of administration policy regarding the Brownback bill.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342685.html?display=Policy
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342685.html?display=Policy
LOCAL STATIONS STRUGGLE TO ADAPT AS WEB GRABS VIEWERS, REVENUES
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Brooks Barnes brooks.barnes@wsj.com]
The 1,300 commercial television stations in the U.S., much like newspapers and magazines, are under attack as new technologies roil the industry. The Internet, in particular, is sucking away both viewers and advertisers. The shift is sending ripples through the broader media industry. For decades, TV stations have been a fount of cash for some of the industry's biggest players such as Viacom, News Corp. and General Electric's NBC. Newspaper publishers such as Tribune Co. and Gannett Co., also diversified into television. For many of these companies, steady profits from their stations funded expansion into other businesses. At News Corp., which at one time derived about one-third of profits from its station group, proceeds helped the company to become a global powerhouse. Tribune's station profits funded its efforts to become a newspaper giant with the 2000 acquisition of Times-Mirror Co. The picture has changed. Total local broadcast revenue fell 9% in 2005 to $16.8 billion, according to the Television Bureau of Advertising. The chief culprit: Big advertisers cutting back budgets or moving to the Web. Among auto marketers, which have long accounted for about a third of station revenue, DaimlerChrysler AG cut spending on local TV by 13% in 2005. Ford Motor Co. slashed its local TV budget by 15%. "Stations are getting beaten up," says Brad Adgate, senior vice president at media consultancy Horizon Media in New York. "They have to dramatically reinvent themselves and many don't know how." The slump in TV-station revenue and profits is causing some companies to consider drastic action. Tribune has spent months contemplating a spinoff of its TV-station group. Such a move could undermine the rationale for the Times-Mirror purchase, which was aimed at pairing Times-Mirror's collection of big-city papers like the Los Angeles Times with Tribune's TV stations in the same markets. Tribune's deliberations come six months after Viacom broke into two, separating its broadcast-TV operations from its cable channels. NBC Universal just sold four stations in smaller markets. News Corp., whose station group has been stung by operating-income declines for more than a year, is also considering selling some smaller stations. Local stations are suffering a full-fledged identity crisis. Networks used to need them to broadcast shows. But 85% of U.S. households now receive TV via cable or satellite, and the Internet is a fast-emerging competitor. As TV companies allow people to watch shows whenever they want -- on iPods, on-demand cable services and network Web sites -- local stations are apt to endure even more losses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115007459811277478.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115007459811277478.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
COMING SOON (MAYBE): EVEN MORE TV CHANNELS
[SOURCE: New York Times 6/11, AUTHOR: Richard Silkos]
As America careers toward its much-touted conversion to the all-digital transmission of television signals -- the digital switchover is now set in stone for February 2009 -- the debate over multicasting is looking like another shining example of the law of unintended consequences when technology comes into play. Multicasting, by the way, is the entertainment industry term for broadcasting several television channels in the space, or bandwidth, of a current analog broadcast signal. There are technical issues related to this, but the upshot is that with new digital frequencies and equipment, a local station can now beam roughly four digital channels on its signal where a single analog channel once existed. Or it can broadcast the current signal and sublet the extra spectrum, or space, for other purposes, like Internet access, infomercials or pay-TV services. Now, the first question one might rightly ask is this: Who cares about multicasting when there are already hundreds of cable channels available in millions of households, and a bewildering array of new download services and Webby ways of getting video material? Where television programming is concerned, there is no reason to believe that more is more. But there is a compelling argument to be made that multicasting is a public good because it uses a national resource -- the airwaves -- to deliver more and better free television into people's homes. While only 15 percent of America's households currently receive their television over the airwaves, rather than through cable or satellite, some cool new channels may help to quell a potential uproar over the fact that old analog televisions will not work with new digital signals. Bruce Leichtman of the Leichtman Research Group in Durham, N.H., estimates that when the digital switch is thrown in 2009, there will be about 75 million analog TV's nationwide that get their signals only from rabbit ears. Their owners will need to buy $50 converter boxes to tune in after that. Unfortunately for broadcasters -- and, arguably, for viewers -- that 15 percent of households is not a big-enough market to make these new niche channels economically viable. For the model to work, broadcasters also need to make the new channels available to people with cable and satellite services -- and they want the channels to be distributed free, in the way federal law currently obligates cable companies to carry their primary local channels. The law is known as the must-carry rule, and several groups, led by the National Association of Broadcasters, are lobbying for what they call the digital must-carry rule: that all their broadcast signals, including whatever new digital multicast channels they cook up, should be included, free, on the basic cable lineup. There are several arguments for this. One of the most sensible is that local broadcasters have had to invest small fortunes in equipment to convert to digital broadcasting at Washington's behest, and that this is a way for them to recoup their costs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/yourmoney/11frenzy.html
(requires registration)
Coming Soon (Maybe): Even More TV Channels
The Federal Communications Commission is planning to examine the obligations of cable operators to ensure that consumers with analog-TV sets can view digital signals of local TV stations, an agency source said last Monday. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is trying to round up support to launch a rulemaking that would establish federal policy well before TV stations must cease analog transmission on Feb. 17, 2009, the source said. Chairman Martin is hoping to launch the rulemaking at the FCC’s June 21 public meeting -- and at the same the commission adopts rules that would allow digital-TV stations to demand cable carriage of every free programming service they transmit. FCC rules currently require carriage of just one signal per TV station.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342684.html?display=Policy
No Analog Viewer Left Behind?
THE QUIET $10.3 BILLION
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] On June 12, at the National Association of Broadcasters' Service to America day in Washington, the group will announce that, by its calculation, broadcasters last year contributed $10.3 billion worth of public service to the communities they serve, in the form of advertising time, promotion, and informational campaigns. That's up from $9.6 billion two years ago, the last time the NAB checked. The NAB survey counts only PSAs and fundraisers. The number is spongy, we'll admit. When the term public interest has not been defined, it is hard to quantify what constitutes "public service." But we know that, even in a cynical age, broadcasters chip in to help their communities, keep them informed, and keep them healthy, vibrant and alive. It is easy to point to the terrific work by stations in New Orleans and Mississippi that tried to get listeners and viewers to leave before Katrina and then provided vital information and service to aid the recovery. But every year, there are mini-crises all over the country where stations also serve as a crucial part of the solution. We dare say many broadcasters do more for their communities than some politicians do. Broadcasters don't deserve the public flogging they've received, and soon, many of them won't be able to afford onerous fines for what some bluenose finds indecent. That bill flies in the face of common sense, fairness and the First Amendment. They are solid citizens. Service to America? Broadcasters are there; always have been and, we hope, always will be. They have much to be proud of, and official Washington has a lot to learn from them. Broadcasters do good. That's a four-letter word the FCC can't censor.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6342753?display=Opinion
* Broadcasting, With a $10.3B
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6342754.html?display=Breaking...
* Two cheers for public service announcements
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-seipp12jun12,1,73...
(requires registration)
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6342753?display=Opinion
MEDIA ACTIVISTS FIGHT CLEAR CHANNEL'S 'HATE RADIO'
[SOURCE: The NewStandard, AUTHOR: Catherine Komp]
A broadcasting giant that swallowed up more than 1,200 radio stations across the country after Congress relaxed ownership rules a decade ago is once again at the center of controversy over offensive programming. But this time, Clear Channel's ongoing tolerance of "shock-jock" programmers resulted in on-air threats of death and references to sexually assaulting a 4-year-old girl on one of the New York City's highest-rated urban stations. New York City police last month arrested Troi Torain, also known as DJ Star of the nationally-syndicated "Star & Buc Wild Morning Show." They charged him with harassment and endangerment of a child. Torain's tirade about a rival DJ's family also included racial and sexual slurs against the deejay's wife. Clear Channel then fired the top-rated personality, who has a reputation for hateful, racist programming, but only after city leaders held a press conference denouncing his behavior. The company issued a statement apologizing "to those who may have been offended by his remarks." Long-time critics of Clear Channel, including media diversity activists and community organizations, are using the event to reignite a national movement against the company and remind people about the responsibility of broadcasters to serve the public interest in exchange for their free use of the public airwaves. Activists say that despite millions of dollars in federal fines and settlements, and promises to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to "indecency," Clear Channel continues to use "hate radio" as a business model, supporting derogatory programming because it attracts advertisers. Last month, media reform, training and access groups launched the "No Hate Radio" campaign. Groups, including New York-based Radio Rootz, San Francisco's Youth Media Council and the national organizing groups Prometheus Radio Project and Free Press, are urging people to file complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about Clear Channel's broadcasts through the nohateradio.org website. They are also asking the agency to consider the need for more diverse, local voices on radio stations.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3266
Media Activists Fight Clear Channel’s ‘Hate Radio’
FCC STILL SITTING ON ADELPHIA DEAL
[SOURCE: Multichannel News, AUTHOR: Ted Hearn]
Cable-industry insiders said they don't know what it’s going to take to prod the Federal Communications Commission to act on the Adelphia Communications Corp. sale to Time Warner and Comcast. Cable-industry officials who asked not to be identified don't think FCC chairman Kevin Martin is holding up the merger in an effort to impose a la carte conditions on Time Warner and Comcast. Chairman Martin’s strategy could be that instead of the FCC adopting a la carte conditions, the agency is waiting for Comcast and Time Warner to volunteer a la carte proposals acceptable to Martin. The merger is supposed to close by July 31. Time Warner and Comcast have agreed to pay $16.9 billion for bankrupt Adelphia’s 5 million subscribers. The Federal Trade Commission approved the deal without conditions Jan. 31, but the FCC has had it under review for 370 days (as of June 9), making it one of the longest-reviewed cable deals in recent FCC history. One source indicated that Martin's goal was to force Time Warner and Comcast to beef up their family tiers by adding ESPN in response to concerns that cable subscribers won't buy a family tier without that popular sports network in the package.
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342787.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342796.html?display=Top+Stories
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6342787.html?display=Breaking%20News
MURDOCH'S TALKS WITH MALONE AT CRUCIAL STAGE
[SOURCE: Financial Times, AUTHOR: Aline van Duyn]
The Federal Communications Commission is expected to approve in the coming weeks News Corp’s request to take control of 35 US television stations currently licensed to Rupert Murdoch. That move could have great impact on Murdoch’s negotiations with John Malone over buying back an 18 percent voting stake in News Corporation. The television stations were licensed to Mr Murdoch personally because he has US citizenship. When the stations were acquired, News Corp was an Australian entity. Now that News Corp is domiciled in the US -- a switch that allowed Mr Malone to buy the voting shares after Australian investors reduced their stake in the group -- it can own the licences directly. The FCC has had a request for transfer of control pending from News Corp, and its appointment last month of a fifth commissioner is expected to mean this will be approved within the next few weeks. Mr Murdoch, whose family controls just over 30 per cent of News Corp’s voting shares, has wanted to buy out Mr Malone since his long-time sparring partner accumulated the shares without Mr Murdoch’s knowledge in November 2004. Although Mr Malone has expressed his support for Mr Murdoch and his News Corp strategy, Mr Murdoch is believed to be worried that having one shareholder with such a large voting stake could threaten his family’s future control of the media empire, which includes newspapers such as The Times, 20th Century Fox studios, Fox television and cable businesses, and MySpace.com.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b9891928-f973-11da-8ced-0000779e2340.html
(requires subscription)
Murdoch’s talks with Malone at crucial stage
GROUPS RAISE CONCERN ABOUT BROADCAST TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
[SOURCE: Center for Democracy and Technology]
CDT this week joined a group of public interest organizations calling on Congress to examine ongoing efforts at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to create a treaty that would grant broad new intellectual-property-like rights to broadcasters, "cablecasters," and possibly webcasters. In a letter to members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the groups expressed concern that proposed treaty could have a number of negative side effects, noting that there has been virtually no public debate so far about the need for such a treaty, its likely impact, or the changes it would require to established U.S. law. A group of corporations and trade associations sent a separate letter also expressing concern.
Group Letter: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/wipo-nonprofit-letter-20060607.pdf
Company Letter: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/wipo-industry-letter-20060607.pdf
A GANNETT PAPER SEEKS A NEW KIND OF EXPERTISE
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Katharine Seelye]
Gannett, the biggest newspaper company in the country, with 90 dailies, has one of the strongest records in the industry on hiring and promoting minority employees. And it has long encouraged -- and monitored -- the use of minority voices in the content of articles. Still, it came as something of a surprise last week to some at The Detroit Free Press, which was acquired last year by Gannett, when they were told to contribute the names of minority sources to a collective list. Many newspapers keep such lists to help reporters who are assigned to an unfamiliar story, but they identify sources by their expertise. The Free Press list is meant to flag their racial, ethnic or religious backgrounds as well. Some in the newsroom objected, saying sources should be quoted because they were the most credible on a topic or the most articulate, not because they fit an ethnic profile. They said they feared the day they might have to delete an insightful quote from a majority source in favor of a less useful quote from someone who would help the newspaper meet corporate goals. Paul Anger, editor and vice president of the Free Press said Gannett had not asked the paper to create such a list, but that the paper's managers understood that the representation of minority voices was a Gannett priority, that the company periodically measured such representation and that other papers in the chain used such lists as one way to get more voices into print.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/12/business/media/12gannett.html
(requires registration)
Source Diversity at the Free Press