Benton RSS Feed

SPECTER, CHENEY & THE NSA
[SOURCE: New York Times, AUTHOR: Carl Hulse & Jim Rutenberg]
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) has released to the media a letter he sent to Vice President Dick Cheney concerning a potential hearing on the National Security Agency domestic spying program. Sen Specter said the vice president had cut him out of discussions with all the other Republicans on his own committee about oversight of the administration's eavesdropping programs, a subject on which Sen Specter has often been at odds with the White House. The trigger for Sen Specter's anger was a deal made by VP Cheney with the other Republicans on the committee to block testimony from phone companies that reportedly cooperated in providing call records to the NSA. Sen Specter, who had been considering issuing subpoenas to compel telephone company executives to testify, learned of VP Cheney's actions only when he went into a closed meeting of the committee's Republicans on Tuesday afternoon, shortly after encountering the vice president at a weekly luncheon of all Senate Republicans. In his letter, Sen Specter told VP Cheney that events were unfolding in a "context where the administration is continuing warrantless wiretaps in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and is preventing the Senate Judiciary Committee from carrying out its constitutional responsibility for Congressional oversight." VP Cheney, by contrast, has led the White House's effort to defend the surveillance programs on legal and national security grounds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/washington/08specter.html
(requires registration)

* Specter: Cheney put pressure on panel
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060608/a_capcol08.art.htm

* Specter Says Cheney Tried to Derail Hearings
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-cheney8jun08,1,5...

* Regulate the spooks
[SOURCE: Los Angeles Times, AUTHOR: Editorial Staff]
[Commentary] Congress should back Sen Feinstein's plan to bring NSA wiretapping under an expanded FISA.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-nsa08jun08,1,5268...
(requires registration)

AT&T GETS MORE FOR LESS
[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle, AUTHOR: David Lazarus]
In March 2005, then-SBC's chief exec, Ed Whitacre, testified in Congress that his company's then-pending $16 billion acquisition of AT&T would have no adverse effect on consumers. He was asked by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) if he would pledge not to raise residential phone rates once the merger goes through. According to reports of the hearing, Whitacre assured the congressman that the deal would "have no impact on the consumer marketplace." Rep Markey persisted. If that's the case, he said, would Whitacre publicly pledge that rates won't go up? "I can't pledge that forever, but don't see anything that would impact that in the foreseeable future," Whitacre replied. "How long is the foreseeable future?" Rep Markey asked. "I can't make a pledge for any specific length of time," Whitacre answered. "I can't give you a specific number of days or years. I really don't foresee it." Less than seven months after the SBC-AT&T merger was finalized in November, rates are now going up in the form of higher minimum usage fees. If you're an AT&T long-distance customer and you don't make a lot of calls, there's a good chance your monthly bill will be going up as a result of these new "minimum usage" fees. AT&T says on its Web site that long-distance customers "enjoy great rates usually with a small or no monthly plan fee." It says it needs to charge (or in some cases increase) monthly minimum usage fees "in order to keep these rates low and still recover our costs of providing basic service." Industry analysts and consumer advocates say this just doesn't ring true. "Carrier costs are not going up to provide long-distance service," said Lisa Pierce, a vice president at Forrester Research who specializes in telecom issues. "If anything, the cost has been coming down."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/07/BUGD3J8U441....

See also:
* AT&T/Bell South to Public: We Don't Have to Pay Attention to the Public Interest, Just the Corporate Bottom Line
http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washingtonwatch/AT&TBS.html

TV IS SURROGATE PARENT, CLINTON SAYS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
At a New America Foundation event exploring various content-control strategies, including the V-chip, Ã la carte cable, and TiVo parental-control functions, Sen Hillary Clinton (D-NY) warned that the US is in the midst of a social experiment of TV as surrogate parent. She said it is hard for parents to find time to supervise TV viewing, and exponentially harder for single parents. She also said that technology has outpaced our ability to respond to it, which is why it was important to start gauging what the effect of that technology on kids is. Sen Clinton said it is time to get beyond the ideological divide between censorship and free speech to an understanding that everyone has a role. She said she had drafted a parents' media guide to help with things like understanding the V-Chip and TiVo parental-control functions and was posting it on her Website. She also drafted a bill, the Children and Media Research Advancement Act, which funds a long-term National Institutes of Health study of the effects of various media on children. The bill passed out of committee in March and Sen Clinton said she was hoping for a floor vote soon.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6341731?display=Breaking+News

* Sen. Clinton: Feds must help parents on video games
http://news.com.com/Sen.+Clinton+Feds+must+help+parents+on+video+games/2...

TRIBUNE BOARD IS CONSIDERING A BROAD OVERHAUL
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Sarah Ellison sarah.ellison@wsj.com & Dennis K. Berman]
The board of Tribune Co. since January has been seriously considering a restructuring that would include a spinoff of the company's broadcasting group and could pave the way for the eventual sale of the rest of the company, according to people familiar with the situation. The Chandler family trusts, which are Tribune's second-largest shareholder and which nominated three of the board's 11 directors, have been involved in the discussions, and all parties appear to agree on exploring a broadcast spinoff, these people said. But the Chandlers disagree with Tribune's management over the timing and strategy of the move, which would entail months of complex and costly preparation. In part, the Chandlers, who formerly ran the Los Angeles Times and became major Tribune shareholders with the 2000 sale of Times Mirror Co. to Tribune for $8.3 billion, are unhappy over the $2 billion stock-buyback program that Tribune announced last week. The three Chandler-nominated directors voted against the buyback, according to a company securities filing on Tuesday. The discussions suggest Tribune is more seriously considering a breakup of the 160-year-old media conglomerate than previously had been known. Chicago-based Tribune controls a wide range of broadcast properties and newspapers, including 26 TV stations as well as the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday of Long Island, N.Y., and other newspapers. The talks also suggest that a breakup would have the support of the Chandler Trusts, which control 12.2% of Tribune.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114973387435674567.html?mod=todays_us_pa...
(requires subscription)

See also at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR200606...

* Chandlers in Dissent at Tribune Co.
http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-tribune8jun08,1,39234...