CDD &USPIRG will Amend 2006 Complaint on Behavioral Targeting and Privacy
A "Click-to-Call-To-Action"on behalf of Consumers is Required
Epic, CDD file follow-up at FTC on recusal. Will file FOIA request on Jones Day relationship with FTC.
CDD comments on FTC 4-1 vote to approve Google takeover of DoubleClick
EPIC, CDD Asks FTC Chairman Majoras to Recuse on Google/Doubleclick merger
Consumer Groups Renew Call for FTC Action to Protect Consumers from Harmful Interactive Marketing Practices, including Behavioral Profiling
New Research Spurs Call for Investigation into Role of Data Targeting with Youth Sites, Social Networks, and Sub-prime Mortgages
Washington, DC: The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), two of the leading public-interest advocacy groups working on behalf of a more diverse, competitive and privacy-based online environment, renewed their call today for action by the Federal Trade Commission to address invasive online advertising practices.
In connection with today's FTC Town Hall meeting, "Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology," the two groups filed a 74-page supplemental statement (see link to pdf below) in support of the formal complaint they filed last year, which identified new technology designed to aggressively track Internet users and create data profiles used in personalized "one-to-one" targeting schemes. You can view or download these documents:
"Over the past 12 months, new tracking and targeting technologies have escalated the attack on personal privacy online. As our report documents, online marketers are creating digital dossiers on individual consumers ('behavioral profiling'), so they can be tracked when surfing the Web, watching a broadband video, or using their mobile phone," explained Jeff Chester, executive director of the CDD. "Today, we also ask the FTC to launch an immediate investigation into new threats to privacy from the behavioral targeting and profiling of children and youth, including on social networks."
Current privacy disclosure policies, CDD and US PIRG contend, fail to inform users what data are being collected and how that information is subsequently used. Although many companies claim to collect only "non-personally identifiable" information, they fail to acknowledge the tremendous amounts of data compiled and associated with each unique visitor to their websites. Thus even if these companies don't know the names and addresses of users, they literally know every move those users make online, through sophisticated online tracking and analysis technologies.
"The new business models of the Internet and mobile commerce can stimulate the economy and offer consumers choices," observed Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director of U.S. PIRG, "but unless the FTC steps in now and sets some basic rules for privacy protection, the costs to consumers posed by so-called behavioral targeting, the manipulation of both surfing and price choices, and the 24/7 corporate surveillance and dossier-building will easily outweigh any supposed benefits to consumers."
The Federal Trade Commission, according to the CDD/PIRG filing, must act swiftly to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices by using its authority, under Section 5 of the FTC Act, to address this issue on a variety of fronts:
"We know that teenagers use the Internet to seek help for their personal problems and to deal with difficult issues in their lives. These activities give marketers unprecedented opportunities for massive data collection and behavioral targeting," said Kathryn Montgomery, Ph.D., Professor of Communication at American University and author of Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet (MIT Press, 2007), who led the effort during the 1990's that resulted in the passage of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. "The loss of privacy is too high a price for reaping the benefits of the digital age."
The Center for Digital Democracy is a Washington-based nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining the diversity and openness of the media, focusing especially on the new broadband communications systems. CDD's executive director played a leading role in the passage of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group serves as the federation of state PIRGs, which are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations that take on powerful interests on behalf of the American public. (www.uspirg.org).
"Google, Online Advertising, and Privacy"
Press Club Briefing and Teleconference
Monday, September 17, 2007
The National Press Club
First Amendment Room
529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor
Washington, DC
1. Public Briefing - Session at Press Club
9 am - 10 am ET
An expert panel will review recent developments with online privacy, including behavioral targeting, and the proposed merger of Google and Doubleclick. The panel will discuss the challenges to the merger and the various remedies that the Federal Trade Commission could impose to help safeguard Internet privacy and ensure competition.
Participants:
Amina Fazlullah, Staff Attorney, USPIRG;
Lillie Coney, Associate Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC);
Melissa Ngo, Director, Identification and Surveillance Project, EPIC;
Professor Joseph Turow, Robert Lewis Shayon Professor of Communication,
Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. Author of
Niche Envy: Marketing Discrimination in the Digital Age (MIT Press, 2006);
Jeff Chester, Executive Director, Center for Digital Democracy. Author of
Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy (The New Press,
2007)
2. Follow-up Press Briefing - Teleconference
12 pm - 1 pm ET
Please contact Jeff Chester for call-in information
CONTACT
Jeff Chester
Email: jeff@democraticmedia.org
REFERENCES
Google and Privacy
http://www.epic.org/privacy/ftc/google/
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
http://www.epic.org/
Center for Digital Democracy (CDD)
http://www.democraticmedia.org
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/?cat=26
US PIRG
http://www.uspirg.org
Ottawa, ON – August 2, 2007 – The Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa is requesting that the Competition Commissioner review the proposed merger between Google and DoubleClick. In an application for an inquiry filed with the Commissioner today, CIPPIC alleges that a merger between Google and DoubleClick will prevent or substantially lessen competition in the online targeted advertising market by combining Google’s keyword search dominance with DoubleClick’s leadership in display advertisement serving and behavioural targeting advertisement products.
This is an application to the Competition Bureau pursuant to s. 9 of the Competition Act, for an inquiry in respect of the proposed merger of Google, Inc. (“Google”) and DoubleClick Inc. (“DoubleClick”), on the grounds that it is likely to prevent or lessen competition substantially in the targeted online advertising industry.
August 2007
Over the past 12 years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has repeatedly failed to redefine broadcasters’ public interest obligations in light of the nation’s ongoing transition to digital television, a coalition of 28 groups said in a filing at the FCC today. The groups echoed the warnings of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps that this “record of inaction” may “go down . . . as the Commission’s major failing in its efforts to move the digital transition forward.”
The groups’ filing came in the FCC’s third periodic review of the conversion of the nation’s broadcast television system from analog to digital television (“DTV”). The DTV transition will increase efficient use of the spectrum, expand consumer choice for video programming, and increase the amount of spectrum available for public safety and other wireless services. Analog TV broadcasts are to end February 17, 2009. In its rulemaking, the FCC proposed procedures and rule changes necessary to complete the transition, but once again failed to address broadcasters’ obligations to serve local communities’ educational, informational, civic, minority, disability and emergency information needs – or how these services should be disclosed to the public.
“Congress and the courts have been clear,” said Benton Foundation Chairman Charles Benton, “that the rights of viewers are paramount in broadcasting. The FCC has worked long and hard to help broadcasters make the transition to digital TV technology, a transition that could greatly increase the value of their businesses. The Commission must now do the work to define the benefits of the transition for the public, a transition that could make their airwaves more valuable to them.”
“The Commission has the opportunity and the statutory obligation to create an important and lasting legacy to benefit the citizens of our nation as we enter the digital age,” said Meredith McGehee, Policy Director of the Campaign Legal Center. “Despite the fact that most broadcasters have come to treat the public airwaves as their personal property, that incredibly valuable spectrum is still owned by the American public. It is the Commission’s job to remind broadcasters of that fact and to demand substantive public interest efforts in return.”
Cynthia Canary, Director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform -- one of 14 members of the Midwest Democracy Network which participated in the filing -- said, “The Supreme Court has observed that speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government. Due to its reach, influence and statutory obligations, local television news, in particular, has a special responsibility to inform voters at election time about the backgrounds, experiences, qualifications, and policy views of candidates for public office. Between elections, it has a duty to help citizens make sense out of governmental issues and decisions that will impact their lives and communities. By defining and enforcing the public interest obligations of digital television broadcasters, the FCC can guarantee that citizens have the access they need to be full participants in our democracy.”
When the FCC launched this proceeding earlier this year, Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said, “I am concerned that we have not yet provided broadcasters and the public with a concrete understanding of broadcasters’ public interest obligations in the digital age. This necessary piece of the transition continues to lag further and further behind. Congress made clear that broadcasters continue to have public interest obligations in the digital world, but left it up to us to specify how to apply them. As we continue to speed the arrival of the best possible digital television service to the public, an important proceeding that could bring certainty continues to linger at the Commission…. A crystal clear digital picture is important, but quality programming is just as, if not more, important.”
List of commenters: Alliance For Community Media, Benton Foundation, Center for Digital Democracy, Chicago Media Action, Citizen Advocacy Center, Common Cause, Common Cause Illinois, Common Cause Michigan, Common Cause Ohio, Common Cause Wisconsin, Communication Service For The Deaf, Consumer Action, Democracy Now, Free Press, Hearing Loss Association Of America – New York State, Illinois Campaign For Political Reform, Illinois PIRG, League Of Women Voters Of Minnesota, League Of Women Voters Of Wisconsin, Michigan Campaign Finance Network, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Northern Virginia Resource Center For Deaf And Hard Of Hearing Persons, Ohio Citizen Action Education Fund, Sunshine Project -- University Of Illinois At Springfield, Take Action Minnesota, The Campaign Legal Center, United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps released a statement saying: "For years I have argued that the most important part of the DTV transition is to ensure that it increases localism and diversity on our airwaves. Broadcasters will be able to air up to half a dozen different digital program streams, so here is a wonderful chance for them to get away from all the homogenized, nationalized programming that big media has foisted on us in favor of covering the people and communities they actually serve. Digital technology can be a huge boon for all of us--but only if we make sure this spectrum serves the public interest. The FCC has been asleep at the switch on this one, refusing to address what is really the heart-and-soul of DTV. I welcome the comments of the 28 groups who came together to ask the Commission to get serious about defining how this transition will benefit not just broadcasters, but all the American people."
Statement from
Center for Digital Democracy
Regarding
Microsoft's New and "Improved" Privacy Policy
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 17, 2007
Contact: Kathryn Montgomery, American University202-494-1501
Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy, 202-494-7100
Statement from
Kathryn Montgomery, PhD
Professor, American University
Co-author, “Interactive Food & Beverage Marketing:
Targeting Children and Youth in the Digital Age”
Available from www.digitalads.org
Note to Journalists covering tomorrow’s FTC/HHS Forum on Marketing, Self-Regulation, & Childhood Obesity: Professor Kathryn Montgomery of American University is a panelist who will summarize her recent research on digital food marketing targeting children and youth. In the expectation of several industry announcements, she is releasing this statement:
The public—including policymakers and parents—must assess any new industry promises by at least three critical standards: First, self-regulatory measures must protect all children, including teenagers. We cannot address the nutritional health problems facing America’s young people by narrowly focusing attention only on the youngest segment of the youth population. Adolescents are at even greater risk of consuming an unhealthy diet than younger children. Teens spend more of their own money on food, make more of their food choices independently of their parents, and do more of their food consumption outside of the home. Food marketers can now target teens through an explosion of new digital venues—including social networking platforms, peer-to-peer video, instant messaging, interactive games, and cell phones—completely bypassing any parental oversight. And because the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) protects only children under the age of 13, adolescents are also subjected to some of the most extensive behavioral marketing in contemporary media.
Secondly, industry guidelines must address the full range of new and emerging digital marketing practices. Marketers know that today’s children and teens are increasingly away from TV sets and are part of the “always connected” lifestyle. With the explosion of digital media we are witnessing a further expansion of food marketing, designed to intrude into every possible “touchpoint” of a young person’s daily life. Digital technologies enable companies to track every move, online and off, compiling elaborate personal profiles, and aggregating that data across different media and over time. Such an environment makes it very difficult for children to maintain health. Unless the industry promises to halt the intrusive “one-to-one” marketing of unhealthy foods, we will never be able to effectively address the serious obesity crisis facing America’s children and adolescents.
Finally, while the food and advertising industries deserve praise for any new steps they take today, these announcements are coming at a time of unprecedented intense legal and political pressure brought by health advocates, regulatory agencies, and Congressional members from both parties. As we’ve seen repeatedly in the past, self-regulation is always reactive. Adjustments are made to certain controversial practices in order to placate critics, deflect pressure, and preempt government regulation. But when pressures have subsided, and the public spotlight has been diverted elsewhere, industry policing may be relaxed. When there is a great deal of money to be made, as there is in the children and teen market, practices are likely to return to business as usual, or new ones created to circumvent public scrutiny. Industry guidelines will only work if there are government laws and regulations enacted to enforce them.
Kathryn C. Montgomery is Professor in the School of Communication at American University. During the 90s, as President of the Center for Media Education, she led the campaign to pass the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). She recently co-authored a report with Jeff Chester on digitalads.org “Interactive Food & Beverage Marketing: Targeting Children and Youth in the Digital Age,” sponsored by the Berkeley Media Studies Group (BMSG) and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD). Her book, Generation Digital: Politics, Commerce, and Childhood in the Age of the Internet — just published this week by MIT Press — documents the growth of digital media and marketing in the lives of young people.
Washington, DC: The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG), two of the leading public-interest advocacy groups working on behalf of a more diverse and competitive online environment, filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission, calling on the commission to undertake an immediate, formal investigation of online advertising practices. As the groups make clear in their 50-page filing (PDF below), the data collection and interactive marketing system that is shaping the entire U.S. electronic marketplace is being built to aggressively track Internet users wherever they go, creating data profiles used in ever-more sophisticated and personalized "one-to-one" targeting schemes.
"Unfortunately, over the last several years the FTC has largely ignored the critical developments of the electronic marketplace that have placed the privacy of every American at risk," declared Jeff Chester, CDD executive director. "The FTC should long ago have sounded a very public alarm--and called for action--concerning the data collection practices stemming from such fields as Web analytics, online advertising networks, behavioral targeting, and rich 'virtual reality' media, all of which threaten the privacy of the U.S. public."
Current privacy disclosure policies, CDD and US PIRG contend, are totally inadequate, failing to effectively inform users what data are being collected and how that information is subsequently used. While many companies claim they collect only "non-personally identifiable" information, they fail to acknowledge the tremendous amounts of data compiled and associated with each unique visitor who visits their website. Thus even if these companies don't know the names and addresses of users, they literally know every move those users make online, through sophisticated online tracking and analysis technologies.
“The emergence of this on-line tracking and profiling system has snuck up on both consumers and policymakers and is much more than a privacy issue,” said U.S. PIRG Consumer Program Director Ed Mierzwinski. “Its effect has been to put enormous amounts of consumer information into the hands of sellers, leaving buyer-consumers at risk of unfair pricing schemes and with fewer choices than the Internet is touted to provide.”
It is therefore incumbent on the Federal Trade Commission, according to the CDD/PIRG complaint, to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive practices by using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to address this issue on a variety of fronts:
• launching an immediate investigation into the online marketplace in light of this new environment
• exposing practices that compromise user privacy
• issuing the necessary injunctions to halt current practices that abuse consumers
• crafting policies—and recommending federal legislation—to prevent such abuses.
As a first step in this direction, the complaint urges the FTC to look closely at Microsoft's new set of adCenter services, a wide-ranging data-collection and ad-targeting scheme that is deceptive and unfair to millions of users. Especially disturbing is Microsoft's use of data gleaned from its Hotmail service (which attracts over 30 million users every month) to sharpen its ad-targeting efforts, and those of its adCenter clients.
"Microsoft, like Google and Yahoo, is actively rewriting the rules that govern the online marketplace," explained Chester. "It is the FTC's job to make certain that these rules reflect more than corporate self-interest. The public interest matters, too, and it is the FTC's responsibility to protect and promote that vital perspective, by issuing injunctions against the most egregious of the new invasive advertising practices, which are fully described in our complaint."
The Center for Digital Democracy (www.democraticmedia.org) is a Washington-based nonprofit organization dedicated to maintaining the diversity and openness of the media, focusing especially on the new broadband communications systems. CDD's executive director played a leading role in the passage of the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (www.uspirg.org) serves as the federation of state PIRGs, which are non-profit, non-partisan public interest advocacy organizations that take on powerful interests on behalf of the American public.
November 1, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the senior member of the House Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee and Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Privacy Caucus, released the following statement on the filing by consumer groups calling for an FTC investigation of online advertising and tracking of consumer web surfing:
"I want to commend the consumer groups for their filing today at the Federal Trade Commission. The surreptitious gathering of personal information from consumers is an unfair business practice and consumers are right to petition the Commission to examine and investigate such practices. Where and when a consumer surfs on the Internet goes to the heart of personal freedom and I have long advocated for common-sense rules to be put in place so that consumers have knowledge about these practices and effective mechanisms to control the privacy of their personal information and web use."
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has taken important first steps to ending political tests in hiring and offering protection to whistle-blowers. However, the CPB appears unwilling to make changes that would ensure more transparency and accountability. That’s the conclusion of a new analysis of CPB governance by Common Cause and the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD).
Common Cause and CDD urged the CPB board, at its meeting today, to demonstrate that it is willing to adopt the substantive and necessary reforms that would restore integrity and public accountability to the scandal-plagued agency. As the attached analysis illustrates, the proposals under consideration by the CPB Board to date fall far short of what has been recommended.
“The CPB must realize that these governance and ethics issues aren’t going away,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “Creating committees to recommend anemic reforms isn’t good enough. It’s long past time to adopt unimpeachable policies that ensure the CPB – which makes decisions about how taxpayer dollars are to be spent – operates above board and with complete public transparency.”
The CPB has been struggling to change its flawed governance process for nearly a year. In July 2005, public interest groups, including Common Cause and CDD, asked for specific governance reforms in the wake of scandals involving former CPB chairman Kenneth Tomlinson. In November 2005, the CPB’s own Inspector General also made a series of recommendations to improve the agency’s corporate governance processes, after finding evidence of partisan hiring and other wrongdoing by CPB’s top management. To respond to these calls for reform, the CPB created a Corporate Governance Committee and an Executive Compensation Committee.
On April 7, the CPB’s Corporate Governance Committee rejected proposed financial disclosure requirements, questioning whether such disclosures were material to their work at CPB, and raising concerns that personal information could be leaked. “CPB board members should have nothing to hide from the public. Yet, the board sent back for revision a safeguard recommended by staff that would require full financial disclosure,” said Jeffrey Chester of the Center for Digital Democracy. “It appears that the current CPB board leadership isn't interested in serious governance rules.”
The full CPB Board is meeting on May 1 and 2 to consider a slate of policies related to ethics, conflicts of interest, open meetings procedures, whistle-blower protections and other public accountability measures.
The Center for Digital Democracy (CDD), United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, and the Benton Foundation filed comments today with the FCC on the commission's Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming. In their filing, the three groups called on the FCC to open a new proceeding to gather information and seek comment on whether cable leased access (i.e., the set aside of 10-15 percent of available cable channels for lease to unaffiliated entities) is actually serving Congress’ twin mandates of ensuring “that the widest possible diversity of information sources are made available,” and promoting "competition in the delivery of diverse sources of video programming.”
Noting that cable has significantly evolved since 1984 when Congress first mandated leased access, the three groups suggest that existing leased-access regulations "appear to have deterred non-affiliated programmers from using leased access, further entrenched cable operators’ hold on video programming, and have not resolved the harms that the leased access provisions were designed to address, such as cable operators’ lack of incentive to provide programming with divergent interests."
Because the public and the FCC have virtually no information about the current status of leased-access programming, moreover, the groups believe that only through a new proceeding will the FCC be able to fulfill its statutory obligation to promote diversity in cable programming.
A copy of the groups' FCC filing is available below.
In its comments, CDD expressed the importance of addressing a full range of issues connected with multi-channel video franchises:
We welcome this opportunity to comment on the commission's proposed implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, not because we believe that there are a significant number of instances of local franchising authorities "… unreasonably refus[ing] to award an additional competitive [video] franchise,” but rather because of the larger issues that the proposed rulemaking raises. These issues include local authority, localism,broadband deployment, network neutrality, and community media, all of which must be included, we are convinced, within the scope of the commission's present inquiry.
In light of the very real threat to communities' longstanding right to negotiate video franchises that reflect the needs and interests of their residents, CDD's filing underscored the importance of preserving this vital aspect of local democracy:
Cable franchise agreements, clearly, are unique social pacts. More than merely a license for companies to dispense multi-channel video and other services, these documents are crafted with specific community needs and interests in mind. As such, these agreements also contain the building blocks for a genuine community media movement, one that places the power of broadcast and digital technologies in the hands of individuals and nonprofit organizations normally excluded from the market-driven mainstream media.
Failure to ensure meaningful local governance in multi-channel broadband networks will seriously deprive the public of the ability to benefit from advanced communications. It will set back the commission's own goal of promoting localism, reduce diverse sources of programming, and remove one of the last democratically oriented principles of electronic media governance.
In response to the Inspector General's report on misconduct at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the CPB board issued the following statement at the conclusion of its closed meeting today:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors today announced that its former chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson has resigned from the CPB board. The board does not believe that Mr. Tomlinson acted maliciously or with any intent to harm CPB or public broadcasting, and the board recognizes that Mr. Tomlinson strongly disputes the findings in the soon-to-be-released Inspector General's report. The board expresses its disappointment in the performance of former key staff whose responsibility it was to advise the board and its members. Nonetheless, both the board and Mr. Tomlinson believe it is in the best interests of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that he no longer remain on the board. The board commends Mr. Tomlinson for his legitimate efforts to achieve balance and objectivity in public broadcasting.
"It was time that Mr. Tomlinson stepped down," declared Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "He has engaged in unethical, if not illegal, behavior. Tomlinson's departure, however, is unlikely to stop the behind-the-scenes programming pressure on PBS and perhaps NPR. Board Chair Halpern and Vice Chair Gaines will continue Tomlinson's legacy in their attempts to reshape public broadcasting into something more to the liking of conservatives."
"Blame must also be shared by Ms. Halpern, Ms. Gaines and the other board members who condoned or supported Tomlinson's past actions," Chester added. "Did Ms. Halpern and Ms. Gaines, for example, know and approve of the Mann contract or the hiring of the Hill lobbyist? If so, they should resign as well. Mr. Tomlinson's hand-picked choice for CPB president, Patricia Harrison, will no doubt help them continue to exert ideological pressure on PBS and their other grantees. CPB needs a thorough house cleaning. We await the IG report's release."
Chester also noted that while stepping down from his position on the CPB board, Mr. Tomlinson remains head of the powerful Broadcasting Board of Governors. "It is likely he resigned in order to remain in that position," Chester concluded.
WASHINGTON -- Common Cause, the Center for Digital Democracy, and Free Press today filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The groups seek copies of any correspondence between the White House and CPB officials and other evidence uncovered in recent Inspector General investigations.
A report released last week by the CPB Inspector General found that former Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson violated the law by interfering in programming at PBS and secretly hiring a Republican operative to monitor "Now with Bill Moyers." The report also found that "political tests" were a "major criteria" in the hiring of former Republican Party Chairwoman Patricia de Stacy Harrison as president and CEO of CPB.
"There's no reason the Inspector General's full inquiry should not be made public," said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. "It's obvious CPB is a troubled agency and failure to disclose the results of the investigation in its entirety just increases mistrust and thwarts efforts to reform this public institution."
The Inspector General's report revealed the existence of a "separate investigative report, along with specific evidence indicating possible wrongdoing, to the Board for their disposition." This report apparently includes correspondence between Tomlinson and White House adviser Karl Rove discussing CPB programming and hiring decisions. CPB officials previously have refused to release the e-mails and other documents contained in this separate report, citing "confidentiality agreements."
"The CPB board forgets that the word public is part of their name -- and mandate," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "Their fiduciary responsibility is to that public. They should not be condoning cover-ups."
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite claiming to be exempt from FOIA, has previously gone on record as saying it will voluntarily process FOIA requests it receives.
The groups seek:
• The separate "investigative report" and "specific evidence indicating possible wrongdoing" given to the members of the CPB Board of Directors by the Inspector General.
• Any and all reports or records given to Members of Congress related to the Inspector General's investigation.
• Any and all communications between the White House, former CPB President Kathleen Cox, Harrison and members of the board during the past 36 months.
• Minutes for both the public and closed-door CPB board meetings for the past 36 months.
• All information and materials related to the recruitment of Harrison; the hiring of ombudsmen William Schultz and Kenneth Bode; the monitoring of political content on PBS and NPR by Fred W. Mann; and all the development, funding and promotion of "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" and "The Journal Editorial Report."
The groups also will file a FOIA request related to separate inquiry into Tomlinson's actions as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors--which oversees Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, TV Marti and other government "public diplomacy" efforts. An Inspector General at the State Department is currently investigating Tomlinson for possible misuse of funds and hiring of unqualified employees at the Broadcasting Board of Governors. According to the New York Times, the Rove-Tomlinson e-mails first surfaced as part of the State Department probe.
Tomlinson resigned from the CPB Board before the Inspector General's report was made public, but he continues to serve as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. However, his nomination to a second term on the board is currently stalled in the Senate.
"There should be no place for Kenneth Tomlinson or his cronies anywhere in the federal government," said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. "The only way to put an end to this sordid chapter in the history of public broadcasting is to release all of the evidence from these investigations to the public. If the individual agencies won't cooperate, then Congress needs to get involved."
The text of the two FOIA requests follows:
Patricia de Stacy Harrison, President and CEO
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
401 Ninth Street NW
Washington DC 20004-2129Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Ms. Harrison:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, despite claiming to be exempt from FOIA, has previously gone on record as saying it will voluntarily process FOIA requests it receives./1/ Furthermore, CPB, as a government-controlled corporation, is included as a covered agency under section (f)(1) of FOIA under the provisions of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996./2/
Therefore, we request that unredacted copies of the following documents be made available:
- Any and all reports, records (paper or electronic), including electronic mail, phone logs, appointment calendars and other material given to Members of Congress related to the CPB inspector general’s investigation related to Report No. EPB503-602 – the “Review of Alleged Actions Violating The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, as Amended.” These materials are described on page 1 of Report EPB503-602, as released on November 15, 2005;
- A separate “investigative report” given to the members of the CPB Board of Directors, which includes “specific evidence indicating possible wrongdoing” as described in page 2 of the Nov. 15, 2005 report;
- All information and materials specified in Appendix A of the report released on November 15, 2005, i.e. the Korn/Ferry contract(s) and documents (including, but not limited to, amendments, approvals, invoices, etc.) related to the recruitment of a CPB president; the contract(s) with Fred W. Mann and any other materials related to his provision of services to CPB; contracts with RheemMedia related to the Ombudsman; contracts for William Schultz and Kenneth Bode and all communications between them and the board or board members; contract(s) and all related communications (including, but not limited to, amendments, approvals, invoices, etc.), with Spencer Stuart for its 2005 recruitment work for CPB president; the CPB National Programming Service contract and all correspondence between CPB board members, CPB President, and CPB senior staff related to the funding of “Tucker Carlson Unfiltered;” CPB contract(s) with Dow Jones Inc., including all correspondence and communications by board members, CPB president or senior staff related to the funding, carriage and promotion of “The Journal Editorial Report;”
- Minutes for both the public and executive CPB board meetings for the last 36 months, including discussions on: CPB programming including “balance;” the office of Ombudsman; reports about programming given by Michael Pack or his deputy; all discussions related to the recruitment, hire, or termination of CPB presidents Cox and Harrison; and board minutes related to the recent vote of confidence of Ms. Harrison; and
- Any and all communications between the White House, CPB presidents Cox and Harrison and members of the board whether by mail, phone log or electronic mail during the last 36 months. These should include communications described in the November 15, 2005 report with the Executive Office of the President or other White House office, such as cited on page 14, 19, 22, 26, and 42.
We are employees of nonprofit organizations who work to increase understanding of the workings of public television. As such, we ask that all fees for this request be waived. Disclosure of the information requested above is in the public interest because it will significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations of CPB, which is funded through the contributions and tax dollars of American citizens. This information will specifically show the degree to which the CPB is accountable and responsive to the American public it is charged to serve.
Given the CPB’s existing precedent and your own willingness to honor FOIA, we look forward to your compliance with this request. We request that you inform us immediately of your receipt of this letter; we also request that you immediately notify us when the documents we have requested are available for retrieval, as they become available. If you must deny access, please notify us immediately of your determination as well as the reasons for making that determination.
Thank you for your consideration.
Chellie Pingree Jeffrey Chester Josh Silver
Common Cause Center for Digital Democracy Free Press
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW 1801 18th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 2009
202-833-1200 202 986-2220 202-265-1490/1/ Footnote [iv] of Chapter 14 of the Legal Handbook for NYS Journalists, which specifically mentions the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Information is available at www.nysba.org .
/2/ 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended by Public Law No. 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048.
22 November 2005
Martha Diaz Ortiz, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer
Broadcasting Board of Governors
330 Independence Avenue SW
Washington DC 20237Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Ms. Diaz:
The undersigned organization representatives request unredacted copies of the following documents under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552:
Any and all reports, records (paper or electronic), including electronic mail, phone logs and appointment calendars of Broadcasting Board of Governors Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson with any reference to his role or work as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to include but not be limited to any and all communications on this topic with White House personnel, the Executive Office of the President, current and former CPB staff or contract personnel, and any other individual or organization that communicated with Tomlinson regarding his work associated with CPB in the past 36 months.
We are employees of nonprofit organizations who work to increase understanding of the workings of U.S.-funded public broadcasting organizations. As such, we ask that all fees for this request be waived. Disclosure of the information requested above is in the public interest because it will significantly contribute to public understanding of the operations of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. This information will specifically show the degree to which the BBG is accountable and responsive to the American public it is charged to serve.
We request that you inform us immediately of your receipt of this letter; we also request that you immediately notify us when the documents we have requested are available for retrieval, as they become available. If you must deny access, please notify us immediately of your determination as well as the reasons for making that determination.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,Chellie Pingree Jeffrey Chester Josh Silver
Common Cause Center for Digital Democracy Free Press
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW 1718 Connecticut Ave., NW 1801 18th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20009 Washington, DC 2009
202-833-1200 202 986-2220 202-265-1490
What role should public media play in the American media landscape? What should a vibrant, sustainable public media ecology look like? The Center for Digital Democracy is holding a participatory caucus to outline what public media should be in the United States and how we can make it so. All of us are deeply concerned about the current state of the media, but unlike efforts in other countries, the U.S. has lacked an open, deliberative process to determine our public media needs and how to effectively meet them. The purpose of the caucus is to actively engage the independent media producing, distribution, activist, and funding community and those institutions that regularly use independent media such as libraries and museums in developing strategies to ensure a vibrant public media ecology.
Join panelists Aliza Dichter, Center for International Media Action, filmmaker Evangeline “Vangie” Griego, Anthony Riddle, Alliance for Community Media, and Jake Shapiro, Public Radio Exchange, who will provide an overview of independent media including a brief history of media production, distribution, and activism, along with examples of new production and distribution paradigms that are proving successful in generating audiences and revenues. The panel will be moderated by media consultant, Alyce Myatt.
The format of the Caucus will begin with the panel followed by a question and answer segment after which we will break into smaller working groups where the audience will participate in outlining public media needs and identifying strategies and tactics. We will then reconvene as a whole, with the groups reporting-out their key points. We will consolidate the information and determine specific action steps for moving forward.
The Caucus will take place on Sunday, October 16, 2005, from 2:00pm to 5:00pm at California State University, Los Angeles, Music Building, Rm. 149, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032-8111
This is third in a series of caucuses the Center for Digital Democracy will be conducting around the country. (The first was held in San Francisco, and the link to the report can be found below.)
We are working in concert with other local and national organizations and individuals to elevate the issue of independent public media and its critical role in civil society. We are particularly interested in combining the efforts and good thinking of the media makers with the work of media activists and reformers.
What role should public media play in the American media landscape? What should a vibrant, sustainable public media ecology look like? The Center for Digital Democracy is holding a participatory caucus to outline what public media should be in the United States and how we can make it so.
All of us are deeply concerned about the current state of the media, but unlike efforts in other countries, the U.S. has lacked an open, deliberative process to determine our public media needs and how to effectively meet them. The purpose of the caucus is to actively engage the independent media producing, distribution, activist, and funding community and those institutions that regularly use independent media such as libraries and museums in developing strategies to ensure a vibrant public media ecology.
Join panelists DeeDee Halleck, Deep Dish TV/Paper Tiger TV, media activist Sharon Maeda, Rick Prelinger, The Internet Archive, and filmmaker John de Graaf, who will provide an overview of independent media including a brief history of media production, distribution, and activism, along with examples of new production and distribution paradigms that are proving successful in generating audiences and revenues. The panel will be moderated by media consultant, Alyce Myatt.
The format of the Caucus will begin with the panel followed by a question-and-answer segment after which we will break into smaller working groups where the audience will participate in outlining public media needs and identifying strategies and tactics. We will then reconvene as a whole, with the groups reporting-out their key points. We will consolidate the information and determine specific action steps for moving forward.
The caucus will take place on Friday, October 7, 2005 from 2:00pm to 5:00pm at 911 Media Arts Center, 402 9th Ave N, Seattle, WA.
This is second in a series of caucuses the Center for Digital Democracy will be conducting around the country. (The first was held in San Francisco and a link to the report can be found below.)
We are working in concert with other local and national organizations and individuals to elevate the issue of independent public media and its critical role in civil society. We are particularly interested in combining the efforts and good thinking of the media makers with the work of media activists and reformers.
For more information and to RSVP, please contact Alyce Myatt, amyatt@nyc.rr.com, (212) 765-0193. Seating is limited, but we hope you are able to join us.
The expected acquisition of Bell South by AT&T (formerly SBC) reflects the strategy by the country's largest cable and phone companies to build monopoly-styled businesses in both the broadband and interactive television markets. "AT&T wishes to be lord of the digital domain, able to impose a raft of tolls, fees and what they term 'monetization' strategies for the Internet--whether it comes to us via wires or wireless devices," explained Jeff Chester, CDD's executive director. This proposed merger is the direct result of a recent FCC decision that eliminated long-standing safeguards for the Internet. AT&T can now operate its broadband platform (as well as its new digital TV service) as a privately controlled highway. Instead of the Internet reflecting what the federal courts not long ago called "the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed," it's now threatened to be reduced to what AT&T called its private "pipes."
"AT&T's ambition knows no bounds and places the future of the broadband Internet at risk," said Chester. "AT&T believes that it can engage in a telecommunications power grab because of the largely pro-business attitude of the Bush administration and the FCC. But they are sadly mistaken if they believe there won't be intense opposition to this deal from all those who care for the Internet's democratic and competitive future," he added.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act (ten years old last month), there has been an unprecedented wave of mergers and consolidation in the telephone, cable, broadcast radio and television and newspaper markets. Instead of the competition promised by the cable and phone industries to Congress, consumers and citizens have faced higher rates for service and a critical loss of diverse editorial perspectives. "Americans deserve to be forewarned," declared Chester. "If we permit more takeovers, such as AT&T and Bell South, we will soon witness a further shrinking of the number of conglomerates dominating our local and national media. Super media monopolies will emerge, as the cable and phone companies that control vast expanses of online communications seek also to acquire newspapers, broadcast stations, and TV networks. Eventually, the owners of the so-called competing broadband Internet wires of the cable and telephone industry will likely consolidate as well--a merger between Comcast and Verizon, for example, or a Time Warner with AT&T. Instead of having a communications environment that promotes freedom, creativity, and expression, we could witness an ever-dwindling number of major corporations controlling an unthinkable array of the most powerful media outlets.
"AT&T will claim that this merger is necessary to ensure "broadband deployment," a measure in the lobbyist-written 1996 Telecommunications Act. But what we need foremost is broadband democracy," explained Chester.
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2004
Contact: Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy
Washington, DC: The three major broadcast TV networks are merely spinning lame excuses for why they will not be covering the national political conventions for more than a few hours this summer. It’s all “tightly scripted,” “it’s not interesting," or there’s “no news,” they suggest. Meanwhile, the networks will show even less of the conventions than they did in 2000, continuing a sharp decline in coverage. Yet TV broadcasting will largely reap an unprecedented $1 billion or more from political ads sold this election season.
But just as the networks are fleeing from providing the public with greater information about US political issues, TV broadcasters are stealthily lobbying the Federal Communications Commission for a giant mega-billion dollar handout. Believe it or not, ABC, NBC, and the NAB claim that they are serving the public interest by providing the US public with news and information. Consequently, they want the US government to award them a financial digital bonanza that a modern-day Midas would envy.
First, let’s be clear. It’s greed on the part of the Big Three that is keeping convention coverage off the air. The Networks want to run as much of their regular prime-time schedule as possible to harvest profits from advertising. Meanwhile, profits at the networks are arcing ever skyward.
Viacom/CBS saw “double-digit operating income and revenue growth” in a record second quarter this year. It had operating income for the quarter of $1.4 billion, with a major increase from its television holdings. (Source: "Viacom Reports Record Second Quarter 2004 Results," PR Newswire, 22 July 2004.)
GE/NBC profits rose in the second quarter 2004 to $3.9 billion, which also saw $5 billion in TV ad “upfront” sales for next season. Having just swallowed Universal for $5 billion, TV sales were up 47 percent in the quarter. (Source: Phyllis Furman, "GE surges on NBC pop: Big boost from Universal," New York Daily News, 10 July 2004) Earnings from the Olympics are also expected to bring increased profits this summer. (Source: "NBC Universal Sees 3rd Qtr Profit Up 10 to 15 Pct," Reuter's, July 12, 2004.)
Disney/ABC also reported record growth for the second quarter, with $2.8 billion in revenues from its TV division. The company told shareholders to expect “double-digital annual earnings growth from 2004 through at least 2007.” (Source: The Walt Disney Company, "The Walt Disney Company Reports Higher Results for the Quarter and Six Months Ended March 31, 2004," press release, May 12, 2004.)
Meanwhile, the networks and the National Association of Broadcasters are lobbying the FCC to approve a new policy that would force cable operators to carry new broadcast network channels (called “multi-casting must carry). Instead of the one channel delivered today, the networks could deliver six or more interactive channels in its place. The networks have the audacity to tell the FCC and Congress that because they serve the “public interest,” they should receive this handout. Yet, during a critical time in US history, the three networks would rather not help encourage a national discussion of issues affecting Americans; they simply want to close their eyes to any obligation and just make lots of extra money. (See, for example, Center for Digital Democracy, "Broadcast Lobby’s Indecent Posture: Asking for Big Public Hand-out," April 26, 2004; and Common Cause, "Will Broadcasters Get Yet Another Giveaway Without Giving the Public Anything in Return?" April 13, 2004.)
CDD is a member of the "Public Interest, Public Airwaves" coalition asking the FCC to approve modest requirements for regular electoral and civic programming from TV broadcasters. For more information, see: http://www.bettercampaigns.org/.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 11, 2004
Contact: Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy (202) 494-7100; (301) 270-3938
Washington, DC: Comcast's proposed takeover of the Walt Disney Company (ABC) is a deal that should be unacceptable to federal officials, who are entrusted with protecting the public interest. A Comcast-Disney combine would permit one entity to dominate cable system distribution in the largest markets in the US (8 out of 10 top markets); control a broadcast TV network and the dozens--if not hundreds--of digital channels from its owned-and-affiliated stations; own cable content including ESPN, Toon, Disney, Golf, E, and TV One; as well as remain the major broadband ISP. Given Microsoft's investment in Comcast and its new relation with Disney, there are also implications for every desktop and set-top. Comcast has opposed any federal policy that would ensure that the broadband Internet operates on an open and nondiscriminatory basis.
It's clear that Brian Roberts knows no limits to his media ownership ambitions, having already swallowed AT&T Broadband (which in turn had gobbled up both TCI and MediaOne). More importantly, Roberts and Comcast fail to appreciate that such heightened media consolidation in cable, broadcast, and online distribution and content is a threat to American democracy. That Comcast would make the announcement the same day that a federal Court of Appeals in Philadelphia is holding a crucial hearing on new FCC media ownership policies suggests that they are out of touch with how millions of Americans--who opposed the recent ownership changes--feel about further media consolidation.
This deal is the direct legacy of Michael Powell and the Bush FCC. Powell has supported further consolidation, signaling to Comcast that such a deal is possible. Powell could have sought to restore the broadcast-cable cross-ownership rule (something his fellow Commissioner Michael Copps urged). Finally, it should come as no surprise that Comcast's Roberts is backing Pres. Bush for re-election and that the company's president, Stephen Burke, is a $100,000-plus "Pioneer" for Bush-Cheney. ( Broadcasting and Cable , 2/9/04). Such support is designed to ensure that the Bush Administration doesn't craft rules that prevent this kind of proposed merger, or force Comcast to operate its cable and online systems under public interest safeguards.
In announcing its merger plans, Comcast made clear its low regard for ABC News as yet another media "product," merely one of Disney's "many wonderful brands." But our democracy demands more of its journalists than brand names and market clout. We must protect both the integrity of the news media and the diversity of expression that is central to our First Amendment right to "the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources" (in the words of the Supreme Court).
As the largest cable operator and broadband Internet provider in the nation, Comcast is already a formidable presence in the media landscape. Its intention to add the Disney empire to its already considerable holdings is clear indication that the "Age of Expansion" must be brought to a close. Washington regulators must reject this proposed merger, and Congress must act swiftly to restore the broadcast-cable cross-ownership rule, which would have prevented this ill-considered union from being proposed in the first place.
Despite the spin of Comcast that the FCC's recent approval of the News Corp. DirecTV merger paves the way for approval of a Disney deal, there are significant differences between the two. First, Comcast controls the principal multichannel distribution system for the key markets in the US (cable has a 70 percent market share versus 17 percent for DBS). Second, Comcast is the leading broadband ISP with control over broadband content. DBS does not provide such broadband service.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 9, 2003
News Media contact: Jessica Rosenworcel at (202) 418-2000
Commissioner Michael J. Copps, in a speech at the New America Foundation, today warned that: "The Internet as we know it is at risk. Entrenched interests are positioning themselves to control the network's chokepoints and they are lobbying the FCC to aid and abet them. The Internet was designed to prevent government or a corporation or anyone else from controlling it. But this original vision of the Internet may soon be lost. In its place a warped view that open networks should be replaced by closed networks and that accessibility can be superceded by a new power to discriminate is emerging."
Copps continued: "Our ill-advised Internet policy is only one piece of a tectonic shift across the whole range of FCC issues. From media to telecom to the Internet, we appear to be rushing toward breathtaking regulatory alterations. The Commission is permitting, even encouraging, competition to wither in the face of centralization. It is short changing its responsibility to protect the public interest."
The FCC may soon implement fundamental regulatory changes that would have deep and lasting effects on consumers, innovators, and business users. Copps: "Until now the big corporations that control Internet bottlenecks have been unable fully to capitalize on this power. But now we face scenarios wherein those with bottleneck control will be able to discriminate against both users and content providers that they don't have commercial relationships with, don't share the same politics with, or just don't want to offer access to for any reason at all. From the not so distant shadows of the past, old attitudes favoring industry consolidation and limited access are again seeking to reestablish themselves."
At issue are upcoming decisions at the FCC that will determine how much control companies will have over Internet access and their ability to discriminate against users, data, websites, or technologies. In the dial-up world, current protections require these companies to treat everyone equally. This equal treatment has contributed to enormous growth and innovation on the Internet. These decisions come on the heels of the FCC eliminating related media concentration protections. A federal court has stayed that decision, and Congress is now debating reversing it. In addition, on Monday, another federal court overturned aspects of the FCC's cable broadband policy.
Washington, DC -- Today's decision by the Federal Communication Commission to weaken existing media ownership safeguards represents a devastating blow to diversity and competition--in both the media marketplace and the marketplace of ideas. "By allowing broadcast networks to amass even more power in the number of stations they can now control across the country," observed Jeff Chester, CDD's executive director, "and by setting aside the prohibition against a single company owning both a newspaper and a television station in the same community, the FCC has weakened the very fabric of our democracy. Fewer owners of the mass media means fewer voices will be heard, fewer opportunities for discourse and debate will be available, and ultimately fewer options for those who seek alternative and minority viewpoints. A handful of companies will gain from today's decision, but the public at large will lose."
If there is a silver lining to an otherwise ill-conceived policy decision, it is that in leading his deregulatory juggernaut over the past several months, FCC Chairman Michael Powell unwittingly galvanized legions of opposition forces, a diverse array of individuals and organizations on both sides of the political spectrum that recognized the threat posed by Powell's doctrinaire free-market philosophy. "With his high-handed attitude, neither brooking dissent nor even listening to the opposition, Michael Powell may have done more for freedom of the press than anyone since Tom Paine," observed Chester. "In setting the stage for conglomerate control of the media that amounts to tyranny of the minority, Powell has made all of us more aware of the importance of media policy to our democracy."
CDD will be leading an effort to secure new national policies requiring open, nondiscriminatory access to channel capacity from all broadband-based outlets, including cable-, satellite-, and telephone-based systems.
Writer's Guild of America Press Release
Los Angeles (5/12/03) -- As the Federal Communications Commission moves toward a decision on media ownership and consolidation rules, leading American television writers and producers are pressing U.S. Senators to recognize the critical need to preserve the future of high-quality independent programming in American television.
In letters to Senators John McCain and Ernest Hollings, more than 7 award-winning writers and producers recounted personal experiences, warned of the effects of continued media consolidation, and urged steps by Congress and the FCC to protect diversity in television and the access independent productions need to networks and cable channels.
The letters were authored by Norman Lear, Grant Tinker, David W. Rintels, John Gay, Greg Strangis, Allan Burns, Larry Gelbart, and Diane English -- giants in the American creative community, each responsible for some of the most influential and successful television shows in American history.
Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the FCC has overseen a dramatic consolidation in the media; today, five powerful media companies (AOL Time-Warner, Disney, Viacom, General Electric, and News Corporation) control nearly 90% of the media outlets that Americans watch. The media conglomerates, as they grow, shut their doors to the independent creative community - the leaders and innovators of American television.
The FCC's pending decision will likely lift cable ownership caps and the Dual Network Rule that restricts one company from owning two national networks. The Writers Guild of America, west and the nation's creative community oppose further deregulation that erode the opportunities for independent writers and producers.
"The independent creative entrepreneurs who for years supplied the networks with the best of American programming are in jeopardy," wrote Grant Tinker, former Chair and CEO of NBC as well as President and Founder of MTM Enterprises that created The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Bob Newhart Show, WKRP in Cincinnati, The White Shadow, Hill Street Blues, and St. Elsewhere among others.
Many in television's creative community have seen a shift in media leadership over the past years that focuses on profits, not quality of product and overall entertainment value.
Three-time Emmy Award winner David W. Rintels wrote, "I and other writers and producers now live and work in a business where a few enormously powerful companies control virtually every aspect of the work - not just who gets to write and produce the programs, but the subjects and the treatment, and who can direct and who can act, who can photograph and who can write the music. It is true both in network and on cable television."
The changes in modern television ownership are particularly disturbing to writers and producers who created programming classics in the 1970s and 1980s.
Norman Lear, creator of All In The Family, The Jeffersons, Good Times, Maude, among others, wrote: "We built these companies in the seventies and eighties under the watchful eye of an FCC that was committed to keeping the playing field even, protecting against the vertical integration of the major broadcasting networks that would, if they had been allowed, have forced independent companies such as ours to take a minority interest in the very shows we had created, giving majority ownership to the network in order to get on the air."
Allan Burns, producer and writer of Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, and Lou Grant among others concurred, "As one who was fortunate to work in an era unfettered by network and corporate ownership of the shows seen by American audiences, I am saddened to see what has becomeof the medium I was privileged to work in has become, depriving American television audiences of the quality and rich diversity of programming they expect and deserve."
Dianne English, creator of Murphy Brown expressed concern that if a writer/producer sells a concept to a network, they insist the program be developed "in house" with the network's production company. Along with this increased network control, comes requests and suggestions in the program's creative concepts, script and cast.
For Murphy Brown, English noted the network made several creative suggestions that would have undermined the program, "We no longer win our creative battles and television suffers for it. Here are but a few of the suggestions CBS made to me in 1988 when we were creating Murphy Brown: Murphy should be 30; she should be played by Heather Locklear; she should not be a recovering alcoholic but rather 'stressed out' and just returning from a spa; and most of the political humor that was the hallmark of the show should be eliminated because the viewer would be 'expected to read the newspaper to get the jokes.'"
The Writers Guild of America, west (WGA) represents 9,000 writers -- many of whom wrote those outstanding programs but are now being literally driven out of business. The Guild opposes pending rule changes at the Federal Communications Commission to unleash another round of mergers that would negatively impact American entertainment. The Guild opposes the lifting of cable ownership caps and the Dual Network Rule that restricts one company form owning two national networks. The Guild supports the adoption of a rule to protect the interests of the American people by requiring diversity and open access to the television marketplace.