WHAT COMES TO US CITIES WILL NOT STAY IN US CITIES---IT WILL DRAW FROM SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND STATES.
I want to continue for a few days on media and looking at a formerly progressive news journal----Baltimore City Paper now owned by a very Wall Street Johns Hopkins Master Plan Baltimore Sun. Remember, all national media outlets that were REALLY social progressive have closed and the names bought by Clinton neo-liberal globalists posing progressive. From Mother Jones to New Republic----from The Nation to The Progressive---these national media pose progressive but they are Clinton neo-liberal. Since Obama came on board media consolidation has soared such that all of the local news media are now rolled into national media corporations.
The image of Devon capturing the Baltimore protests and riots on camera and then posted to social media shows yet another end game for Americans as far as voice ----and it is deliberate. Social media corporations WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS LEAVING AMERICANS NO PLATFORM FOR VOICE. As Americans lose voice in mainstream media---they are being pushed to online media and called 'alternative'---and as one of these outlets---I am seeing Facebook becoming harder and harder to post to. Articles in mainstream media that had FB share options are now removing that choice.
If you read national financial journals you understand that Facebook was on the way out when it went public----it's IPO listing. It was just like the subprime mortage loan market becoming a massive and systemic criminal enterprise the last few years before the crash----Wall Street was simply squeezing the last few billion dollars of profit before throwing the market aside. Johns Hopkins likes to take the claim for the idea of Facebook and their intent was no doubt social media for surveillance---which is exactly for what it is used. Once Zuckerberg made billions on this idea----he has no need to keep the corporation---he is divesting. The point is this-----as people lose voice in national media and all Constitutional protections designed to keep media fair, balanced and open to public voice are dismantled----moving people to what is a media outlet unprotected by FCC laws and then pulling the plug as millions of people connect to it----
IS A GREAT PLAN TO END COMMUNICATIONS IN A DEMOCRACY THAT WAS THRIVING IN MEDIA OUTLETS, FREE SPEECH, AND GOVERNMENT PROTECTIONS AGAINST OPEN LYING IN MAINSTREAM NEWS.
So Devon, with his camera will have no where to post these videos in a very short time.
THIS IS HOW GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED BY WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-LIBERALS AND NEO-CONS THINK----REAL PROGRESSIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS FOUGHT THESE KINDS OF MEDIA GOALS.
All things about the media, marketing, business, Japan and other musings
by Mike in Tokyo Rogers.
Sunday, July 29, 2012Why Facebook Will Go Bankrupt?
I getting a lot of feedback from Japanese friends that they are getting "burned out" on Facebook and that they are beginning to think it is a waste of time and boring (that was fast!)
Many are complaining about boring posts from friends like photos of what people had for lunch or their desserts... Or pictures of their kids...
It gets tiring. Like I said, I'm sensing a loss of excitement in Japan over Facebook. When the average Joe-Suzuki loses interest so fast, then that spells problems in Japan.
Besides that, Facebook can't make any money on their website. Their big plan to save the company rests solely upon the notion that their mobile platform will generate enough revenues to pay of the party.
Sorry, folks. No way. No one has figured out a way to make mobile advertising work. Facebook isn't going to be able to do so, either.
Facebook finishes the week down (and another drop after hours)
I don't really mind ads on my PC or Facebook (I never click them, either) but, on my iPhone, with the small screen, the last thing I want on there is advertising. Space is a premium on a mobile phone screen and I can't imagine that anyone wants to see advertising on that small space cluttering up the view.
It's hard enough to see what's on the screen as it is without pop up ads and more noise.
Facebook is not going to be able to figure out how to make mobile advertising work... I doubt that anyone will for a long time, if ever.
Nevertheless, people are still hoping for better results from Facebook.
From Motley Fool: A Fool Looks Back:
Despite the chatter that the social-networking website is fading in popularity, having a whopping 955 million monthly active users is a 29% increase over the past year. And despite concerns about mobile and monetization in general, revenue growth at a 32% clip shows that the company is making more money per user.
Right! Never mind the fact that research shows 40% of all Facebook users are Spammers. From 40% of Facebook's Supposed 900 Million Users Don't Exist:
“Social spam can be a lot more effective than e-mail spam,” says Mark Risher, chief executive officer of Impermium, which sells anti-spam software. “The bad guys are taking to this with great abandon.”
Spammers create as many as 40 percent of the accounts on social-media sites, according to Risher. About 8 percent of messages sent via social pages are spam, approximately twice the volume of six months ago, he says. Spammers use the sharing features on social sites to spread their messages. Click on a spammer’s link on Facebook, and it may ask you to “like” or “share” a page, or to allow an app to gain access to your profile."
I also added:
"Woo-boy! Did I say "Facebook shares in the mid-20s by December?" I did. Good. But I was wrong. Look for the mid-10s!"
OK. I was wrong. I said mid-20s by December. It's not even August yet and they are in the low-20s. Mid 10s? Quite possibly. I like this prediction for 2012.
Facebook since IPO: Down 38% in three months. Down 47% since IPO.
But what about Facebook's other success stories, you say? OK. How about Zynga, the Facebook game that many said was one of the high points for Facebook? Yeah. That's a Cinderella story. From Reuters:
Zynga shares have fallen 70% since its December 2011 Initial Public Offering. The investigation stems from concerns that Zynga misrepresented and/or failed to disclose materially adverse facts about its business and financial condition. Furthermore, certain Zynga executive officers sold a combined 43 million shares of Company stock during the second quarter of 2012, shortly before Zynga reported poor financial results.
As Karl Denninger says about Facebook:
"As for my price target on the company I will simply note that there is very strong technical support at $0."
All of those investigative journalists pushed out of national media under the guise of falling newspaper profits and the pushing out of public universities academics like me who now can only share progressive data through social media WILL LOSE THIS OUTLET VERY SOON. Look below to see the year 2020-----it is no coincidence that 2020 will be the year or soon after that Obama set Medicare to end by ending Medigap insurance at a time of soaring health costs that will leave Americans unable to meet a 20% deductible. It is the year all of this secret Trans Pacific Trade Pact -----if approved as expected by this coming 2016 election is slated to be made public----remember, Obama and Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons wrote into these TPP policies the fact that WE THE PEOPLE will not be allowed to know what is in these pacts for 5 years after they are approved----which would be around 2020.
So, Facebook will be used as a surveillance tool to monitor the voice of Americans ----and to circulate Clinton neo-liberal propaganda---most FB political outlets are Clinton neo-liberal----and then when the effects of this economic crash from bond market fraud sets in with all kinds of 'forced austerity' by Federal, state, and local governments----global corporations will be handed control of American government at all level and social media will no longer be allowed----autocratic societies do not allow free speech.
WHERE WILL BALTIMORE ACTIVISTS AGAINST POLICE INJUSTICE ET AL POST ALL THOSE VIDEOS? HOW ABOUT CINDY WALSH AND CITIZENS OVERSIGHT MARYLAND?
Facebook Will Disappear by 2020, Says Analyst
By Sam LairdJun 04, 2012Facebook's sliding stock price has at least one hedge fund manager predicting a dismal decade ahead for the social network.
"In five to eight years they are going to disappear in the way that Yahoo has disappeared," Ironfire Capital founder Eric Jackson told the CNBC show Squawk on the Street on Monday.
"Yahoo is still making money, it's still profitable, still has 13,000 employees working for it, but it's 10% of the value that it was at the height of 2000," Jackson added. "For all intents and purposes, it's disappeared."
So how exactly does Jackson see Facebook's power eroding by decade's end? He says it will be the continued emergence of the mobile web — and Facebook's struggle to adapt to that paradigm shift.
"The world is moving faster, it's getting more competitive, not less," he said. "I think those who are dominant in their prior generation are really going to have a hard time moving into this newer generation.
"Facebook can buy a bunch of mobile companies, but they are still a big, fat website and that's different from a mobile app."
Facebook bought the wildly popular mobile photo-sharing app Instagram — which some saw as a potential rival — for $1 billion in April. Still, the company has acknowledged mobile as a potential stumbling block for sustained growth.
In its required initial pre-IPO disclosure of 35 "risk factors" released in February, the company admitted that as mobile use of Facebook and the web in general continues to expand, its ad-free mobile platform will become more problematic. In an amended filing in May, the company underscored that challenge again.
Facebook stock officially went on sale on May 18 at $38 per share. It closed Monday at $26.90.
Jackson sees Facebook as a member of the second of three generations of modern Internet companies. The first generation, highlighted by businesses such as Google and Yahoo, served as portals that organized and aggregated the web's wealth of information. The second generation, most notably Facebook, capitalized on an emerging social web.
The third generation is made up of companies whose sole goal is leveraging and monetizing mobile users.
"When you look over these three generations, no matter how successful you are in one generation, you don't seem to be able to translate that into success in the second generation, no matter how much money you have in the bank, no matter how many smart PhDs you have working for you," Jackson says.
"Look at how Google has struggled moving into social, and I think Facebook is going to have the same kind of challenges moving into mobile."
What do you think Facebook's status will be in five years? Share your predictions in the comments.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LAWS REGULATE MEDIA OUTLETS FOR PUBLIC INTEREST BROADCASTING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY---BUT THERE IS NO COVERING OF INTERNET MEDIA. A GOVERNMENT ON THE INTERNET WOULD NOT BE HELD TO TRUTH.
Now, if you know social media corporations are moving towards bankruptcy and closing-----how can a Baltimore City Hall and State Assembly work to keep media outlets functioning for citizens? BY ENFORCING PUBLIC MEDIA FCC LAWS REQUIRING FREE AND FAIR ACCESS TO PUBLIC AIRWAVES AND TO BUY AIRWAVES UP FOR AUCTION TO KEEP PUBLIC ACCESS IN TV AND RADIO-----WE MUST KEEP ENOUGH OF OUR AIRWAVES PUBLIC.
The other thing a REAL progressive social Democratic City Hall would do is subsidize new local media outlets to compete with a captured, corporate Baltimore Sun et al in Maryland. Remember, Baltimore now has such a level of consolidation in media to ALLOW PUBLIC SUBSIDY OF NEW, SMALL, LOCAL PRINT MEDIA. We have a good source of local media----Baltimore Brew ---that does good journalism. Yet, it is now funded by corporate non-profits and that means it will curb its voice.
THIS IS CRITICAL FOLKS----IF WE DO NOT GET A BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR THAT WANTS TO REBUILD PUBLIC MEDIA AND SUBSIDIZE NEW PRIVATE, LOCAL PRINT MEDIA---WHEN SOCIAL MEDIA GOES BANKRUPT PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO AVENUES FOR VOICE.
So, what does all this social media in the public sector mean? Well, the first thing I think----since government is controlled by Clinton neo-liberals---it will not work for people---but corporate power and control. Imagine why social media was not allowed in government earlier? The police department in Baltimore recently had police officers banned from even communicating on social media off the job. Anything on the internet is not bound by FCC or many Federal laws so we cannot be assured the information is true. If government were to have the same format on public media and local TV----it would. America has had open and broad public service programming in which public policy was talked about on local morning talk shows, policy specialists with many different views on one policy.
WE HAVE THE MECHANISM TO DO WHAT THIS MOVE TO SOCIAL MEDIA DOES-----ONLY THEY ARE KILLING PUBLIC AIRWAVES AND PRINT MEDIA TO MOVE ALL ONTO INTERNET---WHICH THEN WILL DISAPPEAR OR BECOME PURE PROPAGANDA.
What kind of social media platforms will exist when Facebook, MySpace et al disappear?
Social Media in the Public SectorMore and more government agencies are using social media tools to disseminate information, to share ideas and to communicate with the general public.
by John O'Leary | October 4, 2010
Not long ago, public agencies were blocking access to social networking sites such as Facebook to prevent their employees from wasting time at work. Nowadays, more and more public agencies are looking to social media tools as a way to boost productivity.
A recent study from the National Association of State CIO's (NASCIO) found an increasing shift toward the use of social media such as Twitter, YouTube, and the like, as a way to better reach constituents. According to the report, "state CIOs may recently have found themselves unblocking YouTube to allow greetings from public officials or Flickr to mount photos of a bridge opening or to document some other important announcement. CIOs may not have been immediately convinced of the business value of these tools as they entered the workplace, but the fact is that this is how effective governments are communicating now, and this is not just a fad."
One of the pioneers in this space is the Transportation Security Administration's Idea Factory, which is a way for management to quickly tap into the collective wisdom of the more than 40,000 TSA employees, many of whom have ideas about how TSA could work better. The Idea Factory is an internal website that uses a wiki platform to allow management to tap into that pool of knowledge.
Instead of just a passive online suggestion box, the Idea Factory allows for dialogue and collaboration. Management may ask the community about a specific challenge, such as "how can we improve the check-in process?" Or "What should our new uniforms look like?" In its first two years, the site has generated 40 innovative ideas that have actually been implemented.
While the Idea Factory enables collaboration within an agency, GovLoop fosters sharing not only between agencies, but between public officials at all levels of government. GovLoop is a free, members-only online community for those who work in and around the public sector.
GovLoop was started in 2008 by Steve Ressler, then with the Department of Homeland Security, and now GovLoop's CEO. Originally geared to federal IT workers, GovLoop has broadened its scope and now boasts 35,000 members, nearly 30 percent of them state and local officials.
Why would an agency want their employees on GovLoop?
"The benefit to the agencies is they get to leverage the lessons learned and best practices from other state and local agencies," says Ressler. A GovLooper can quickly "learn what others are doing on important issues and replicate those practices." Those facing a problem can ask 35,000 government specialists, and bring more brains to bear on whatever problem they are trying to solve. One GovLooper, struggling to name a new website at her agency, put the question to her GovLoop peers and quickly generated 50 replies -- including the winning suggestion.
Like all online communities, GovLoop creates connections. Government auditors, web 2.0 professionals, and regulators all face similar challenges, whether they work for the Department of Agriculture, L.A. County or the state of Missouri.
"The number one benefit of users is they can do their job better since they don't have to work alone," says Ressler. "They have a community of 35,000 others in government working on similar issues."
GovLoop can also help agencies create private networks within GovLoop to collaborate internally. There are a number of cross-cutting topical groups, from acquisition to telework, where agencies can benefit by sharing knowledge with peers working on the same issues.
"People are hungry to collaborate," says Ressler. "I get e-mails and messages every day on how lonely, isolated public-sector employees felt when working on problems and how happy they are that GovLoop provides a forum for them to meet others."
More and more government agencies are using social media tools to disseminate information, to share ideas, and to communicate with the general public.
As with any emerging technology in government, there are concerns, particularly around privacy and data security. The media is so new, no one really knows the rules yet. For example, if a public agency solicits ideas on a Facebook page, are the results subject to FOIA disclosures? Ironically, it turned out that the Paperwork Reduction Act had serious ramifications for the use of online media. The rules were based on an old technology (paper) and were producing confusion when applied to social media.
To clarify these issues, earlier this year the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance around the acceptable use and disclosure rules regarding social media. The NASCIO survey also noted that state government's rules and policies really haven't caught up with the use of social media: "[T]he survey in the aggregate documents a parallel lag between use and policy or governance mechanisms..."
That isn't slowing down the explosion of these tools, however. As the survey notes, "The bottom-line -- social media tools are being actively adopted and used throughout state governments across the country." The first wave has hit shore, and is sure to be followed by more widespread use of these technologies. What government CIO's were recently banning is now understood as a powerful tool in the effort to provide cost-efficient public services.
A REAL SOCIAL DEMOCRAT WOULD BE STRENGTHENING PUBLIC MEDIA, ENFORCING FCC LAWS, AND SUBSIDIZING SMALL BUSINESS LOCAL MEDIA GROWTH.
So, Clinton neo-liberals are allowing all FCC media outlet circumvent FCC regulations and print media are so consolidated as to eliminate free speech----the internet has no regulation and will lose social media geared to public ----and it will move to being a government tool.
When Democrats voted Obama as President over Hillary they did so because Obama pretended to be more progressive than Hillary. The expectation was Federal protection of progressive Constitutional rights including public media. What we got was someone more right of center than Hillary----and Obama has allowed media outlets free rein to print anything----to operate during primary elections in anyway-----because he embraced Federalism Act saying he would not enforce Federal law.
We see national media telling us the FCC is protecting net neutrality for example while the FCC is allowing a massive online takeover by health and education global corporations of the internet that will force the American people off the internet. Any Clinton neo-liberal is going to kill all regulations and oversight of all media----allowing for a 'state media'----one consolidated corporate media structure handling all news. This is what moving government to social media will lead to. Killing access to all public airwaves for TV, radio, and social media corporations like Facebook closed----with internet consolidation falling into the hands of a few global corporations that will price over 80% of Americans out of the internet market. Right now a large number of Americans are already getting their internet access at public libraries----how long will we have public libraries under neo-liberalism?
Below you see an FCC law ignored in Baltimore because Obama does not enforce Federal laws----the equal time/opportunity laws for elections. Candidates in Baltimore and Maryland are allowed to be censured-----always the REAL progressive social democrats-----and it is not legal. We are moving to the point where no Constitutional rights will exist---which is to where Trans Pacific Trade Pact leads. As Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons write new internet law---it will be geared to TPP.
WE CAN REVERSE ALL OF THIS IF WE RUN AND ELECT SOCIAL DEMOCRATS TO ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ----GETTING RID OF CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS.
Government Regulation of the Media
→Even though the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press, the government does regulate some media. Print media are largely unregulated, and newspapers and magazines can print nearly anything as long as they don’t slander anyone. The Internet has also gone largely unregulated, despite congressional efforts to restrict some controversial content. Broadcast media, however, are subject to the most government regulation. Radio and television broadcasters must obtain a license from the government because, according to American law, the public owns the airwaves. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issues these licenses and is in charge of regulating the airwaves.
The FCC also acts as a police agency of the airwaves, and it can fine broadcasters for violating public decency standards on the air. In extreme cases, the FCC can even revoke a broadcaster’s license, keeping him off the air permanently. The FCC has fined radio host Howard Stern numerous times for his use of profanity, for example, and fined CBS heavily for Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” during the halftime performance at the Super Bowl in 2004.
The FCC has also established rules for broadcasts concerning political campaigns:
- The equal time rule, which states that broadcasters must provide equal broadcast time to all candidates for a particular office.
- The right of rebuttal, which requires broadcasters to provide an opportunity for candidates to respond to criticisms made against them. A station cannot air an attack on a candidate and fail to give the target of the attack a chance to respond.
- The fairness doctrine, which states that a broadcaster who airs a controversial program must provide time to air opposing views.
The government has also regulated ownership of media outlets to ensure that no one broadcaster monopolizes the market. Since the 1980s, however, the government has loosened restrictions on media ownership, and Congress passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996 to allow companies to own even more media outlets.
Due to the loosening of ownership restrictions, more and more media outlets are falling under the control of a few giant corporations, a tendency called media consolidation. The Hearst, Knight Ridder, and Gannett corporations own most of the nation’s newspapers, whereas Clear Channel Communications owns many radio stations. Large companies also own the major networks and other television stations. The Walt Disney corporation, for example, owns ABC and ESPN, along with the Disney Channel, and Viacom owns CBS and MTV. Rupert Murdoch’s Media Corporation, meanwhile, owns all of the Fox channels, several radio networks, satellite television providers, and newspapers in many countries. And Time-Warner owns dozens of magazines, including Time, Life, and Sports Illustrated, as well as the CNN and Turner television networks.
Critics of Media Consolidation
Critics contend that media consolidation limits consumers’ choices because a small number of companies own all the media outlets. They argue that consolidation is not competitive and that corporate owners might restrict or manipulate news coverage. Some critics also lament the homogenization of American culture due to media consolidation. Because radio and television formats have become increasingly uniform, people throughout the country receive the same broadcasts.
It is not clear if the FCC has the authority to regulate cable television. The FCC is entitled to regulate those who broadcast over the airwaves because the people (not the broadcasters) own the airwaves. Cable television, however, is not sent over the airwaves: Cables transmit the programs directly into people’s houses. Presumably this means that cable television cannot be regulated, but some members of Congress have still sought to do so.
Baltimore City Paper under a Baltimore Sun ownership printed in its Best of issue------WHAT HAPPENED TO A VERY PROGRESSIVE O'MALLEY IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION----HE IS STUCK AT 1%?
Well, I think a Baltimore City Paper without Baltimore Sun ownership printed articles as to why O'Malley is not progressive and not a politician anyone wants. The first thing a Baltimore Sun-owned City Paper did was 'accidentally' purge all previous City Paper issues backed-up onto computer files. THEY PURGED THE PROGRESSIVE MEDIA RIGHT OUT OF CITY PAPER.
The answer to this question is the nation knows O'Malley is a raging Wall Street globalist who could care less about people or environment. They know that because much of the nation still has functioning local media and labor and justice organizations providing information locally WHERE BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND HAS NONE. Citizens in Baltimore have no idea what is going on----whereas the world knows O'Malley is Tammany Hall Boss Tweed.
The Baltimore Sun and other local media are used by O'Malley to print only what politicians say----not what is real. O'Malley spent his career pretending to do all this progressive stuff----providing successful policies that helped the underserved and communities-----then an outside justice or news organization would publish that all the data was untrue. O'Malley never enforced progressive law----he simply pretended to support progressive laws. THAT COULD NOT HAPPEN IF NOT FOR MEDIA CAPTURE.
Do you hear your pols shouting for subsidizing local print media businesses? Are they shouting against the failure to enforce FCC laws and to protect the public in TV and radio airwaves?
The difference between the NEW CIVIL RIGHTS by Clinton neo-liberals and the OLD CIVIL RIGHTS by social Democrats is supporting civil issues that do not cost corporations money and create businesses. So, goodbye Equal rights, labor rights, women's rights, rights of disabled, and protection of social programs-----ALL OF WHAT MAKES A SOCIAL DEMOCRAT PROGRESSIVE-----and in with issues that generate money------GAY MARRIAGE, MARIJUANA, MORE IMMIGRANTS IN THE WORKPLACE. Wall Street loves to say------we make tons of money on gay marriages----while ignoring all the equal protection of gay partners in the workplace. Many corporations are not. Marijuana as a corporation will move billions to the same rich global corporations. Immigrants will flood the US under Trans Pacific Trade Pact so these laws prepare for this. Immigrants are still exploited and fleeced and will be sent to global FOXCONN sweat shop factories if allowed to come to American cities. So, these may seem progressive----but they were allowed simply because they made markets. I've spoken lots about his real environmental record.....
WHEN NATIONAL MEDIA ALLOWS O'MALLEY TO RUN NOT ONLY AS A PROGRESSIVE BUT WITH NO HISTORY OF CORRUPTION AND FALSIFYING DATA----AND A LEGACY OF TYING THE STATE OF MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE TO EXTREME WALL STREET FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS LOSING A TRILLION DOLLARS TO WALL STREET FRAUD AND SENDING BALTIMORE INTO BANKRUPTCY BECAUSE OF CREDIT BOND LEVERAGE-------luckily, I appears that local media across the nation is educating against O'Malley as a progressive or Democrat.
- But as governor, he left a liberal legacy on nearly every front? Where? Handing the citizens of Maryland to a national energy corporation Exelon and then pretending to be green with alternative energy handed again to global corporations while pushing FRACKING AND EXPORTING NATURAL GAS? This is how media is captured. O'Malley did end the death penalty as a gesture to Catholic voters and gay marriage, both REAL progressive issues.
Governing named O'Malley public official of the year no doubt wonders how the nation got the real information on O'Malley---ALL MEDIA NEWS CREATED BY BALTIMORE SUN.
- O'Malley has little support in Md. for a...
- www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-sun... Oct 14, 2014 · Do Maryland voters want Martin O'Malley to run for president? Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 Maryland voters said they would not back O'Malley for a presidential run ...
Mayor Martin O'Malley Versus Governor Martin O'Malley
Baltimore's unrest has cast a negative spotlight on the probable presidential candidate's tough-on-crime policies as mayor. But as governor, he left a liberal legacy on nearly every front.
by Alan Greenblatt | May 7, 2015 Governing
Critics say Martin O'Malley's zero-tolerance policies as mayor of Baltimore contributed to the city's recent unrest. (David Kidd)
Martin O'Malley is testing the notion that there's no such thing as bad publicity.
The former Maryland governor has faced both in-person heckling and media criticism in the past couple of weeks. Detractors say the zero-tolerance policies he pursued as mayor of Baltimore contributed to distrust between residents and police, and ultimately the recent unrest there.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday, O'Malley defended his record on crime, taking credit for lowering Maryland's rates of violent crime, recidivism and incarceration. He also argued the nation hasn't had a coherent urban strategy since the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He pledged to make such issues central to his own, as-yet-unannounced campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"We need an agenda for American cities," O'Malley said. "We need to stop ignoring, especially, people of color and acting like they're disposable citizens in this nation."
Having his city erupt into protest and violence isn't the reason O'Malley would have chosen to appear in the national spotlight, but he hasn't done so well hustling in the early primary states. As a national candidate, he's always been a longshot.
"The bad news is that the country is paying attention to O'Malley and policing in Baltimore because now that's a negative issue," said Thomas Schaller, chairman of the political science department at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. But the good news is that O'Malley's "name is in the news now in a way that never would have happened otherwise."
O'Malley, who Governing named a "Public Official of the Year" in 2009, was term-limited out of office this past January. In his eight years as governor, he successfully championed many pieces of liberal legislation, including same-sex marriage rights and the abolition of the death penalty. He also provided in-state tuition for undocumented students and decriminalized marijuana. The governor achieved the $10.10 hourly minimum wage that President Obama promoted. (O'Malley is now calling for $15.) And after the Newtown school shooting, Maryland was one of a handful of blue states to enact gun-control legislation, banning 45 types of semiautomatic rifles.
"It was like he had a checklist, marking off a bunch of liberal priorities," said Matthew Crenson, a retired political scientist at Johns Hopkins University.
In terms of finances, O'Malley raised the state's income tax on top earners and gas taxes, devoting substantial funding to transit. He inherited a deficit of $1.7 billion and increased spending significantly on both K-12 and higher education.
O'Malley could push a progressive agenda in a state that's among the nation's most Democratic. (The party enjoys a 2-to-1 edge over Republicans among registered voters in the state.) And he wasn't afraid to seek direct voter approval for his ideas, putting same-sex marriage, in-state tuition rates for so-called "Dreamers" and an expansion of gambling all on the ballot in 2012 alone. But Republicans counter that O'Malley went too far, even for Maryland.
Gov. Martin O'Malley speaks during a rally to increase Maryland's minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, which the state eventually did. (AP/Jose Luis Magana)
Last fall, the current GOP governor, Larry Hogan, beat O'Malley's lieutenant governor, Anthony Brown, in part by portraying their time in power as an era of unbridled tax-and-spend policies. Hogan complained that a stormwater management fee amounted to a "tax on rain." Not only did Hogan win, but the GOP made inroads in the legislature.
"O'Malley's legacy is the strongest Republican Party since the 1920s," Joe Cluster, the executive director of the Maryland GOP, told the Baltimore Sun as the governor was leaving office.
O'Malley's liberal record stands in contrast to the more moderate image he'd brought with him to Annapolis. He was known in his Baltimore days for expanding the use of data in measuring government performance, through the CitiStat program. He'd also been involved in the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. Centrist leadership means Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals of which Maryland Democratic Party is controlled.
Back in 2007, O'Malley was an early endorser of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Now, he's seeking room to Clinton's left.
"His image as governor was much different from how he was as mayor," said Crenson, the Johns Hopkins professor. "As mayor, he was a hard-line, anti-crime politician."
Congress placed a policy into the open market to public airwaves targeting existing national media and telecommunications that supposedly gave local public groups the ability to create local media as I describe above. I tried to connect to this program and it needed a hundred thousand and more of seed money to start the process of small business media and this is why it fizzled. All we see now is corporate subsidy of non-profit media-----again, all controlled with terms and willingness of that funding to continue. THIS IS NOT PUBLIC SUBSIDY FOR SMALL BUSINESS MEDIA---PRIVATE OR PUBLIC.
Baltimore has the rights to a public access station that one needs to have a cable provider to access. This was supposed to justify handing Comcast growing control of our telecom market. What we need is free TV station access and a demand that local ABC, NBC, and CBS include real public interest media that is not cooking shows and corporate infomercials. We need public subsidy for a printing press that allows open access to people willing to market/distribute their own media.
Let's be clear----if you are not enforcing already on the books Constitutional law against monopoly and FCC regulations---you are posing progressive when you place these policies into larger deregulation laws.
FCC media report shows how interest in government subsidies for local journalism fizzled
by Rick Edmonds Published June 10, 2011 5:00 am Updated Nov. 25, 2014 8:03 am
There is a lot to like in the Federal Communication Commission’s exhaustive, 478-page study of shortfalls and potential solutions in media.
I’m particularly glad Steve Waldman, who oversaw the report, and his collaborators rejected an assortment of false dichotomies. Old vs. new media, professional or citizen reporters, commercial or nonprofit? “Obviously we need both,” the report says.
In a similar spirit, Waldman concludes that the proliferation of digital news outlets “masks a shortage of reporting …This illusion of bounty risks making us passive.”
Good enough. But when Waldman and company get to what the FCC or Congress can do about deteriorating local accountability reporting, they pretty much punt. Better broadband access, favorable tax treatment of news nonprofits, better digital disclosure of government data and regulatory filings — most of it is familiar stuff.
There are a couple of provocative ideas, such as redirecting to local media the massive, $1-billion-a-year federal ad spend for such things as legal notices and military recruiting. But it is not so clear who could make that happen.
Maybe this outcome could have been foretold. In pulling together some background material, I realized it had been. When Waldman posted FCC’s announcement of the project and his appointment to lead it on his blog in October 2009, the first commenter, Charles Cosimano, wrote:
“Good luck playing hopscotch in the bureaucratic minefield that is the FCC. If you look at what they are really saying, it is, ‘We are faced with media that we cannot hope to regulate and we have to find creative ways to explain to various pressure groups that they are wasting their time trying to get us to do the impossible.’”
Over the 18 months since, the notion that the FCC would adopt the report faded, and it was simply presented as an informational study, not necessarily the agency’s view. The title was changed from “The Future of Media” to “The Information Needs of Communities” (echoing an earlier Knight Commission report).
In speeches and a visit to Poynter, Waldman suggested that the FCC’s regulatory power was mainly in broadcast and that the report would tilt that way.
In fact, though, the report gives equal attention to the losses in newspapers’ reporting capacity. And as my colleague Al Tompkins’ account of Thursday’s FCC meeting makes clear, the recommendations for television and radio are small steps forward, too, such as requiring better disclosure of pay-to-play coverage.
How we got hereThe federal interest in weakened journalism and its impact on democracy started in May 2009 with a Senate hearing sponsored by John Kerry (D-Mass.) and a smaller event in the House put together by Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). At the time, newspaper advertising was in free fall. The Rocky Mountain News had closed and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer had ceased printing, and it seemed quite possible that The Boston Globe and San Francisco Chronicle would fail.
When the Federal Trade Commission held its initial workshop in December 2009, the backpedaling had already begun. As both a participant and an observer, I was struck by remarks of FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who artfully framed the problem but by no means promised government help.
As Leibowitz concisely put it, there remains “an open question whether the changes to newsgathering amount to ‘creative destruction’ or just plain destruction.”
Waxman, personally open to some subsidy to boost local news efforts, complained that there was no consensus within the media community about whether government help would be in the public interest.
That effectively took off the table a proposal, first voiced by Leonard Downie and Michael Schudson in a study for Columbia’s School of Journalism, that a pool of money be set aside and distributed state-by-state as grants to support quality, local reporting.
The discussion had deteriorated further at a subsequent FTC workshop six months later. In the spring of 2010, FTC staff had prepared a draft paper cataloging various recommendations it had heard, including several for direct subsidies. Critics jumped on that, reporting the subsidy idea as the FTC’s own recommendation. The FTC issued a press release complaining of “misinformation” from critics, and one of the FTC commissioners kicked off the workshop by defensively repeating the point.
A year later, the FTC report remains unfinished, release date to be determined.
At those two workshops, several executives of public radio and television argued that if federal money for local reporting would be forthcoming, they should get it because they have an existing infrastructure.
Since then, public broadcasting has come under attack by the Republican-led House and has scrambled to hold on to existing levels of support.
Early on, the Newspaper Association of America said thanks-but-no-thanks to any government funding, citing First Amendment concerns. I, however, didn’t think that an arms-length fund for reporting was ridiculous on its face. Much of the federal support for scientific research is distributed on that model, and vigorously democratic countries like France and Sweden underwrite newspaper circulation.
Yet I have come to believe that for now, the newspaper industry and other legacy media need to chart their own path to stability, and that market forces will help identify winners in the new media space. Foundations, other philanthropists and citizen donors assess rigorously and quickly what is worth continued support.
Bigger governmental initiatives may make sense, but later — if the shortfall in local reporting gets markedly worse and a constructive intervention opportunity becomes more evident. Perhaps a well-documented and wide-ranging report on problems and possibilities is the best the two agencies can do for now.
States like Maryland controlled by Wall Street Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons place state funding of public media into hands of directors that make sure that is all heard on public media. This is why NPR, PBS, and local public media are now nothing but Clinton neo-liberal and Bush neo-con policy and market-place money news. Maryland public media---both TV and radio openly act to exclude primary candidates who are social progressives without apology----breaking FCC laws. We already know they are talking of ending Public Broadcasting System and Maryland funding of Maryland public television and public radio like WYPR is already operated by a corporate non-profit branch of Johns Hopkins. Morgan State, fighting for its funding, works for Clinton neo-liberals now in power to fund them. So it matters who you elect as we try to rebuild our local media outlets.....private or public. If the City of Baltimore subsidized WEAA and then held it to FCC laws requiring access to all----then we could hear REAL progress social democratic issues discussed on WEAA.....and WYPR's consolidation and corporate funding sources would be questioned. How many actual INDIVIDUAL DONORS does WYPR have? A requirement of public media.
Clinton neo-liberals will pose progress with policy like that tied to its selling off of public airwaves to global corporations-----and like tying the only public access station to a Comcast cable deal placing it where few people go-----or pretending to be fighting for net neutrality all while creating massive global health and education industries that will take all access to internet------public media funding is fair when a government entity is monitoring content and enforcing equal access to all public policy stances as existed last century!
Media state subsidies are behind the times
Are public media subsidies fair?
A recent study by The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism has tallied up the amount of public money that either directly or indirectly subsidises media in the U.K., Finland, France, Germany, Italy and the US.
Unfortunately, the study discovered that strategies for funding news organisations have not changed to accommodate the developments of he digital age.
Finland gave the most public money, per capita, to support the media - around £46 a year per head via indirect subsidies, such as tax and VAT exemptions - and France gave the most in terms of direct public funding to media, through initiatives such as the 'My Free Newspaper' scheme, donating around £5 per capita. Germany was found to be the nation that invested the most in public service broadcasting.
Evidently, public media funding is an issue which need to be regularly assessed, as while it can improve circulation by keeping costs low for the consumer and help the industry through difficult times, state media funding potentially has significant consequences for press freedom, especially when it comes to direct funding. Clearly there is a fine line between offering financial support to an organisation and influencing it.
What the author of the study, Dr. Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, found to be most pertinent was the fact that these subsidies did not reflect the digitisation of news and media.
For instance, in the U.K., VAT exemption is extended to newspapers, defined by law as "several large sheets folded rather than bound together, and contain information about current events of local, national or international interest'", but not to their digital content. This means some newspapers, like The Express and Star of Wolverhampton, have to charge more for their digital only packages than they do for subscription packages that include both digital and paper formats, as The Press Gazette explains.
Nielsen concludes that state funding needs to be addressed in order to "bring them in line with the principles purportedly behind them and with the times that we live in" and acknowledge that digital strategies and start ups are a vital part of the media industry.