Newspaper editors heart Obama; TV pundits not so much.
Of course there are a bunch of reasons for this disparity, but an obvious one is Senator Obama's strong technology platform, a prominent component of which is a rock-solid commitment to "net neutrality." Net neutrality threatens corporate broadcasters, but the good news is that this issue brings lots of ordinary people on the left and the right together.
The family-friendly net neutrality advocated by Senator Obama should be especially effective with the "family values" voters that democrats sometimes have trouble reaching.
So all we have to do is bring this issue to the fore. (Ideas about how to do that below.)
Barack Obama consistently gains the lion's share of newspaper endorsements while repeatedly getting "malicious media coverage" on television. (Note that the deplorable coverage goes beyond debate questions and other overtly-political fare: Disney-owned ESPN recently cancelled multiple scheduled Obama appearances.) I tried to figure out what could be done to shine a light on this dark cloud, and maybe find a silver lining. No doubt there are any number of reasons why Obama is threatening to corporate televised media, but the one that has the most direct connection to the media conglomerates' core mission is Obama's strong technology platform. A good diary discusses specific issues in Obama's technology plan, arguing convincingly that on every issue Obama is a stronger candidate than McCain and Clinton.
Among these issues, I want to focus on net neutrality. This concept, aimed at ISPs and broadband network operators, is a big threat to corporate TV because of the tangled web between broadcasting and the telecoms. But the good news is that ordinary people across the political spectrum are coming together around this issue. I think the Obama campaign can increase his support among the "family values" crowd if they talk about his technology plan in the right way.
Internet Populism
Dana Blankenhorn gives a good description of what he calls "Internet Populism". From his article:
Populism began as a movement in the 1880s, when railroad monopolies were squeezing family farmers dry...(T)hey were raising rates where they had monoplies, while subsidizing eastern rates where there was competition.
And later:
Fast forward 115 years or so. Telephone and cable companies hold a monopoly on the "last-mile" of Internet service...Their leaders promise to use this monopoly to squeeze small information producers, slowing their data flows while taking payments from larger producers to speed theirs.
It is easy to understand why telecoms resist net neutrality. In the words of AT&T's Ed Whitacre,
The Internet can't be free...because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes free is nuts!
Never mind that internet users on the sending and receiving side all pay for the service already (you pay, Amazon.com pays, your church pays):
(M)uch of the current network neutrality
debate can be cast as a debate over termination fees. The "priority-lane"
proposals advanced by AT&T and others can be understood as proposals to
begin charging a fee, not for transport, but to reach their customers.
Media Conglomerates
There is a very short line from the internet providers to your TV pundits. According to author Elliot Cohen
MSM corporations including News Corp (FOX), General Electric (NBC), Time Warner (CNN), Viacom (CBS), and Disney (ABC) have all enjoyed joint ventures with AT&T.
Microsoft (as in MSNBC) was for net neutrality before it was against it. Last fall
(t)he original "It's Our Net" group...reformed as the Open Internet Coalition, trimmed down from 148 to 74 members, with major technology and portal players such as Microsoft and Yahoo out of the picture.
Microsoft, through its joint venture with QUALCOMM, has also pursued "strategic partnerships" with AT&T. So it is not really surprising that MSNBC's Don Imus was replaced with a Republican congressman who cosponsored legislation that
deprives the Federal Communications Commission and state and local authorities of regulatory authority over high speed data service or Internet access services.
Presidential Candidates on Net Neutrality
Significantly for the media conglomerates, we might be able to guarantee net neutrality without having to get any legislation through Congress, since
(t)he FCC can simply implement net neutrality by reclassifying cable modems, DSL, and fiber as a telecommunications service, the way the agency took net neutrality away by doing the opposite in 2002.
Since the FCC has this power, our choice of president is crucial to this issue. It's pretty clear where John McCain stands. Last June McCain was sounding a lot like Ed Whitacre:
When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment.
Then in September he waffled just a bit:
Look, I go back and forth on the issue, it’s a very hard issue, and I continue to take a look at it.
More interesting is Hillary Clinton's position. Ostensibly she's for it:
Two weeks before announcing her presidential campaign in January, Clinton, along with Sen. Barack Obama, signed on as original co-sponsors of legislation that would make network neutrality the law of the land.
But it seems to me that this is just another case (like HRC on trade, HRC on gay rights, and so on) where she claims one thing while her actions hint in another direction. As Roy Clark notedin November:
Since the campaign began, though, Clinton hasn't mentioned network neutrality, despite having issued a nine-point technology plan. In October, she announced an Internet strategy, also without a reference to network neutrality.
And according to Matt Stoler:
Her (likely) FCC Chair choice, Ness, is well-liked by broadcasters... And Clinton's plan for broadband is modeled off of Connect Kentucky, an industry-written plan that defines broadband at 200K, which is 500 times slower than the speed of broadband in Japan. Worse, it excludes net neutrality.
In contrast, Barack I-will-take-a-backseat-to-no-one-in-my-commitment-to-net-neutrality Obama really does own this issue. Featured prominently on the Obama website:
Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences.
Plus, Senator Obama pledges to "only appoint FCC commissioners that support open internet principles like net neutrality."
Twenty-First Century Populism, Obama-style
This emphasis on the ability of "small or non-profit speakers...to reach large audiences" has the potential to connect with ordinary people, and in particular, the "values voters" that democrats often have trouble attracting. Check out what the Michigan Catholic Conference said in December, in a letter to Michigan legislators urging them to support net neutrality:
With broadcast stations owned by a handful of corporations that marginalize public interest programs in favor of profitable entertainment, the Internet has become a significant catalyst for messages of faith and values.
And from the Vice President of the Christian Coalition of America:
Organizations that don't have "deep pockets" should have the same access to the internet "without snooping or blocking or slowing down" by internet providers.
It is true that, while net neutrality enjoys widespread (but not perfect) support on the left, there is a real split on the right (not just between the grassroots and the corporatists, but among grassroots groups). The Christian Coalition (and others) favor net neutrality; the American Conservative Union (and others) oppose the concept. Their principle reason for opposition is telling:
(N)etwork management is critical to stop pornographers and pedophiles from having unfettered access to consumers' internet connections.
Yet tools already exist for parents to manage their own internet connections. And Barack Obama has a parent-friendly tech policy that speaks directly to these concerns:
Obama will work to give parents the tools to prevent reception of programming that they find offensive on television and on digital media...On the Internet, Obama will require that parents have the option of receiving parental-controls software that not only blocks objectionable Internet content but also prevents children from revealing personal information through their home computer.
There's plenty more family-friendly text on Obama's website.
Of course, the right-leaning "grassroots" are not solely concerned with consumer protection. We also have to consider the Grover Norquists of the world who lobby against net neutrality. His chief motivation may have been captured in this description:
Republican insider Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which opposes tax hikes, added in a letter on Tuesday that "a network neutrality provision in any form would begin down the dangerous path of Internet regulation...at the very least...(it) could lead to an explosion of litigation, which would...deter capital investment in technology...
Plus, there's big money helping him make his capital-friendly point (from 2006):
AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, and Verizon spent $230.9 million on politicians from 1998 until the present, while Amazon, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo spent only a combined $71.2 million.
What do they get for their money? "Family-values" voters sign on to their agenda, thinking that they are putting the need to protect their children ahead of their desire to network with others of like mind.
Action We Can Take Today:
Maybe we can get the real truth out there: parents have tools they can use in their own homes to protect their children, and Senator Obama cares deeply about parents protecting their children even while they have open access to the internet. He has pledged to bring them the best of both worlds like no other candidate in the race; he is the real populist.
We just have to stress Obama's own words from his technology plan. (Obama's entire Technology Plan is well worth a read.) If we can get these points across, then more people might be open to seeing that the corporate media are spending a bunch of money (and putting a bunch of phony "scandal-gates" on their TVs) in an effort to take away all of our newfound grassroots power.