Free Press to Newport: We won't be silenced!
Two weeks ago, Free Press launched Change the Channels, a new campaign to uncover and fight covert consolidation, a practice whereby TV stations outsource their local news operations to their competitors resulting in less local competition and diversity, and sometimes even duplicate newscasts. We dubbed this trend “covert consolidation” because the stations involved often use contractual agreements and backroom deals to get around the FCC’s media ownership laws. But the results can be just as bad as outright consolidation.
We seem to have struck a nerve.
Newport Television, one of the worst covert consolidation offenders, sent Free Press a letter last week. A “cease-and-desist” letter, to be exact. In it, Newport falsely alleges that Free Press infringed its copyright by showing a brief screen image of a joint website shared by WTEV-TV and WAWS-TV. (One station is actually owned by Newport, the other is “controlled” by the company).
The screen shot was used in a Free Press video illustrating how TV stations across the country have combined resources and operations in ways that may run afoul of the purpose and goals of FCC media ownership laws. Days later, Newport Television contacted YouTube and had Free Press’s video taken down.
This bogus claim is a clear and outrageous attempt to intimidate Free Press, and to silence commentary on this important issue. Free Press’s use and critique of this material clearly fall within the bounds of “fair use,” the legal principal that allows portions of a copyrighted work to be used for education and criticism.
Instead of debating the issue on the merits, Newport is seeking to shut down public debate and criticism.
But Free Press is not backing down and won’t be bullied into silence.
We’ve sent Newport a response and have published their original letter. We’ve also uploaded the video to another service and have reported it on our website. As Free Press responded in its letter to Newport, “No doubt, Newport would prefer that these stations not be used as examples of shady broadcast industry practices—but of course ‘chagrin’ is not a cognizable claim” under U.S. copyright law.
We have long argued that consolidated media power is dangerous. Media conglomerates routinely bully their competition and their critics, cozy up to the politically powerful, and put the interests of their shareholders over the needs of the communities they’re supposed to be serving. The recent News Corp. scandal in the UK is a vivid illustration of almost every one of these issues. But we don’t have to look across the ocean to see these issues play out, as Newport has clearly shown.
Newport has a lot to lose as our campaign gains traction. We have found over 200 stations engaged in covert consolidation in 80 communities. Newport brags that it "owns, operates, and programs or provides sales and other services" to 56 TV stations in 24 markets. Ironically, Newport argued that our video was “false and misleading” for claiming that stations were covertly consolidating; but the letter came from one lawyer (in-house counsel for Newport Television) representing both stations, even though Newport supposedly owns only one of them. This appears to confirm the kind of convert consolidation Free Press identified in the video.
Notably, Newport’s letter also came the same week that a federal court reasserted the importance of the FCC’s media ownership laws, overturning recent attempts to allow more media consolidation. The FCC is planning to reconsider its media ownership rules this summer, and we are going to fight to make sure covert consolidation is part of the debate, whether Newport Television likes it or not.
I hope you will join us.
Newport's Cease and Desist Letter:
Newport TV Cease and Desist Letter
Free Press's Response:
Free Press Response to Newport TV Cease and Desist
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Comments:
Change the Channels
Check out the interactive map to see consolidating newsrooms near you.
Right on
I'm glad Free Press is standing up to Newport. They can hide behind their corporate shield, but if they choose to take it to court the truth will come out.
Merger of Montgomery Alabama stations
I just moved here to Montgomery and was rather surprised to see the merger of 3(!) local TV stations. Serendipitously, I received Free Press email concerning this very subject.
WAKA/CBS-8's parent company, Bahakel Communications, is purchasing WBMM, the local CW affiliate, and also will merge with WNCF/ABC-32 in a move that will involve everything from news broadcasts to sales and administration. (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20110708/NEWS01/107080347/Mo...)
I didn't notice this one on your map, so I thought I'd inform you.
Great intel
Thanks so much for alerting us to this - we have had so many great new tips about this troubling trend. We are looking into them now and will be updating our map soon. We'd love to talk with you more about what is happening in Montgomery - drop us an email. Thanks again.
Fighting the consolidation of TV
I would urge anyone who has access to a computer to turn to www.democracynow.org for their news headlines and top notch coverage of current events. It broadcasts on over 1000 Radio stations internationally. It is a truly independent news source.
On your "Change the Channels"
On your "Change the Channels" map, you didn't mention Corpus Christi, Texas. There, NBC affiliate KRIS recently took over CBS affiliate KZTV, and consolidated their news staffs. The two stations simulcast the same newscasts at noon and on weekends. Before the purchase of KZTV, KRIS already had the CW on its digital second channel, and also operated a low-power independent station, KDF (formerly a Fox affiliate before another station signed on}. The CW and KDF simulcast a 9 pm newscast. KRIS also operates the local Telemundo affiliate on another low-power station, KAJA.
Corpus Christi, therefore, now has one less news team than it used to with the consolidation of KZTV. The new Fox station, KUQI, has no local news, but simulcasts the evening news from KRIV in Houston.
Another example of an out-of-town simulcast is KIDY in San Angelo and KXVA in Abilene carrying news from KABB in San Antonio, albeit with on-screen crawls of headlines from the San Angelo and Abilene newspapers. Both newspapers are owned by E.W. Scripps Co., and you do show on the map that San Angelo and Abilene boast consolidated stations.
Another great tip
Wow - more and more of these deals are turning up. That's why we need people like you, on the ground, helping us find out what is going on in your community. Thanks for the tip.
A lot of companies don't want to talk about what they are doing so these deals are not always easy to find. We'll look into the Corpus Christi example and get back to you soon.
Thanks
yea
Much better to fight these iceholes in court rather than on some stupid pundit show. Yea babys.
Monterey-Salinas, California
KCBA-35 (Fox) now completely controls and runs KION-46 (CBS)'s local news operations, cobranding them and using the same reporters.
The only other major station in the area KSBW-8 (NBC) is now the ABC affiliate via a DT second channel, and also runs the same news team on both channels.... so where we once had 4 local news crews, we now have two.
Thanks for the tip
This is great info - thanks - we have had many people tip us on new cases and we are collecting them all on our main map. We'd love to talk more about what is happening in Monterey-Salinas - please feel free to email me.
"Covert Consolidation" of Local Media and TV News Journalism
I am a disabled American. I have already been deprived of Free Television when the stations went digital a few years back. Vouchers for digital conversion boxes were a sham and somehow in my trying to keep the everyday details of my daily functions of life together, I have not been able to obtain the digital box due to financial problems. I spend my time and daily efforts trying to survive, going to doctors visits and dealing with other paperwork problems. It is a struggle trying to take care of my daily personal needs.
I cannot afford Cable or Direct TV in my budget. I use the Internet as my source of contact with TV media, Radio and News and what entertainment that is available to me.
I visit my mother who lives close by and can tell you that her household as a rule changes between the 3 Local TV News reports daily. She will say "NO, CHANGE THE CHANNEL, we have already seen their News today. Let's see what the other channel has to say on Local News."
If there is consolidation of Local TV Stations, there will be no changing the channel to see what other local TV journalists have covered, i.e. new stories or different perspectives on stories. This would severely limit our right, guaranteed in the constitution to "Freedom of the Press."
US citizens are limited enough in the information they get from the outside world. I would also like to state the case for funding of NPR and PBS which give the little bit of World News and perspective Americans are allowed to hear.
More newscasts but fewer reporters...
Here in the Raleigh, NC area we have several examples of one newsroom putting out multiple newscasts on different stations. Yet the overall size of the news staffs has diminished, rather than increased. This is another illustration of the lowering of quality. More airtime to fill and fewer reporters equals more cheap filler material and less real reporting.
Consolidation of information / sharing by separately owned tv st
Where I live I believe that there is the similar situation you have described. One channel owned as a Fox subsidiary has somehow been allowed the access to another local channel owned as a WB distributor. It has been viewed and found to have connected their weather information content when a severe situation developed. I watched both channels , switching from one to the other and not missing a part of a sentence. I find this disturbing and somewhat exactly the problem described in the previous letters. I can give the city location if needed but, if I do so it would expose the obvious dilemma. It is no problem for me to tell the truth, but more investigation should be done to discover if this is more than just a cooperative information for unusual situations. I know that this should be done. Let me know if you want the pertinent station info. Thanks because we need clear and untethered information by independently owned channels so we can choose for ourselves what content we want and believe. Not everyone listens to Fox and that is good.
Not a great example
While I share your concerns in general, I think that citing an example wherein information is shared between stations in the case of rapidly-developing severe weather does not create a very persuasive argument. I think a strong case can be made that in a situation of threats to the public's safety, normal procedures should be relaxed in order to get the best information out to the public as quickly as possible.
Now if you found the same thing in pretty much any other kind of reporting, that would be a different matter.
I concur that the example is
I concur that the example is less powerful than another which may not involve weather. However, the precedent is inarguable that matters of public interest are being filtered and subverted under the umbrella of "public safety".
I can think of no situation that should require *more* diverse and relevant reporting than matters of "public safety". Where content and information has been sourced from alternate entities, it should be immediately clear to the viewer that it has been. I'm not saying that information shouldn't be shared... only that it should be responsibly attributed to its source. Failure to do so undermines the journalistic integrity of those who reproduce it. In that sense, this is an excellent example.